EU calls on Russia to end bombing campaign in Syria

[webfact]

EU calls on Russia to end bombing campaign in Syria



The EU is piling pressure on Russia to end its aerial bombing campaign in Syria

LUXEMBOURG: -- Foreign ministers, who have been meeting in Luxembourg, are warning that strikes designed to support President Bashar al-Assad could deepen the civil war, which has left around a quarter of a million people dead.

Russian incursions into Turkish airspace and air strikes not directed at ISIL militants, but at relatively moderate opposition groups, have alienated the West, while leaving EU and UN diplomacy in disarray, according to diplomats.

The EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini has pointed to the role Russia could play in encouraging Syria to begin a political transition.

“We, as the European Union, can engage directly with Russia to see if a political transition can start, if a political process can start, guaranteeing that everybody sits around the table for defining the political process,” Mogherini told reporters.

The EU’s position on Assad is unclear. Ministers failed to agree among themselves whether he should have any role in ending the crisis.

France says the president could only be involved in a transition in a symbolic way and must not be there at the end.

Britain says Assad cannot be allowed to remain as president, but is willing to discuss how and when he might leave.

At the Luxembourg meeting, ministers agreed to broaden EU economic sanctions criteria to people benefiting from Assad’s government. It is a move essentially aimed at freezing the assets of the spouses of senior figures – although no names have been added to the EU’s list.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-13

[Credo]

The EU has a vested interest in this situation, unless they want even more Syrians in Europe.

[craigt3365]

The EU has a vested interest in this situation, unless they want even more Syrians in Europe.

Exactly. And this new bombing campaign isn't helping...if Russia really wanted to help, they'd get Assad to stop the attacks on anti-government rebels and bring the various opposition parties to the table for negotiations. Then they could focus on the real enemy - ISIS.

[oneday]

Putin does whatever he wants. He is a throw-back to the cold war era and it would seem the Russian people approve of him. He will do whatever he wants and be-damned with the rest of the world. The future does not look good with this man at the helm.

[derator01]

Several posts violating forum rules have been removed from view. Please respect other members or posting holidays will be handed out.

[Usernames]

And they sent out a girl to tell Putin to quit? Forceful resolution, not so much.

[Kasset Tak]

If they call for Russia to stop bombing then they also have to call for US and NATO to stop bombing.

Earth is not just the playground for US and their allies. There are many countries with different culture and different state of ruling. US doesn't do anything in Saudi Arabia and many other countries that are not democracies but they are allies of the US and NATO so then it's OK to not be a democracy.
The Kurds are fighting the ISIS and doing it well, the Turks are bombing them but hey that's OK because Turkey is a member of NATO!

[Thorgal]

If they call for Russia to stop bombing then they also have to call for US and NATO to stop bombing.

Earth is not just the playground for US and their allies. There are many countries with different culture and different state of ruling. US doesn't do anything in Saudi Arabia and many other countries that are not democracies but they are allies of the US and NATO so then it's OK to not be a democracy.

The Kurds are fighting the ISIS and doing it well, the Turks are bombing them but hey that's OK because Turkey is a member of NATO!

It's known that Russia brought in the biggest submarine ever made, capable to launch 200 nukes. Nobody really like this tactical move.

http://osnetdaily.com/2015/09/russia-sends-worlds-largest-submarine-with-200-nukes-to-syria/

Many so called moderated rebels shifted to ISIL due to the higher competitive mercenary wages. It's pure propaganda to consider that Russia is only bombing non-ISIL positions. Does the coalition expect the Russians to ask permission?

In fact it's known that Turkey for 95% was bombing Kurdish (separatist) positions. Only 5% of the bombings was used to border town conflicts. This was reportedly by Syrian and Kurdish media sources. Not CNN, CBS, Al Jazeera and Nato consorts...Many families -wmen and children-from ISIL fighters and other rebels have been sent to Turkey alongside the Syrian border. Erdogan and his ex-Muslim Brotherhood roots are transparent, but not for EU eyes. Turkish border is a fragile discussion point.

Looks like the non-NATO countries, dating from back in the cold war, are treated today with the same attitude...

