Now, 11 days after the US missile strike on the Syrian Shayrat base, when passions in the media on the Internet have subsided and a number of previously unknown facts have surfaced, the question of who actually shot down more than half of the Pentagon’s missiles can be accurately answered.

To answer, including those who immediately after this attack raised a squeal in the media space, saying that where, they say, are the “Muscovites”, your vaunted S-300 and S-400? Why didn’t they shoot it down - you can’t, or you’re even afraid?

Can. And we are not afraid. But first things first.

According to representatives of the Russian and Syrian armies, of the 59 missiles fired by the Americans, only 23 reached their targets. 36 tomahawks missed the target. The numbers are quite strange - and at first glance there is no pattern in them.

But details that are almost never mentioned are important here. The Tomahawks were launched by the Americans in 2 stages: first released 36 missiles from the destroyer Ross.

However, after the launch from the destroyer Ross, the Americans saw that something had suddenly gone wrong. The missiles began to deviate greatly from their trajectory, and some simply lost their targets and began to fall. And then the Yankees were forced to make a second, emergency launch 23 more missiles from Ross's backup, the destroyer Porter. It was these missiles that hit targets at the Shayrat base. Again these mysterious numbers - 36 and 23!

And from the first 36 Tomahawks no one didn't reach the goal! All of them fell into the Mediterranean Sea or tens of kilometers from the Syrian base.

To confirm this information, I will cite an article by American military expert Gordon Daff, “Trump Humilated: Syria Shoots Down 34 of 59 Cruise Missiles.”

The same material contains a photograph of one of the fallen American missiles, released by the first launch from the destroyer Ross.

A number of experts provided information that the Tomahawks fired were shot down by Syrian S-200 air defense systems, which are used by the Syrian army.

But here it is worth clarifying that then the Tomahawks would have been hit in the air by anti-missile missiles of the S-200 complex. In this case, almost complete destruction missiles in the air - and on the ground only tomahawks would remain small fragments. Scattered over a huge area, given the altitude of the missiles.

And in the photograph we see a WHOLE American missile, which was not shot down by a Syrian anti-missile missile, but simply for some reason fell down like a “dead weight”, having lost its course.

So what knocked all the American Tomahawks fired from the first salvo off course and made them fall into the sea or onto land, tens of kilometers from the given point?

These were the latest Russian complexes electronic warfare "Krasukha", which have long been a threat to American missiles and a headache for NATO generals! That's what made all the first 36 Tomahawks miss their target!

I have written more than once about our electronic warfare systems, including specifically about the Krasukha and Khibiny complexes - our most modern developments in the field of electronic warfare and missile defense. These complexes are decades ahead of their time, and even military experts from the United States and NATO countries admit that in this area Russia is a whole generation ahead of them. And many overseas are not sure whether they will be able to catch up with us in this area at all...

Trump decided to “flex his muscles” in Syria. But our military did not make a mistake either - they showed him (as well as the entire Pentagon) that when trying to start a full-scale conflict, our opponents would not have any advantage in the air. And all the talk about “preventive missile strike“This is a cheap bluff of American politicians, which, as they say overseas, “isn’t worth a cent.”

The first launch from the destroyer Ross went into the milk. And our anti-missile defense team didn’t bother with the second launch of tomahawks – I think for geopolitical reasons. So as not to take the escalation to the next level. Remembering the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nobody needs this.

But the signal sent to Trump and the American hawks was more than obvious - “if you think that you have missile superiority over Russia, then you are deeply mistaken.” We can make sure none of your missiles reach their target! “Krasukha” worked!

I think this “hint” was understood by our partners - it was not without reason that almost immediately after the strike on the Syrian base, frightened voices began to be heard from across the ocean that it was a “one-time action”, that “nothing threatens Russian facilities” and that “no one America does not want a war with the military superpower – Russia.”

And just recently, after a visit to Moscow, Tillerson said that the Americans are seriously interested in resuming the Syrian memorandum “on the prevention of dangerous incidents in the air,” from which we withdrew after the missile attack on Shayrat. In general, the tone of the US Secretary of State’s statements was very cautious, at times even openly conciliatory.

Our overseas partners do not understand the language of goodwill - they respect only the language of force. I think they understood everything...

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which include USS Porter and USS Ross, can carry up to 60 cruise missiles"Tomahawk" at the same time. According to the Pentagon, on the night of April 6-7, American ships fired 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. "On this moment there are five or six ships of the US Sixth Fleet in the region that can use such missiles,” says independent military analyst Anton Lavrov.

