Middle East Politics

[Wibble]

> Israel has no interest in expanding into Syria

> Israel's previous permanent expansion into Syria is good and permanent and a buffer zzone that's a good thing

> Israel's current expansion into Syria is good and strategic and a buffer zone for the buffer zone

> Israel has no interest in expanding into Syria

Glad you have decided that an adult debate is possible.

Oh wait.

 

[neverdie]

invent any old rubbish and it becomes fact.

Read the Israeli newspapers. It's their rubbish which they're trying to make fact.

 

[Ahmer Baig]

I cannot believe some people here are actually defending Israel destroying Syria's military infrastructure.

 

[Ahmer Baig]

US saying they remain in Syria till complete destruction of ISIS.

 

[berbatrick]

Glad you have decided that an adult debate is possible.

Oh wait.

not my fault if your position here is so obviously and openly self-contradictory, that the best move is to simply lay it out.

 

[Wibble]

Read the Israeli newspapers. It's their rubbish which they're trying to make fact.

Newspaper headline do not foreign or military policy make.

 

[neverdie]

US saying they remain in Syria till complete destruction of ISIS.

Which is who they, along with Turkey, paid to oust Assad. Isis to AQ is the leader of that movement.

 

[neverdie]

Newspaper headline do not foreign or military policy make.

No, but troop movements which correspond to them do.

 

[Ahmer Baig]

Which is who they, along with Turkey, paid to oust Assad. Isis to AQ is the leader of that movement.

I know. Every country wants slice of Syrian Cake.

Israel PM warning the rebels who ousted Assad that if they align with Iran, Isarel would bomb them.

 

[Wibble]

not my fault if your position here is so obviously and openly self-contradictory, that the best move is to simply lay it out.

It wasn't. It was context about events 50 years apart, that also prove (or are at least rather suggestive of) my point. You don't do context and just want to scream ISRAEL BAD and invent things about anything they do. Surely they do enough bad shit without having to make stuff up?

 

[Wibble]

No, but troop movements which correspond to them do.

Sign. I'd be more worried about the US if IS expand, or Turkey if they see the Kurds expanding/gaining more power, or Russia doing doing something idiotic to keep their military base and warm water port. In comparison Israel is only likely to move further east if they need to for a bigger buffer. Most likely destroying the Syrian military on the ground is/was mainly to prevent this and not to facilitate it (unless threatened in the future).

 

[berbatrick]

Sign. I'd be more worried about the US if IS expand, or Turkey if they see the Kurds expanding/gaining more power, or Russia doing doing something idiotic to keep their military base and warm water port. In comparison Israel is only likely to move further east if they need to for a bigger buffer. Most likely destroying the Syrian military on the ground is/was mainly to prevent this and not to facilitate it (unless threatened in the future).

The US, EU, and Turkey considers the PKK terrorists, and Turkey - with some justification - sees the YPG/SDF as intertwined with the PKK. How are their murderous thugs, currently invading Kurdish territory, doing anything other than establishing a buffer zone to protect them from potential cross-border terrorist activity?

You are simply giving Israel the special status it demands for itself in world affairs.

It wasn't. It was context about events 50 years apart, that also prove (or are at least rather suggestive of) my point. You don't do context and just want to scream ISRAEL BAD and invent things about anything they do. Surely they do enough bad shit without having to make stuff up?

Sorry, I'm not going to let this go.

What am I making up.

Both of us are seeing Israel expand into Syria, hold strategic positions, clear and destroy villages, and bomb Damascus. Both of know that that Israel has done this previously with Syrian territory. This isn't in dispute. You further think that this expansion is strategically justified. Fine. Many westerners sympathise with Israel, so, fine, this is a widespread stance.
Then you also claim that "Israel has no interest in expansion". There's a contradiction here, and perhaps the only reason it's not visible to you is because of how deeply you might have internalised Israeli narratives.

 

[Kaos]

What possible reason do they have? They don't want or need the land. History shows you that buffer zones were part of the 6 day wars objectives. Countries that played nice got land back e.g. Sinai.

