Trump's message of avoiding confrontation with Russia in Syria strike

US President Donald Trump today ordered the US military to coordinate with British and French partners to carry out missile strikes on targets in Syria in response to the country's alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. However, analysts said this was only a limited attack aimed at certain targets and sent a clear message about avoiding confrontation with Russia, according toNYTimes.

This attack by the US and its allies used twice as many missiles as the sanctions in April 2017, and also targeted more. The coalition chose to attack three targets instead of just one air base like last year, but all of these targets were facilities believed to be related to chemical weapons. Important military bases in Syria as well as the Presidential Palace in the capital Damascus were not attacked.

According to commentators Peter Baker and Rick Gladstone, this US attack clearly did not seek to damage the Syrian army's fighting capacity or President Bashar al-Assad's command and control capabilities, despite Mr. Trump's previous fierce threats.

The blitzkrieg is unlikely to alter the strategic balance in Syria’s civil war, but Trump appears to hope it will be enough to deter Mr. Assad from using chemical weapons again, without causing enough damage to prompt Russia and Iran to intervene.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis said the attack was carefully planned to minimize the risk of Russian casualties and focused only directly on Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. While calling it a "massive blow," Mattis insisted it was a "one-time strike" and believed it sent a strong enough message to deter Syria from using chemical weapons again.

Analysts believe that the message of avoiding confrontation in this limited attack is the reason why Russia or Iran did not launch a response, helping the world and the region avoid a large-scale confrontation between nuclear powers.

"Moscow and Tehran will likely respond with statements, and the risk of them launching military retaliation against the US is very low," said Dennis Ross, a Middle East expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The targets attacked were not bases with Russian or Iranian troops stationed there."

Defence expert Ewen MacAskill ofGuardianalsobelieves that the risk of conflict between Russia and the US after the attack is very unlikely. Russia also wants to avoid a direct confrontation like the US, because Moscow's military power is currently assessed to be lower than that of its opponent.

In addition to nuclear weapons, Russia's military power is inferior to the US in both the number of weapons and the defense budget. The US spends 550 billion USD per year on defense, while Russia spends only 70 billion USD. Moscow also owns only one aircraft carrier, while the US has 10 in service.

MacAskill believes that if Russia wants to retaliate against the US, it could use some unconventional means, such as cyber attacks, rather than open confrontation on the battlefield. This is considered a form of warfare in which Moscow and Tehran have many advantages, while Washington has less defense capabilities.

However, observers have not seen any signs of a large-scale cyber attack being planned against the US. Analysts also say that neither Russia nor Iran wants to risk deepening the current crisis in Syria with a cyber campaign targeting the West.

Kenneth Pollack, an expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that after the attack, Russia, Iran and Syria would not want to further escalate the situation, because they do not want to take any action that could prevent the US from gradually withdrawing its military presence from Syria as Mr. Trump had announced.