Is the danger passed? This is a concise and well thought out answer. However, given the extraordinary dynamics of the election and it’s aftermath, regardless of who sits within the Oval Office, when combined with the worldwide pushback against the elites globalist agenda and other tensions designed to sow chaos to enhance it, this analysis may be overestimating the proscriptive prophylactic of the Russian’s Syrian defence installations.
I also would not trust the words of James Clapper and his assessment of the the war risks under a Hillary administration. It bears to remember that the military was opposed to he actions she instigated to bomb the living hell out of Libya. There appear to be other, perhaps more sinister, pressures that war with Russia is inevitable. Perhaps, not yet, but inevitable all the same.
This is a very good read
The intense anti-Russian campaign in the West is a sign of weakness rather than strength. The Russian air defence system in Syria has closed down the US’s military options. Hillary Clinton knows it and her policies in Syria if she is elected President will be simply a continuation of Obama’s.
The cause of the danger was the collapse in September of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement and the resulting stand-off this October between the US and Russia in Syria.
This culminated in high level discussions within the US government about possible attacks on Syrian army bases, followed by public threats from Russia to shoot down US aircraft if such attacks took place. As The Duran reported – but as the Western media has conspicuously failed to do – following these threats from Russia, the US backed down.
These events have been barely reported in the West. Instead what we have witnessed is a deafening cacophony of abuse of Russia for its actions in Syria, with the country baselessly accused of war crimes, and with things written and said about its political leadership which go far beyond what was written and said even during the height of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014.
At one level this abuse is an attempt to embarrass the Russians to call off the Syrian army’s offensive on the Jihadi held districts of eastern Aleppo.
Meanwhile we know US intelligence is advising the US government that the Russians not only have the capability to shoot down US aircraft, but are not bluffing when they say they will do so. No less a person than Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, speaking to the Council of Foreign Relations on Tuesday 25th October 2016, has said as much
“I wouldn’t put it past them (NB: the Russians – AM) to shoot down an American aircraft if they felt that was threatening to their forces on the ground. The system they have there is very advanced, very capable and I don’t think they’d do it – deploy it – if they didn’t have some intention to use it.”
There is also no doubt that there are lots of people in the US foreign policy establishment who yearn for a President who will “put Putin in his place” and who will take a more confrontational line with Russia on Syria and elsewhere. These people unfortunately have achieved a lock-grip on the US and Western media, and this enables them to a great degree to shape the public discussion with the result that they have a disproportionate influence on policy.
Unfortunately Hillary Clinton has chosen to fight her election campaign by pandering to these people. The result is that she gives the impression of intending a more confrontational policy in Syria than a careful analysis of her words shows she really does. Thus she has fostered the impression that she is looking to impose a no fly zone on Syria when a careful analysis of her words shows she intends no such thing.
This is going to create many problems for Hillary Clinton if she does win the election. However that does not change the fact, which Hillary Clinton certainly knows, that following the events of this October a direct military confrontation between the US and the Russians in Syria because of the opposition of the US military quite simply cannot happen. The US is not going to declare a no fly zone over Syria, or ride to the rescue of the Jihadis in Aleppo, or take any other military steps there beyond those it has already taken, whether Hillary Clinton is elected US President in November or not.