[Flintstone]

BBC World News reporting missile strikes in Damascus by the U.K., US and France.

Russia promised retaliation if any of their personnel are harmed saying that they would eliminate the source of any such attacks.

Would they really strike at the ships launching cruise missiles? That would be a huge escalation and one almost certain to bring about retaliation.

[johnm]

Putin was a senior KGB officer in the Cold War, he is a classic of his kind. He is also well aware that Russians will make any sacrifice for Mother Russia. He is perfectly capable of starting World War 3 a war which no-one will win, except possibly the Chinese who'll be around to pick up the pieces.

Take a look at the scale of Russia relative to Europe, China and the USA on a map.

[PeteSpencer]

But Russian economy is bust Apparently their GDP is less than that of Texas.

How will they sustain WW3?

[johnm]

It won't need much sustaining and the answer is stubbornness

[GolfHotel]

Putin will wish to show the Russians he is strong. So he will react. But he is a measured thinker and that may limit his reaction.

[Flintstone]

Whatever he does the story told in Russia will be exaggerated, he can’t/won’t be seen to do nothing.

Missiles and bombs aside we can also expect an increase in hacking and other internet misbehaviour.

[Rob P]

The Tornado foursome operated from Cyprus. Maybe Putin will nuke Ayia Napa, thus depriving countless prospective brides of their intended and friends?

Rob P

[A le Ron]

A Mr Putin "like for like" might point missiles at Porton Down.

[OCB]

As much as our aircrews and associated personnel will probably have appreciated the "live fire" opportunity/testing of weapons systems/post-strike analysis etc - I don't see how this will have changed much.

If they had a good plan to take out the core of the Assad leadership, then yeah - but this seems a bit "more of the same" that didn't change anything last time.

Assad has won. I say the West should do no more for now, let the dust settle and then get the Israelis or whoever to wipe said gent off the face of the planet.

[Rob P]

True AleR, that would be a double win for him, destroying the Salisbury evidence at the same time.

Rob P

[Dave W]

I say the West should do no more for now, let the dust settle and then get the Israelis or whoever to wipe said gent off the face of the planet.

At which point ISIS potentially takes over Syria and the bad guys are even closer to the gates of Europe.

Both combatant sides in the Syrian conflict are beyond the pale. I'd be happiest if we in the UK had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Surely the legacy vacuum left in Afghanistan and Iraq should teach us something?

[Flintstone]

”The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Although the price of doing something in this instance might be very high indeed.

[OCB]

Dave, there are many “sides” in play within and around Syria. It’s not ISIS v Assad.

Taking Assad out after peace has been restored (talking several years here, not next week) and leaving a vacuum, IMHO, wouldn’t happen. Syria is too important to the Russians. They’d install (democratically if course) a new leadership.

Assad is not Saddam nor Gadaffi.

[johnm]

It appears that clinical strikes focussed on Assad's chemical industry have been undertaken and that the Russians were briefed and well out of the way. It seems therefore that the point about chemical weapons has been made and such honour as there is may be satisfied for now. Let us hope so.....

[Dave W]

Dave, there are many “sides” in play within and around Syria. It’s not ISIS v Assad.

Taking Assad out after peace has been restored (talking several years here, not next week) and leaving a vacuum, IMHO, wouldn’t happen. Syria is too important to the Russians. They’d install (democratically if course) a new leadership.

Assad is not Saddam nor Gadaffi.

Yes, I appreciate that the strategic importance of Syria to the Russians does make it different to Afghanistan and Iraq.
My over-simplified point was supposed to be that any Western engagement against Assad will (i) Provide the effect of supporting some pretty nasty people, including ISIS, who also are anti-Assad forces - do we in the West really want to side with them like that? and; (ii) Will likely be pointless anyway since any Assad replacement supported by Russia is not guaranteed to see any improvement in the lives of ordinary Syrians. And that assumes that the conflict does eventually end with a restoration of the Russian-supported status quo, which might not happen.

What is the up-side of direct Western involvement in that conflict? Certainly last night's events have seriously degraded Western/Russian relations, and to what practical end?