No role for Assad in Syria's future - U.S.'s Tillerson

[craigt3365]

48 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Sure, it was the start of it, but it would have ended long ago with a lot less death and displacement if various Arab states and Turkey hadn't decided to support Sunni fundamentalists.

Don't forget Russia.  That was a huge reason the war's continued for so long. 

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Sure, it was the start of it, but it would have ended long ago with a lot less death and displacement if various Arab states and Turkey hadn't decided to support Sunni fundamentalists.

 

Assad's forces were far from decidedly winning the conflict even before that. Spin it however you like, this ultimately goes back to Assad's doorstep. There were many possible ways dealing with civil unrest, and he went with Dad's way. Didn't work out quite as planned.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Assad's forces were far from decidedly winning the conflict even before that. Spin it however you like, this ultimately goes back to Assad's doorstep. There were many possible ways dealing with civil unrest, and he went with Dad's way. Didn't work out quite as planned.

Didn't quite work out as planned for all concerned.

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, mikebike said:

 

OR

 

On June 1, I met with a delegation of North Americans going to observe the Syrian elections on June 3. I hope to be in Damascus shortly, if possible to likewise observe Syria’s historic election. Below is a list of the delegates.

Joseph Iosbaker, 55

Judith Bello, 63

Elias Hazineh, 62

Scott Williams, 25

Dr. Paul Larudee, 68

 

Other North American delegates include:

 

-Tony Seed, Canadian

-Jim W. Dean, American

-Jane Stillwater, American

 

International delegates include:

 

-Roohulla Rezvi

-Feroze Mithiborwala

-Jatinbabu Desai

-Dilip Kumar

-Anahita Shireen Mukherji

-Mansor bin Puteh

-Muhammad Abbas Komeili

-Safdar Abbas

-Nasir Shirazi

-Khurram Nawaz Khan

-Salim Ghafouri

-Declan Hayes

 

https://orientalreview.org/2014/06/03/international-observers-endorse-syrian-elections/

 

Just because the MSM was following a particular narrative, as is there won't, does not mean observers were not there.

They weren't offical observers!  Just individuals who went to Syria during the elections.  Read the entire article! LOL 

 

You'll need to find a more qualified article to prove proper election observers were there.  Here's one of their articles.  Click bat at it's worst.

 

http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/10/26/on-returning-from-syria-more-convinced-than-ever-western-media-narrative-is-bullshit/

Quote

On Returning From Syria: More Convinced Than Ever Western Media Narrative Is Bullshit

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Didn't quite work out as planned for all concerned.

 

Indeed, although I don't think that the rebels had much of a plan, initially. And perhaps never actually fully developed one as such. But be that as it may, Assad's bearing much of the responsibility for the situation is hard to dispute.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

 

OR

 

On June 1, I met with a delegation of North Americans going to observe the Syrian elections on June 3. I hope to be in Damascus shortly, if possible to likewise observe Syria’s historic election. Below is a list of the delegates.

Joseph Iosbaker, 55

Judith Bello, 63

Elias Hazineh, 62

Scott Williams, 25

Dr. Paul Larudee, 68

 

Other North American delegates include:

 

-Tony Seed, Canadian

-Jim W. Dean, American

-Jane Stillwater, American

 

International delegates include:

 

-Roohulla Rezvi

-Feroze Mithiborwala

-Jatinbabu Desai

-Dilip Kumar

-Anahita Shireen Mukherji

-Mansor bin Puteh

-Muhammad Abbas Komeili

-Safdar Abbas

-Nasir Shirazi

-Khurram Nawaz Khan

-Salim Ghafouri

-Declan Hayes

 

https://orientalreview.org/2014/06/03/international-observers-endorse-syrian-elections/

 

Just because the MSM was following a particular narrative, as is there won't, does not mean observers were not there.

Irrelevant as the Syrian Constitution guarantees Assad will win elections by way of predetermined representative allocations.

[mikebike]

23 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

They weren't offical observers!  Just individuals who went to Syria during the elections.  Read the entire article! LOL 

 

You'll need to find a more qualified article to prove proper election observers were there.  Here's one of their articles.  Click bat at it's worst.