What possible reason do they have to constantly steal territory in the West Bank? Or what possible reason could their politicians have to justify their ambitions for a greater Israel? In fact, what reason does any power with colonial aspirations have for expanding their territory? If its not resources its more living space for their citizens (as per the Israeli national newspaper), or perhaps some dogmatic entitlement to the territory, something Israelis clearly adhere to. And of course this mountain they've taken bears huge strategic significance, its perfectly feasible they no longer want to give that up.

They will hold buffer zones while buffer zones are needed. A Syrian government (or large faction) headed by a former IS leader is such an obvious red flag that no nation would be happy having that on your border. Assad's regime was despicable but that doesn't mean what will follow will be good.

They already have a buffer zone near the border - its called the Golaan heights, a territory considered occupied by the international community, sans the US who believe Israel can do no wrong. What they're essentially doing is moving the goalposts and broadening the land mass that constitutes this 'buffer'. And you keep mentioning this new Syrian leader and his former unsavoury connections. You really think the Western powers, namely the US would allow him to assume office if they considered him a threat? Like I've said, if they genuinely considered him a threat he'd have been drone striked many moons ago, and they wouldn't have lifted his party's name from the terror list. Heck he wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near power.

It is a fact of life. That doesn't mean not pushing back on them but if groups like Hamas and Hezbollah attack them they will react hard every time. Hezbollah and Hamas know this and lie ti because they know they can cause Israel to react this way which derails normalization of relation between Israel and moderate Arab nations. The cycle of violence sadly does seem to be here to stay.

And Hamas and Hezbollah just happened to spawn from the ether? Perhaps we should look at the underlying reason why these factions exist. Even if they were to disappear entirely tomorrow, with Israel's continued trajectory they'll just end up spawning more in its place. Its a cycle with one constant throughout the history of Israel's existence - its insatiable need to continue expanding its territory at the expense of natives.

 

[Cloud7]

The mental gymnastics people go through to defend Israel's every move is so astounding to me.

Daddy's special little boy has never had a more apt definition than Israel.

 

[Laurencio]

I know. Every country wants slice of Syrian Cake.

Israel PM warning the rebels who ousted Assad that if they align with Iran, Isarel would bomb them.

Subtext: Align with us and the great USA instead, cause you don't really have anything to defend yourself with and you can't trust the Russians.

 

[africanspur]

It is an entirely logical and sensible thing for a country to do. Israel are behaving terribly in Gaza (and elsewhere) and there are a huge number of things you can quite rightly criticise them for, but this is simply sensible and a precaution as nobody knows what comes next and a calm modern democracy friendly to Israel isn't very likely.

I honestly have no words anymore.

 

[africanspur]

If the seizing of a buffer zones in Syria by its neighbours is wrong then why is it no one seemed that bothered when the Turks did the exact same thing years before Israel?

A) it is wrong
B) it has been mentioned
C) Sadly the Kurds are less important to the west than Turkey
D) Unlike Israel, there is no modern historical precedent for Turkey to take a piece of land militarily and still be holding and settling it decades later.
E) most importantly perhaps, a conversation generally needs to and fro and agreement and disagreement for it to run in for a long time. Nobody defends Turkey on here when it comes to their conduct on Syria. Israel on the other hand receives the cavalry as usual.

 

[africanspur]

What possible reason do they have? They don't want or need the land. History shows you that buffer zones were part of the 6 day wars objectives. Countries that played nice got land back e.g. Sinai.

They will hold buffer zones while buffer zones are needed. A Syrian government (or large faction) headed by a former IS leader is such an obvious red flag that no nation would be happy having that on your border. Assad's regime was despicable but that doesn't mean what will follow will be good.

It is a fact of life. That doesn't mean not pushing back on them but if groups like Hamas and Hezbollah attack them they will react hard every time. Hezbollah and Hamas know this and lie ti because they know they can cause Israel to react this way which derails normalization of relation between Israel and moderate Arab nations. The cycle of violence sadly does seem to be here to stay.

Again, I’m just going to reiterate this for the benefit of others. The Golan heights are already not their territory. That is already their buffer zone. They are invading another country to create a buffer to their buffer.

You seem to do very little pushing back and a huge amount of defending and ‘finding nuance’.

