Given the comments and reports reflected in the media this weekend, the United States will hit Syria, Russia will respond to this. I would immediately say that such a conflict will not be hard on the media. Of course, the US will shoot Syria, and if Russia responds to it, the conflict of the two countries will be the issue. If the US hits Syria, it is not right to ask what it has to do with Russia. Because we know that since the beginning of the conflicts in Syria, Russia clearly stood by Assad, but was the United States absolutely against Assad? It is not possible to say yes to this question. Because if the US really wanted the administration of Assad to go, it would not have been possible for Assad to remain at work, although it did not improve. Because the coalition countries around the US were not much disturbed by the civilian massacres of Assad, despite all their disclosures and condemnations. If it were not, Assad would not have managed so many years, even with the support of Russia. Thinking about Aksi means not accepting Syria as Assad but accepting that it is governed by Russia. Moreover, there are not only US and coalition partners in Syria. Since the beginning, Russia has been preserving its presence in Syria. It even continues to increase its military presence. In contrast, the number of US bases in Syria has risen to over 20 in the media.
In the ongoing conflicts over seven years in Syria, it seemed that the US and Russia were acting under a confidential agreement. In other words, Syria, the United States and Russia were almost shared. To ensure this, the two countries are careful not to face the scene. For this, they persistently hold terrorist organizations on the scene, and these organizations are confronted with their own names. Like the US and Russia are at various corners of the world, they also use their tongues in Syria. If this had not been the case in Syria, the two governments could agree to remove Assad from work without resorting to silk, and the conflicts could end up in the end. But this is not done. Maybe it was not necessary. This lack of need can have several causes. Syria conflict at the end of the expected cleavage and maturation of the conditions for the creation of a new statelet in this country, it also shields beyond the Euphrates in Turkey and Syria with olive branch might be corrupted accounts in Operation. Particularly, the US plans to implement new plans in Syria because of the risk of building a semi-independent Iraq-like structure, and this may be trying to prepare Trump with the "Ready to Russia, coming to the brig" challenges.
Despite all these odds, I still see a very weak possibility that the US and Russia are going to have a direct conflict. Such a conflict means, as I recall before, that the consensus reached after the Second World War has come to an end, which means that the existing balances are basically corrupted.
The centers of exploitation of the US and Russia are predominantly the Turkish and Islamic world. They have been exploiting in the fields of the two countries since years, sometimes with coups and occupations, and sometimes with fright. It is not wise for them to choose a conflict that will cause serious damage to each other while they can sustain exploitation with minimum spending.
I do not think that the US and Russia will be pulled to the edge as if nothing happened after all this mutual challenge. However, Muslims and Muslim countries will suffer as if their hardships are at every corner of the world. It is necessary to get rid of losing ourselves in the air created by the US and Russia's mutual bullying and to act and develop attitudes according to this fact as the Islamic world.