Threat from Russia ‘watershed moment’
U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton calls Russia’s threat to possibly shoot down U.S. warplanes flying over Syria “a watershed moment” in the conflict — one he fears could draw us deeper into another Middle Eastern war and even a shooting match with another superpower, with no clear path out.
The United States isn’t backing down on defeating ISIS in Syria despite the stern warning from Russia yesterday.
The Iraq War veteran remains troubled by President Trump’s strategy and this latest development, saying it “represents a significant escalation. It comes at a time when the administration is stumbling from one crisis to the next. Now more than ever we need a smart, strong, and strategic approach to foreign policy — one that defines clear missions, with achievable end games, for our troops.”
The Russian threat came after the U.S. shot down a Syrian warplane over the weekend. This was the first time our military has taken down a Syrian plane in the six years of civil war in the country.
The U.S. said it acted in “collective self-defense” when it shot down a Syrian SU-22 that had attacked an area occupied by members of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.
The aggressive response from Russia could have serious consequences if the Russians actually follow through on their threat and shoot down one of our planes. Both countries seem to be flexing their muscles, and the outcome could be devastating.
Russia, which is backing President Bashar al-Assad, said the downing violated international law.
In Moscow, Frants Klintsevich, deputy chairman of the Russian Senate’s defense committee, wrote in a Facebook post, “It is Russia that is being provoked most of all. ... It seems that the United States under Donald Trump is the source of danger for the Middle East and the whole world on a qualitatively new level.”
Russia might have gone to great lengths to impact our presidential election.
But apparently they underestimated how Trump would handle the Middle East crisis. It seems to be a far more aggressive approach than his predecessor. The question is, will it be to our benefit, or our peril?