On the night of Friday, April 7, from two US Navy ships in the Mediterranean Sea there were 59 cruise missiles"Tomahawk" at the Syrian airfield of Shayrat in Homs province. According to American intelligence, it was from this base that official Damascus organized attacks using chemical weapons, including the bombing of Idlib.

The Syrian military command reported that the strike killed six Syrian soldiers. The Pentagon does not know whether Russian troops were at the Shayrat air base, but says they did everything possible to avoid casualties. “We talked to the Russians, we notified them to remove their forces from there,” Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told Interfax.

But even if there are no fatalities among Russian military personnel, it is absolutely clear: the risk that in Syria we will encounter the United States in an armed conflict has increased many times over.

I must say, Americans understand this very well. Here's how Donald Trump's decision to strike an air base in Syria was described by the US Presidential Adviser on national security General Herbert McMaster.

“We weighed the risks associated with any military action, but we weighed them against the risk of inaction. We held a meeting of the National Security Council to consider our options. We discussed three options with the president, and he asked us to focus on two of them, and asked us a series of questions,” McMaster said. According to him, “the answers were presented to the president at a briefing on Thursday with the participation of the leadership of the National Security Council in Florida, via video link with Washington.” "After a lengthy meeting and in-depth discussion, the President has decided to act," added H.R. McMaster.

In other words, the United States has decided that we will not put ourselves in a bottle in Syria. But Trump may have miscalculated. As Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said, Vladimir Putin considered the US missile strike an aggression against sovereign state in violation of the norms international law, “and under a far-fetched pretext.”

Peskov added that Washington’s actions “cause significant damage to Russian-American relations, which are already in a deplorable state.” “And most importantly, according to Putin, this step does not bring us closer to the final goal in the fight against international terrorism, but on the contrary creates a serious obstacle to the creation of an international coalition to combat it,” the press secretary noted.

For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement in which it called the US strike a “thoughtless approach”, called on the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting, and also notified that Moscow was suspending the Memorandum on preventing incidents and ensuring the safety of aviation flights during operations in Syria, concluded from the USA.

The Russian military has clearly demonstrated how events can develop in Syria. On April 7, at the Telemba training ground in Buryatia, calculations anti-aircraft missile systems S-400 and S-300PS repelled a simulated attack of air-to-surface missiles fired from aircraft long-range aviation Tu-95MS. This was reported by the representative of the Eastern Military District (EMD) Alexander Gordeev. Let us remind you: exactly anti-aircraft missile systems S-300 and S-400 deployed for defense military base Russia in Syria.

How will we really respond to the Americans, how will the situation in the Damascus-Moscow-Washington triangle develop?

Our S-400 air defense system, which is deployed in Syria at the Khmeimim airbase, technically would not be able to shoot down American Tomahawks,” notes reserve colonel, member Expert Council Collegium of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - The Syrian airbase of Shayrat, which was attacked by the Americans, is about 100 km from Khmeimim. However, for air defense systems there is a restrictive concept of the radio horizon.

Yes, the maximum engagement range of the S-400 is 400 km. But we must understand: this is the reach of air targets that operate at medium and high altitudes. Cruise missiles, which operate at altitudes of 30-50 meters, are not visible from such a distance simply because the Earth is “curved” - spherical. In short, the American Tomahawks were beyond the S-400 radio horizon.

Let me note: no air defense system - either Russian or American - is physically capable of seeing cruise missiles at such a range.

Various measures are used to increase the radio horizon. In particular, in air defense systems, the radar is raised on towers. There is such a tower in Khmeimim, however, it does not allow increasing the detection range so much - up to 100 km.

“SP”: - What is the situation from a military-political point of view, are we obliged to provide military assistance to Damascus?

Russia is in Syria solely to fight terrorism. We have neither an agreement with the Syrian government on the protection of Syria from third countries, nor any allied obligations to each other. And Moscow is not going to sign such agreements.

Let me remind you that while the Russian Aerospace Forces group was in Syria, Israel launched several missile attacks on Syrian air bases. Including the air base near Damascus. But we did not interfere in these situations in any way, and we did not counteract such attacks.