The Russian military department considers the attack of American missiles to be ineffective. "According to Russian funds objective control, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian airbase. The crash site of the remaining 36 cruise missiles is unknown,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said at a briefing on Friday morning.

This is an extremely low level of implementation for these missiles, says Alexander Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. According to him, it is not clear where the 36 missiles could have gone and who could have shot them down.

The statement by the Russian Ministry of Defense was denied by the Pentagon. According to the US military, out of 59 missiles, 58 reached their target, one missile did not work.

Cruise missiles of this type are used American army since 1991. During the Gulf War, the US Army launched 297 of these missiles, 282 of which reached their target. During Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, 370 Tomahawk missiles were fired, and another 200 were fired in Libya. Every year, the US Army, according to manufacturers, receives 440 of these cruise missiles.

Why did the air defense systems not work?

After the start of the Russian operation in Syria in October 2015, the Ministry of Defense deployed anti-aircraft guns on the territory of the republic. missile systems(SAM) S-300 and S-400, in addition, the Bastion coast guard system and the Pantsir-S1 missile system covering the SAM were supplied. According to the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov, missile systems are being sent to Syria for protection Russian aviation. Defense Ministry spokesman Konashenkov previously noted that the operating range of the S-300 and S-400 systems deployed in the region “could be a surprise for any unidentified flying objects.”

Experts interviewed by RBC disagree on why Russian troops American missiles were not shot down.

“The Russian military could not help but notice the American missiles,” says independent analyst Anton Lavrov, who regularly collaborates with the Ministry of Defense and the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. But the detection of cruise missiles does not guarantee that an attack will be repelled, the expert clarifies: “Each complex has a saturation limit ( maximum amount objects that the complex can hit with one round of ammunition. — RBC). Even if we fired all the S-300 missiles at the Tomahawks, we would not be able to repel their attack.”

Tomahawk cruise missiles, using the TERCOM terrain tracking system, can fly at an altitude of 100 m, notes military expert, reserve colonel Andrei Payusov. “The S-300 anti-aircraft missile divisions simply cannot see the missile at such a height,” the expert sums up. He argues that this requires separate mobile radar systems.

The short-range Strela-10 complexes could have responded to the use of such missiles, but they were not available at the Shayrat base, Payusov emphasizes. In addition, the S-300 and S-400 complexes, says Payusov, were “too far” from the Shayrat airfield, and even having received data on cruise missiles, they would not have been able to hit them at such a distance. According to technical specifications, the latest modifications of the S-300 and S-400 missiles can shoot down both ballistic and maneuvering high-altitude targets at a distance of 5 to 400 km. In the case of Tomahawk-type cruise missiles, the range of their destruction on the marching section is about 45 km for flat terrain, the military expert explained. The exact location of the launch of American missiles in the Mediterranean Sea is unknown.

Expert Alexander Khramchikhin disagrees with this. If the missiles approached Russian complexes S-300 and S-400 at striking distance, they would have been shot down, the military analyst believes. “A rocket is not a plane; it has no pilot. Therefore, the downed missile could not become a reason for the escalation of the conflict,” the expert emphasizes. He also points out that the Russian military has Bastion coast guard systems at its disposal, which theoretically could hit American ships on approach. “But this is politically impossible, this is a fact of direct aggression, which would lead to grave consequences, a world war,” sums up Khramchikhin. “At the same time, surprisingly, Russia and Syria did not sign a mutual defense agreement,” the expert recalls.

According to Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis, the US military warned its Russian counterparts immediately before the strike. Press Secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov left without comment the journalists’ question about why Russian missile interception systems were not used.

Video: RBC

Prospects for expanding the operation

“Today I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the bloodshed in Syria and to end terrorism of all kinds and of all types,” US President after the cruise missile strike.

The actions of the American military have already been supported by representatives of Israel, Great Britain, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries. Iran, China and Russia condemned the US actions. Turkey, which together with Russia is the guarantor of the truce in Syria, according to a statement by US President Donald Trump, can support the American military operation in Syria “if one happens.”

On March 29, the Turkish army completed the large-scale operation “Euphrates Shield” in Syria. The operation, which lasted more than seven months, allowed the Turkish side and opposition groups to take control of more than 2 thousand square meters. km of territory and 230 settlements in northern Syria. From 4 thousand to 8 thousand Turkish military and up to 10 thousand fighters of rebel groups took part in the operation.

