Russia, Turkey, Iran fail to agree on Syria de-escalation zones

[webfact]

Russia, Turkey, Iran fail to agree on Syria de-escalation zones

 

U.N. special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and Ahmed Beri, chief of staff of the Free Syrian Army, attend the round on Syria peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, July 5, 2017. REUTERS/Mukhtar Kholdorbekov

 

ASTANA (Reuters) - Russia, Turkey and Iran failed in talks on Wednesday to finalise an agreement on creating four de-escalation zones in Syria after Ankara raised objections, diplomats said.

 

Russia and Iran, which back President Bashar al-Assad's government, and Turkey, which supports some of the rebels, aim to reach a consensus on the zones by the end of August, when their delegations are set to meet again in the Kazakh capital.

 

The failure is a setback for Moscow, the main architect of the plan, as it seeks to take the lead in global efforts to settle the Syrian civil war.

 

"During these consultations, the Turkish side said it needed more time in order ... to make an appropriate decision," said senior Russian negotiator Alexander Lavrentyev.

 

Bashar al-Ja'afari, the lead negotiator from the Damascus government, was more direct.

 

"The Turkish delegation objected to the adoption of any documents related to the implementation of mechanisms of the agreement on the de-escalation zones," he said.

 

Russia, Turkey and Iran have set up a working group to reconcile their positions before the next Astana meeting set for the final week of August.

 

Lavrentyev said details related to the southern de-escalation zone needed to be agreed with the United States and Jordan, which support the rebels based there.

 

Turkish delegates made no statement to the media after the talks.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson raised the possibility on Wednesday of several joint steps with Moscow to promote stability in Syria and urged all parties fighting Islamic State militants in the country to avoid conflict with one another.

 

"The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability, including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance," Tillerson said in a statement issued by the State Department.

 

"If our two countries work together to establish stability on the ground, it will lay a foundation for progress on the settlement of Syria's political future," he said in the statement, which did not directly address the Astana talks.

 

The Kazakh talks, which began in January, come at a time when Turkey and Russia each want to disentangle themselves from the fighting. That has led them into an ad hoc alliance, although they still trade barbs.

 

Since the May agreement was announced, the rebel-held stronghold of Idlib province in the northwest of Syria has been mostly calm.

 

But fighting has continued on other frontlines in western Syria, including Eastern Ghouta of Damascus and the southwestern city of Deraa, where government forces and their allies are trying to crush remaining pockets of rebellion.

 

If the agreement on de-escalation zones is finalised, Russia, Iran and Turkey will be able to quickly - within weeks - deploy forces such as military police on the borders of those zones, Lavrentyev has said.

 

(Reporting by Raushan Nurshayeva; Additional reporting by Eric Beech in Washington; Writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Gareth Jones and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-06

[boomerangutang]

I could have saved them all a lot of time and expense on that meeting.  I would have told them:   Assad's side (backed by Russia and Iran) will insist that he stay in power.    Turkey, which somewhat represents western interests (Europe and N.America) won't abide by Assad staying in power.  Stalemate from the get-go.

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I could have saved them all a lot of time and expense on that meeting.  I would have told them:   Assad's side (backed by Russia and Iran) will insist that he stay in power.    Turkey, which somewhat represents western interests (Europe and N.America) won't abide by Assad staying in power.  Stalemate from the get-go.

 

 

 

Neither Russia or Iran are on "Assad's side". They are each on their own side, Assad is relevant to the extent that he's useful. Turkey represent Western interests? Even with the "somewhat" caveat, that's a curious statement. And if there's one thing that can be said about Erdogan, is that he's can flip flop when needed. Enough to recall that not long ago, Assad was his BFF, and Russia an archenemy.

 

[ddavidovsky]

Probably some Sykes-Picot plotting going on, but it has to be a good idea - hold the sides apart long enough to give the rebels a chance to capitulate without the humiliation of actual surrender, as well as (presumably) an excuse to get troops on the ground to counter ISIS.

[PeCeDe]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Neither Russia or Iran are on "Assad's side". They are each on their own side, Assad is relevant to the extent that he's useful. Turkey represent Western interests? Even with the "somewhat" caveat, that's a curious statement. And if there's one thing that can be said about Erdogan, is that he's can flip flop when needed. Enough to recall that not long ago, Assad was his BFF, and Russia an archenemy.

 

There is so much "he said yes, so we'll say no," it's no wonder the Syrian war continues. Trying to find logic when there is none to be had, apart from greed, is futile. Same only much worse is likely about to happen in N/S Korea. I just feel sorry for all the displaced people.

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

Neither Russia or Iran are on "Assad's side". They are each on their own side, Assad is relevant to the extent that he's useful. Turkey represent Western interests? Even with the "somewhat" caveat, that's a curious statement. And if there's one thing that can be said about Erdogan, is that he's can flip flop when needed. Enough to recall that not long ago, Assad was his BFF, and Russia an archenemy.