“SP”: - Is there any reason, in this case, to say that now the risk of a military clash in Syria between the United States and the Russian Federation has increased?

The risk has increased because our military personnel in Syria are present not only at the Khmeimim airbase and at the Tartus logistics point. Our demining teams and our military advisers are present in other areas of Syria. In Homs, for example, which is located near the Shayrat airbase, we have opened a demining center where we train Syrians in engineering and demining work.

If the United States unilaterally attacks government targets in Syria, there is a risk of the death of Russian military personnel. Naturally, in this case there will be a corresponding reaction from Russia. No one will undertake to predict it, since we will be talking about an act of direct aggression by the US Armed Forces against representatives of the Russian Armed Forces.

So the risk has indeed increased significantly. Yes, the United States warned us through the incident prevention line in Syria that an attack was being carried out on the Shayrat air base. But still, this does not guarantee against extremely dangerous incidents. It may happen that the Americans do not warn in time, or the Tomahawk deviates from the specified route, which will lead to the death of Russian servicemen.

In fact, the US decision to launch a missile strike sharply escalated the conflict. It put an end to the possibility of interaction between the Russian Federation and the United States in the fight against terrorism in the Middle East, as well as the hope for reviving the role of the UN Security Council and other international structures who deal with issues of war and peace. And this role today, I note, has been reduced to the level of a smoking room in which they discuss but do not decide anything.

"SP": - The US missile attack on an air base in Syria was a "single operation", an unnamed US military official told Reuters. If this is not so, the United States can undermine it with missile strikes military power Damascus?

The power of Damascus is determined mainly by ground forces and the militia, as well as artillery - those who work “on the ground”. In this situation, an attempt to defeat Syrian government forces with cruise missiles is doomed to failure. Such a task cannot be solved solely by air or missile strikes. It can only be solved by introducing a ground contingent - we saw this in the example of Iraq.

Theoretically, nothing can be ruled out: the Americans may decide to continue missile attacks, but they do not have decisive military significance. Another thing is that, under the cover of US strikes, terrorist groups can launch a general counteroffensive.

However, let’s not forget that Russian Aerospace Forces are present in Syria, and they have the potential to more actively defeat terrorists. True, for this we may have to increase the Syrian group again. And this is one of the answer options that we can give to the Americans.

Overseas tabloids began to change their assessments of Trump’s “tough response” from enthusiastic cries of “hurray” to critical reviews. Independent political scientists generally characterize the attack on the Syrian airfield as a failure. In particular, photographs have already appeared of a cruise missile falling 40 km from the target. Judging by the image, the Tomahawk simply crashed to the ground and does not have the damage typical of being destroyed by anti-missiles.

In this regard, American military experts and militaristic journalists are convinced that, most likely, the guidance devices of most Tomahawks were turned off external influence. Only people can stand behind this Russian systems electronic warfare (EW).

In particular, he writes about this editor-in-chief Veterans Today publications Gordon Duff veteran vietnam war, after talking with his colleagues. In addition, he had contacts with personal sources in the Syrian intelligence services, who confirmed his guesses.

If someone is trying to explain the loss of 34 cruise missiles human factor, they say, the coordinates were entered incorrectly, then he simply does not know about the multiple duplication of target designation that takes place in the US Army when conducting such operations. It’s also stupid to talk about technical problems that supposedly led to a “rocket crash,” since we are talking about a reliable and repeatedly tested missile weapons, also flying at subsonic speed.

According to information available to Veterans Today, of the 34 missing cruise missiles, 5 fell in the vicinity of Shayrat, killing several civilians and injuring about 20 people. The remaining 29 Tomahawks crashed into the sea, never reaching the shore.

One way or another, American military experts commenting on the “strange news” from Syria simply have no other explanation for the loss of so many cruise missiles.

According to Gordon Duff, it is appropriate to recall the story of the shutdown of the Aegis missile defense system on a combat USS Donald Cook(DDG-75). Events about which we're talking about, occurred on April 10, 2014 in the Black Sea. Later this situation was presented as a myth from the series “ cold war 2.0". Meanwhile, software The destroyer’s naval air defense equipment was indeed “glitchy,” which led to its serious modification.

