Corresponding member of the Russian Academy of rocket and artillery Sciences Konstantin Sivkov said that in the case of a direct clash between Russia and the United States in Syria our group in this Arab country will be destroyed by the Pentagon a couple of days. However, he rejected the possibility of such a collision.
As said by the expert in live NSN, in the case of a military collision between Russia and the United States in Syria, the Pentagon will be able to destroy our group in one of the air-offensive. For this, the US will need a couple of days, maybe a little more.
However, Sivkov believes that to direct war between US and Russia on Syria will not happen. Moscow, if necessary, continue military operations at a more intense level, can involve the Russian volunteers who will work together with the Syrian army. “That is again a new Vietnam. The same remote theater of military operations”, – said the expert.
Recall that the issue of a possible clash between Russia and the United States in Syria was discussed in the media after Washington refused to continue negotiations with Moscow on the settlement in Syria, but the two sides have accused each other of violating the agreement. After it became known that Russia delivered to Syria the battery of anti-aircraft missile systems s-300. The foreign Ministry also suggested that Washington could make a “deal with the devil”, that is, to cooperate with the militants in Syria to their hands to overthrow the Assad regime.
In an interview with “MK” experts have evaluated the possibility of direct confrontation of Russia and the USA in Syria. So the President of Academy of geopolitical problems Leonid Ivashov did not rule out conflict, but warned that talking about the possibility of a Third world war is not worth it.
The Director of the Center for the study of the Middle East and Central Asia semen Bagdasarov also stated that no Third world war will not, but called it is likely the collision of Russia and the USA on the Syrian theater of military operations “not only indirectly, but directly.”