                                  Russia and Iran are on Assad's side.  Why else would they be bolstering Assad's forces? 

When I mentioned Turkey 'somewhat' representing western countries' opinions, I was saying that with sadness.   It's akin to saying, 'Trump represents the US when he travels abroad.'   Both concepts indicate how skewed some aspects of geopolitics are getting.  

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                                  Russia and Iran are on Assad's side.  Why else would they be bolstering Assad's forces? 

When I mentioned Turkey 'somewhat' representing western countries' opinions, I was saying that with sadness.   It's akin to saying, 'Trump represents the US when he travels abroad.'   Both concepts indicate how skewed some aspects of geopolitics are getting.  

 

 

Russia and Iran are not there for Assad, but to support their own interests. They no doubt realize that Assad, on the personal level, represents a problem. If there was a viable candidate as replacement, Assad wouldn't be there. As long as Assad is nominally in charge, but weakened and dependent on their support, much can be gained. The Russians need their port (and now, airbase), a bridgehead in the ME, and a market for their military wares. Iran wants that land corridor to the Mediterranean, if possible, with a mostly Shi'ite populace. Assad can assist with both. But once his usefulness is at an end, or a better proposition comes up, wouldn't bet on his chances to hold power.

 

Still not getting which Western views Turkey represents. Turkey got its own agenda - increasing influence (and perhaps a little land grab) in Northern Syria, and making sure Kurdish aspirations remain a dream. 

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Russia and Iran are not there for Assad, but to support their own interests. They no doubt realize that Assad, on the personal level, represents a problem. If there was a viable candidate as replacement, Assad wouldn't be there. As long as Assad is nominally in charge, but weakened and dependent on their support, much can be gained. The Russians need their port (and now, airbase), a bridgehead in the ME, and a market for their military wares. Iran wants that land corridor to the Mediterranean, if possible, with a mostly Shi'ite populace. Assad can assist with both. But once his usefulness is at an end, or a better proposition comes up, wouldn't bet on his chances to hold power.

 

Still not getting which Western views Turkey represents. Turkey got its own agenda - increasing influence (and perhaps a little land grab) in Northern Syria, and making sure Kurdish aspirations remain a dream. 

Seems dubious that the Iranians would do anything to endanger the minority Shiite (well Alawite) rule in Syria by getting rid of Assad. As for the Russians, what have they to gain by attempting to depose Assad? For reasons of religion and geography, they are very much a junior partner to the Iranians whom they certainly don't want to antagonize.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Seems dubious that the Iranians would do anything to endanger the minority Shiite (well Alawite) rule in Syria by getting rid of Assad. As for the Russians, what have they to gain by attempting to depose Assad? For reasons of religion and geography, they are very much a junior partner to the Iranians whom they certainly don't want to antagonize.

 

There are others of Assad clan and creed, and the Iranians are working on changing the demographics in certain areas of the country. If Assad doesn't work out for them anymore, they'd look for a replacement. I have no doubts that there's a regularly updated short-list somewhere in Tehran. Same goes for Moscow.

 

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

There are others of Assad clan and creed, and the Iranians are working on changing the demographics in certain areas of the country. If Assad doesn't work out for them anymore, they'd look for a replacement. I have no doubts that there's a regularly updated short-list somewhere in Tehran. Same goes for Moscow.

You make it sound like Russia and/or Iran could get rid of Assad if they so choose.  What are they going to do, send in armed agents to his office, physically pick him up, cuff him, and carry him out to an armored vehicle to drive to Jordan?

 

Assad is staying in the power seat because he's surrounded by armed men. Neither Russia nor Iran can get him to leave - though granted, neither are putting major resources into forcing the issue.

 

      When I mention Turkey 'somewhat' represents western interests, it's in a comparative way- compared to the two Assad supporters; Russia and Iran.   Outside of Syrians themselves, Turkey is bearing the most repercussions of the war.   Personally, I'd like to see a plague on all their houses.   If, for no other reason, there are waaaaaaay too many people for the carrying capacity of a small desert region with nearly zero resources.  I side with environment over one trashy species - particularly one with such a mean-spirited belief system.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

You make it sound like Russia and/or Iran could get rid of Assad if they so choose.  What are they going to do, send in armed agents to his office, physically pick him up, cuff him, and carry him out to an armored vehicle to drive to Jordan?

 

Assad is staying in the power seat because he's surrounded by armed men. Neither Russia nor Iran can get him to leave - though granted, neither are putting major resources into forcing the issue.

 

      When I mention Turkey 'somewhat' represents western interests, it's in a comparative way- compared to the two Assad supporters; Russia and Iran.   Outside of Syrians themselves, Turkey is bearing the most repercussions of the war.   Personally, I'd like to see a plague on all their houses.   If, for no other reason, there are waaaaaaay too many people for the carrying capacity of a small desert region with nearly zero resources.  I side with environment over one trashy species - particularly one with such a mean-spirited belief system.