 

http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/10/26/on-returning-from-syria-more-convinced-than-ever-western-media-narrative-is-bullshit/

Hahaha... you really don't pay attention do you? We already determined that this was not an official UN monitoring. It WAS monitoring though!! Do you disagree that much of the MSM's reporting is based on a predetermined narrative?

 

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Hahaha... you really don't pay attention do you? We already determined that this was not an official UN monitoring. It WAS monitoring though!! Do you disagree that much of the MSM's reporting is based on a predetermined narrative?

 

Right.  North Korea and Zimbabwe as monitors.  Too funny.  And you say MSM reporting is bad.

 

I do not agree MSM reporting is predetermined.  Biased?  Absolutely.  All media outlets have a bias.  Some more than others.

[tonbridgebrit]

6 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Right.  North Korea and Zimbabwe as monitors.  Too funny.  And you say MSM reporting is bad.

 

I do not agree MSM reporting is predetermined.  Biased?  Absolutely.  All media outlets have a bias.  Some more than others.

Craigt, can you please accept that when a massively senior figure like Tillerson says that Assad has 'no role' in Syria's future, well, he's simply not being real.

Just about everybody here, apart from you, is saying that Assad is going to survive. And yes, Assad is going to carry on being Syria's leader, whether people like it or not.

ThaiVisa is actually representative of the general public's opinion. We all know that Assad, backed by Russia and Iran/Hezbollah, is going to get his country back. And eventually, there will be peace and stability in Syria, with Assad in charge.

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt, can you please accept that when a massively senior figure like Tillerson says that Assad has 'no role' in Syria's future, well, he's simply not being real.

Just about everybody here, apart from you, is saying that Assad is going to survive. And yes, Assad is going to carry on being Syria's leader, whether people like it or not.

ThaiVisa is actually representative of the general public's opinion. We all know that Assad, backed by Russia and Iran/Hezbollah, is going to get his country back. And eventually, there will be peace and stability in Syria, with Assad in charge.

Sorry pay, but nobody here, including yourself, knows how this will play out.  Anything we say is pure speculation.  I try to post links to articles from people who know far more about this than anybody on this forum.  Credible links.  Even Putin said Assad's future is not guaranteed.  But I guess you don't believe him either.

 

Peace and stability in Syria?  The people in Syria have been living under Assad's brutal rule for generations.  They got tired of it.  And revolted.  And now you're saying everything will be hunky dory?  I can't believe that.  The millions who've been hurt by this civil war won't forget.  Assad's tainted.  He'll never be able to go back to what it was.

 

How will this end?  It's pure speculation.

[mikebike]

19 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Right.  North Korea and Zimbabwe as monitors.  Too funny.  And you say MSM reporting is bad.

 

I do not agree MSM reporting is predetermined.  Biased?  Absolutely.  All media outlets have a bias.  Some more than others.

Why would you continue to deny that there were representatives from many countries monitoring the 2014 election (officially sponsored or not)? You can literally contact each of the people listed and ask them yourself. Very strange.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Why would you continue to deny that there were representatives from many countries monitoring the 2014 election (officially sponsored or not)? You can literally contact each of the people listed and ask them yourself. Very strange.

Can I reach them via email contacts at the OSCE?  If not, they are just individuals.  Not official election monitors.  Not sure why you are going after this so strongly.  The others were from North Korea. Makes me laugh just typing that...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_monitoring

Quote

International organizations such as the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Council of Europe and the African Union regularly deploy monitoring teams.

Syria had none of the above.

[mikebike]

And apparently even in the USA citizen, unofficial observers are a thing. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/policies-for-election-observers.aspx#accreditation

[Morch]

21 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt, can you please accept that when a massively senior figure like Tillerson says that Assad has 'no role' in Syria's future, well, he's simply not being real.

Just about everybody here, apart from you, is saying that Assad is going to survive. And yes, Assad is going to carry on being Syria's leader, whether people like it or not.

