> The Russian military has threatened action against the U.S. if it strikes Syria's capital city of Damascus, according to multiple news reports.
> Gerasimov said Russia had "reliable information" about militants preparing to falsify a government chemical attack against civilians.
> He continued by saying the U.S. would then use this attack to accuse Syrian government troops of using chemical weapons. He added that the U.S. would then plan to launch a missile strike on government districts in Damascus.
So....Russia and/or Syria is planning to use chemical weapons on the civilians in Ghouta because their conventional campaign isn't working fast enough, and are preemptively providing disinformation *and* a threat.
Russia really doesn't change how it conducts itself, it's starting to become really transparent.
You'll lose. You're a regional power with world power aspirations and thus have stretched yourself thin.
Good luck if you decide to do an official government military strike against the US.
And the results this time around will be different? Didn't they recently try?
What is our mission in Syria at this point anyway? I gave up trying to understand US military policy after we used fairy dust to justify a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Since then I just go ahead and assume the money we spend in foreign wars might be better spent at home (or hell, even simply not spent.)
If anything beyond destabilizing the region has been our goal all these years, it is not apparent to me. In that regard we have done a bang up job. Gotta sell weapons and other military tech I guess.
EDIT: While I appreciate the downvote, I still am curious what our mission there is?
This is how WWIII starts.
It's inevitable. Patton was right. We should have nipped the Cold War in the bud during WWII.
I can't believe we have troops in a country allied with Russia and that it hasn't escalated as fast as I thought it would. If Russia sent troops and tried to overthrow one of our allies I'm not sure we would do the same.