By the way, according to the American side, “Russian troops, using the Khibiny multifunctional aircraft complex, are capable of stunning and blinding NATO troops and weapons, including satellites in space, in a zone with a radius of 300 km.” As a result, alliance radio communications require special efforts and multiple signal duplications to overcome these invisible attacks. Most likely, it was precisely this Khibiny system that disabled IJIS three years ago during a Su-24 flight over the USS Donald Cook.

By and large, the lag American systems electronic warfare from Russian analogues has long been an open secret for US specialists. The US Army knows in its own way that our country has the best engineering school in the world for the development of highly effective electronic warfare equipment that can make life difficult for the American military. combat experience in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans. Suffice it to recall the angry comments of the former NATO commander in Europe Philip Breedlove, who argued that it was electronic warfare systems that ensured the success of the Russians in the hybrid operation in Crimea.

As for Syria, immediately after the insidious attack by a Turkish fighter on a Russian plane, our side issued a statement about which, apparently, Trump had not even heard. So, Lieutenant General Evgeny Buzhinsky said that “Russia will be forced to use countermeasures and electronic warfare.” By the way, he is the deputy director for foreign economic activities of OJSC Radio Engineering Concern Vega.

No sooner said than done. Soon, two Il-20 electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare aircraft arrived at the Khmeimim airbase, which can circle for 12 hours over a vast territory at any time of the day or night. Then the Krasukha-4 ground mobile complex, capable of generating broadband interference for radio communications, was spotted in Syria military intelligence US Army, including the transfer of intelligence data to satellites such as Lacrosse and Onyx and AWACS and Sentinel aircraft.

There is information that the Borisoglebsk-2 complex, considered the best in its class, was also transferred to Syria. But it is quite possible that Trump’s cruise missiles were shot down by the newest active jamming station “Lychag-AV”, which can be installed both on Mi-8 helicopters and on ground vehicles or on small vessels. The point is that this system Electronic warfare has its own “library” of military objects, self-learning software equipment, which, by analyzing the weapons of a potential enemy, automatically selects the radiation mode to neutralize the target.

Why weren’t all the Tomahawks destroyed then? Gordon Duff is convinced that electronic warfare is not a 100% antidote, and in general, even the most advanced anti-missiles do not guarantee a 100% probability of defeat. At the same time, the Pentagon has gained some experience. According to the statistics available to the Americans, our electronic warfare systems are capable of doubling the capabilities of Russian air defense systems. Judging by the number of Tomahawks that did not reach the target, US Army experts were not mistaken.

What in due time Obama did not strike Assad’s troops with cruise missiles, speaks not so much about the “weakness” of the 44th president, but about his awareness. It is for this reason that he also did not dare to introduce an unmanned zone. At the same time, “given the intense campaign of threats by the United States against Syria and Russia, Moscow will refrain from openly declaring its victory, much less revealing it.” weak points American missiles. If Putin doesn’t answer, it means he’s happy with the result,” sums up Gordon Duff.

In addition, the editor-in-chief of Veterans Today is sure: if the next attack by the political showman Donald turns out to be just as “successful,” then the US air fist has lost its former strength. In any case, Russia and America are now drawing their conclusions, therefore, there is a high probability that the Pentagon will try to take revenge.

Since the US strike with cruise missiles on a Syrian air base, debates have not subsided in foreign media about why Russia did not use its air defense systems in Syria. In fact, three main answers are proposed: Russia did not risk aggravating the situation for political reasons; the power of Russian air defense systems is actually a myth, and they are not able to shoot down cruise missiles at all; and, finally, that Russian air defense systems are so ineffective that a small percentage of even downed missiles will destroy the demand for Russian air defense systems in the world and will generally affect their reputation Russian weapons for export.

