They are the MRA movement’s worst nightmare, aren’t they?
2 Likes
He displaced 5 million people. This in turn destabilized the EU and helped enable Trump to most likely win the Republican party nomination. When the troops withdraw, fighting will probably increase, generating more refugees (maybe just before the US election!).
So yes. I have no doubt that he did, indeed, achieve his military objectives. Those objectives need not have anything to do with Syria.
3 Likes
Russia started the campaign in October 2015, 4.5 years after the civil war began. Putin is not exactly a philanthropist but he cannot be blamed for the implosion of the Syrian society.
8 Likes
That doesn’t stop him from being an opportunist. I don’t think anything happening in Syria seriously threatened Russia or that any directime gains to Russia from trying to end the conflict were actually worthwhile (unlike Ukraine ). So, I ask how else he might benefit. This is one possibility I thought of in the first five minutes.
Surely you have read the quotes from Lavrov, what is your view of them if not threatening? I couldn’t find anything from Fox news (they are calling it a new cold war), but here is one from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0VK22O
(I do agree that the over flight seems harmless and not worthy of the retaliation, of course there is always a lot more to the/a story. At the same time, that jet should have never been there and the consequences were known- if the media reports of the flight path are to be believed of course.)
The Russian attacks did not speed up the refugee growth and I don’t think such an outcome is plannable (maybe with the exception of carpet bombing all cities and villages, but they used not 100s of aircrafts).
Strategically Syria is important for Russia, to retain influence in the Middle East they need Assad’s regime; the naval base in Tartus keeps the door open to the Mediterranean Sea and Africa/Asia without sailing through the NATO-controlled Turkish Bosphorus.
If I had to name countries* more responsible for the mass exodus I would choose Iran/Saudi Arabia (proxy war on Syrian soil) and Turkey (pro Turkmen minority, contra Kurds minority).
* without the Syrian parties in the civil war
11 Likes
Or possibly because the other sides were fighting for Slavery and Naziism.
Notice how we’re all actually taking this at face value?
I’d bet that there may be a reduction of bombing, and some troops coming home, but the Russians will still be in Syria, and still very much in this fight. This will be a diplomatic smokescreen, to wind down the attention on the area, and make it look like diplomacy is progressing,
2 Likes
Winston Churchill, the man who wanted to gas the Kurds?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
If it were anyone else saying that, they would be denounced as a terrorist.
9 Likes
- tweak the nose of NATO: check
- Demonstrate willingness to defend existing warm water naval base: check
- Make Obama look weak: check
There’s more but anyway
4 Likes
Putin is just getting stuff tidied up so he can be ready to be trump’s vice president. Putin knows he’s second fiddle to a true megalomaniac like the trumpster
Lavrov says quite clearly that if the Saudis and other states in the Middle East get involved on the ground in the war it will expand, with the risk of becoming a permanent war that could suck in the Muslim world elsewhere. That’s not a threat, that’s an assessment.
Unlike the US which has never been invaded or surrounded by belligerents, Russians have a history which includes WW0 (the “Seven Years War”), WW1 and WW2. They are well aware of escalation and the sucking in of other belligerents.
Perhaps you’ve bought into the “when the Pentagon says it, it’s a warning, when the Kremlin says it, it’s a threat” narrative.
5 Likes
Sounds like he wanted to tear gas the Kurds.
Not that it affects my point, which is pretty obvious.
Hmm. “Inflaming” in terms of US support for moderates who weren’t so moderate but who weren’t (hopefully) part of ISIS, as well as letting the Saudis run amok in the horn of Africa; but non-inflaming in terms of swift action–Obama’s non-existent “red line” with regard to Assad’s chemical weapons–as well as being seen as too little, too late, once Putin-on-the-Ritz shows up and destroys anything and everything.
1 Like
2 Likes
Today I read that the Syrian government was not informed about the decision until one day before the public announcement - the author of the piece guesses this was done to force Syria to negotiate earnestly.
Currently the peace/truce talks are mostly ignored by Syria as they have the Russian airforce as 800-pound gorilla - this is most likely not in the interest of Putin, as he defined the military campaign from the beginning as temporary and was one of the politicians responsible for the current ceasefire.
I think that makes sense: Russia is not interested in on-going fights, they need a pacified* and controllable* Syria.
* be it voluntary or forceful
9 Likes
Thank you. I’m now better informed than I was before.
4 Likes
This is not at all true, there are hundreds of different opposition groups, and while many of them are Islamists, many of them are secularists. The initial protests that began the conflict were from secular and student groups.
1 Like
Of course, the devil’s in the details. People want nonlethality, they settle for less than lethal, and then manage to absolve themselves of any guilt.
3 Likes
