That comment was made from an ambassador to Lebanon. Not Putin nor anyone in the military said anything of the sort, it was unofficiall chest thumping by a random politician. The embassador said Russia would target any launch platform, certainly they never did that despite easily being able to so. If you remember Russia had submarines and warships that detected and shadowed a British submarine as well as French ships. They easily have the capabilities to attack any NATO launch platform but wisely chose not to.
That guy is not a random politician but an ambassador of Putin regime, posted in Lebanon. Unlike you, he is privy to insider deliberations in Putin regime and it would be unethical for him to issue blanket statements on an issue of this magnitude. If you think he issued a blanket statement then Putin regime is to blame for hiring sentimental people to represent its cause in other countries.
Russian defenses were active during the course of strikes from NATO in Syria. Although S-400 was not used to engage incoming cruise missiles, other
Russian-made systems utterly failed to stop the barrage (employed by Syrians of-course):
When the U.S., France and Britain launched 105 cruise missiles at a trio of Syrian targets April 13, all eyes were on how the vaunted air defense network in Syria would handle the weapon.
But the crown jewel of that system, Russia’s highly regarded S-400, never fired. And while the older Syrian systems did appear to launch some munitions, the Pentagon claims those systems were not used until after the Western weaponry had already impacted their targets.
“Russian air defenses were energized. They were scanning.... They did not choose to engage,” Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Staff, said during an April 19 press event. “I can tell you though that the rest of Syrian air [defense] capability, which is completely Russian-made, Russian-designed, Russian-supported, engaged extensively and comprehensively failed.”
The obvious question that remains unanswered is whether Russia chose not to engage S-400s, or was simply unable to, whether because of American nonkinetic capabilities impacting those system or some other reason. Given the pre-attack notice given by the Pentagon to Russian forces through a deconfliction line, as well as the fact that no strikes were targeted at the air defenses themselves, analysts lean toward the former.
Regardless, the fact the S-400 was not engaged means drawing hard conclusions about Syria’s air defense network from the strikes is difficult, said Tom Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Source:
https://www.defensenews.com/pentago...-from-the-strikes-in-syria-america-or-russia/
People were mistaking self-destruct sequences of Syrian (Russian-made) AA/AD missiles for
intercepts, not realizing that much of the barrage was over earlier. It shall be kept in mind that those strikes took place around 4 am when most people are/were asleep, and many were caught unaware. I saw the footage of supposed
intercepts and found no such evidence in them.
My take is that Russian-made weaponry failed to deliver in real-time situations and Russians are unreliable as a partner. Your excuses are as lame as Russian threats.
Lastly no one at Khmeimim or Tortus airbase reported any missiles being fired, nor did any soldiers or civilians record any videos of any missiles being fired nor did NATO report Russia targeting anything, nor did anyone report anything on Twitter or any social media/news outlets where as in the past when Russian forces opened fire fire on drones from Khmeimim there was cellphone videos and twitter reports, they even provided wreckage.
Russians did not engage but Syrians chose to, with Russian-made weaponry; and all of that weaponry failed to deliver. Russia had a fantastic opportunity to test its S-400 and prove its worth but.....
It doesn’t take much to provide you wrong. Notice you have nothing to back your claims with.
Really? And you were posted in Syria during the course of strikes by NATO and they showed you everything?
A university and a few barns were destroyed, many cruise missiles failed to hit their targets
This is why I do not take you seriously. One cannot have a meaningful conversation with you due to your mindset.
or in the case of French warships they couldn’t even fire off a salvo, same with the British submarine that was detected and hunted by the Russian navy, it aborted its mission in which it was supposed fire cruise missiles, the British even asked the US to aid them by asking the US navy to dispatch an anti submarine aircraft in the hopes of disrupting the Russian Navy so the British submarine could get away. Lastly US electronics warfare aircraft were “disabled” by heavy jamming at some point.
And Russians still failed to prevent NATO from carrying out strikes in Syria, and succeed in destroying whatever they wanted to. I wonder what those Russian submarines were doing during the course of strikes by NATO
or you are trying to project a FALSE PICTURE of events in question.
One French warship suffered a malfunction but the other delivered during the course of strikes in Syria:
When a French multimission frigate failed to fire its salvo of three naval cruise missiles during last weekend’s joint airstrike on Syria, the military drew on a backup plan.
The frigate’s sister ship, the Languedoc, instead launched its naval cruise missiles at the three Syrian targets. The mission was the first time France fired its naval cruise missile, a weapon which up until then only the British and U.S. had fired against a threat.