Popular Mechanics is trying to understand the thinking of Putin, who did not order the use of air defense, although he knew in advance about the attack, as he was warned. Most likely it was clear that this would be a massive attack, and not several missiles; most likely it was clear where they would come from. Putin could give the order and then tell the whole world that he saved the lives of the Syrian military who are fighting terrorists. But he didn't do that. Why? The publication's guesses are as follows: he did not do so, because if the Russian air defense systems had not shot down the Tomahawks, then it would have been serious blow on marketing campaign Russian weapons. As Popular Mechanics emphasizes, the biggest mystery in the world today in the military sphere is whether Russian air defense systems can really withstand the American Air Force or not?

However, a version has also been put forward that in this way Putin made it clear to Assad that he will not constantly cover up his actions, and that it is better for Assad to refrain from committing war crimes. This version pops up periodically both on forums and in the comments of foreign readers.

CNN even puts forward a version that Russia thus essentially agreed with the need to conduct a one-time demonstration attack on a Syrian target, although the Russians could shoot down the Tomahawks.

The Daily Mail publishes a story with the headline " Anti-missile systems Russian leader were unable to protect the Syrian airbase" and notes that despite all the assurances of the Russian military that their air defense systems can protect against enemy missiles and aircraft, real life Russian air defense systems have not yet worked with American equipment and technology.

Context

Putin is in a difficult situation

The Christian Science Monitor 09/03/2004

S-300 is not capable of destroying Tomahawks

Baladi news 04/11/2017
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty quotes statements on Russian social networks for its readers (for example: Leyla, @agentleyla - “I’m the only one who doesn’t understand why our C400s located nearby or the Syrian C300s weren’t shot down American missiles???”, Uncle Shu, @Shulz - “Listen, I just want to ask - is Moscow also covered by the S-300 and S-400?”) and comments from Russian military experts who note that the Americans launched missiles in such a way that they did not fall within the range of Russian air defense systems, and the systems themselves are located too far from the Shayrat air base to work on low-flying targets.

Justin Bronk, an analyst from the British RUSI (Royal United Services Institute), believes that the S-400 complex, although advertised as being able to withstand cruise missiles, is actually good against ballistic missiles flying at the target from above, and against aircraft, but not against cruise missiles flying low over the surface with differences in altitude.

The publication also quotes Russian observer Pavel Felgengauer, who writes that Russian air defense systems, at best, can essentially cover only the objects where they are located; the effective defense radius is about 30 km, but not objects at long distances, and certainly not the entire territory Syria. The idea that Russia can protect Syrian airspace, according to the observer, is just PR for Russian weapons.

The translation of the article “Why Russian S-300 and S-400 did not shoot down Tomahawks” also went viral on the English-language network. this material Russian military experts explain the silence of air defense systems in Syria by Russia’s reluctance to bring the world to nuclear war: “The use of Russian air defense systems by the Syrian army in response to a missile strike from the United States would have led to a nuclear conflict, which did not happen only thanks to the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief,” said corresponding member Russian Academy military sciences Sergei Sudakov. “The most important question that everyone asks is why Russian air defense All these missiles were not shot down. The inhabitants believe that this should be done and thereby repel aggression. But, by and large, if we started shooting them down now, we might not wake up this morning. Because today what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen, it would be a clash between two nuclear powers in a third territory,” Sudakov is sure.

At the same time, foreign commentators on these statements by the Russian expert do not see the connection, how the destruction of a cruise missile could become a reason for starting a nuclear war, and consider these explanations to be justifications for the helplessness of air defense.

Newsweek quotes military analyst Sim Tack of Stratfor as suggesting that Russia's decision not to use air defenses was made not for political reasons, but for military reasons, and that Russian air defense systems have never previously worked against American cruise missiles, i.e. the effectiveness of their shooting against Tomahawks cannot be predicted.

The Asia Times article notes that despite the fact that the S-400s were not used, it is obvious that the United States took their presence into account and launched missiles from a great distance, and even after warning the Russians. That is, even the presence of the S-400 complex already plays a role and cools down the “hot heads.” This should please China and India, which purchase air defense systems from Russia. On the other hand, as the publication writes, most likely Russian radars detected a swarm of cruise missiles, but the fire system was not activated. This was not necessarily due to the weakness of the system, but it still calls into question how effective the S-400 really is against large quantity low flying targets.