ThaiVisa is actually representative of the general public's opinion. We all know that Assad, backed by Russia and Iran/Hezbollah, is going to get his country back. And eventually, there will be peace and stability in Syria, with Assad in charge.

 

That the USA cannot affect what Tillerson talked about doesn't mean that it should not hold this position or refrain from expressing it. There's no compulsion to embrace Assad.

 

It is probable that Assad will survive the civil war as Syria's leader, whether some like it or not. That, however, does not necessarily apply indefinitely, and his position and regional status gained little (quite the opposite) during the last few years. He'll be around as long as he's useful for Putin and as long as he can deliver.

 

Thaivisa is not actually a "representative of  the general public's opinion". Only when it suits you to make such inane statements. Guess it wouldn't apply when it comes to them topics dealing with the PRC and such.

 

As for "peace and stability", that would depend on one's definition of these things. Considering how things are today, and how Assad's rule was even prior to the civil war - it's not even clear what you're on about (other than the usual propaganda trolling).

[tonbridgebrit]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That the USA cannot affect what Tillerson talked about doesn't mean that it should not hold this position or refrain from expressing it. There's no compulsion to embrace Assad.

 

It is probable that Assad will survive the civil war as Syria's leader, whether some like it or not. That, however, does not necessarily apply indefinitely, and his position and regional status gained little (quite the opposite) during the last few years. He'll be around as long as he's useful for Putin and as long as he can deliver.

 

Thaivisa is not actually a "representative of  the general public's opinion". Only when it suits you to make such inane statements. Guess it wouldn't apply when it comes to them topics dealing with the PRC and such.

 

As for "peace and stability", that would depend on one's definition of these things. Considering how things are today, and how Assad's rule was even prior to the civil war - it's not even clear what you're on about (other than the usual propaganda trolling).

"[Thaivisa is not actually a "representative of  the general public's opinion". Only when it suits you to make such inane statements. Guess it wouldn't apply when it comes to them topics dealing with the PRC and such.]"
Morch, most people in America and Britain accept that the civil war in Syria is coming to an end. And yes, most people in America and Britain reckon that China's claims at ownership of the South China Sea at silly. But most people are certainly not interested in taking action against China (as in, hit China with taxes on the Chinese imports).

"[As for "peace and stability", that would depend on one's definition of these things. Considering how things are today, and how Assad's rule was even prior to the civil war - it's not even clear what you're on about (other than the usual propaganda trolling).]"
Assad and his father ruled Syria for decades before the civil war. During all this time, Syria did not go through a mass exit of it's people. It's the civil war, this is what's created a mass exit of people. Peace and stability, that's when a nation is not going through a mass exit of people.




"[It is probable that Assad will survive the civil war as Syria's leader, whether some like it or not. That, however, does not necessarily apply indefinitely, and his position and regional status gained little (quite the opposite) during the last few years. He'll be around as long as he's useful for Putin and as long as he can deliver.]"

Morch, what's really happening ?  A civil war broke out in Syria. Russia backed Assad, I think Russia was 'friends' with Assad before the civil war. Iran was already friends with Assad for years before the civil war. Washington backed the rebels, because Washington did not like Assad. The war has been a 'proxy war', fought by Washington against Russia, the two big powers backed separate sides in the conflict.
Now, let's just say Assad survives, and the rebels are removed. What if Russia forces Assad to step down ? What difference does that make to Washington ? I think, zero difference. Whatever new regime that replaces Assad, Russia and Iran/Hezbollah will be staying in Syria. And that, as far as Washington is concerned, is the main issue. As in, Russia and Iran/Hezbollah have a foothold in Syria. Yes, Iran's supposed goal, of getting a Shi'te area, stretching from Iran, across northern Iraq, to Syria on the Mediterranean Sea, has been reached. I think, this is what Washington reckons is, is the main point of all this.

Edited October 31, 2017 by tonbridgebrit

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Morch, most people in America and Britain accept that the civil war in Syria is coming to an end. And yes, most people in America and Britain reckon that China's claims at ownership of the South China Sea at silly. But most people are certainly not interested in taking action against China (as in, hit China with taxes on the Chinese imports).

