‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield, Russian MoD says

Published time: 7 Apr, 2017 09:41 Edited time: 7 Apr, 2017 16:46 Get short URL FILE PHOTO: Shayrat Airfield in Homs, Syria is seen in this DigitalGlobe satellite image released by the U.S. Defense Department on April 6, 2017. © DigitalGlobe / U.S. Department of Defense / Reuters The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added. Trends US missiles strike Syria Follow RT’s LIVE UPDATES on US missile strike against Syria  The strike on the Shayrat airfield in Syria’s Homs Province destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. Read more 1st footage of destruction at US-hit Shayrat airbase in Syria (VIDEO) The runway, taxiways and the Syrian aircraft on the parking apron remained undamaged, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman said in a statement. The ministry described the combat efficiency of the strike as “quite poor.” “On April 7, 2017, between 3:42am and 3:56am Moscow time, two US Navy destroyers (USS Porter and USS Ross) fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Shayrat airfield in Homs Province, Syria, from an area near the Island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea. “According to our sources, only 23 of them reached the Syrian airbase,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said, adding that the points of impact of the other 36 cruise missiles remain unknown. The ministry also slammed the US actions as “a gross violation” of the memorandum of understanding signed by Moscow in Washington back in 2015 to prevent flight incidents in Syrian airspace. READ MORE: Russia suspends flight safety memorandum over Syria after US missile strike – Foreign Ministry All justifications for the strike are “groundless claims,” the ministry continued. Read more ISIS used US missile strike to launch new offensive near Palmyra, Homs governor tells RT “Russia made an earlier statement that the Syrian forces did not use chemical weapons. We are waiting for clarification from the US on undisputed – as they claim – evidence that it was the Syrian Army that deployed chemical weapons in the town of Khan Sheikhoun.” The ministry also pointed to the events that followed the strikes, a large-scale offensive against the Syrian Army carried out by Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front terrorists. “We hope that this offensive was in no way coordinated with the US,” the ministry said. "A number of measures aimed at strengthening and improving the effectiveness of the Syrian air defense system will be implemented in the near future in order to protect the vital parts of the Syrian infrastructure," Konashenkov said. ======================== ‘They’re terrified that peace was going to break out’ – Ron Paul on US Syria strike Published time: 8 Apr, 2017 10:29 Edited time: 8 Apr, 2017 14:12 Get short URL Ron Paul © Mark Makela / Reuters “A victory of neo-conservatives” – that’s how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon. Trends US missiles strike Syria Follow RT's LIVE UPDATES on the US strikes on Syria Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof of Damascus’ guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US. “I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn’t been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition.” 'Emergency' protests across US demand 'Hands off Syria' (VIDEOS, PHOTOS) This is not the first time something like this has happened in Syria or elsewhere, Paul said, but now it is convenient to pay attention and react immediately. “If any of this was true, I don’t know why they couldn’t wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn’t go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can’t think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it’s helping ISIS, because it’s helping Al-Qaeda.” “From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things,” Paul added. A factor that contributed to the speedy reaction was of course the US president, the politician told RT. “I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn’t want to hear the debate, because the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this, before people came to know what was really going on.” READ MORE: Syria & Iraq: Anatomy of a 21st century conflict The Syrian situation now is “a victory for neo-conservatives, who’ve been looking for Assad to go,” Paul said. “They want to get rid of him, and you have to look for who is involved in that. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are winning out on this, and the radicals, too! There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to go, and we’re there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually strengthen them! It is a mess. Read more Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO) “I don’t believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it’s hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty.” This policy clearly does not lead to peace, Paul told RT. “The peace talks have ended now. They’re terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don’t expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future.” Last but not least, the politician spoke out about the deeper reasons – and potential disastrous consequences – of the latest attack’s timing. “I was wondering about the fact that the announcement came when Trump was talking to Xi [Jinping, the Chinese president]. And of course, [North] Korea’s high on the list of targets for our president and our administration. It might be a warning: this is what’s going to happen to you if you don’t do what we tell you. I just don’t like us being involved in so many countries, in their internal affairs; I think it’s so detrimental.”