As for the versions in the comments to the articles, the spread is wide: Russian air defense systems were not activated because it is too expensive to use the S-400 against cruise missiles; because Russian air defense systems in Syria simply do not have such a number of shots against dozens and dozens of cruise missiles; because the S-400 is simply not designed to work against this type of target; because the S-400’s power supply system failed, etc.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively from foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

The expert explained why the S-300 and S-400 did not shoot down Tomahawks in Syria

Early in the morning of April 7, 2017, US Navy ships launched a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on the Syrian Shayrat airbase in Homs province. A total of 59 missiles were fired. According to preliminary data, 5 Syrian soldiers were killed and up to 15 Syrian Air Force aircraft were damaged or destroyed.

Since 2016, “Shayrat” has also been used by the Russian Aerospace Forces group in Syria as a jump airfield. In particular, they were based there combat helicopters Mi-24, Mi-35, Ka-52 and Mi-28. It is not known for certain whether Russian troops were there at the time of the strike, but it is reported that the Syrian military removed most of the military equipment before the strike.

Media: Syrian military evacuated personnel before American strike

The Syrian military evacuated personnel and equipment before the US missile attack on the air base in Homs.

Commenting on this event, military expert, employee of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the National Research University Higher School of Economics Vasily Kashin said that struck was a huge number of cruise missiles, clearly designed to be guaranteed to overcome powerful object air defense.

“As a matter of fact, even if the S-300 division were at the base, provided it was 100% effective, it would not have been able to withstand such a strike,” the expert believes, “and the firing range of the S-300 at low-flying targets such as the Tomahawk cruise missile is several times less than the range shooting at airplanes at medium and high altitudes, which journalists like to talk about. That is, this is a matter of tens of kilometers.”

“In principle, the S-300 and S-400 divisions in Khmeimim and Tartus cannot cover a distant target from Tomahawks,” believes Vasily Kashin.

He also notes that judging by the data on losses, the base was not defended - otherwise there would be no talk of five deaths.

“The base was evacuated in advance after American warnings. The Americans’ expenditure of 59 missiles was necessary to avoid loss of face if the opposite side decided to defend the airfield after all. Otherwise, there was no point in spending more than $100 million on one facility,” the expert sums up.

A US strike on a Syrian airbase killed an air defense general and damaged 15 aircraft.

Sources on the network spoke about the losses of Syrians from a US missile strike.

Regarding political significance missile attack, the expert notes that the day before there was the largest shift in decades on the Jerusalem issue - Russia’s recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

"Russia is the first large country, who recognized him. This could lead to a chain reaction and a general change in position on the issue,” notes Kashin. In addition, in his opinion, it is now extremely difficult to promote the theory that Trump is under Russian influence. He has gotten rid of this threat.

The Russian Foreign Ministry officially named West Jerusalem the capital of Israel

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling West Jerusalem the capital of Israel

Country Institute Fellow Far East also points to the important “Chinese factor”:

"Trump clearly specifically announced the attack during the visit of Xi Jinping (chairman of the People's Republic of China - defence.ru). Obviously, to demonstrate his power. This will be remembered for a long time, as will the case when Truman informed Stalin about Hiroshima, and Stalin pretended that he didn’t understand what was going on.”

Kashin considers this step a wrong decision: “The Chinese will perceive this as a deliberate humiliation, they will put on a good face, but then they will take revenge.”

The United States would have led to a nuclear conflict, which did not happen only thanks to the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Military Sciences Sergei Sudakov told Izvestia. At the same time, Russian air defense systems are subordinate only to Russia and protect its military facilities, military expert Vladislav Shurygin noted in a conversation with Izvestia.

Hot war

The most important question that everyone is asking is why Russian air defenses did not shoot down all these missiles. The inhabitants believe that this should be done and thereby repel aggression. But, by and large, if we started shooting them down now, we might not wake up this morning. Because today what is called a “nuclear conflict” could happen, because it would be a clash of two nuclear powers on a third territory, Sudakov believes.