Another regional power that has repeatedly attacked Syrian government-controlled areas is Israel. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Military Balance 2016 report, the Israeli army could use 440 aircraft. In addition, Israel also has its own Delilah cruise missiles. Maximum range destruction of such missiles - up to 250 km. “The Israeli armed forces have previously attacked neighboring Syria with cruise missiles and combat drones,” Lavrov recalls.

Israeli strikes on Syrian territory are fully coordinated along the Jerusalem-Moscow line, says Zeev Hanin, a lecturer in the department of political science at Bar-Ilan University. In his opinion, Trump’s calls will not lead to an increase or decrease in the number of Israeli military strikes on Syrian territory. “Israel will continue to use weapons against terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, ad hoc, on occasion,” Hanin said.

Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption Footage taken at the base shows burnt out hangars with planes in them.

The United States used 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike the Syrian Shayrat airbase. These precision-guided munitions, capable of penetrating enemy missile defenses, are expensive weapons: each missile costs the US budget approximately a million dollars.

Thus, the Americans decided to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which they accuse of using chemical weapons against residents of the small village of Khan Sheikhoun, resulting in the death of more than 70 people, many of them children.

It is difficult to judge what damage was caused to the airbase - conflicting information is coming from Syrian sources on the ground, from official Damascus and from the Russian military.

However, it can be assumed that the missiles destroyed several aircraft, warehouses and other buildings at the airfield.

How did this happen?

On the night of April 7, the US Navy destroyers "Ross" and "Porter" from the waters Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian airbase of Shayrat in Homs province.

The airbase belonged to Syrian government forces, but the planes Russian Air Force They used it as a “jump airfield” during combat missions.

Information about casualties of Russian military personnel or damage to Russian military property was not officially reported.

The United States warned Russia about the upcoming strike, and perhaps if there were Russian specialists, then they managed to evacuate. A Pentagon spokesman said that during the planning of the operation, the US military did everything to avoid the deaths of Russian and Syrian troops.

The US airstrike killed 10 soldiers, the Syrian army said. The Syrian state news agency SANA reports the deaths of nine civilians, including four children. According to the agency, the deceased lived in a village near the air base. Many houses in the base area were seriously damaged.

On Friday morning, after the attack on the airfield, it became known that Russia was suspending the memorandum with the United States on preventing incidents and ensuring the safety of aviation flights during the operation in Syria.

Image caption Cruise missile "Tomahawk"

It was this mechanism that the Americans used to warn about shelling of a base where Russians could be located. Communication channels remain between the two countries, but this one, closed after the shelling, was created specifically for the rapid exchange of operational information.

Is there a missile defense system in Syria?

Russian missile defense systems S-200, S-300, S-400 and Buk-M2 are deployed at the Khmeimim airbase in Syrian Latakia. The main task of these complexes is air cover of Russian military installations.

In addition, they are periodically located near the coast guided missile cruisers"Moskva" and "Varyag", which are also equipped with the naval version of the S-300 - the Fort air defense system, although now these ships are not there, judging by open sources.

Finally, the air base also houses short-range systems that protect, among other things, long-range air defense systems, including from cruise missiles.

Syrian troops air defense equipped with long-range S-200VE complexes, medium-sized Buk-M2E, as well as various short-range systems.

Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption The strike was carried out by destroyers stationed in the Mediterranean Sea

The S-200VE systems were deployed in mid-March to intercept Israeli fighters that were carrying out strikes in Syria, but not a single missile hit the target. One interceptor missile.

Why weren't the Tomahawks shot down?

Russian complexes located in Latakia are capable of fighting cruise missiles, including the Tomahawk class, but only those that are heading towards an object in their immediate vicinity.

The Shayrat airfield is located at a great distance from Latakia (about 100 kilometers), and cruise missiles flying at low altitude are simply impossible to track with radar.

Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption Shayrat Air Base in April 2017

The interception was also complicated by the short approach time of the missiles, as well as their large number - a total of 59 Tomahawks were fired.

The airbase itself, apparently, was not covered from the air by systems capable of shooting down cruise missiles.

On Friday afternoon, a representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Igor Konashenkov, said that “in the near future, a set of measures will be implemented to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of the air defense system of the Syrian armed forces in order to cover the most sensitive objects of the Syrian infrastructure.”

He did not say which complexes would be deployed. It is also unknown which facilities Russia will strengthen the defense of.

What is the damage?

Information about the damage to the air base is very contradictory.

