Livestream out of Syria

My gut feeling is that even you would rather live in a world with the Yanks rather than China/Russia playing the role of global police. One thing I've noticed here is that the biggest critics of the US/West choose to enjoy the freedom they offer and live there. You claim to support Assad for lack of better alternatives. Following the same logic you should pledge allegiance to the flag...

Are you trying to suggest that the people who live inside the US hate the US (and criticize the US) more than the people who live in the Arab world (or outside the US)? If you think that then you need to find your way back to reality.

About the world I'd like to live in. Two things, first, why do the world have to be policed by one country? It's wrong no matter who does it. Second, aren't you trying to suggest here that we should accept the US as the ruler of the world, for lack of better alternatives?

And my support for Assad is not because of "lack of better alternatives". It's because I think I know the alternative, and it's Al-Qaeda.

Do you want to see what will happen if Assad is gone? Look at the only Syrian provincial capitol that is (safely) in the opposition hands, Al-Raqqa.
 
I'm not sure I understand. You side with a mass murderer because the Yanks don't care when their ally oil sheiks abuse human rights?

Why are you using the term "abuse human rights"? Why don't you call them mass murderers as well? When it comes to the protests, they didn't react any differently to Assad.. More Syrians have been killed not because Assad is more brutal than the Bahraini or the Saudi king. It's because of the foreign intervention, primarily by Al-Qaeda.

Also, don't forget, if I'm siding with Assad, then you're siding with Al-Qaeda.
 
The Assad dynasty of 40 odd years brought Syria to this. If both father and son had treated people justly no matter their ethnicity, the rebels would not have felt a need to revolt. The fault lies 100% with Assad. Al Queda are opportunist. They will use anyone.

btw the US does not want to be the world's policeman.
 
About the world I'd like to live in. Two things, first, why do the world have to be policed by one country? It's wrong no matter who does it. Second, aren't you trying to suggest here that we should accept the US as the ruler of the world, for lack of better alternatives?

The issue is not whether the US is or should be "ruler of the world." The fact remains that most people want the USA to be the policeman of the world (and have its taxpayers pick up the tab) because most other nations really want to be the commissioner of police and tell the cops where to go and what to do.
 
The issue is not whether the US is or should be "ruler of the world." The fact remains that most people want the USA to be the policeman of the world (and have its taxpayers pick up the tab) because most other nations really want to be the commissioner of police and tell the cops where to go and what to do.


I think then it's about time the US understands this and stop meddling in other countries' affairs. Sort out your own shit first America.
 
Are you trying to suggest that the people who live inside the US hate the US (and criticize the US) more than the people who live in the Arab world (or outside the US)? If you think that then you need to find your way back to reality.

About the world I'd like to live in. Two things, first, why do the world have to be policed by one country? It's wrong no matter who does it. Second, aren't you trying to suggest here that we should accept the US as the ruler of the world, for lack of better alternatives?

And my support for Assad is not because of "lack of better alternatives". It's because I think I know the alternative, and it's Al-Qaeda.

Do you want to see what will happen if Assad is gone? Look at the only Syrian provincial capitol that is (safely) in the opposition hands, Al-Raqqa.

Must be my English- I know very well that the West, and especially the US, are a scapegoat across the Muslim world yet given the chance its fiecrcest critics would jump at the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of Western values.

Unfortunately, events in Syria highlight the reason this world needs to be policed to some extent. The UN as an idea is nice, but in practice is a total joke. Question remains about the will of superpowers to intervene at regional conflict that escalate to atrocities, at the expense of their own money and young lives. That such intervention would fit the superpower's interests is almost guaranteed, so in this cynical world I'd rather have Western values as a potential interests than Putin's personal ones. Each to their own I suppose.

I truely feel for the Syrians who have to live under Chechen and other foreign Muslim nutjobs. Stories of young kids being shot in front of their parents for insulting the prophet are heartbreaking. Are you saying though that the majority of Syrians are pro-Assad? Obviously this lot have no popular support, or at least didn't have any 2 years ago?
 
