If Russia where to loose access to their base in Tartus the closest navy base to the Mediterranean would be Baltiysk right? At least as long as the Bosphorus is closed.Putin probably doesn't care much about Syria in itself, but he would like to keep his navy base there, would be a bit of a disaster for him to lose it.
How he will wrangle his way out of this one, i don't know, ship in North Koreans?
Not entirely sure about that. Another angle of interpretation is this:How does attacking south down that main North-South highway put pressure on the Kurds though? I’m aware that territory is being fought over elsewhere but the main thrust seems to be toward Damascus.
Unless it’s meant as a punishment of sorts, ie if you don’t attack the Kurds in the East this is what will happen. It doesn’t quite make sense to me.
Meanwhile, Assad continued to target Idlib, pushing thousands of people toward the border. This has only deepened the fears regarding the acute refugee crisis in Turkey, which has cost Erdogan and his party significant public support. Turkey, therefore, seeks a deal where 1–2 million refugees could gradually return.
About 100 years or so.Any evidence of this?
About 100 years or so.
In all seriousness, this is 100% an American backgrounded operation. Another deal with an Al-Quaeda offshoot for political reasons.
It just had to sign a peace treaty with them because they couldn't advance more than about three miles into Lebanon and were losing soldiers quickly.decapitated Hezbollah
15 years worth.Okay, but is there any evidence for this?
Not entirely sure about that. Another angle of interpretation is this:
15 years worth.
If you knew the history of who the US has backed in Syria, and across that region, and continues to back, you wouldn't ask for evidence "for it". You'd want evidence against it.
No evidence that the US was not directly involved, no. Going by the trajectory of the SCW, plenty of evidence that they are highly likely involved. And that it'll become public knowledge anywhere from a few weeks to a year at which point this "any evidence" conversation won't be worth coming back to.Okay, so no evidence.
No evidence that the US was not directly involved, no. Going by the trajectory of the SCW, plenty of evidence that they are highly likely involved. And that it'll become public knowledge anywhere from a few weeks to a year at which point this "any evidence" conversation won't be worth coming back to.
It's based in me actively watching the Syrian Civil War at a level that many, unless you're from that region, maybe have not. The Americans have backed AQ offshoots so many times in opposition to Assad. To assume that isn't the case here (given the landscape) is to assume a complete behavioral change in geopolitics without any evidence.Your logic just seems like a free shot in the dark. Make an unjustified claim. State that it can’t be disproved. Claim that any proof will be up to a year away, and then back out of the conversation. It’s a bit transparent.
It's based in me actively watching the Syrian Civil War at a level that many, unless you're from that region, maybe have not. The Americans have backed AQ offshoots so many times in opposition to Assad. To assume that isn't the case here (given the landscape) is to assume a complete behavioral change in geopolitics without any evidence.
OK. I'll go with America's support for precisely these type of factions against Assad over a 15 year period (and their direct, illegal, occupation of Syria along with Israel, which, too has financed these groups). You go with whatever it is you're going with. No American involvement apparently.There would not need to be any ‘behavioural change’ in US foreign policy for this to be absolutely nothing to do with them.
OK. I'll go with America's support for precisely these type of factions against Assad over a 15 year period (and their direct, illegal, occupation of Syria along with Israel, which, too has financed these groups). You go with whatever it is you're going with. No American involvement apparently.
It just had to sign a peace treaty with them because they couldn't advance more than about three miles into Lebanon and were losing soldiers quickly.
They did not decapitate Hezbollah.
Assad stabilized, with Russian support, the regime controlled area over that period. Go back further.Can you elaborate on the other mass attacks from Idlib province in the last 5 years that would support the idea that this is current US foreign policy? Should be easy, as you say. It’s the only logical answer.
Assad stabilized, with Russian support, the regime controlled area over that period. Go back further.