Edited October 13, 2015 by Thorgal

[ABCer]

Not sure who put Mogherini in the position to speak on Europe's behalf but it looks to me she wants to appoint those speakers on Syria at the round table.

Given the huge number of small nameless gangs plus ISIS plus Al-Nusra - who is going to say what and who is going to implement what?

All insurgency down first! All criminal groups wiped out first! Than elections under International observers. And if Assad loses - he will go away.

[craigt3365]

But Assad is a dictator. He'd never agree to international observers and/or free and fair elections. That's not his families way...unfortunately.

http://www.voanews.com/content/assad-rules-out-syrian-elections-with-foreign-observers/2932940.html

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, complaining of foreign interference in his country’s four-year civil war, said he would not permit international observers for any future elections.

"Elections under international supervision? No, that is an intervention into Syrian sovereignty," Assad said in an interview broadcast Tuesday by Al-Manar TV, which the Hezbollah militant group operates. The Associated Press reported him as adding, "Which is the international body that is authorized to give us a certificate of good conduct?"

[Orac]

The obsession of the west with Assad is going to lead the whole region and the rest of the world down the toilet.

The 'rebels' are a rag-tag bunch with no clear leadership and varying ideologies, many of which encompass fundamental Islam and rather than using the weapons and funding provided by the US and various Gulf potentates to attack ISIL they are using them against Assads government forces.

The civil war that has been raging for some time now has given ISIL the space to expand operations and, should Assad fall, a huge empty space full of warring tribes to move into.

Lessons need to be learnt from the Iraq debacle and groupings need to come together to deal with the greater threat here which is ISIL as, should they gain control over Syria, the situation will deteriorate to a point where the current shenanigans will look like childs play with a big increase in the threat to Turkey (NATO), Israel, Iran or The Gulf States/Saudi Arabia (China's energy).

[chilli42]

Europe had its chance to take action in Syria and all they did was sit around with their thumb up their backsides waiting for the US to do something about the situation. Understanding that the US and allies are responsible for causing the refugee crisis in the first place. Syria needs democracy ... Afganistan, Iraq, Tunesia etc ... how is democracy working out so far? DClearly, Syria has nothing big corporations are interested in. So with the US and its EU allies paralyzed with political fear and indecision, in walk the Russians with their plan. Sure, nobody likes their plan or the way they are pursing their goals - get the moderates out of the way by bombing the snot out of them and cutting off their supplies and funding then focus on going after ISIS. Assad is their only freind in the ME, at least they did not abandon him like the US and EU did with their friends. Russia knows that the EU will do nothing but talk - witness the Ukraine. If the EU wants a say in how the war in Syria is to be prosecuted then they best get their thumbs out of their nether regions and get in the fight along side the Russians. Of course that would take vision and resolve of which they have none.

[craigt3365]

Europe had its chance to take action in Syria and all they did was sit around with their thumb up their backsides waiting for the US to do something about the situation. Understanding that the US and allies are responsible for causing the refugee crisis in the first place. Syria needs democracy ... Afganistan, Iraq, Tunesia etc ... how is democracy working out so far? DClearly, Syria has nothing big corporations are interested in. So with the US and its EU allies paralyzed with political fear and indecision, in walk the Russians with their plan. Sure, nobody likes their plan or the way they are pursing their goals - get the moderates out of the way by bombing the snot out of them and cutting off their supplies and funding then focus on going after ISIS. Assad is their only freind in the ME, at least they did not abandon him like the US and EU did with their friends. Russia knows that the EU will do nothing but talk - witness the Ukraine. If the EU wants a say in how the war in Syria is to be prosecuted then they best get their thumbs out of their nether regions and get in the fight along side the Russians. Of course that would take vision and resolve of which they have none.

Ummm...didn't this civil war start out as an internal conflict within Syria? Locals not happy with Assad, Assad's brutal crackdown on them, fighters from all over rushing in to help (many from Russia). Not sure how the US is to blame for the beginning of this. ISIS? Yes, the US had a major part in their creation. The Syrian civil war? Not at all.