 

[africanspur]

When the French capitulated to Hitler Britain did the same thing to their navy.

When the French capitulated (to a country that had already taken over much of Europe), they had one of the biggest navies in the world. And to really drum this point home, Britain and Germany were already at war.

 

[2cents]

Unlike Israel, there is no modern historical precedent for Turkey to take a piece of land militarily and still be holding and settling it decades later.

A Syrian nationalist might point you to the case of Hatay, while a more pertinent case may be northern Cyprus.

 

[africanspur]

A Syrian nationalist might point you to the case of Hatay, while a more pertinent case may be northern Cyprus.

Hatay was pre WW2 was it not?

You won’t find me defending either Turkey or Northern Cyprus, though I’m not aware to what extent Turkish politicians claim the land as their own (happy to be educated).

 

[Spark]

What a load of rubbish. Israel has no such interest in Syria. Obviously. That they behave like a bunch of cnuts doesn't mean you can invent any old rubbish and it becomes fact.

This is patently untrue. Everything they do suggests that expansionism is their modus operandi.

- Gaza - actively talking about resettling within their cabinet.
- Golan - Netanyahu saying "Golan is Israel's for eternity" this past Sunday. That's a very different position than previous, despite them obviously settling it.

In fact, when they took the Golan originally it was also to act as a "buffer zone". Until that buffer zone becomes defacto Israel, at which point their borders have expanded. Greater Judea might be a provocative notion, but Israel's entire history from day one has been about expansion. It's never actually stopped, so not sure why suggesting that Israel is an expansionist power can be written off.

 

[Wibble]

What am I making up.

That Israel (with the US and turkey) destroying most of the former Syrian military hardware equated to Israel wanting to invade Syria.

Both of us are seeing Israel expand into Syria, hold strategic positions, clear and destroy villages,

Israel have just taken over the buffer zone when the Syrian military who are meant to man it fled when Assad fell. Hardly an indication they want to invade Syrian itself. The Golan Heights is long gone and barring some unlikely negotiated 2 state solution (and maybe not even then) will remain Israeli - a price Syria will have to pay for screwing up by helping to instigate the 6 day war. The buffer zone may well be given back depending on what happens in Syria and depending on if the UN will man the buffer zone fully. I'd say the Mountain is likely to be the exception because it helps them detect and defend against attacks from Iran and Hezbollah. Hardly a great surprise.

and bomb Damascus.

Again. Attack Israel like Hezbollah did, and this is always going to be the reaction, especially since Hezbollah use Damascus to hide in. Neither side don't give a shit about collatoral damage.

Both of know that that Israel has done this previously with Syrian territory. This isn't in dispute. You further think that this expansion is strategically justified.

It is to Israel and who else matters in any real sense. The US and many of their allies think it is a good idea and the rest can't do anything other than say "Stop or I'll say stop again". There are far more important and urgent things regarding Israel to worry about e.g. their behavior in Gaza.

Fine. Many westerners sympathise with Israel, so, fine, this is a widespread stance.

I think Israel are a bunch of cnuts. But they are here to stay and have been for a long time. Even by the 6 day war it was well past the point where the location of a Jewish homeland was reversible.

Then you also claim that "Israel has no interest in expansion". There's a contradiction here, and perhaps the only reason it's not visible to you is because of how deeply you might have internalised Israeli narratives.

I haven't internalise anything. I just think you need to criticise and try to change things that are far more worthy of criticism, the latest action in Syrian is straightforward tactical self-defect.

 

[Wibble]

This is patently untrue. Everything they do suggests that expansionism is their modus operandi.

- Gaza - actively talking about resettling within their cabinet.
- Golan - Netanyahu saying "Golan is Israel's for eternity" this past Sunday. That's a very different position than previous, despite them obviously settling it.

The Golan Heights have been in Israeli hands for over 50 years and if you expect a fare right Zionist like Netanyahu to say anything else it would be a bit odd. TH GH were never getting handed back and the latest events only (slightly) reinforce this. And there have been settlements (about 50 from memory) in the GH for long time. Such rhetoric doesn't represent any change in real terms.

