The top Russian independent expert and analyst Valeriy Pyakin explained in a recent video how “Putin demonstrated “The Art of War” in Syria” in regards to the US missile strike.
Russia (and Putin in particular) used the principles from “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu in Syria by not attacking back and letting the enemies destroy themselves in long run.
This segment is from Pyakin’s “Question – Answer” program from April 16 2018.
We have translated just a short segment of it which you can watch below.
Yet, Pyakin did a really long analysis of the whole Syria strike event. Almost hour and a half to be precise. And because you might be curious to know a little bit more of what he shared to the Russian speaking listeners, basically some of his main points are these:
– This was not a real attack against Syria but well organized spectacle
– By not responding to it Russia gains way more than responding
– France and Britain exposed themselves and will lose long-term
– Trump nails another one in the coffin of the US state elite
– To understand what happened you need to know global politics, not geopolitics
Of course, this is oversimplified and there is much more but that’s what we can provide you at the moment.
Now watch the short segment of Pyakin explaining how Putin demonstrates “The Art of War” in Syria with English captions:
Read the full English translation of the video below:
There is the Chinese strategist and thinker Sun Tzu.
Mythical or not, it’s not important. The art of war is not mythical. And in principle this tractate is very substantial in terms of conducting a war.
I’ve watched a lot of experts who talked about what happened in Syria.
They have talked about everything, except about what really happened in Syria.
So here we have to remember 2 strategies that Sun Tzu laid out in the 2nd or 3rd century of our era when this canonical text “The art of war” was formed.
What was he saying…
“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
Now a second one.
“The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans.”
“The next best is to break up his alliances.”
“Next is to destroy his army.”
“The worst of all is to besiege fortresses.”
If we use this in regards of what is going on today, we will see that the United States use the worst strategy for conducting a war. They besiege fortresses everywhere. Everywhere.
The question about “where was our answer” (to the US attack) suggest the use of the least good of the good strategies. To destroy their army.
But… Again… We go back to this.
They want us to use the worst option. And what did Putin do?
What did Putin do?
There was a statement by Gerasimov that in case of attack against Syria that would endanger our military servicemen there will be an answer.
Just look how everyone who spoke in France, in Britain, in the US, they all talked in the first place about how the option to strike Syria was chosen to be such so that in no case it could hit the zone that Russia had outlined.
To not have a conflict with Russia.
Completely, everywhere: “Russia outlined a circle, we complied, no need for conflict, no need, we did everything.”
“What did you say? We did not violate any of your zones.
That’s what all this was about.
Look, there was a publication in Washington post. There were 3 options for strike that were proposed to Trump. And only 1 of the options included a direct strike on the Russian compounds and units in Syria. But they chose an option that did not affect Russia at all.
So it was initially planned to be such that in no case it would give Russia a reason to strike back.
And here there are people who complain. “Why did we not hit them?”. Against those who did it.
And what really happened in Syria?
I underline it, there wasn’t an attack.
There wasn’t an attack on Syria.