But yes, a big problem has been inaction by western powers. Of course, if they did intervene, there would be lots on here complaining about that also! LOL

[StasD]

If Mogherini(Obama, Cameron...) worries that means Putin does everything right. )

[bander]

Keep on bombing the IS terrorists, don't let them invade Europe as fake refugees.

[Thorgal]

Europe had its chance to take action in Syria and all they did was sit around with their thumb up their backsides waiting for the US to do something about the situation. Understanding that the US and allies are responsible for causing the refugee crisis in the first place. Syria needs democracy ... Afganistan, Iraq, Tunesia etc ... how is democracy working out so far? DClearly, Syria has nothing big corporations are interested in. So with the US and its EU allies paralyzed with political fear and indecision, in walk the Russians with their plan. Sure, nobody likes their plan or the way they are pursing their goals - get the moderates out of the way by bombing the snot out of them and cutting off their supplies and funding then focus on going after ISIS. Assad is their only freind in the ME, at least they did not abandon him like the US and EU did with their friends. Russia knows that the EU will do nothing but talk - witness the Ukraine. If the EU wants a say in how the war in Syria is to be prosecuted then they best get their thumbs out of their nether regions and get in the fight along side the Russians. Of course that would take vision and resolve of which they have none.

Ummm...didn't this civil war start out as an internal conflict within Syria? Locals not happy with Assad, Assad's brutal crackdown on them, fighters from all over rushing in to help (many from Russia). Not sure how the US is to blame for the beginning of this. ISIS? Yes, the US had a major part in their creation. The Syrian civil war? Not at all.

But yes, a big problem has been inaction by western powers. Of course, if they did intervene, there would be lots on here complaining about that also! LOL

Inaction by Western powers ???

EU and NATO implemented economic sanctions and embargo against Syria while they were fighting ISIL and Al Qaida.

These sanctions made it impossible to Syrian people to have basic needs in isolated an/or sieged locations from food, fuel, water, etc...

Jusk ask the Syrian refugees in Europe.

The same happened in Lybia with a no-fly zone on top of it when Al-Qaida militants were taking Benghazi and Tripoli. Kadhafi could not intervene for his own people and for the US embassador...

[craigt3365]

Inaction by Western powers ???

EU and NATO implemented economic sanctions and embargo against Syria while they were fighting ISIL and Al Qaida.

These sanctions made it impossible to Syrian people to have basic needs in isolated an/or sieged locations from food, fuel, water, etc...

Jusk ask the Syrian refugees in Europe.

The same happened in Lybia with a no-fly zone on top of it when Al-Qaida militants were taking Benghazi and Tripoli. Kadhafi could not intervene for his own people and for the US embassador...

Yes, sanctions were placed. But it was due to Assad's crackdown on his own people. Not ISIL or Al Qaida. They weren't even mentioned at this time.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14759416

The United Nations says more than 2,200 people have been killed since pro-democracy demonstrations began in mid-March.

'Appalling'

The UK Foreign Office said the European Union had agreed at official level to ban imports of Syrian oil into the EU to increase pressure on the Syrian regime over its crackdown against anti-government protest.

A spokesperson said it was hoped the agreement would be signed off by EU foreign ministers meeting in Poland on Friday and Saturday and come into immediate effect.

And here is Russia's actions:

Russia, which has a veto on the Security Council, refuses to back a resolution imposing an arms embargo or asset freeze.

......

The LCC reported another big protest in the northern city of Amuda, against Russian arms sales to Syria.

[than]

For Putin, EU is not his father.....

[Publicus]

Putin needed to begin the Russian military engagement in Syria in coordination and cooperation with the US instead of against it. The two needed instead to cooperate to force Assad to Iran or to some other such deserving rathole place.

Russia and the US need to together install a national government in Damascus to deal with all the groups fighting Assad. Either the rebel fighters sling their arms or Russia and the US pound 'em into the sands. This is power politics involving ruthless primal combatants so the approach has to dispense of most niceties.

