Besides, it’s a way to test the United States. If the U.S. responds, they adjust their strategy accordingly. If the U.S. doesn’t respond - which is what they’re betting on - then they know they have a free hand to do whatever they want. Geopolitics 101.
The blokes with AK’s at the frontline, doing the fighting, aren’t affected by such an attack. It’s little children and other non-combattants who’s morale might be broken.
Any fence sitting close male relative would join up immediately.
I guess that if they were clearly loosing such a thing might add to actual loss of morale, instead of strengthening it.
Idlib, however, is a large swathe of land that is certainly not a lost cause.
Just a few days ago was a new reasonably succesful offensive on government positions there.
:rolleyes:
Neither has the US. Or Israel. And before you say it; yes nor has Pakistan.
The Russians have some of the best long range aviation in the world. They can flatten any target and kill thousands with conventional weapons if they wish to. And get nothing except a blurb on the backpages.
Drop chemical weapons, and you kill as many or less as you would have conventionally and start a major strategic crises.
Whenever I watch footage of the war I am always surprised at the amount of harware the rebels have. Tanks, bmp’s, howitzers, rockets, mortars galore.
Plus the afore mentioned TOW anti-tank missiles.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. So, your contention is that the numerous cited attacks where Assad (and now Assad and his Russian friends) have used chemical weapons against their civilians are all made up? And that the only supposed attacks were in 2013 and now, and not pretty much continuously as my earlier Wiki cite indicated? And that ‘experts’ back this up? Why don’t you trot out some cites for these experts doubting all chemical attacks in Syria. It should be interesting seeing who is saying this sort of thing, since the evidence seems overwhelming that chemical weapons have and continue to be used in Syria.
The problem with this view is that the US has already failed the test. After the initial gas attack the US did nothing. The US could have intervened decisively against Assad at that time, but now Assad has almost won the war and the US can not intervene without risking striking Russian assets. The US is not going to war with Russia over Syria and everyone knows it. Russia already has sanctions against it because of Ukraine and you can’t play that card twice. There is nothing for the US to do that could effectively punish Assad. The US is just a spectator in this situation.
We did get involved, though; just without lasting effect. We negotiated a comprehensive agreement for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons productions facilities and stockpiles. We even carried out a lot of the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons ourselves. Smart people at the time described it as “an unqualified success,” but that agreement doesn’t seem to have persisted in force, and now nobody even seems to mention it. Your CNN link vaguely describes it as a “Russian proposal” and makes it sound like no one thought much of it even at the time.
So, your contention is that the numerous cited attacks where Assad (and now Assad and his Russian friends) have used chemical weapons against their civilians are all made up? And that the only supposed attacks were in 2013 and now, and not pretty much continuously as my earlier Wiki cite indicated? And that ‘experts’ back this up? Why don’t you trot out some cites for these experts doubting all chemical attacks in Syria. It should be interesting seeing who is saying this sort of thing, since the evidence seems overwhelming that chemical weapons have and continue to be used in Syria.