Commenting on the unabated western calls to introduce a "no-fly" zone in Syria, Guardian columnist Jonathan Steele explained why this tactic is not going to work in Syria; Chairman of the Defense Committee of the Russia's State Duma Vladimir Shamanov also warned against any attempts to police the Syrian airspace.
A no-fly zone for Aleppo risks a war that could engulf us all," the Guardian columnist warned in his recent article.
He further explained why this tactic, which worked in Iraq in 1991, this time around would risk "disastrous confrontation." "In 1991 the US and Britain imposed a successful no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect the Kurds.
But they were already at war with Saddam Hussein, having just defeated him in Kuwait," Jonathan Steele writes in his article on the issue. "Saddam was on his own internationally, despised and isolated. He had no support from Russia or any Arab allies. The last thing he wanted was to confront the US any further.
Enforcing a no-fly zone (even though it had no clear UN Security Council authorization) involved no risk to the US or UK. Saddam made little effort to resist and not one of their manned aircraft was shot down," he explains. However the situation is different in Syria, he says.
"The Syrian air force is fully engaged and will not back down in its campaign to defeat its enemies in Aleppo. After three years of military stalemate, Bashar al-Assad feels he has regained the upper hand and is determined to retake his country’s largest city," he says. "More importantly, the Russians are also active in the air. Imposing a no-fly zone unilaterally (it would never gain a Security Council mandate) would be a declaration of war on Russia as well as on Assad," he warns.
"The dangers are obvious. It is not just a question of a clash between western and Russian planes by accident. … For the west to confront them risks an incalculably serious war," he adds.
[farsnews.com]
17/10/16
A no-fly zone for Aleppo risks a war that could engulf us all," the Guardian columnist warned in his recent article.
He further explained why this tactic, which worked in Iraq in 1991, this time around would risk "disastrous confrontation." "In 1991 the US and Britain imposed a successful no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect the Kurds.
But they were already at war with Saddam Hussein, having just defeated him in Kuwait," Jonathan Steele writes in his article on the issue. "Saddam was on his own internationally, despised and isolated. He had no support from Russia or any Arab allies. The last thing he wanted was to confront the US any further.
Enforcing a no-fly zone (even though it had no clear UN Security Council authorization) involved no risk to the US or UK. Saddam made little effort to resist and not one of their manned aircraft was shot down," he explains. However the situation is different in Syria, he says.
"The Syrian air force is fully engaged and will not back down in its campaign to defeat its enemies in Aleppo. After three years of military stalemate, Bashar al-Assad feels he has regained the upper hand and is determined to retake his country’s largest city," he says. "More importantly, the Russians are also active in the air. Imposing a no-fly zone unilaterally (it would never gain a Security Council mandate) would be a declaration of war on Russia as well as on Assad," he warns.
"The dangers are obvious. It is not just a question of a clash between western and Russian planes by accident. … For the west to confront them risks an incalculably serious war," he adds.
[farsnews.com]
17/10/16
GR
FR
DE
ES
IT
RU
EU
No comments :
Post a Comment
Only News