Why are you using the term "abuse human rights"? Why don't you call them mass murderers as well? When it comes to the protests, they didn't react any differently to Assad.. More Syrians have been killed not because Assad is more brutal than the Bahraini or the Saudi king. It's because of the foreign intervention, primarily by Al-Qaeda.

Also, don't forget, if I'm siding with Assad, then you're siding with Al-Qaeda.

We'll have to disagree here. The numbers just don't add up.

And no, I actually think a weakened Assad is my own personal safest bet as an Israeli. I do not support any of the sides in this, but the pictures of gassed children lined up for burial have to draw a response which goes beyond personal interests alone.
 
Further evidencece for the crisis spilling over to Lebanon. At least 27 dead in two explosions near mosques in Tripoli just after Friday prayers.

Payback for the car bomb in the Dahya?
 
Must be my English- I know very well that the West, and especially the US, are a scapegoat across the Muslim world yet given the chance its fiecrcest critics would jump at the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of Western values.

Unfortunately, events in Syria highlight the reason this world needs to be policed to some extent. The UN as an idea is nice, but in practice is a total joke. Question remains about the will of superpowers to intervene at regional conflict that escalate to atrocities, at the expense of their own money and young lives. That such intervention would fit the superpower's interests is almost guaranteed, so in this cynical world I'd rather have Western values as a potential interests than Putin's personal ones. Each to their own I suppose.

I truely feel for the Syrians who have to live under Chechen and other foreign Muslim nutjobs. Stories of young kids being shot in front of their parents for insulting the prophet are heartbreaking. Are you saying though that the majority of Syrians are pro-Assad? Obviously this lot have no popular support, or at least didn't have any 2 years ago?

What do you mean by the benefit of the Western values? Can you speak more specifically here?

You and the US will not accept a democracy that brings a government that is against the US or Israel. You're not defending your values in the middle east, you're defending your interests, which is fine because everybody does it, however, "Putin" doesn't pretend to be trying to spread the "Russian values" in the middle east, nor does he think that he has the moral right to intervene in the world, because he has the "better values".

And for people who disagree with me about the US trying to police the world, it's not something I made up, the US actually prides itself in trying to picture itself as doing so. And by the US I mean the government, not the people. Even Obama was talking today how it's expected of America to act outside its borders..
 
We'll have to disagree here. The numbers just don't add up.

And no, I actually think a weakened Assad is my own personal safest bet as an Israeli. I do not support any of the sides in this, but the pictures of gassed children lined up for burial have to draw a response which goes beyond personal interests alone.

What kind of response are you suggesting?

And I don't think Israel prefers that Assad stays in power.
 
Further evidencece for the crisis spilling over to Lebanon. At least 27 dead in two explosions near mosques in Tripoli just after Friday prayers.

Payback for the car bomb in the Dahya?

It all makes sense to me. The rebels are now too weak to act alone, and they're trying to get somebody to help them.. First the chemical attack to push the West and the US to act, then 4 rockets against Israel from South Lebanon, then 2 explosions in Sunni areas in Lebanon after they hit Hezbollah's area a few days ago.. IMO They're just trying to get other people involved to help them because they seem to be on the verge of collapse, or at least in a very bad position..
 
Britain said on Friday it believed forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a chemical weapons attacks in the rebel-held suburbs of Damascus, saying it thought the Syrian government had "something to hide".

"I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said British Foreign Secretary William Hague. "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."

When was the last time I heard something like this.....
11:36AM GMT 20 Mar 2004 / UK Telegraph
The Prime Minister's envoy to Iraq has insisted that Saddam Hussein did have programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock said he remained convinced that the deposed dictator had been "hiding something".

"I remain convinced that the judgment a year ago that Saddam was hiding something and was cocking a snook at the United Nations was absolutely right, and I still remain convinced of that."
 
The only thing I'm wondering is why would Assad use chemical weapons risking the killing of hundreds of civilians when he's winning the war with conventional weapons already? Even he in his evil brain should know what effect such an attack would have on Western media? What's the point?
 
The only thing I'm wondering is why would Assad use chemical weapons risking the killing of hundreds of civilians when he's winning the war with conventional weapons already? Even he in his evil brain should know what effect such an attack would have on Western media? What's the point?