"[As for "peace and stability", that would depend on one's definition of these things. Considering how things are today, and how Assad's rule was even prior to the civil war - it's not even clear what you're on about (other than the usual propaganda trolling).]"
Assad and his father ruled Syria for decades before the civil war. During all this time, Syria did not go through a mass exit of it's people. It's the civil war, this is what's created a mass exit of people. Peace and stability, that's when a nation is not going through a mass exit of people.




"[It is probable that Assad will survive the civil war as Syria's leader, whether some like it or not. That, however, does not necessarily apply indefinitely, and his position and regional status gained little (quite the opposite) during the last few years. He'll be around as long as he's useful for Putin and as long as he can deliver.]"

Morch, what's really happening ?  A civil war broke out in Syria. Russia backed Assad, I think Russia was 'friends' with Assad before the civil war. Iran was already friends with Assad for years before the civil war. Washington backed the rebels, because Washington did not like Assad. The war has been a 'proxy war', fought by Washington against Russia, the two big powers backed separate sides in the conflict.
Now, let's just say Assad survives, and the rebels are removed. What if Russia forces Assad to step down ? What difference does that make to Washington ? I think, zero difference. Whatever new regime that replaces Assad, Russia and Iran/Hezbollah will be staying in Syria. And that, as far as Washington is concerned, is the main issue. As in, Russia and Iran/Hezbollah have a foothold in Syria. Yes, Iran's supposed goal, of getting a Shi'te area, stretching from Iran, across northern Iraq, to Syria on the Mediterranean Sea, has been reached. I think, this is what Washington reckons is, is the main point of all this.

You seem to be misinformed yet again.  Trump was elected partially due to his threats to go after China.  So yes, many people in the US are very interested in taking action against China.  And some action has already happened.  Research aluminum foil. LOL

 

You seem to get the point the spark of the civil war was Assad and his treatment of his people.  As well as his father's. 

 

The US back the rebels because Assad and his allies were bombing innocent people!  Did you forget that?  And IS was taking over.  One big reason for Russia to help was to squash the Qatar gas pipeline.  Russia wants to maintain it's stranglehold over Europe with regards to gas.  They are doing the same thing in Georgia/Armenia. 

 

You also are forgetting it was an international alliance involved in Syria.  But you only use the term Washington.  Strange.

 

You need to read this.  Please.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/trump-syria-assad-rebels-putin-cia/534540/
 

Quote

 

Since then, it has trained and armed thousands of insurgents who have fought regime forces and extremist groups alike.

 

When Obama began this program, he conceived of it in narrow terms; he never sought to overthrow or even seriously weaken the Assad regime. Rather, he aimed to apply just enough pressure to convince him to accept a political solution, but not enough to risk the regime’s stability (which would presumably leave the United States to fix post-war Syria).

 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

You seem to be misinformed yet again.  Trump was elected partially due to his threats to go after China.  So yes, many people in the US are very interested in taking action against China.  And some action has already happened.  Research aluminum foil. LOL

 

You need to read this.  Please.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/trump-syria-assad-rebels-putin-cia/534540/
 

Craigt, yes, some Americans wanted America to slap serious taxes on the Chinese goods entering America. But most of those voters wanted this, because they wanted to protect jobs in the USA. It wasn't about "China is claiming the South China Sea, China is a threat to world peace, oh, that's why we need to reduce the flood of Chinese goods entering America."  Are you a believer in 'slapping serious taxes onto the Chinese goods entering into America' ?

That article you've put up. You've done this kind of thing previously. 
As in, put up an article that supposedly, backs your opinion, but it doesn't actually do that.


The main thrust of that article is, is that Washington is stopping the support for the rebels. The actual headline of the article is, end of American support for the Syrian rebels was inevitable. Craigt, do you reckon that Washington is actually ending it's support for the Syrian rebels ? Do you think, that this a good thing ?
And quote from the article "When Iran and especially Russia entered the war, the Obama administration understood that pressuring Assad would require escalating the covert rebel program. Obama had no appetite for such an escalation: He knew the risks it entailed, including possible conflict with Russia."