In fact, when they took the Golan originally it was also to act as a "buffer zone". Until that buffer zone becomes defacto Israel, at which point their borders have expanded. Greater Judea might be a provocative notion, but Israel's entire history from day one has been about expansion. It's never actually stopped, so not sure why suggesting that Israel is an expansionist power can be written off.

Israel has only expanded to (in theior mind at least) protect themselves. Settling in the areas like the West Bank (and to a lesser extent the Golan Heights) is just to make any change to reverse that difficult or impossible and, unlike Sinai, Israel coudn't envisage a future where they could return these areas and still maintain security. Israel don't want more land for land's sake so labelling the current events as expansionist is entirely misrepresenting what is happening.

 

[Idxomer]

It's more ideological bad faith rather than cluelessness. The amounts of hypocrisy and gaslighting when it comes to this criminal rogue state are astounding.

No one who's half informed about the region and how Israel proceeded since 1948 can say with a straight face that Israel's illegal bombings in Syria and taking over Mt Hermon is to prevent attacks on their soil and protect the UN with whom they've been at odds since 1967.

We all know that this "temporary occupation" will turn out to be permanent. Israel's adding buffer to their already illegally occupied buffer zone (the Golan Heights). Netanyahu openly said two days ago that the Golan Heights are Israel's forever with no one in the West batting an eyelid.

Then you have two posters having the gall to paint this obvious land grab as kinda "understandable".

It's both. It all comes from a good dose of brainwashing caused by decades of propaganda but there's also inherent prejudice toward anyone in the region not sharing their great values. See those last two pages for more examples, there are some truly hilarious shit posted in them.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Can we stop with the false narrative that the Americans dismantled the Iraqi military which caused the country to descend into civil violence?

By the time the insurgency and sectarian violence really peaked (see Troop surge years), the Iraqi military had been given in various aid mechanisms and outright purchases, equipment that on paper could rival European states.

By 2008 Iraq had divisions worth of M1 Abrams, HUMVEE's, MANPADS, Strykers, MPATS, General trucks. They were given in aid C-130's, F-16's, Black Hawks, Mobile Radars, Chinooks, Artillery pieces, Paladins, etc.

The inability for the Iraq state to fight had absolutely nothing with the US dismantling the Saddam era infrastructure because it was replaced well before the sectarian violence really amped up.

 

[Wibble]

Again, I’m just going to reiterate this for the benefit of others. The Golan heights are already not their territory. That is already their buffer zone. They are invading another country to create a buffer to their buffer.

You seem to do very little pushing back and a huge amount of defending and ‘finding nuance’.

What pushing back can I do exactly? Vote for a government that has broken with the US line to vote against Israel at the UN? Check. What else?

The buffer zone they have just moved in to after Syrian troops did a runner is part of the Golan Heights. So they haven't invaded anything. You can bluster all you like about the Golan Heights still being Syrian territory but that is all it is as it is never getting given back and the fall of Syrian moves that from unlikely to never. If progress is ever to be made in the region shooting for such unrealistic dreams isn't going to help anyone. Stopping what is happening in Gaza is the priority but then a negotiated solution is needed but it will never happen because Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran etc won't accept Israel's requirements and vice versa. Neither side has anywhere near enough compromise in them, and Israel have power and military might in their side.

Ireland was "solved" (at least to some significant degree) but it took a great deal of compromise from Terrorist organisations (and the British Government) to get there. Without a ceasefire from the paramilitaries this could never have happened and I can't ever see Hamas or Hezbollah agreeing to this pretty much ever. Can you?

 

[Spark]

The Golan Heights have been in Israeli hands for over 50 years and if you expect a fare right Zionist like Netanyahu to say anything else it would be a bit odd. TH GH were never getting handed back and the latest events only (slightly) reinforce this. And there have been settlements (about 50 from memory) in the GH for long time. Such rhetoric doesn't represent any change in real terms.

Israel has only expanded to (in theior mind at least) protect themselves. Settling in the areas like the West Bank (and to a lesser extent the Golan Heights) is just to make any change to reverse that difficult or impossible and, unlike Sinai, Israel coudn't envisage a future where they could return these areas and still maintain security. Israel don't want more land for land's sake so labelling the current events as expansionist is entirely misrepresenting what is happening.