Then get Syria regrouped and reorganized under a coalition government supervised by Russia, US, Nato, the Arab coalition that is working with the US. Such as group would have squabbles and disagreements because that is the nature of the beast, but Russia and the US can control them if the two work in tandem. Elections can come later.

Putin however would never think of such a thing nor would he accept it. He has to charge in bombs blasting while set on supporting Assad the mass murderer of his own people. This Putin is a nasty piece of work. Vile.

[Publicus]

And they sent out a girl to tell Putin to quit? Forceful resolution, not so much.

It's likely the lady is accustomed to the predictable wimp who can't deal with her as EU Foreign Polity Representative. Federica Mogherini represented the EU during the negotiations of the P5+1 with Iran, which probably condemns her too with the global warmongers on the right. One can bet the ayatollahs didn't like her either. I'd bet Bibi would rather not see or hear her either.

[StasD]

really, EU has NATO, Nato is nightmare for Russia, so maybe better for us to follow EU)

[Orac]

Putin needed to begin the Russian military engagement in Syria in coordination and cooperation with the US instead of against it. The two needed instead to cooperate to force Assad to Iran or to some other such deserving rathole place.

Russia and the US need to together install a national government in Damascus to deal with all the groups fighting Assad. Either the rebel fighters sling their arms or Russia and the US pound 'em into the sands. This is power politics involving ruthless primal combatants so the approach has to dispense of most niceties.

Then get Syria regrouped and reorganized under a coalition government supervised by Russia, US, Nato, the Arab coalition that is working with the US. Such as group would have squabbles and disagreements because that is the nature of the beast, but Russia and the US can control them if the two work in tandem. Elections can come later.

Putin however would never think of such a thing nor would he accept it. He has to charge in bombs blasting while set on supporting Assad the mass murderer of his own people. This Putin is a nasty piece of work. Vile.

Do you think it would be realistic to basically engineer this sort of regime change even if Russia and US could work together which is hardly a given. There are so many different groups fighting there that getting them to come together in some form of national unity would be a nightmare especially with ISIL knocking on the door.

It is also worth remembering where a lot of ISILs organisational abilities come from which is Saddam's old Ba'ath party - is there a danger of them gaining more support if Assad's Ba'ath Party lose control.

In my view, if Russia and Iran can bring some pressure to bear on Assad to stop acting like a monumental ****head for a bit he can be dealt with later after some stability is brought to the region which would need Russia, US and Iran working together.

[bangkapi]

Russia was invited by the Syrian government to help. Nato and the US were not invited.

[khunken]

We saw the 'successful' aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya. Many lies in the excuses for the virtual destruction of those two countries. Now we have more lies about Syria.

Yes, the Syrian crisis started with some people (mainly Sunni) rising up against Assad. They were then backed by Saudi, Qatar (who always support their Sunni brothers against the Shia) and the 'holy' western countries and they had some success. Enter the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Nusra & ISIS & others who didn't give a shit for either side and became a third force, capturing and accepting some of the other rebels and even attacking Palestinians in a refugee camp in Syria.

Apart from a first-class article in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking supplied by poster Barin, none of the Russian-haters seem to have any idea who some of the so-called good rebels are and, more importantly, who their real supporters are.

As Iraq & Libya (& not too far off in Afghanistan) has shown, getting rid of a bad dictator without knowing what comes afterwards, is a stupid strategy, unless, of course, another failed state is what one desires. The second stupid strategy is portraying Assad as a greater danger to the region than ISIS or Al-Nusra (aka Al-Qaeda) and insisting that he be deposed and leave the door open to all the rebel factions to vie for leadership. In that scenario I know what I'd put my money on - a divided country controlled by various militias just like Libya.

The sensible way is to stabilise Syria by weakening all the rebel factions and aiming to get ISIS & Al-Nusra out of the country as a first priority. Work with the Russians on condition that Assad is considerably weakened or exiled as priority 2 when priority 1 is accomplished. Unfortunately that would mean overcoming Saudi opposition even though the US is supporting them in bombing civilians & hospitals in Yemen. Sound familiar?

There is no easy way out of the Syrian mess but there is a least worse way but unfortunately the US & EU coat-tail-hangers have chosen the worst way so far.

