Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[webfact]

Russia likely to reduce troops in Syria before year-end: military chief

 

Chief of the General Staff of Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov arrives for the opening ceremony of the International Army Games 2017 in Alabino, outside Moscow, Russia, July 29, 2017. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

 

SOCHI, Russia (Reuters) - The size of Russia's military force in Syria is likely to be significantly reduced and a drawdown could start before the end of the year, the chief of the Russian military general staff said on Thursday.

 

Russia's military support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, notably through air strikes, has been crucial in defeating Islamic State and Syrian opposition forces.

 

"There is very little left to do before the completion of military objectives. Of course, a decision will be made by the supreme commander-in-chief and the deployment will be reduced," Valery Gerasimov told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and military top brass in the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

 

Gerasimov said forces would likely be "substantially" reduced but leave Russia with two military bases, a ceasefire-monitoring centre and "a number of necessary structures to support the situation which has developed" in Syria.

 

Putin hosted Assad in Sochi on Monday and discussed moving from military operations to a search for a political solution to Syria's conflict.

 

On Wednesday, Putin won the backing of Turkey and Iran to host a Syrian peace conference, taking the central role in a major diplomatic push to finally end Syria's civil war, now in its seventh year.

 

In March last year Putin said Russia had achieved its goals in Syria and ordered the withdrawal of the "main part" of its forces. However, a U.S.-led coalition operating in Syria said that after that statement Russia's combat power was largely intact.

 

(Reporting by Denis Pinchuk; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov and Jack Stubbs; Editing by Peter Graff)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-24

[Topdoc]

It's time for the U.S. led coalition to go home.

[retarius]

5 hours ago, Topdoc said:

It's time for the U.S. led coalition to go home.

With US plans for a permanent military base in Northern Syria, in contravention of all international laws, I can't see Russia leaving the place for the US to plunder. They have their base on the Med that they need but with the US there and ISIS and al Nusra still prowling around Idlib, they might get kicked out if the US renew their assault on Assad using the ISIS fighters they (the US) liberated from Raqqa and Mosul.

Turkey is also likely to be put out given the Kurds and US partnership. Expect major friction there as the Kurds become a 'protected' species and are able to commit terrorist acts inside Turkey form the border area.

The other (undeclared) objective of the US was to make the Golan Heights a permanent part of Israel (Netanyahoo has been requesting this for some time....Obama told him to get lost). Without a pliant US-appointed stooge in charge of Syria this aspiration has no/little chance of materializing.

Edited November 24, 2017 by retarius

[craigt3365]

14 minutes ago, retarius said:

With US plans for a permanent military base in Northern Syria, in contravention of all international laws, I can't see Russia leaving the place for the US to plunder. They have their base on the Med that they need but with the US there and ISIS and al Nusra still prowling around Idlib, they might get kicked out if the US renew their assault on Assad using the ISIS fighters they (the US) liberated from Raqqa and Mosul.

Turkey is also likely to be put out given the Kurds and US partnership. Expect major friction there as the Kurds become a 'protected' species and are able to commit terrorist acts inside Turkey form the border area.

The other (undeclared) objective of the US was to make the Golan Heights a permanent part of Israel (Netanyahoo has been requesting this for some time....Obama told him to get lost). Without a pliant US-appointed stooge in charge of Syria this aspiration has no/little chance of materializing.

So it's ok for Hezbollah to be in Syria fighting ISIS but not the US? Who is training and supporting the Kurds in their efforts?

 

Your anti US stance comes out yet again.

 

The US to plunder?  Seriously?

 

You are so far from reality it's hard to read your post. Wow.

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, Topdoc said:

It's time for the U.S. led coalition to go home.

Why? ISIS isn't done for yet. Are you suggesting the Kurds go it alone? Are you an ISIS supporter?

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, retarius said:

With US plans for a permanent military base in Northern Syria

Never heard of such a plan for a permanent base, especially as ISIS was defeated in Syria (ref. Trump!) and Syria does hold sovereignty over its national boundaries. Have references?

 

On the other hand Russia might establish permanent air bases in central/eastern Syria with Assad's permission. All Kurdish forces could be held non persona grata in Syria by Syria. Huge diplomatic win for Russia. Thank you Trump.

[Morch]

 

Whether or not Russian forces are withdrawn remains to be seen. As the OP mentions, not the first time this was declared, with little by way of changes on the ground.

 

What is, perhaps, more interesting, is that the Russian statement may be taken as some confirmation that it does not wish to see an escalation between Assad's forces and the Kurds, or at least, that Russia operative support for Assad is not automatically assured.

 

As for @retarius's comment about a permanent USA base etc. - there are several USA bases established within the Kurdish territory. Nothing out of the ordinary about that, and there was (to the best of my knowledge) no official mention of them planned on becoming permanent fixtures. That sources with vested interests opine otherwise, is far from being a serious confirmation. I don't know that that the USA will withdraw it's forces from the Kurdish area without some sort of an agreement there.

 

 

[Srikcir]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

there are several USA bases established within the Kurdish territory

Where is that Kurdish territory?

Politically there is no "Kurdish territory" per se in the Middle East as in a sovereign Kurdish area.

I don't think you mean the area the Kurds occupy in Iraq that is not independent nor autonomous.

