Skip to main content

POSSIBLE SCENARIOS OF THE CONFLICT IN SYRIA

The first part of the video depicts the worst-case escalation scenario of the conflict in Syria. The last part of the video shows, we hope, the most possible developments concerning Syria.
Possible Scenarios of the Conflict in Syria
 



In terms of the actual failure of diplomatic efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis, the threat of a direct armed conflict between Russia and the United States is becoming more and more of a reality.

In simulating a possible armed conflict between the Armed Forces of the involved countries, we can state with some confidence that it will commence with a series of provocative actions. Possibilities include air strikes of “unknown aircraft” on civilians, the use of chemical weapons, destruction of humanitarian convoys, “shooting” at military aircraft or ships of the coalition forces, and possibly even encompassing their complete destruction. The United States and Western countries will undoubtedly accuse the Syrian or Russian Armed Forces of any such action in this regard.

Furthermore, bypassing all the international organizations and their resolutions, a certain “group of friends of Syria” will declare a decision to establish a no-fly zone over Syria to “ensure the safety of the civilian population” as part of the US “R2P – Responsibility To Protect strategy. After a repeated provocative episode, for example, the use of chemical weapons, there will be an announcement for the beginning of a full scale military operation against the “criminal regime and its ally”

If it is decided to fully implement this power projection scenario, the target of the first strike will be air defense systems and command and control centers of the Syrian army. The US would show their strength and willingness to take extreme measures to offset the Assad regime. In this scenario, the campaign against the media propagandized “universal evil” is to improve the reputation of the United States on the world stage. This strike will be launched with cruise missiles upon the most vulnerable targets, which will be situated in locations with the weakest air defense system. The strikes will be carried out from a safe 500 km distance from the main targets. In this case, the US Mediterranean naval group will be out of the zone of defeat of anti-ship missiles “X-35″ (Range – up to 200 km) and “Onyx” (SS-N-26 Strobile, range – up to 300 km). The Syrian army will not be able to strike back on its own, and Russia may be willing to make significant concessions in the negotiation process. That could relieve the United States from the need to carry out more extensive and costly operations.

However, Russia is likely to act from the position of strength. Qualifying the deaths of several groups of Russian military advisors in the Syrian targeted areas as an act of aggression, Russia can execute a number of various military operations, directly or indirectly. In particular, several American ships in the US Mediterranean fleet could be destroyed by stealthy diesel-electric submarines the Project 636 “Warszawianka”. In addition, US warships can be attacked by Tu-160 strategic bombers. Or US warships, aviation and ground forces and facilities in the Middle East which were involved in the aggression can be attacked by Russian rocket, artillery and air defense systems from Syrian territory and on behalf of Syrian Arab Army. Any such direct or indirect operations will also be framed by the US as an act of aggression. Thus, they will move on to the scenario of a massive attack of the forces of the two fleets

In general, this strike can be executed by more than 1500 cruise missiles. Currently in the Mediterranean Sea there is deployed 4 guided-missile destroyers of the US Navy – USS Ross (DDG-71), USS Carney (DDG 64), USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) and USS Porter (DDG 78). Each of them is equipped with multiple vertical launch systems with no less than 90 start-up cells, each of which can be charged with an anti-submarine, an anti-aircraft or a cruise missile. When the strikes are executed on the ground targets each cell can be charged with a cruise missile BGM-109 “Tomahawk”. The naval combat group would be shadowed with one nuclear-powered Ohio-class sub with more than 150 cruise missiles aboard.

The US 5th Fleet has another powerful group of warships, which can be deployed in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. Currently, in addition to the Aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), it is composed of four guided-missile destroyers USS Nitze (DDG 94), USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), USS Stout (DDG 55), USS Mason (DDG 87) and two guided-missile cruisers (USS San Jacinto (CG 56), USS Monterey (CG 61). This naval group is reinforced with two guided missile submarines.

The target of the massive strike will be the ships of the Russian Mediterranean fleet, command centers, airfields, air defense systems and electronic warfare. The US and its allies will resort to the force scenario only if they can achieve overwhelming superiority over their stated enemy. In spite of the deployment of air defense systems “Pantsir-S1″(SA-22 Greyhound), the S-300 (SA-10 Grumble) and S-400 (SA-21 Growler), as well as sea-based air defense systems, the army command and control systems as well as air defense systems of Russia and Syria, would receive irrepairable damage in the case of implementation of a massive attack by cruise missiles from a safe distance.