The Russian Ministry of Defense said that the strike destroyed a warehouse of material and technical equipment. learning Campus, a canteen, six Mig-23 aircraft located in repair hangars, as well as a radar station.

Previously, Russian state media reported that nine aircraft were destroyed in the airstrike. Syrian journalist Thabet Salem told the BBC, citing activists in northern Syria, that 14 aircraft were destroyed, as well as runways and warehouses.

Illustration copyright Reuters Image caption The US announced that the strike on the air base was retaliation for the use of chemical weapons by Syria

Finally, a short time after the strike, the Syrian military reported that the base had suffered "severe damage."

Correspondent of the Russian state TV channel Vesti 24 Evgeny Poddubny, who is in Syria, visited the base on the morning of April 7.

The footage he shot showed damaged hangars, some of which were empty of aircraft, as well as several burnt-out fighter jets.

In one of the frames, the silhouette of a dilapidated aircraft is clearly visible, and it does not look like the MiG-23 reported Russian ministry defense The aircraft is more similar to the Su-22 heavy strike fighter.

Such aircraft are in service with the Syrian Air Force, and footage taken by Poddubny shows the same undamaged fighters at the same airfield.

What remains of Syrian aviation?

It is very difficult to judge how serious this blow is for the Syrian Air Force. Firstly, it is not known exactly how many and which fighters were destroyed, and secondly, exact data on how many aircraft are in the Air Force as of April 2017 is also not publicly available. Finally, there is even less information about how many aircraft are in airworthy condition.

The website globalsecurity.org writes that in 2017 the Syrian Air Force had strike fighters of the following modifications: 53-70 MiG-21 units; 30-41 - MiG-23; 20 - MiG-29; 36-42 - Su-22; 11-20 - Su-24 (the latter are front-line bombers). In addition, according to the same source, Bashar al-Assad’s troops also have fighters for air combat: 20-30 - MiG-29; 2 - MiG-25; 39-50 - MiG-23.

Thus, even if we take the largest loss figure of 14 aircraft, then even in this case, the combat effectiveness of the Air Force after the attack by cruise missiles did not decrease critically.

In addition, the Russian aviation group, which was reduced in the spring of 2016, continues to operate in Syria. According to last year's data, it included at least a Su-24 squadron, as well as Su-30SM and Su-35S fighters and helicopters.

How much did the airstrike cost the US?

The cost of Tomahawk cruise missiles varies depending on how advanced the ammunition is.

Illustration copyright Getty Images Image caption The Russian aviation group remains in Syria, albeit in a reduced composition

It is unknown what kind of missiles the destroyers fired on Friday morning, and therefore, according to open sources, the cost of a salvo of 59 missiles could range from $30 million to $100 million.

The most approximate cost of the MiG-23 and Su-22 fighters ranges from one to three million dollars.

Since the US attack 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 guess is that he did not do this because if Russian air defense systems had not shot down the Tomahawks, it would have been a serious blow to the 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 the 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 got into predicament

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 didn’t shoot 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 the missiles so that they did not fall into the range of Russian systems Air defense, and the systems themselves are located too far from the Shayrat airbase 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 Felgenhauer, who writes that Russian air defense systems in best case scenario They can essentially cover only the objects where they are located, the effective defense radius is about 30 km, but not objects at large distances, and certainly not the entire territory of Syria. The point is that Russia can protect air space Syria, 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” has also gone viral on the English-language network. In 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 is asking is why Russian air defenses didn’t 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, 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 of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which include USS Porter and USS Ross, can carry up to 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a time. According to the Pentagon, on the night of April 6-7, American ships fired 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian air base. “At the moment, there are five or six ships of the US Sixth Fleet in the region that can use such missiles,” says independent military analyst Anton Lavrov.

The Russian military department considers the attack of American missiles to be ineffective. “According to Russian objective control means, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian airbase. The crash site of the remaining 36 cruise missiles is unknown,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said at a briefing on Friday morning.

This is an extremely low level of implementation for these missiles, says Alexander Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis. According to him, it is not clear where the 36 missiles could have gone and who could have shot them down.

The statement by the Russian Ministry of Defense was denied by the Pentagon. According to the US military, out of 59 missiles, 58 reached their target, one missile did not work.

Cruise missiles of this type have been used by the American army since 1991. During the Gulf War, the US Army launched 297 of these missiles, 282 of which reached their target. During Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998, 370 Tomahawk missiles were fired, and another 200 were fired in Libya. Every year, the US Army, according to manufacturers, receives 440 of these cruise missiles.