[craigt3365]

We saw the 'successful' aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya. Many lies in the excuses for the virtual destruction of those two countries. Now we have more lies about Syria.

Yes, the Syrian crisis started with some people (mainly Sunni) rising up against Assad. They were then backed by Saudi, Qatar (who always support their Sunni brothers against the Shia) and the 'holy' western countries and they had some success. Enter the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Nusra & ISIS & others who didn't give a shit for either side and became a third force, capturing and accepting some of the other rebels and even attacking Palestinians in a refugee camp in Syria.

Apart from a first-class article in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking supplied by poster Barin, none of the Russian-haters seem to have any idea who some of the so-called good rebels are and, more importantly, who their real supporters are.

As Iraq & Libya (& not too far off in Afghanistan) has shown, getting rid of a bad dictator without knowing what comes afterwards, is a stupid strategy, unless, of course, another failed state is what one desires. The second stupid strategy is portraying Assad as a greater danger to the region than ISIS or Al-Nusra (aka Al-Qaeda) and insisting that he be deposed and leave the door open to all the rebel factions to vie for leadership. In that scenario I know what I'd put my money on - a divided country controlled by various militias just like Libya.

The sensible way is to stabilise Syria by weakening all the rebel factions and aiming to get ISIS & Al-Nusra out of the country as a first priority. Work with the Russians on condition that Assad is considerably weakened or exiled as priority 2 when priority 1 is accomplished. Unfortunately that would mean overcoming Saudi opposition even though the US is supporting them in bombing civilians & hospitals in Yemen. Sound familiar?

There is no easy way out of the Syrian mess but there is a least worse way but unfortunately the US & EU coat-tail-hangers have chosen the worst way so far.

The Libyan civil war started the same way as the Syrian civil war. An uprising against a brutal dictator. Sure, these dictators had outside supporters, but it was their actions that started all this. Can't blame others for that. As much as some would like to.

Things have morphed since then, but the reason for all these uprisings are brutal dictators. But how do you deal with removing a dictator. It's not easy. Though perhaps necessary for the stability of the region? And the world?

Many Syrian's have already said NO to Assad. We need to let them figure this out for themselves. Russia needs to leave. Coalition forces need to get a better strategy. But in the end, Assad is gone. Just like many of the other dictators in that region. Syria was a failed state before any outside countries got seriously involved. Just like Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc, etc, etc. All run by corrupt and brutal dictators.

I'll take a failed democratic system any day over what these poor people have had to endure. Most of us have never even been to these countries. So we have no idea of what they are dealing with. In the end, they just want to raise their families in a peaceful and prosperous environment.

[Publicus]

Putin needed to begin the Russian military engagement in Syria in coordination and cooperation with the US instead of against it. The two needed instead to cooperate to force Assad to Iran or to some other such deserving rathole place.

Russia and the US need to together install a national government in Damascus to deal with all the groups fighting Assad. Either the rebel fighters sling their arms or Russia and the US pound 'em into the sands. This is power politics involving ruthless primal combatants so the approach has to dispense of most niceties.

Then get Syria regrouped and reorganized under a coalition government supervised by Russia, US, Nato, the Arab coalition that is working with the US. Such as group would have squabbles and disagreements because that is the nature of the beast, but Russia and the US can control them if the two work in tandem. Elections can come later.

Putin however would never think of such a thing nor would he accept it. He has to charge in bombs blasting while set on supporting Assad the mass murderer of his own people. This Putin is a nasty piece of work. Vile.

Do you think it would be realistic to basically engineer this sort of regime change even if Russia and US could work together which is hardly a given. There are so many different groups fighting there that getting them to come together in some form of national unity would be a nightmare especially with ISIL knocking on the door.

It is also worth remembering where a lot of ISILs organisational abilities come from which is Saddam's old Ba'ath party - is there a danger of them gaining more support if Assad's Ba'ath Party lose control.

In my view, if Russia and Iran can bring some pressure to bear on Assad to stop acting like a monumental ****head for a bit he can be dealt with later after some stability is brought to the region which would need Russia, US and Iran working together.