According to military experts, for the assured destruction of one Russian air defense complex, approximately 10 missile launches under the condition of retaliatory fire by the air defense complexes are required. According to some estimates, there are approximately up to 200 air defense systems on permanent combat readiness throughout Syria. However, the destruction of the primary radars can “blind” defense launchers. The only trump card in this scenario could be Russian top-secret electronic warfare systems, which theoretically could disorient the enemy cruise missiles as well as naval vessels. If this does not happen, it is unlikely that Russia will retaliate by means of conventional weapons. It may be sufficient, in one hour of operation, to eliminate the threat to the United States and its allies Air Forces.

In this situation, Russia will be faced with a choice: to abandon Syria, leaving it at the mercy of warring factions, or to respond with a tactical nuclear attack. The US calculation will be conducted based upon the premise that Russia in this situation would not dare to take such a step. According to I.27 of the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation by 2014, “The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy”. In this case, the United States and its allies do not use nuclear weapons and do not specifically pose a threat to the existence of the Russian state, although that point could be debated considering the US is continually imposing itself upon Russia’s borders and has played the role of aggressor since the beginning of the New Cold War.

Meanwhile taking into account the approximate flight time of cruise missiles to the target (roughly 40 minutes at missile speeds up to 880 km/h and the distance to target of 500 km), the military and political Russian leadership will have enough time to estimate the scale of the attack and resort to a Predetermined Response Plan. The main Russian counter strike would be executed upon the elements of the missile defense system in Europe. At the same time the concentrated forces of the 5th and 6th fleets will be entirely destroyed by the X-102 missiles from Tu-160 bombers. The US and its allies in their turn will try to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on the territory of the Russia Federation. So the final step will be a strategic nuclear exchange.

However, considering a more likely the scenario that involves maintaining military parity in the region, the parties may continue negotiations, gradually developing successes on various fronts. After the capture of Mosul and Raqqa the US coalition forces will attempt to gain control over as much Syrian terrain as possible. After the capture of Aleppo, Russia will also move to the center of the country. Thus, Syria will be divided into spheres of influence similar to post-war Germany. The parties then will begin long-term political negotiations on forming a national unity government and resolve the status of Kurdish autonomy. No matter how the situation develops, Russia will continue to ensure the rise to power of a loyal government that is representative of the Syrian people, as well as being a staunch ally, and thus retain the Russian naval base in Syria. The recent win of Donald Trump in the US presidential election likely contributed to this peaceful scenario. Experts expect that with Trump in the White House, the main players in the region – Russia and the US – will have more chances to make a deal to divide the spheres of influence.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why States Still Use Barrel Bombs

Smoke ascends after a Syrian military helicopter allegedly dropped a barrel bomb over the city of Daraya on Jan. 31.(FADI DIRANI/AFP/Getty Images) Summary Barrel bombs are not especially effective weapons. They are often poorly constructed; they fail to detonate more often than other devices constructed for a similar purpose; and their lack of precision means they can have a disproportionate effect on civilian populations. However, combatants continue to use barrel bombs in conflicts, including in recent and ongoing conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, and they are ideally suited to the requirements of resource-poor states. Analysis Barrel bombs are improvised devices that contain explosive filling and shrapnel packed into a container, often in a cylindrical shape such as a barrel. The devices continue to be dropped on towns all over Syria . Indeed, there have been several documented cases of their use in Iraq over the past months, and residents of the city of Mosul, which was re

Russia Looks East for New Oil Markets

Click to Enlarge In the final years of the Soviet Union, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began orienting his foreign policy toward Asia in response to a rising Japan. Putin has also piloted a much-touted pivot to Asia, coinciding with renewed U.S. interest in the area. A good expression of intent was Russia's hosting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2012 in Vladivostok, near Russia's borders with China and North Korea. Although its efforts in Asia have been limited by more direct interests in Russia's periphery and in Europe, Moscow recently has been able to look more to the east. Part of this renewed interest involves finding new export markets for Russian hydrocarbons. Russia's economy relies on energy exports, particularly crude oil and natural gas exported via pipeline to the West. However, Western Europe is diversifying its energy sources as new supplies come online out of a desire to reduce its dependence on Russian energy supplies . This has

LONDON POLICE INDIRECTLY ENCOURAGE CRIMINALS TO ATTACK RUSSIAN DIPLOMATIC PROPERTY

ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGE A few days ago an unknown perpetrator trespassed on the territory of the Russian Trade Delegation in London, causing damage to the property and the vehicles belonging to the trade delegation , Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said during the September 12 press briefing. The diplomat revealed the response by the London police was discouraging. Police told that the case does not have any prospects and is likely to be closed. This was made despite the fact that the British law enforcement was provided with video surveillance tapes and detailed information shedding light on the incident. By this byehavior, British law inforcements indirectly encourage criminals to continue attacks on Russian diplomatic property in the UK. Zakharova’s statement on “Trespassing on the Russian Trade Mission premises in London” ( source ): During our briefings, we have repeatedly discussed compliance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specif