That quote is straight after the bit you quoted. So, Obama did not want to escalate the covert (does covert mean 'secret' ?  ) rebel program once Iran and Russia had entered the war. So, the covert program was already there, Obama did not want to escalate it when Iran and Russia entered the war.
How does this make Washington look ?


 

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Craigt, yes, some Americans wanted America to slap serious taxes on the Chinese goods entering America. But most of those voters wanted this, because they wanted to protect jobs in the USA. It wasn't about "China is claiming the South China Sea, China is a threat to world peace, oh, that's why we need to reduce the flood of Chinese goods entering America."  Are you a believer in 'slapping serious taxes onto the Chinese goods entering into America' ?

That article you've put up. You've done this kind of thing previously. 
As in, put up an article that supposedly, backs your opinion, but it doesn't actually do that.


The main thrust of that article is, is that Washington is stopping the support for the rebels. The actual headline of the article is, end of American support for the Syrian rebels was inevitable. Craigt, do you reckon that Washington is actually ending it's support for the Syrian rebels ? Do you think, that this a good thing ?
And quote from the article "When Iran and especially Russia entered the war, the Obama administration understood that pressuring Assad would require escalating the covert rebel program. Obama had no appetite for such an escalation: He knew the risks it entailed, including possible conflict with Russia."

That quote is straight after the bit you quoted. So, Obama did not want to escalate the covert (does covert mean 'secret' ?  ) rebel program once Iran and Russia had entered the war. So, the covert program was already there, Obama did not want to escalate it when Iran and Russia entered the war.
How does this make Washington look ?


 

I read the entire article.  I think it's a great one.  And am well aware of what's going on with regards to the US's support for the rebels.

 

The article is very good and lays things out very well.  No easy answers, though some try by just blaming the US for everything.

[Dave3006]

That's what we were told  about Sadam, Gaddafi etc ,  how is that going ? 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Dave3006 said:

That's what we were told  about Sadam, Gaddafi etc ,  how is that going ? 

Not so good for him. LOL

[Morch]

13 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"[Thaivisa is not actually a "representative of  the general public's opinion". Only when it suits you to make such inane statements. Guess it wouldn't apply when it comes to them topics dealing with the PRC and such.]"
Morch, most people in America and Britain accept that the civil war in Syria is coming to an end. And yes, most people in America and Britain reckon that China's claims at ownership of the South China Sea at silly. But most people are certainly not interested in taking action against China (as in, hit China with taxes on the Chinese imports).

"[As for "peace and stability", that would depend on one's definition of these things. Considering how things are today, and how Assad's rule was even prior to the civil war - it's not even clear what you're on about (other than the usual propaganda trolling).]"
Assad and his father ruled Syria for decades before the civil war. During all this time, Syria did not go through a mass exit of it's people. It's the civil war, this is what's created a mass exit of people. Peace and stability, that's when a nation is not going through a mass exit of people.




"[It is probable that Assad will survive the civil war as Syria's leader, whether some like it or not. That, however, does not necessarily apply indefinitely, and his position and regional status gained little (quite the opposite) during the last few years. He'll be around as long as he's useful for Putin and as long as he can deliver.]"

Morch, what's really happening ?  A civil war broke out in Syria. Russia backed Assad, I think Russia was 'friends' with Assad before the civil war. Iran was already friends with Assad for years before the civil war. Washington backed the rebels, because Washington did not like Assad. The war has been a 'proxy war', fought by Washington against Russia, the two big powers backed separate sides in the conflict.
Now, let's just say Assad survives, and the rebels are removed. What if Russia forces Assad to step down ? What difference does that make to Washington ? I think, zero difference. Whatever new regime that replaces Assad, Russia and Iran/Hezbollah will be staying in Syria. And that, as far as Washington is concerned, is the main issue. As in, Russia and Iran/Hezbollah have a foothold in Syria. Yes, Iran's supposed goal, of getting a Shi'te area, stretching from Iran, across northern Iraq, to Syria on the Mediterranean Sea, has been reached. I think, this is what Washington reckons is, is the main point of all this.

