I find the assumption that Syria and Russia would not take account of the risks of their acts, astonishing but widely prevalent.
Increasingly likely US has damning intel on Russian role (or acquiescence) in the Idlib attack. Rhetoric from Haley, Tillerson telling.
-
-
@bjoernstritzel Well, they didn't say that. -
-
No, none that would rise above "Russia should have kept the lid on Assad."
-
There is no plausible scenario under which Russia would benefit from being complicit in a CW attack by Assad against Syrians.
- 他1件の返信
-
-
-
Explain why Assad - when winning his war against Isis/Jihaddists we are arming - would provoke us into military action? It's nonsensical
-
Not if the military action is symbolic only.
-
Symbolic use of $94 in missiles against a sovereign nation? Sounds like more than a symbol. I want a refund :)
-
I didn't say it was a cheap symbol.
-
You're right - still it was an act of war versus a sovereign nation regardless of how little we like Assad.
-
-
So is the US/Russia convergence officially dead or what? Can we expect wikileaks to put out stuff that makes the GOP look bad any time soon?
-
As is the muted response from Russia
-
That is laughable
-
There is no question this would not have happened without Putin's knowledge or rather that it was his idea.
-
What was Russian motive?
-
Exactly!
読み込みに時間がかかっているようです。
Twitterの処理能力の限界を超えているか、一時的な不具合が発生しています。やりなおすか、Twitterステータスで詳細をご確認ください。