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

[Morch]

17 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

 

 

Those reports are from 2015....a whole lot of Syrian dependency on Russia's support been stacked since then. I don't think Russia can just dispense with Assad. I do think that the amount of leverage excreted by them to date, goes just so far - because of ongoing circumstances, and Assad's replacement not featuring highly on Russia's agenda. Russia can be very pragmatic when it  comes to foreign relations, and can bide its time.

 

Replacing Assad in the midst of a civil war, and without a clear successor is not quite the same of affecting such a change later on. But again, if there is no clear benefit - it will not happen.

 

If Russia was hellbent on Assad removed, he'd be out. One way or another.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

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.

 

Theoretically, perhaps. But much more complicated than that in practice. Assad will not necessarily instantly fold, but may opt to try relying on Iran, and maybe pull in the PRC as a new arms supplier. And if Assad does fold, but no clear successor emerges, then the country could be thrown back into chaos. 

 

Russia's hold on Syria, while strong, is not absolute and not without competition - mainly from Iran. While Iran may be Russia's nominal ally of sorts, it is not that Russia is looking forward to Iranian regional ascendancy, especially when such ambitions effects Russian interests. Assad, at least to a degree, tries to play both sides - and unless given a very good reason, no motivation for Russia to push him further into Iran's embrace.

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Those reports are from 2015....a whole lot of Syrian dependency on Russia's support been stacked since then. I don't think Russia can just dispense with Assad. I do think that the amount of leverage excreted by them to date, goes just so far - because of ongoing circumstances, and Assad's replacement not featuring highly on Russia's agenda. Russia can be very pragmatic when it  comes to foreign relations, and can bide its time.

 

Replacing Assad in the midst of a civil war, and without a clear successor is not quite the same of affecting such a change later on. But again, if there is no clear benefit - it will not happen.

 

If Russia was hellbent on Assad removed, he'd be out. One way or another.

First off, the Syrian government is in a far stronger position now than it was then. If you read the articles and the received wisdom of that time, almost no one was talking about an eventual Syrian victory. At best a stalemate  What's more, you seem to believe that it's only what Russia wants that counts. There is the small matter of Iran. They hold some sway there, too.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

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.

 

I think Putin's main interest is to stabilize the situation - prioritizing defeating ISIS and rebel (Islamic and others) forces, as steps to restore Syria's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

 

As for the Syrian Kurds, it's a more complicated issue, involving more parties and harder to address. Somewhat like the situation in Iraq, the Kurdish war effort ended with them controlling areas outside usual territories. Confronting the Kurds to hand over these newly conquered territories is one thing - getting into a new war withing the Kurdish territory proper is another.

 

As said, I don't think Russia's control of Assad is fail-proof, just that it's substantial and that they have a whole lot of leverage to apply - if they thought it was the best way to serve interests.

 

I'll say it again, Russian foreign policy can be both pragmatic and ruthless. Like everyone else in the region, playing sides against the other to further interests, making former adversaries into friends, is not a big deal. There isn't much of the Western moral drama to contend with.

 

The Kurds are useful since they act as a buffer zone blocking the ambitions of neighboring countries. It prevents Iran and Turkey from over-extending their reach, and it lessens the chances of a direct confrontation between regional powers.

[Naam]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

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

it doesn't smell. the essence depicts the stinking truth. one doesn't have to be an investigative journalist to arrive at the same conclusion. history provides compelling evidence.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, the Syrian government is in a far stronger position now than it was then. If you read the articles and the received wisdom of that time, almost no one was talking about an eventual Syrian victory. At best a stalemate  What's more, you seem to believe that it's only what Russia wants that counts. There is the small matter of Iran. They hold some sway there, too.

 

Assad is stronger in some ways, and weaker in others. The military reliance on Russia does not come free of cost, and the same goes for Iran/Hezbollah. The Syrian armed forces may be declared winners, but it's one ragged bunch making it to the finish line. It will take a long time to rebuild and that's without taking into account Syria's infrastructure, or the prospects of restoring trade and governance.

 

What you present as "seem to believe" is not true. I have addressed the power plays between Russia and Iran on many a post. It is just that I think ultimately Russia's got more of a pull.