 

Allow me to disregard your assertion as to what "most people in America and Britain" accept, think or wish. And be these as it may, nothing to do with the absurd claim that TVF represents "general public opinion".

 

Assad, and his father before him ruled Syria with an iron fist. To paint their years in power as representing "peace and stability" is either clueless or disingenuous. Assad Jr. learned all about brutally putting down discontent from his dad. That there was or wasn't a "mass exit of people" (nice whitewash there) is irrelevant. The civil war did not "create" that "mass exit of people". The civil war is not an entity nor can it be dissociated from Assad's actions. North Korea is not going through a "mass exit of people", guess you'd label it as enjoying "peace and stability" as well. 

 

The civil war did not "break out" on its own. Assad's actions and choices cannot be ignored as contributing factors. As for the rest of your usual, simplified and loaded presentation - what does it have to do with anything? Who was Assad's ally prior to the civil war, and who wasn't. Who supported whom and who supported the other side - still does not wash away any of Assad sins.

 

Whether or not an Assad replacement would be as hostile to the USA, or as accommodating Iran and Russia is yet to be seen. But assuming that such a replacement would come without Assad's baggage (both human rights violations record and animosity toward the USA), then relations could be improved. Doesn't mean Syria will cease to be Russia's client state, but such a change would open paths to a dialogue, far better than how things stand.

 

As for the assertion that Iran's goal of a Shia dominated corridor to the Mediterranean being achieved,  I'd say facts do not actually support that. Iran does have a influence with and presence in Syria, but not quite as you advertise. At least not at this time. And if that was the USA's main objective, then add another motivation for wishing Assad Jr. removed. A new leader may not necessarily be that indebted to Iran or inclined to heed its wishes. That's another area where USA and Russia interest may meet.

 

[Naam]

7 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

You seem to get the point the spark of the civil war was Assad and his treatment of his people.  As well as his father's. 

 

The US back the rebels because Assad and his allies were bombing innocent people! 

many people have different opinions and back a summary of journalist Ahmed Bensada on "Arab Spring" revolutions

 

Quote

Arab Spring revolutions have four unique features in common:

• None were spontaneous – all required careful and lengthy (5+ years) planning, by the State Department, CIA pass through foundations, George Soros, and the pro-Israel lobby.
• All focused exclusively on removing reviled despots without replacing the autocratic power structure that kept them in power.
• No Arab Spring protests made any reference whatsoever to powerful anti-US sentiment over Palestine and Iraq.
• All the instigators of Arab Spring uprisings were middle class, well educated youth who mysteriously vanished after 2011.
• https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-arab-spring-made-in-the-usa/5484950

 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Naam said:

many people have different opinions and back a summary of journalist Ahmed Bensada on "Arab Spring" revolutions

 

 

 

That would require taking the author and his many claims seriously. Considering even some of the bullet points quoted are either bogus or loaded, that's not quite a compelling proposition.

[Naam]

35 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would require taking the author and his many claims seriously. Considering even some of the bullet points quoted are either bogus or loaded, that's not quite a compelling proposition.

bogus... loaded... whatever. it's the essence that counts and the essence is correct.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Naam said:

bogus... loaded... whatever. it's the essence that counts and the essence is correct.

The thing about essences is that they tend to smell. And this does a lot.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Naam said:

many people have different opinions and back a summary of journalist Ahmed Bensada on "Arab Spring" revolutions

 

 

Come on Naam. That website is flagged as full of conspiracy theories and click bait. You can do better than that. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Naam said:

bogus... loaded... whatever. it's the essence that counts and the essence is correct.

 

Because you say so? (it's out there....you know the one word answer ).

[ilostmypassword]

On ‎10‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:02 PM, Morch said:

 

That the USA cannot affect what Tillerson talked about doesn't mean that it should not hold this position or refrain from expressing it. There's no compulsion to embrace Assad.