The point exactly. Putin is out for himself which means supporting the mass murderer of his own people, Bashir Assad who makes his murdering father Hafassz look like an Alawite boy scout master. Putin is also pursuing the interests of the ayatollahs in Iran. Putin is wrong wrong wrong which is what I point out. My post said the US and Russia together, as awkward as that would be, could get the fighting factions from the field to the table in every sense of realpolitik especially if it meant blasting 'em to the table, which I'm confident Putin would relish doing as it would show the muscle he has between his ears. Any and every solution for Syria begins with Assad gone in one way or the other...preferably in the other. Send him to meet Saddam, Gaddafi, bin Laden, Mubarak and the rest of 'em.

Russia was invited by the Syrian government to help. Nato and the US were not invited.

What Syrian government

The Syrian government possesses about one-third of the land and about the same proportion of the population, most of which are dead or fleeing the Syrian government. The Syrian government for most of the year has more resembled the final dayze of the Third Reich. Put it out of business as the mass murderer of its own people and get the Syrian people out of their absolute misery. Kick in the focking door over there one way or the other, with Russia or without it.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Publicus

[farmerjo]

No mention of the two rockets hitting the russian embassy today on TV or is that tomorrows news.

[khunken]

We saw the 'successful' aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya. Many lies in the excuses for the virtual destruction of those two countries. Now we have more lies about Syria.

Yes, the Syrian crisis started with some people (mainly Sunni) rising up against Assad. They were then backed by Saudi, Qatar (who always support their Sunni brothers against the Shia) and the 'holy' western countries and they had some success. Enter the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Nusra & ISIS & others who didn't give a shit for either side and became a third force, capturing and accepting some of the other rebels and even attacking Palestinians in a refugee camp in Syria.

Apart from a first-class article in the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking supplied by poster Barin, none of the Russian-haters seem to have any idea who some of the so-called good rebels are and, more importantly, who their real supporters are.

As Iraq & Libya (& not too far off in Afghanistan) has shown, getting rid of a bad dictator without knowing what comes afterwards, is a stupid strategy, unless, of course, another failed state is what one desires. The second stupid strategy is portraying Assad as a greater danger to the region than ISIS or Al-Nusra (aka Al-Qaeda) and insisting that he be deposed and leave the door open to all the rebel factions to vie for leadership. In that scenario I know what I'd put my money on - a divided country controlled by various militias just like Libya.

The sensible way is to stabilise Syria by weakening all the rebel factions and aiming to get ISIS & Al-Nusra out of the country as a first priority. Work with the Russians on condition that Assad is considerably weakened or exiled as priority 2 when priority 1 is accomplished. Unfortunately that would mean overcoming Saudi opposition even though the US is supporting them in bombing civilians & hospitals in Yemen. Sound familiar?

There is no easy way out of the Syrian mess but there is a least worse way but unfortunately the US & EU coat-tail-hangers have chosen the worst way so far.

The Libyan civil war started the same way as the Syrian civil war. An uprising against a brutal dictator. Sure, these dictators had outside supporters, but it was their actions that started all this. Can't blame others for that. As much as some would like to.

Things have morphed since then, but the reason for all these uprisings are brutal dictators. But how do you deal with removing a dictator. It's not easy. Though perhaps necessary for the stability of the region? And the world?

Many Syrian's have already said NO to Assad. We need to let them figure this out for themselves. Russia needs to leave. Coalition forces need to get a better strategy. But in the end, Assad is gone. Just like many of the other dictators in that region. Syria was a failed state before any outside countries got seriously involved. Just like Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc, etc, etc. All run by corrupt and brutal dictators.

I'll take a failed democratic system any day over what these poor people have had to endure. Most of us have never even been to these countries. So we have no idea of what they are dealing with. In the end, they just want to raise their families in a peaceful and prosperous environment.

Yes the Libyan civil war did start just like the others in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain & Syria. Unfortunately the attitude & support of western countries was not equally balanced across the different countries. Iraq was just invaded.