“The first salvo did not fire,” Army Col. Patrick Steiger, spokesman for the French Joint Chief of Staff, told Defense News on April 18.
The launch by a backup ship is part of France’s standard “redundancy” approach, the spokesman said.
“All the targets were hit,” he added. “The military effect was obtained.” That effectiveness led the commanders to decide there was no need for a second strike of naval cruise weapons, he explained.
Source:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...missile-launch-fails-during-syria-airstrikes/
Continue to read below.
It was a pathetic show of force in which nothing was accomplished and everything that could go wrong did go wrong short of aircraft being shot down or ships being sunk.
blah blah blah - more lame excuses.
Focus on the failure of Russian-made weaponry in stopping a barrage of cruise missiles over Syria instead.
Russia didn’t fire a single shot at NATO cruise missiles. Again we know this because no one in or around Khmeimim or Tortus reported any activity nor did NATO ever accuse Russia of firing off any missiles but they moaned and cryed like little girls when Russian forces disrupted their operations.
Does it matter? Syrian forces chose to engage the barrage
but Russian-made weaponry failed to deliver. And according to a Russian analyst, even S-400 battalions in Syria would not have made much difference:
Anton Lavrov, an analyst who tracks Russian military thinking and capabilities, said it wouldn’t have made much sense to engage the Russian systems, as the “S-400 in Syria can’t make a difference anyway. There are too few launchers (no more than two battalions) to intercept all or at least a majority of the hundred-missile salvo.”
Source:
https://www.defensenews.com/pentago...-from-the-strikes-in-syria-america-or-russia/
Russia embarrassed the British by locating their most advanced submarine and shadowing it and they did the same with the French. And like I said, at some point they even disabled US electronics warfare aircraft and somehow managed to hack encripted channels such as aircraft IFF.
NATO forces in Syria were toyed with and embarrassed. NATO super duper undetectable submarines were detected, the most sophisticated EM aircraft were “knocked out” according to US officials and encrypted channels were broken.
What a load of crap! Who embarrassed who is clear from this:
END GAME
Like the British submarine, neither the USS Donald Cook or USS Winston Churchill actually fired any Tomahawk cruise missiles.
It may never have been the point of their presence.
They were a distraction. A diversion.
Russia appears to have focused all its attention on these easily seen ‘threats’.
Instead, six Tomahawk cruise missiles suddenly appeared out of the Eastern Mediterranean from the hidden Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine USS John Warner.
All the 105 US, British and French missiles came from unexpected directions.
Bombers had refuelled at and above Cyprus before dashing in to unleash their guided weapons. Tomahawks were fired from warships in the Red Sea to the south and the Persian Gulf to the east.
It was all intended to overwhelm Syria’s defences.
It worked.
Source:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...a/news-story/d6a23877eb34b71bf8e3168b8f06e1d8
I went through this before. No one actually believes the coalition claims that this is the amount of cruise missiles it used to hit these targets
View attachment 477220
You consider
that a rebuttal? That is amateurish load of crap.
That compound was huge, incorporating three rectangular buildings; it provided ample room for 76 cruise missiles to bore through from various angles. Objective was to bury chemicals beneath tons of rubble and prevent a regional disaster, not to evaporate that building from the face of the Earth and/or level the entire neighborhood. My take is that Americans armed their cruise missiles with least destructive warheads for this compound.
Why you parroting these silly images around?
What was struck and destroyed, is clearly shown here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/damage-assessment-of-strikes-in-syria-by-nato-what-was-struck.553781/
Unexploded Tomahawk warhead, proof NATO lied when they said all missiles hit their targets:
View attachment 477218
Compare warhead with illustration:
View attachment 477216
Clear shrapnel:
View attachment 477219
They found an intact warhead and it is enough to convince you that majority of cruise missiles missed their targets? Are you drunk? I suppose you are.
Not only are you a hot head but highly low on the IQ scale. That British submarine was headed to Syria to take part in the strikes but was unable to due to a Russian Kilo submarine and warships, learn to read what you post
You trying to get personal with me? Who is low on the IQ scale is clearly evident from your posts.
You are the one known to pound your little chest and make moronic claims in which many people have called you out on. I usually stay quiet and only debate western fanboys like yourself that constantly make nonsense claims and act like cheerleaders. I recommend you follow your own advice and zip your hole otherwise stop complaining when someone debunks you.
Many people are like 6 or 7? Majority here take my posts seriously.
Not interested in exchanging unpleasantries with a Russian bot.