 

It is probable that Assad will survive the civil war as Syria's leader, whether some like it or not. That, however, does not necessarily apply indefinitely, and his position and regional status gained little (quite the opposite) during the last few years. He'll be around as long as he's useful for Putin and as long as he can deliver.

 

 

You seem to take it for granted that Assad is replaceable by Putin at will. Such an assumption, is, at the least, highly controversial, and not born out by past history.

Vladimir Putin asked Bashar al-Assad to step down

“Just weeks before his death on January 3, Colonel-General Igor Sergun, director of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, was sent to Damascus on a delicate mission. The general, who is believed to have cut his teeth as a Soviet operative in Syria, bore a message from Vladimir Putin for President Bashar al-Assad: the Kremlin, the Syrian dictator’s most powerful international protector, believed it was time for him to step aside. Mr Assad angrily refused.”

https://www.ft.com/content/735b4746-c01f-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

Bashar al-Assad Finds Chilly Embrace in Moscow Trip

The question now is whether Mr. Putin can press Mr. Assad to accept a negotiated end to his rule. “Putin’s influence over Assad is like Obama’s over Netanyahu,” a diplomat based in Syria told a group of colleagues several months ago, before the Russian military intervention began, referring to the often truculent relationship between the American and Israeli leaders.

Mr. Assad has, in fact, proved at times to be a reluctant partner in Russia’s efforts to end the conflict.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/us/politics/assad-finds-chilly-embrace-in-moscow-trip.html?_r=1

 

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You seem to take it for granted that Assad is replaceable by Putin at will. Such an assumption, is, at the least, highly controversial, and not born out by past history.

Vladimir Putin asked Bashar al-Assad to step down

“Just weeks before his death on January 3, Colonel-General Igor Sergun, director of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency, was sent to Damascus on a delicate mission. The general, who is believed to have cut his teeth as a Soviet operative in Syria, bore a message from Vladimir Putin for President Bashar al-Assad: the Kremlin, the Syrian dictator’s most powerful international protector, believed it was time for him to step aside. Mr Assad angrily refused.”

https://www.ft.com/content/735b4746-c01f-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

Bashar al-Assad Finds Chilly Embrace in Moscow Trip

The question now is whether Mr. Putin can press Mr. Assad to accept a negotiated end to his rule. “Putin’s influence over Assad is like Obama’s over Netanyahu,” a diplomat based in Syria told a group of colleagues several months ago, before the Russian military intervention began, referring to the often truculent relationship between the American and Israeli leaders.

Mr. Assad has, in fact, proved at times to be a reluctant partner in Russia’s efforts to end the conflict.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/us/politics/assad-finds-chilly-embrace-in-moscow-trip.html?_r=1

 

All Russia has to do is leave and Assad will fold like a cheap suit.  Then offer the next in line the same amount of money.

[ilostmypassword]

On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 2:37 PM, Morch said:

 

 

 

Resolving the Kurdish issues will require more diplomacy, and may ultimately come down to what Putin sees as Russia's best interests. Assad being in no position to deny Putin's wishes, he may be forced to accept a less then ideal (from his pov) solution.

 

If Putin is opposed to Assad attacking the Kurds and if Assad is in no position to deny Putin's wishes, then Putin is doing a remarkably poor job of conveying those wishes to Assad:

 Iraqi forces press last IS stronghold, attack Kurds

"However, the new offensive on al-Qaim and Rawa came as Baghdad seemed to be reigniting armed conflict with the country's semi-autonomous Kurdish region. On Thursday, Kurdish authorities said government soldiers had begun assaulting their forces in the disputed and oil-rich Nineveh province.

"They are advancing towards peshmerga positions," the regional government said."

http://www.dw.com/en/iraqi-forces-press-last-is-stronghold-attack-kurds/a-41116788

 

And of course this takes no account of Iran and Turkey - especially Turkey - the government of which regards an establishment or existence of a Kurdish geographic entity as an existential threat. Given that Russian Turkish relations have warmed considerably and that Russia and Iran are close allies, I don't see what's in it for Russia to be protective of the Kurds.