The source of the western media are the terrorists err i mean the rebels :wenger:
 
What do you mean by the benefit of the Western values? Can you speak more specifically here?

You and the US will not accept a democracy that brings a government that is against the US or Israel. You're not defending your values in the middle east, you're defending your interests, which is fine because everybody does it, however, "Putin" doesn't pretend to be trying to spread the "Russian values" in the middle east, nor does he think that he has the moral right to intervene in the world, because he has the "better values".

And for people who disagree with me about the US trying to police the world, it's not something I made up, the US actually prides itself in trying to picture itself as doing so. And by the US I mean the government, not the people. Even Obama was talking today how it's expected of America to act outside its borders..

To avoid going off topic I'd say that many in the ME who don't want the US as a global police would give a testicle for a chance to live in the US, where the police is errr....Us police. To go back on topic I'd say even if all superpowers are motivated by their own interests I would like to live in a world where even the most cynical of bastards would not tolerate gassing innocent civilians.

I don't mind people who are against Israel as long as they are plotting attacking it. What else would you expect? I don't mind whether neibouring countries are democracies or not as long as they are not a threat to Israel's security, but that's a moot point. There is no such thing as an Arab democracy.
 
The only thing I'm wondering is why would Assad use chemical weapons risking the killing of hundreds of civilians when he's winning the war with conventional weapons already? Even he in his evil brain should know what effect such an attack would have on Western media? What's the point?

Precisely. Couple to the fact UN inspectors are in the country, it makes no sense. We see some very harrowing footage of children dying, the rebels are predictably quick to placate Assad, western governments follow suit. It's become a recurring cycle of tedium.
 
To avoid going off topic I'd say that many in the ME who don't want the US as a global police would give a testicle for a chance to live in the US, where the police is errr....Us police. To go back on topic I'd say even if all superpowers are motivated by their own interests I would like to live in a world where even the most cynical of bastards would not tolerate gassing innocent civilians.

I don't mind people who are against Israel as long as they are plotting attacking it. What else would you expect? I don't mind whether neibouring countries are democracies or not as long as they are not a threat to Israel's security, but that's a moot point. There is no such thing as an Arab democracy.

Two things you missed in the first paragraph. First, the US police is good for the US, but not good for the world, because it only cares about the interests of the US, so if you live in the US that's great, but if you live outside the US, that's not great.

Second, some people want to live in the US not because of the US police or the "better values".. They just want to have a better quality of life, because their countries are ruined. Many Arabs would also love to live under a dictatorship in the UAE. You're wrong if you think it's about the "values". It's more about quality of life really.

I agree though that we're drifting a bit off-topic here..
 
Two things you missed in the first paragraph. First, the US police is good for the US, but not good for the world, because it only cares about the interests of the US, so if you live in the US that's great, but if you live outside the US, that's not great.

Second, some people want to live in the US not because of the US police or the "better values".. They just want to have a better quality of life, because their countries are ruined. Many Arabs would also love to live under a dictatorship in the UAE. You're wrong if you think it's about the "values". It's more about quality of life really.

I agree though that we're drifting a bit off-topic here..


The quality of life is not a freak of nature but a reflection of values. Western values that is. Don't get me started on Western hypocricy, but nevertheless I'd think few refugees would seek better life in Russia or China no matter how shit life back home was. The Yanks can be right cnuts, with the decision to invade Iraq a prime example, but I would stop short of comparing them to their UNSC colleagues which protect mass murderers. You support a butcher in Syria because the alternative is allegedly worse. Following this logic I can't understand how you do not prefer the Yanks to those responsible for or indifferent to the genocides in Chechnya, Darfur etc.
 
I don't see what you guys are arguing about, both sides in this conflict are pretty bad. Actively supporting either side is condoning some terrible acts and, in the case of governments, being actively complicit in whatever atrocities why will commit in the future.
 
Why don't we just refer to the two sides in Syria as the "governmental terrorists" [GT] and the "non-governmental terrorists [NGT]." Other nations wishing to get involved could be lumped together as "non-territorial intervensionist terrorists [NTIT]."
 
Why don't we just refer to the two sides in Syria as the "governmental terrorists" and the "non-governmental terrorists." Other nations wishing to get involved could be lumped together as "non-territorial intervensionist terrorists."