I mean, you're asking for the West, (I've just gone through one of your posts from Friday), to support an AQ offshoot. They have done precisely that if you back in time throughout the Civil War. The only thing I cannot understand is that you do not understand that the West (US/NATO/Israel) supported these factions against Assad. There were legitimate rebels but that's not who led the opposition to Assad. It was more like an Afghan situation during the Soviet era.
Good luck supporting that monster.
You have a very mixed demographic in Syria. North to south is not the same and even a cursory knowledge of Syria tells you this. The Turkish problems with the Kurds and so on and on.
Assad stabilized, with Russian support, the regime controlled area over that period. Go back further.
I mean, you're asking for the West, (I've just gone through one of your posts from Friday), to support an AQ offshoot. They have done precisely that if you back in time throughout the Civil War. The only thing I cannot understand is that you do not understand that the West (US/NATO/Israel) supported these factions against Assad. There were legitimate rebels but that's not who led the opposition to Assad. It was more like an Afghan situation during the Soviet era.
Good luck supporting that monster.
You have a very mixed demographic in Syria. North to south is not the same and even a cursory knowledge of Syria tells you this. The Turkish problems with the Kurds and so on and on.
OK.I’ve never asked, nor do I want, any ‘AQ offshoot’ supported by the West
The regime were in control a month ago too. If the last 5 years of Assad ‘control’ precluded American involvement then I don’t see what has changed. If it was impossible in 2023, 2022, 2021 etc etc then it’s impossible now. It’s pure guesswork on your part.
This should go without saying but I’ve never supported any kind of AQ affiliate. You’ve chosen to interpret my post in a way that supports your argument, but you’re wrong. It’s not up for debate. You are wrong. Whether you acknowledge that or not is another matter. I suspect you won’t, because you’d rather win an argument than be factually correct. I’d go through your post history too, but oddly it looks like someone has something to hide.
Really interesting, btw, that you’ve brought Israel into this. Israel who couldn’t give a feck about Syrian civilians, and actively wants a strong man dictator who knows better than to attack them. I think it exposes the motivations behind your assessment of what is going on.
Every country with global or regional reach has, at times, interfered with another countries internal affairs. Everyone of them. However you’ve made a claim you very very clearly cannot back up.
OK.
The West has and does support AQ offshoots and this isn't a secret. That's one of the groups which is now sweeping through Syria. You think there's no US involvement (or no evidence, yet) whereas I'm certain there is and it will be very soon before a concrete link emerges.
Then you have the Turks. They want to return a vast number of Syrian refugees held in Turkey. They also want something done with their perpetual "Kurdish" problem.
The Syrian Civil War is one of the most complex civil wars in modern history. If not just "history". Winning/arguments-being right. Who fecking cares? Having an accurate understanding of what is going on is the goal. Not winning an argument on a forum or "being right" (when "being right" means "these groups murdered those groups").
You don't understand me at all.
You are literally a bait-ist or somethiing. To understand. Have you read cursory histories of that region? Have you seen the sheer number of actors involved? It is mind-boggling.I agree there is no point in going on, I cannot see any benefit. Given your most recent post, I hope you reflect that claiming to understand who is doing what, and why, in what you admit is “one of the most complex wars in modern history” is, in itself, an astonishing reflection of your own opinion of yourself, and your ability to discern culpability.
If Russia where to loose access to their base in Tartus the closest navy base to the Mediterranean would be Baltiysk right? At least as long as the Bosphorus is closed.
I doubt they would be able to keep any meaningful navy presence in the Med if that is the case.
You are literally a bait-ist or somethiing. To understand. Have you read cursory histories of that region? Have you seen the sheer number of actors involved? It is mind-boggling.
I understand that the US/NATO/Israel have supported Jihadists in Syria for a long time now. That is not say I understand even 5% of the issues which led or sustain the Syrian Civil War. Your posts are ironically ad hominem. You are the one which wants to sustain a personal argument I cannot be slightly bothered with continuing with.
For the bold. You really are mental. Qualified ad hominem, I admit.