You are deceiving yourself if you believe that the Egyptian dictator is gone - he's still around and the country is ruled by another similar (worse?) dictatorship. Only Tunisia can claim any sort of success and they currently have their own ISIS problems.

I'd just about prefer a dictator to a failed state as there is at least some stability and much more likehood of most people having a decent life. I've been to Damascus twice (many years ago) and I loved the city which had total freedom except for politics & was ruled by Assad's father. BTW there is no democracy in Libya.

Yes too, it's not easy removing a dictator but selective removal by outsiders is not the way that any country should be treated. The issue of outside interference in a country precludes attacking it outside a UNSC resolution which the US & NATO failed to obtain. There is nothing to stop a de-facto government inviting another power to provide assistance internally.

I wonder if you and any of the other anti-Putin brigade actually read the Guardian article that I posted a link to. My support is for the Syrians and stabilising the country is number one priority before dealing with the leadership issue - the 'bad' rebels are far more powerful than the 'good' ones that remain and now Turkey might be wakening up to their two-faced attitude to ISIS & they are capable of hitting them hard, if only they would.

[Orac]

Putin needed to begin the Russian military engagement in Syria in coordination and cooperation with the US instead of against it. The two needed instead to cooperate to force Assad to Iran or to some other such deserving rathole place.

Russia and the US need to together install a national government in Damascus to deal with all the groups fighting Assad. Either the rebel fighters sling their arms or Russia and the US pound 'em into the sands. This is power politics involving ruthless primal combatants so the approach has to dispense of most niceties.

Then get Syria regrouped and reorganized under a coalition government supervised by Russia, US, Nato, the Arab coalition that is working with the US. Such as group would have squabbles and disagreements because that is the nature of the beast, but Russia and the US can control them if the two work in tandem. Elections can come later.

Putin however would never think of such a thing nor would he accept it. He has to charge in bombs blasting while set on supporting Assad the mass murderer of his own people. This Putin is a nasty piece of work. Vile.

Do you think it would be realistic to basically engineer this sort of regime change even if Russia and US could work together which is hardly a given. There are so many different groups fighting there that getting them to come together in some form of national unity would be a nightmare especially with ISIL knocking on the door.

It is also worth remembering where a lot of ISILs organisational abilities come from which is Saddam's old Ba'ath party - is there a danger of them gaining more support if Assad's Ba'ath Party lose control.

In my view, if Russia and Iran can bring some pressure to bear on Assad to stop acting like a monumental ****head for a bit he can be dealt with later after some stability is brought to the region which would need Russia, US and Iran working together.

The point exactly. Putin is out for himself which means supporting the mass murderer of his own people, Bashir Assad who makes his murdering father Hafassz look like an Alawite boy scout master. Putin is also pursuing the interests of the ayatollahs in Iran. Putin is wrong wrong wrong which is what I point out. My post said the US and Russia together, as awkward as that would be, could get the fighting factions from the field to the table in every sense of realpolitik especially if it meant blasting 'em to the table, which I'm confident Putin would relish doing as it would show the muscle he has between his ears. Any and every solution for Syria begins with Assad gone in one way or the other...preferably in the other. Send him to meet Saddam, Gaddafi, bin Laden, Mubarak and the rest of 'em.

Russia was invited by the Syrian government to help. Nato and the US were not invited.

What Syrian government

The Syrian government possesses about one-third of the land and about the same proportion of the population, most of which are dead or fleeing the Syrian government. The Syrian government for most of the year has more resembled the final dayze of the Third Reich. Put it out of business as the mass murderer of its own people and get the Syrian people out of their absolute misery. Kick in the focking door over there one way or the other, with Russia or without it.

I would disagree here as i see the bigger threat and priority being the destruction of ISIL. To tackle Assad first where there is no global consensus opens the door for ISIL which would potential expose Turkey to be under threat from both ISIL and Kurds and invoke a full military response from NATO and massive escalation.

[Chicog]

Putin does whatever he wants. He is a throw-back to the cold war era and it would seem the Russian people approve of him. He will do whatever he wants and be-damned with the rest of the world. The future does not look good with this man at the helm.

Have you considered what happens to the ones that don't approve of him?