That's pretty accurate.
 
The quality of life is not a freak of nature but a reflection of values. Western values that is. Don't get me started on Western hypocricy, but nevertheless I'd think few refugees would seek better life in Russia or China no matter how shit life back home was. The Yanks can be right cnuts, with the decision to invade Iraq a prime example, but I would stop short of comparing them to their UNSC colleagues which protect mass murderers. You support a butcher in Syria because the alternative is allegedly worse. Following this logic I can't understand how you do not prefer the Yanks to those responsible for or indifferent to the genocides in Chechnya, Darfur etc.

Not necessarily. I already gave you the UAE as an example, which is a dictatorship that isn't that different in term of values to any other Arab country, but the quality of life there is very high, and is comparable to the quality of life in Western countries.

Sound economy is what makes the quality of life better, not the "values". Of course many other factors also play a role, for example being under occupation for centuries doesn't exactly help either. But I'll stop here, because this is probably a discussion for another time, and another thread.

Back to Syria. Al-Qaeda is "allegedly" worse? I'm supporting a butcher? You remind me of those who were telling me: "Are you supporting the occupation?!" when I wanted the US to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The comparison between the US and Russia is pointless, because Russia hasn't invaded any countries lately, and hasn't even come close to the US intervention in the region. Add to that the US is currently helping terrorist groups grow in the region (like they did back in the 1980s) through destabilizing the whole region, and if they continue this approach the whole Arab world will be one big Afghanistan. It's much easier to remove a dictator than Al-Qaeda from a country. It's also much easier to negotiate with a dictator, than with Al-Qaeda.

I won't tell you you're a hypocrite here, but you're clearly not telling both sides of the story. Why aren't you talking about Al-Raqqa for example? Why isn't the media talking about Al-Raqqa? Anybody here knows what's happening there?

If you want to have an honest opinion, tell both sides of the story. If you want to have credibility, don't call Assad a butcher and call me a supporter of a butcher, emphatically, and then become apologetic when you're telling the other side of the story, filling your statements with "allegedly", "unfortunate", and tons of other apologetic words and quotation marks.

It's not about the "higher moral values" that you have, or the evil inside me that doesn't care about the dying children. Stop politicizing the blood of the innocent. The current situation in Syria is: Assad (a dictator) against Al-Qaeda (the most dangerous terrorist organization on Earth). It's just a matter of whom you consider more dangerous.
 
Danny:
In elections here in the US, we merely refer to the choice we make as the lesser of two evils. While I could disagree with you on quality of life (as in the dictatorship that is the UAE) being a merely economic consideration, I also see that the choice between the current regime in Syria [the "GT"] and the forces in rebellion [NGT] is not one of good and evil, but not too damn good and probably even worse. In the end, regardless of the wishes of John McCain and others of that ilk, I think it is incumbent on the rest of us to let the Syrians (both those with Hezbollah buddies and those who are frat mates with Al-Qaida) sort this out on their own. Any damage done to the few remaining non-partisans will probably be less than if NATO, Russia, or any neighboring states insist on adding to the carnage.
 
Western governments encouraged rebellion, they misled a lot of people into thinking they had practical support which would make a difference, when they hadn't at all.

Western governments don't understand the situation in Syria, and they should have stayed out of it in the first place. What they should now do is accept some responsibility and humbly ask Russia to talk to them and agree a joint course of action leading to ceasefire, but they won't admit to any mistakes of course, so there will be no quick end to the fighting.

There won't be any no-fly zones or bombing unless Russia allows it. Syria simply isn't important enough to Obama to risk direct military confrontation with Russia, and that's why he's backing off despite the horrors of recent events.
 
Precisely. Couple to the fact UN inspectors are in the country, it makes no sense. We see some very harrowing footage of children dying, the rebels are predictably quick to placate Assad, western governments follow suit. It's become a recurring cycle of tedium.


The New Yorker blames it on stupidity..