Kurds may still occupy areas of Syria but such would be Syrian territory.

Just trying to get some clarification.

 

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Where is that Kurdish territory?

Politically there is no "Kurdish territory" per se in the Middle East as in a sovereign Kurdish area.

I don't think you mean the area the Kurds occupy in Iraq that is not independent nor autonomous.

Kurds may still occupy areas of Syria but such would be Syrian territory.

Just trying to get some clarification.

 

 

 

 

In the context of the OP, predominantly Kurdish populated areas of Syria. 

 

This may be of some help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava

Edited November 24, 2017 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

US expands goals and plans to keep a presence in Syria

The Trump administration is expanding its goals in Syria beyond routing the Islamic State to include a political settlement of the country's civil war, a daunting and potentially open-ended commitment that could draw the United States into conflict with both Syria and Iran.

With forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and his Russia and Iranian allies now bearing down on the last militant-controlled towns, the defeat of the Islamic State in Syria could be imminent - along with an end to the U.S. justification for being there.

U.S. officials say they are hoping to use the ongoing presence of American troops in northern Syria, in support of the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to pressure Assad to make concessions at United Nations-brokered peace talks in Geneva.

https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/us-expands-goals-and-plans-to-keep-a-presence-in-syria-1.499085

[Srikcir]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

In the context of the OP, predominantly Kurdish populated areas of Syria. 

 

This may be of some help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava

From that context the Americans have little leverage to establish permanent bases except in Iraq. With the alliance of Syria with Russia, Iran and possibly Turkey (the US pivoting itself out of negotiations), the US justification for any permanent base within Syria would be difficult without UN Security Council support. But I expect Russia and China would oppose such effort with Britain and France possibly abstaining so as not to embarrass the US.

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

From that context the Americans have little leverage to establish permanent bases except in Iraq. With the alliance of Syria with Russia, Iran and possibly Turkey (the US pivoting itself out of negotiations), the US justification for any permanent base within Syria would be difficult without UN Security Council support. But I expect Russia and China would oppose such effort with Britain and France possibly abstaining so as not to embarrass the US.

I'm not sure they have much leverage to establish permanent bases in Iraq. There's another nation that wields a lot more influence in Iraq. A nation that has been called by the US the #1 terrorist threat in the Mideast. That nation helped make life rather dangerous for the US troops there during a previous incursion.

Edited November 24, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

25 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

From that context the Americans have little leverage to establish permanent bases except in Iraq. With the alliance of Syria with Russia, Iran and possibly Turkey (the US pivoting itself out of negotiations), the US justification for any permanent base within Syria would be difficult without UN Security Council support. But I expect Russia and China would oppose such effort with Britain and France possibly abstaining so as not to embarrass the US.

 

I don't think that the USA has any clear intentions of establishing a permanent base in Northern Syria. That view is something posted by @retarius - based (apparently) on less than solid sources. At the same time, I don't know that the USA will simply fully withdraw it's forces (including currently operated bases) from Northern Syria, without some sort of agreed upon arrangement or assurances with regard to the Kurds.

 

This issue could, perhaps, be somehow used as a pretext for claiming that the civil war is not actually over. Obviously dodgy.

 

As long as USA forces are stationed there, not much likelihood of Russia directly assisting Assad's forces to retake the area. Without Russia's aerial support, Assad's forces will have trouble forcing the issue. So, I think, if no one gets jumpy, some sort of uneasy face saving deal will be made, though probably no permanent solution will be reached.

[craigt3365]

Best of luck to the Kurds. They've been persecuted enough. Time they got their own territory. Which they now have thanks to Assad. LOL. They've done a great job fighting ISIS.

 

Syria will never be the same. At least in our lifetime.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Best of luck to the Kurds. They've been persecuted enough. Time they got their own territory. Which they now have thanks to Assad. LOL. They've done a great job fighting ISIS.

 

Syria will never be the same. At least in our lifetime.

 

Meanwhile here's Trump doing his thing again:

 

Trump tells Turkey’s leader: US to stop arming Syrian Kurds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/turkey-us-to-stop-arming-syrian-kurdish-fighters/2017/11/24/20e928cc-d137-11e7-a87b-47f14b73162a_story.html?utm_term=.8d8489b11c53

 

And just as with other foreign policy announcements - apparently Pentagon, State Department or the Kurds were not informed beforehand. Guess it will take some fixing as well. Talk about casting a stone

[craigt3365]

Yes, I read that. As you say, seems nobody was alerted to this except Ergodan while on the phone. We'll see how it pans out.

 

Trumps such a loser.

[craigt3365]

Turkish FM: Trump agreed to stop arming Kurdish militia

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/politics/president-donald-trump-kurdish-militia/index.html

 

Quote

The White House did not dispute the top Turkish diplomat's account of the Friday morning call between Trump and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but suggested there were no impending plans to stop supplying weapons to the YPG.

I'll try to find the article that said Turkey had agreed to a weapons purchase also. Ugh.

[Srikcir]

37 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Turkish FM: Trump agreed to stop arming Kurdish militia

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/politics/president-donald-trump-kurdish-militia/index.html

 

I'll try to find the article that said Turkey had agreed to a weapons purchase also. Ugh.

The White House said it was making "adjustments" to its support for partners inside Syria but did not explicitly name the YPG.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42118567