Not aimed at me, I don't think, but I have never defended Assad. As for my own "spelling" of "jihadist" (probably the wrong term). It is historical accuracy. The group was of AQ. Only a recent split. I don't know what else you'd call it. I would not use "Jihadist" again, if I rewrote that post, but that's more because of the wide-ranging and often mental associations of the term. Incredibly conservative militant terrorist group. About as best as I can put it.staunch anti imperialists becoming imperialists of the other side of the coin
No. I never said I understood the Syrian Civil War. If anyone says that you ought to be very suspicious. I said I understood certain things. One of them is that which I stated. And the evidence (which historically exists) will not be long in coming. A very small claim. Incredibly tiny actually and the likelihood of its being verified verges on certain. Good luck.whilst also saying that you understand it.
If Russia where to loose access to their base in Tartus the closest navy base to the Mediterranean would be Baltiysk right? At least as long as the Bosphorus is closed.
I doubt they would be able to keep any meaningful navy presence in the Med if that is the case.
So bizarre. You are simultaneously saying it’s so complicated as to be not understandable, whilst also saying that you understand it. Not in any way trying to bait you, I regret even getting involved in this conversation pal!
Syria does bring out the strangest phenomenon of staunch anti imperialists becoming imperialists of the other side of the coin. Whilst championing a worthy cause in Palestine but at the same time denying autonomy to the Syrian people and their right to resist. Using the same sort of rhetoric that Israel uses against Palestinians against Syrians who fight back (radicals jihadists), despite being ethnically cleansed and murdered by Asad and his various Iranian backed sectarian militias. And also forgetting Asad released a whole load of actual terrorists at the start of the civil war.
These so called anti imperialists even deny the plight of the Uyghur's, Cechens and other oppressed Muslims. For some these are just Russian/Iranian stooges while others have genuinely fallen for the propoganada (sadly some of my own family members are in this camp). For what it's worth I would be happy if the US, Russia, Iran and all outsiders got the feck out the region, and this post is not defending the havoc the US has caused in the region before anyone tries that or wants to go on a whatboutism tangent.
Not saying I know either way for Syria, but I understand that statement.
the internal factions within the Afghan Mujahideen, which went across ethnic and religious lines, were many and were complicated. This complexity became apparent in the latter stage of the Soviet occupation, and very apparent after the fall of Najibullah.
Foreign anti-Soviet (US, Pakistan, China, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, France) support for the Mujahideen as a whole isn't complicated, and was present from before the Soviet invasion to after the Soviet withdrawal.
The term jihadist is obviously seen very differently in the western world compared to Muslim world. The word has been tarnished to an extent that even genuine people who fight for good causes are tarnished with the terrorist brush. It would be better to call these groups whatever they call themselves, but I can understand this would be difficult in a war like Syria where there are so many different groups.Not aimed at me, I don't think, but I have never defended Assad. As for my own "spelling" of "jihadist" (probably the wrong term). It is historical accuracy. The group was of AQ. Only a recent split. I don't know what else you'd call it. I would not use "Jihadist" again, if I rewrote that post, but that's more because of the wide-ranging and often mental associations of the term. Incredibly conservative militant terrorist group. About as best as I can put it.
That's not all the forces in Syria but it is the primary one, from what I can see being reported (in the latest rounds).
Yeah absolutely. I’m not even sure that the Americans particularly tried to hide it in Afghanistan, but I was a kid at that time. Maybe someone else will remember. It was regarded as a no-brainer (wrongly, obviously) in the 1980s that fighting the devil-you-know, the Soviet Union was worth almost any price. The world has obviously become far less bipolar since the extremes of that era, but yeah, from memory they weren’t even that subtle. Russia equally supported absolutely anyone who could give the US or Israel a bloody nose.
US offering Assad relief on sanctions if he cuts ties with Iran et al. Interesting.Long overview:
The Backstory Behind the Fall of Aleppo
https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-backstory-behind-the-fall-of-aleppo/