Russian air defense systems are subordinate only to Russia and cover Russian military facilities; everything else is PR, which has no relation to reality, Shurygin notes.

Therefore, Israel and Türkiye periodically bomb Syria - we cover our airfield and our facilities. I think that a political decision was also made not to shoot down these missiles, because ultimately this would be a conflict between the United States and Russia at the level of repelling air defense, the expert believes.

According to Sudakov, Donald Trump has approached a state called a “hot war.”

If not for the composure of the Russian Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the order to “shoot down the Tomahawks” would have been given. And this means the beginning of a war,” the expert notes.

The United States warned through diplomatic channels that they were going to strike, Russia also warned the Syrians, and they withdrew the train from the base and transferred equipment from there, Shurygin continues.

This does not indicate the strength of our position, but even with all these goodies, the aftertaste remains very bitter,” the expert concluded.

Attacks and parallels

About a week ago, one of the Syrian bases, on the territory of which the Russian Air Force was present, was struck by the Israeli Air Force, and there are parallels between these attacks, they have not yet been paid attention to, but they are significant, notes leading expert of the Center for Contemporary Politics Viktor Olevich.

Israel, a key US ally in the Middle East, takes a similar position on Syria to the US, and these strikes are partly reminiscent of today's history. They can be considered, if not as a kind of training, then as a test for reaction, and Russia in this case chose to leave the response for the future. Russia will definitely respond adequately, the expert explains.

If the American bombing of Syrian troops in the province of Deir ez-Zor in September 2016 put an end to the agreements that were reached in Switzerland to resolve the Syrian crisis, then today’s missile attack put an end to Moscow’s hopes for a quick normalization of relations with Washington, Olevich continues.

According to the political scientist, a number of personnel changes that preceded today's military aggression against Syria (for example, the removal from office of Michael Flynn, who took a moderate position on Syria), “show that Trump is incapable of standing up to the American establishment”: replacing key figures in his administration who did not suit the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties, the president is now taking steps that the establishment, like the intelligence agencies, are happy with.

Wrong move

Trump needs to take some steps to foreign policy, which would make him respected internally. I believe that the step he took was absolutely in vain. It was not his decision, but the decision of his advisers, and it was a big mistake. The number of times the United States has violated UN articles, invaded and destroyed the sovereignty of others cannot be counted. But what we see now is another aggression, which was carried out against an ally of two quite serious opponents - Russia and Iran, explains Sudakov from the Russian Academy of Military Sciences.

With such an act of aggression, the United States is throwing away the possibility of full-fledged negotiations even within the G20, where a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump was supposed to take place, the expert continues: instead of building normal relations with Russia, Trump overnight crossed out these relations, now countries cannot even become “sworn friends.”

This is a big blow to Russian-American relations, to what was beginning to take shape, and it is clear that there were hopes for the new president that relations with him would be better than with the previous one. In addition, this is a blow to the peace process in Syria, which is already proceeding with great difficulty. Now this is also under threat,” Nikita Smagin, a political scientist and editor-in-chief of Iran Today, agrees with Sudakov.

According to the expert, now we need to look at the further reaction of the United States: if this is an isolated action, then this big problem, but nevertheless the negotiation process can continue. If the United States intends to continue to carry out some strikes, this is a different story and the consequences could be even more serious, Smagin does not rule out.

Switch attention

Trump played out another scenario with this attack, Sergei Sudakov is sure.

The fact is that the situation in Mosul is now catastrophic - heavy losses, a huge number of civilian casualties, and Trump was advised to distract the situation, including from Mosul, with this bombing, the expert notes.

The hypothesis that the strike was an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul is quite workable, supported by Smagin.

I think that this factor almost certainly influenced the decision-making, but I do not think that it was the only one, it was one of the factors. When you need to divert attention, this is an additional incentive to carry out some kind of demonstrative action,” the expert clarifies.

In any case, what happened threw away all relations from the point of view of world standards of law at the beginning of the twentieth century, Sudakov continues.

We see the return of the “world gendarme”, who imposes his will with the help of force, the political scientist concludes.