[Naam]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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

i could have argued the case and my opinion without any reference to a website and used the book excerpt only because others posted various media links. 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Assad is stronger in some ways, and weaker in others. The military reliance on Russia does not come free of cost, and the same goes for Iran/Hezbollah. The Syrian armed forces may be declared winners, but it's one ragged bunch making it to the finish line. It will take a long time to rebuild and that's without taking into account Syria's infrastructure, or the prospects of restoring trade and governance.

 

What you present as "seem to believe" is not true. I have addressed the power plays between Russia and Iran on many a post. It is just that I think ultimately Russia's got more of a pull.

First off, it's not necessarily the case that the Syrian army is a ragtag bunch. It has long been scorned. As of now, it might be said that what didn't kill it made it stronger

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-assads-army-has-not-defected-15190?page=2

I have looked and looked for people who study Syria and I haven't found anyone comparing the pull that Russia and Iran respectively exercise in Syria. And I think the reason for that is that they disagree on very little. It's pretty much a mutually beneficial arrangement.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, it's not necessarily the case that the Syrian army is a ragtag bunch. It has long been scorned. As of now, it might be said that what didn't kill it made it stronger

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-assads-army-has-not-defected-15190?page=2

I have looked and looked for people who study Syria and I haven't found anyone comparing the pull that Russia and Iran respectively exercise in Syria. And I think the reason for that is that they disagree on very little. It's pretty much a mutually beneficial arrangement.

 

The link you provided does not actually reflect on the condition of the Syrian army (as in manpower, equipment, moral and finance). That it gained experience as a result of the fighting is obvious, but that's not quite the same as rebuilding itself into former strength and numbers. There will be years of depleted ranks considering casualty and refugee figures.

 

As for your other comment, the issue is raised (if not in-depth) on at least in one of the links you provided in recent posts. If memory serves, there was also a piece about it a while back in the publication above. To put it in rough terms, Russia is looking to reassert it's former status as a world power, and part of that is playing a bigger role in ME affairs. Iran got similar aspirations, at least regionally. The two countries interests cannot always be compatible, as each party's goals may contradict the other's on many an issue. Things are mutually beneficial (or perhaps, tolerated) as long as a balance holds or circumstances change. Being the ME, hard making long term assumptions regarding such partnerships and how deep they run.

[ilostmypassword]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The link you provided does not actually reflect on the condition of the Syrian army (as in manpower, equipment, moral and finance). That it gained experience as a result of the fighting is obvious, but that's not quite the same as rebuilding itself into former strength and numbers. There will be years of depleted ranks considering casualty and refugee figures.

 

As for your other comment, the issue is raised (if not in-depth) on at least in one of the links you provided in recent posts. If memory serves, there was also a piece about it a while back in the publication above. To put it in rough terms, Russia is looking to reassert it's former status as a world power, and part of that is playing a bigger role in ME affairs. Iran got similar aspirations, at least regionally. The two countries interests cannot always be compatible, as each party's goals may contradict the other's on many an issue. Things are mutually beneficial (or perhaps, tolerated) as long as a balance holds or circumstances change. Being the ME, hard making long term assumptions regarding such partnerships and how deep they run.

I just don't see the Russians angering the Syrian government, the Turkish government, and the Iranian government for the sake of the Kurds.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I just don't see the Russians angering the Syrian government, the Turkish government, and the Iranian government for the sake of the Kurds.

 

I don't know that anything was said about angering these three governments. Russia is not, I think, in favor of Kurdish independence as such, and is unlikely to directly act "for their sake". What Russia does is about Russia's interests, and part of these interests involve bringing things in Syria under control.

 

If the alternatives would be a head on fight between Assad's forces and the Kurds or Turkey playing a bigger role and getting a foothold in Syria (thus potentially getting into a conflict with Assad), then resolving this through an agreement might offer better returns. If Russia can broker a deal giving Assad nominal control, with Syrian Kurds promised some sort of autonomy (perhaps a limited form, though, calculated not to rile Turkey), it might be one way to sort this.