Why did the air defense systems not work?

After the start of the Russian operation in Syria in October 2015, the Ministry of Defense deployed on the territory of the republic anti-aircraft missile systems(SAM) S-300 and S-400, in addition, the Bastion coast guard system and the Pantsir-S1 missile system covering the SAM were supplied. According to Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, the missile systems are sent to Syria to protect Russian aviation. Defense Ministry spokesman Konashenkov previously noted that the operating range of the S-300 and S-400 systems deployed in the region “could be a surprise for any unidentified flying objects.”

Experts interviewed by RBC disagree on why Russian troops did not shoot down the American missiles.

“The Russian military could not help but notice the American missiles,” says independent analyst Anton Lavrov, who regularly collaborates with the Ministry of Defense and the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. But the detection of cruise missiles does not guarantee that an attack will be repelled, the expert clarifies: “Each complex has a saturation limit (the maximum number of objects that the complex can hit with one ammunition load. - RBC). Even if we fired all the S-300 missiles at the Tomahawks, we would not be able to repel their attack.”

Tomahawk cruise missiles, using the TERCOM terrain tracking system, can fly at an altitude of 100 m, notes military expert, reserve colonel Andrei Payusov. “The S-300 anti-aircraft missile divisions simply cannot see the missile at such a height,” the expert sums up. He argues that this requires separate mobile radar systems.

The short-range Strela-10 complexes could have responded to the use of such missiles, but they were not available at the Shayrat base, Payusov emphasizes. In addition, the S-300 and S-400 complexes, says Payusov, were “too far” from the Shayrat airfield, and even having received data on cruise missiles, they would not have been able to hit them at such a distance. According to the technical characteristics, the latest modifications of the S-300 and S-400 missiles can shoot down both ballistic and maneuvering high-altitude targets at a distance of 5 to 400 km. In the case of Tomahawk-type cruise missiles, the range of their destruction on the marching section is about 45 km for flat terrain, the military expert explained. The exact location of the launch of American missiles in the Mediterranean Sea is unknown.

Expert Alexander Khramchikhin disagrees with this. If the missiles had approached the Russian S-300 and S-400 systems within striking distance, they would have been shot down, a military analyst believes. “A rocket is not a plane; it has no pilot. Therefore, the downed missile could not become a reason for the escalation of the conflict,” the expert emphasizes. He also points out that the Russian military has Bastion coast guard systems at its disposal, which theoretically could hit American ships on approach. “But this is politically impossible, this is a fact of direct aggression, which would lead to grave consequences, a world war,” sums up Khramchikhin. “At the same time, surprisingly, Russia and Syria did not sign a mutual defense agreement,” the expert recalls.

According to Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain Jeff Davis, the US military warned its Russian counterparts immediately before the strike. Press Secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov left without comment the journalists’ question about why Russian missile interception systems were not used.

Video: RBC

Prospects for expanding the operation

“Today I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the bloodshed in Syria and to end terrorism of all kinds and of all types,” US President after the cruise missile strike.

The actions of the American military have already been supported by representatives of Israel, Great Britain, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries. Iran, China and Russia condemned the US actions. Turkey, which together with Russia is the guarantor of the truce in Syria, according to a statement by US President Donald Trump, can support the American military operation in Syria “if one happens.”

On March 29, the Turkish army completed the large-scale operation “Euphrates Shield” in Syria. The operation, which lasted more than seven months, allowed the Turkish side and opposition groups to take control of more than 2 thousand square meters. km of territory and 230 settlements in northern Syria. From 4 thousand to 8 thousand Turkish military and up to 10 thousand fighters of rebel groups took part in the operation.

Another regional power that has repeatedly attacked Syrian government-controlled areas is Israel. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Military Balance 2016 report, the Israeli army could use 440 aircraft. In addition, Israel also has its own Delilah cruise missiles. The maximum range of destruction of such missiles is up to 250 km. “The Israeli armed forces have previously attacked neighboring Syria with cruise missiles and combat drones,” Lavrov recalls.

Israeli strikes on Syrian territory are fully coordinated along the Jerusalem-Moscow line, says Zeev Hanin, a lecturer in the department of political science at Bar-Ilan University. In his opinion, Trump’s calls will not lead to an increase or decrease in the number of Israeli military strikes on Syrian territory. “Israel will continue to use weapons against terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, ad hoc, on occasion,” Hanin said.