It is noteworthy, and not a little odd, that the attack at Ghouta occurred just days after the arrival in Damascus of a team of U.N. chemical-weapons inspectors, and it raises the question of why the Assad government would so handily deliver evidence of its suspected malfeasance to the international community. It is also surprising, since, in recent weeks, the Assad régime has had the upper hand in the conflict. However, dictatorial régimes and their militaries can be stupid as well as criminal—see Saddam’s coyness, in the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, about whether or not he still had concealed W.M.D.s. It is also possible, as some weapons experts have speculated, that whatever killed the people seen in the videos was not a nerve gas like sarin but something else, which is still unknown. According to a Western diplomat in the region, “The régime denies doing it, but the key test is whether they now facilitate immediate access by the U.N. expert team currently in Damascus.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ssad-and-the-history-of-chemical-weapons.html
 
US forces move closer to Syria as options weighed


Defense Secretary Hagel confirms report that US is 'positioning forces to be able to carry out different options'. US to increase naval destroyer presence in Mediterranean, source adds as US still awaits final proof of chemical weapons usage, mulls Syrian intervention

The United States on Friday was re-positioning naval forces in the Mediterranean to give President Barack Obama the option for an armed strike on Syria, although officials cautioned that Obama had made no decision on military action.


A defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the US Navy would expand its presence in the Mediterranean to four destroyers from three.
US naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government. The president emphasized that a quick intervention in the Syrian civil war was problematic, given the international considerations that should precede a military strike.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declined to discuss any specific force movements while saying that Obama had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria. US defense officials told The Associated Press that the Navy had sent a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles into the eastern Mediterranean Sea but without immediate orders for any missile launch into Syria.


US Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.


"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options -- whatever options the president might choose," Hagel told reporters traveling with him to Asia.


Hagel said the US is coordinating with the international community to determine "what exactly did happen" near Damascus earlier this week. According to reports, a chemical attack in a suburb of the capital killed at least 100 people. It would be the most heinous use of chemical weapons since Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988.
 


Cuts right to the crux of the matter.

The US takes a fair bit of criticism for the "world policeman" tag [partly because they are amongst a minority of countries who are willing to act] yet so far as Syria is concerned there has rightly been more restraint and even now what to do for the best is unclear. For all of the mistakes in the recent past most people just want to find a way to do the right thing, the complexities of the Syrian conflict make that damned difficult.

If Obama feels compelled to dip his toe in the water in terms of direct military action, then i hope he can keep it at that. Politically some accelerated mission creep is not in the script of his second term after all.

Considering their bluster i think there would have been more to fear were either Cameron or Hollande CinC of American's military.


Western governments don't understand the situation in Syria, and they should have stayed out of it in the first place. What they should now do is accept some responsibility and humbly ask Russia to talk to them and agree a joint course of action leading to ceasefire, but they won't admit to any mistakes of course, so there will be no quick end to the fighting.

Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia each have their own motivations here don't forget and are in the field, i don't think we can just turn this off like a tap.


There won't be any no-fly zones or bombing unless Russia allows it. Syria simply isn't important enough to Obama to risk direct military confrontation with Russia, and that's why he's backing off despite the horrors of recent events.

Cruise missiles and drones would be my guess at the predominant composition of any response from Obama at this time. Less chance of US/Allied casualties and could be painted as proportionate.
 
Danny:
In elections here in the US, we merely refer to the choice we make as the lesser of two evils. While I could disagree with you on quality of life (as in the dictatorship that is the UAE) being a merely economic consideration, I also see that the choice between the current regime in Syria [the "GT"] and the forces in rebellion [NGT] is not one of good and evil, but not too damn good and probably even worse. In the end, regardless of the wishes of John McCain and others of that ilk, I think it is incumbent on the rest of us to let the Syrians (both those with Hezbollah buddies and those who are frat mates with Al-Qaida) sort this out on their own. Any damage done to the few remaining non-partisans will probably be less than if NATO, Russia, or any neighboring states insist on adding to the carnage.

I agree that if everybody left Syria alone, Syria, the Syrians, and the whole world will be better off, but you can't tell some people to stay out of it, while others are actively helping Al-Qaeda gain control in Syria.

Syria is under Assad's rule for more than 30 years now. They haven't even come close to causing as much problems to the world as Al-Qaeda.
 
Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia each have their own motivations here don't forget and they are in the field, i don't think we can just turn this off like a tap.

Cruise missiles and drones would be my guess at the predominant composition of any response from Obama at this time. Less chance of US/Allied casualties and could be painted as proportionate.

Loads of interest groups have encouraged rebellion, some at least genuinely want democracy, although I wouldn't include the likes of Saudi in that!

Initial action would obviously be with missiles and drones, but I can't see even that happening without Russian permission. Such permission could always come about by them agreeing to turn a blind eye, of course, but does that seem like Putin to you?

I certainly hope that Russia can contribute to any search for peace, but they need to be talked to, included, and respected, to bring them onside, not ignored.

I'm not pro-Russian incidentally, I just think a lot of people are not assessing the situation realistically.
 
On Saturday night four American destroyers were moving closer to Syria, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are capable of precision strikes.

Gen Sir Nick Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, is to take part in a summit in Jordan tomorrow with his US, French, Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari counterparts.

It follows the strongest indications to date from Washington that direct military intervention by the West was possible in the conflict.

Diplomats talked of a “change in the American posture” following the attack on the suburb of East Ghouta on Wednesday.

Mr Cameron’s officials were drafting the text of a resolution to put before the UN said to be modelled on one that offered Saddam Hussein, the late Iraq leader, “a final opportunity” to disarm in 2002.

The move risks a public row with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, who does not want any action taken against his ally.

But US officials were studying the Kosovo conflict, in which Nato launched weeks of air strikes without UN support and in the teeth of Russian opposition.

The Prime Minister is also to hold a meeting of the National Security Council. However, senior military figures have said privately that the “window of opportunity” for a successful intervention in Syria has long been closed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...58/David-Cameron-to-give-Syria-ultimatum.html



Kosovo, probably the last reasonably successful act of military intervention and nation building conducted by the international community.

Of course that mission had a definable and realistic end game to it, the UN/EU willing to fill the void as an interim administration, and most importantly no al-Qaeda haning around afterwards to carry on the war through terrorism.

I really do hope there isn't too much emphasis being put on that comparison.

Looking back at the conflict there was that famous incident at Pristina airport with their KFOR contingent, if the Russians felt inclined to show themselves in a new light they could don the blue berets and provide the escort for some humanitarian columns, the Syrians might just allow that.
 
Kosovo, probably the last reasonably successful act of military intervention and nation building conducted by the international community.

Nick, I wouldn't call bombing a sovereign state back into the stone age and the killing of thousands of civilians -quickly declaring them collateral damage- a success of any kind. As for the nation building, yes this worked out very well for the Albanians, who were awarded a second state which land they have ethnically cleansed of hundreds of thousands non-Albanians. Hurray for nation building!

Of course that mission had a definable and realistic end game to it, the UN/EU willing to fill the void as an interim administration, and most importantly no al-Qaeda haning around afterwards to carry on the war through terrorism.

True, no Al-Qaida hanging around there, just a mass of human- and narcotics trafficing groups operating under the nose of one of the biggest US military bases. The worst off in this failed state are the minorities who live in ghettos and risk their lives if caught speaking a different language. Up to this day -nearly 15 years after the conflict- NATO troops are stationed around churches and monasteries, to protect them from being burned down.

I really do hope there isn't too much emphasis being put on that comparison.

Looking back at the conflict there was that famous incident at Pristina airport with their KFOR contingent, if the Russians felt inclined to show themselves in a new light they could don the blue berets and provide the escort for some humanitarian columns, the Syrians might just allow that.


If anything, the 1999 bombing served as a fantastic precedent for any future "interventions" and demonstrated how the US can use NATO and bypass the UN to bomb the feck out of anyone they want.
 
Looking back at the conflict there was that famous incident at Pristina airport with their KFOR contingent, if the Russians felt inclined to show themselves in a new light they could don the blue berets and provide the escort for some humanitarian columns, the Syrians might just allow that.

That would be a great start. Less talk of winning and more of ceasefire and aid.
 
Syria agrees to allow UN access but US says move is 'too late'.

Too late? So it wasn't too late to investigate incidents from months ago, but an incident that happened 5 days ago is now "too late" to investigate? Interesting.