 

I'm not suggesting this is assured or that it even remotely covers all angles and issues involved.

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, Naam said:

i could have argued the case and my opinion without any reference to a website and used the book excerpt only because others posted various media links. 

You post lost credibility here:

Quote

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.

 

I followed the Arab Spring uprisings quite closely.  I was actually in Egypt, in Tahrir Square, right after they started.  Saw gas grenades, ended up running with all the others to get away.  Hey, I just wanted a t-shirt.  LOL.  Which I did get.

 

Impossible to dismiss the fact the populations had gotten tired of brutal dictators.  Impossible for the CIA to pull this off without many, many more coming forward with info.  Not just one guy who published a book. LOL

 

Blame the pro-Israel lobby for the Syrian uprising?  Seriously? Too funny.

 

This is probably the best summary I've read.  From a very reputable source.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html

 

Quote

 

What caused the uprising?

Initially, lack of freedoms and economic woes fuelled resentment of the Syrian government, and public anger was inflamed by the harsh crackdown on protesters. Successful uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt energised and gave hope to Syrian pro-democracy activists. Many Islamist movements were also strongly opposed to the Assads' rule.

 

 

Here seems to be the spark.  Not a mention of the CIA, Soros, Israel. LOL.  No conspiracy theories.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2011/04/20114483425914466.html

Quote

Rageh Omaar examines how the death of a penniless fruit seller in Tunisia first ignited mass revolt in the country, led to the overthrow of its president and effects far beyond its borders. 

 

Place the blame properly.  Brutal and repressive dictators.

[Naam]

59 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Impossible to dismiss the fact the populations had gotten tired of brutal dictators.  Impossible for the CIA to pull this off without many, many more coming forward with info.  Not just one guy who published a book. LOL

this detonator is 6cm long and has a diameter of 1cm. igniting it generates a rather harmless POOF. but if you stick it in a kilo of C4...

[Naam]

9 minutes ago, Naam said:

Impossible to dismiss the fact the populations had gotten tired of brutal dictators.

yeah right. a short while later the Tahrir Square crowd voted for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and that's what the Greatest Nation on Earth™ didn't like either and the military was asked to act.

note: Egypt receives direct U.S. aid $1.6 billion and another $800 million indirect aid per annum.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Naam

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, Naam said:

yeah right. a short while later the Tahrir Square crowd voted for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and that's what the Greatest Nation on Earth™ didn't like either and the military was asked to act.

note: Egypt receives direct U.S. aid $1.6 billion and another $800 million indirect aid per annum.

I spent almost a month in Egypt during these protests.  Great for me as there were zero tourists.  I mean zero.  But they were desperate.  Tourists are the only source of income for many.  I spent a fair amount of time talking to them about the protests.  Net? Every one I spoke with were against the "long beards".  They just wanted to live their life, raise their family, etc.  Sadly, a vocal and well organized minority took control.

 

I don't know any nation that like this.  Germany included.  But yes, I'd love to see that aid disappear.  Ridiculous to give that amount of money away.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Naam said:

this detonator is 6cm long and has a diameter of 1cm. igniting it generates a rather harmless POOF. but if you stick it in a kilo of C4...

 

Even this acknowledges that "C4" existence, regardless of the "detonator", though.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Naam said:

yeah right. a short while later the Tahrir Square crowd voted for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood and that's what the Greatest Nation on Earth™ didn't like either and the military was asked to act.

note: Egypt receives direct U.S. aid $1.6 billion and another $800 million indirect aid per annum.

 

Political movements and causes may be hijacked and diverted.

And sometimes the devil you know is the better option - applies both to citizens and aid providers.

 

[Naam]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Even this acknowledges that "C4" existence, regardless of the "detonator", though.

latent "C4" exists in many countries but detonators are only used when it suits the puppet masters in Washington, Moscow and Beijing.  

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, Naam said:

latent "C4" exists in many countries but detonators are only used when it suits the puppet masters in Washington, Moscow and Beijing.  

Guess we'll have to disagree on the the latter part of your comment.

 

 

[Naam]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

Guess we'll have to disagree on the the latter part of your comment.

 

agreed!