 

No, that's how you choose to present my words.

 

Neither Russia nor Iran got complete control over Syria and its leadership. But it is clear to all involved that without their support is critical to the regimes survival. If you imagine Assad is their only point of contact within Syrian leadership, guess again. There are many ways to affect regime change - it need not be anything like the overt nonsense scenarios suggested. And why would they drive him to Jordan, of all places?

 

If funding, arms sales and military support were to be withheld, how long would Assad's ardent followers carry on supporting him without question? If a "suggestion" with regard to a possible replacement was made, sure there would be no takers? Coups happen all the time, leaders sometime abdicate when they run out of choices or politically forced to. Assad is not unique.

 

Turkey represents Turkey's interests. This isn't a two-way situation by a long shot. There are multiple interests, multiple points of view. The convergence between Turkey's (or further, Erdogan's) interests and the West's isn't something to right home about.

[craigt3365]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/middleeast/russia-syria-oil-isis.html?emc=edit_mbae_20170705&nl=&nlid=58582962&te=1&_r=1

 

Quote

 

Russia Deploys a Potent Weapon in Syria: The Profit Motive

The Kremlin is bringing a new weapon to the fight against the Islamic State militant group in Syria, using market-based incentives tied to oil and mining rights to reward private security contractors who secure territory from the extremists, Russian news outlets have reported.

 

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/world/middleeast/russia-syria-oil-isis.html?emc=edit_mbae_20170705&nl=&nlid=58582962&te=1&_r=1

 

 

 

Loved this bit:

 

Quote

“It’s all very simple,”

That strange feeling of deja vu. Seems like they are quick learners, even if they learned the wrong lesson.

[Rancid]

On 06/07/2017 at 8:59 AM, boomerangutang said:

I could have saved them all a lot of time and expense on that meeting.  I would have told them:   Assad's side (backed by Russia and Iran) will insist that he stay in power.    Turkey, which somewhat represents western interests (Europe and N.America) won't abide by Assad staying in power.  Stalemate from the get-go.

 

 

Not sure Russia and Iran are that much on Assad's side but more having political or strategic interests in seeing that the Syrian state doesn't fall or turn into another Libyan disaster. That aside in recent elections Assad was re-elected by the Syrian people, as such despite how some may dislike the notion, he is currently the legal government.

 

Turkey is more complicated as likes to play all sides, currently though it seems that while the US and Israel would like a Kurdish State established, Erdogan is less than enthralled with that idea. If any agreement allows for that then unlikely Turkey will sign up. Recall that YouTube video from years ago where Turkey was discussing creating false flags as an excuse to oust Assad, so he definitely isn't on their popularity list. Seems that little is what it appears in the Middle east.

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Loved this bit:

 

That strange feeling of deja vu. Seems like they are quick learners, even if they learned the wrong lesson.

From that same article.  Great companies to have taking profits out of Syria.  But I'm sure Russia will soon be contributing money to help rebuild the country.

 

 

Quote

 

Evro Polis, according to Fontanka and public company records in Russia, is part of a network of companies owned by Evgeniy Prigozhin, a St. Petersburg businessman close to President Vladimir V. Putin and known as “the Kremlin’s chef” for his exclusive catering contracts with the administration.

Journalists have reported that Mr. Prigozhin engaged in another recent Russian experiment in restoring influence abroad while keeping costs down: He set up a factory of so-called internet trolls in St. Petersburg, an office packed with low-paid people posting online under assumed identities to influence public opinion in foreign countries, including the United States.

 

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, Rancid said:

That aside in recent elections Assad was re-elected by the Syrian people, as such despite how some may dislike the notion, he is currently the legal government.

An election similar to ones in North Korea?

 

Some don't recognize that government as official:

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

Quote

The Syrian National Council (SNC)^[1] is recognized by 7 UN members, the Republic of Kosovo and the European Union as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people in the midst of the Syrian civil war, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council. One country, Libya, recognises the SNC as the legitimate government of Syria.

 

Quote

As of 27 February 2012, the Syrian National Council is currently recognised or supported in some capacity by 17 UN member states, with three of those being permanent members of the Security Council, France,^[7] the United States,^[8] the United Kingdom,^[9]Spain, Bulgaria, Tunisia, Egypt, and also Libya's National Transitional Council,^[10] who announced that it had been in talks with the Syrian National Council and is considering to give weapons, volunteer fighters, and training via National Liberation Army to the Free Syrian Army.^[11] It has received support of the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.^[12]

 

[ilostmypassword]

45 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

An election similar to ones in North Korea?

 

Some don't recognize that government as official:

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

 

 

You might have included this wikipedia link. It pretty much lays out the sorry and ineffecutal history of the Syrian National Council.

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

 

[craigt3365]

34 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You might have included this wikipedia link. It pretty much lays out the sorry and ineffecutal history of the Syrian National Council.

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

 

A mess for sure.  Compounded by too many foreign belligerents messing around in Syria.