So they are expansionist then? Expanding to protect yourself is expanding. It doesn't matter what reasoning is given, it's the same as Russia in Ukraine. Rhetoric of course matters - what happens if the US recognises Taiwan? It basically does already, right? So why don't they go the full hog and just say "Taiwan is an independent country"? Whilst not on the same scale of impact, Netanyahu saying that Golan is Israel is a de facto change in position and an expansionist one. This is not a controversial opinion.

No one is expecting any different from Israel - far-right government or not. This is standard (expansionist) Israeli behaviour and they have never shown any real willingness to stop. And they do want land for lands sake - controlling the Sea of Galilee is a major geopolitical aim for them. Settling the West Bank (which is not Israel) is taking land for lands sake.

Israel is and always has been expansionist. There have been times when they compromised, but they are few are far between.

 

[Wibble]

I honestly have no words anymore.

Hardly surprising given that you think Israel unilaterally started the 6 day war for shits and giggles and in no way was it provoked by Arab nations aggression. The place is a shit show but being so one eyed won't hale improve things.

 

[Wibble]

So they are expansionist then? Expanding to protect yourself is expanding. It doesn't matter what reasoning is given, it's the same as Russia in Ukraine. Rhetoric of course matters - what happens if the US recognises Taiwan? It basically does already, right? So why don't they go the full hog and just say "Taiwan is an independent country"? Whilst not on the same scale of impact, Netanyahu saying that Golan is Israel is a de facto change in position and an expansionist one. This is not a controversial opinion.

No one is expecting any different from Israel - far-right government or not. This is standard (expansionist) Israeli behaviour and they have never shown any real willingness to stop. And they do want land for lands sake - controlling the Sea of Galilee is a major geopolitical aim for them. Settling the West Bank (which is not Israel) is taking land for lands sake.

Israel is and always has been expansionist. There have been times when they compromised, but they are few are far between.

Expansionist is Putin in Ukraine, characterising Israel as being expansionist for taking (hopefully) temporary control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian troops is being disingenuous, reading a dictionary definition and thinking that proves some great truth irrespective of the context.

 

[Spark]

Expansionist is Putin in Ukraine, characterising Israel as being expansionist for taking (hopefully) temporary control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian troops is being disingenuous, reading a dictionary definition and thinking that proves some great truth irrespective of the context.

Expansionist is Putin in Ukraine, Israel in the middle east.

Israel is expansionist for taking the West Bank, deploying into Lebanon and not leaving, deploying into Golan and not leaving (and claiming it as eternally Israel, as of Sunday) and now moving into Syria.

 

[africanspur]

What pushing back can I do exactly? Vote for a government that has broken with the US line to vote against Israel at the UN? Check. What else?

The buffer zone they have just moved in to after Syrian troops did a runner is part of the Golan Heights. So they haven't invaded anything. You can bluster all you like about the Golan Heights still being Syrian territory but that is all it is as it is never getting given back and the fall of Syrian moves that from unlikely to never. If progress is ever to be made in the region shooting for such unrealistic dreams isn't going to help anyone. Stopping what is happening in Gaza is the priority but then a negotiated solution is needed but it will never happen because Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran etc won't accept Israel's requirements and vice versa. Neither side has anywhere near enough compromise in them, and Israel have power and military might in their side.

Ireland was "solved" (at least to some significant degree) but it took a great deal of compromise from Terrorist organisations (and the British Government) to get there. Without a ceasefire from the paramilitaries this could never have happened and I can't ever see Hamas or Hezbollah agreeing to this pretty much ever. Can you?

Not defending Israel at almost every turn on here would be a good start.

I honestly don’t understand how to respond to this kind of argument. Was it in Israeli hands before? Are their soldiers now in that region, having previously not been? When is a movement of soldiers into an area where they previously weren’t into another nation not an invasion? When it’s the wests darling of course.

If you’ve become a Raoul type realpolitik might is right proponent, then at least be upfront about it like he is.

Generally taking other countries’ lands, regardless of current levels of strength, generally doesn’t lead itself to the other group loving peacefully with its neighbour. I imagine the Irish state and the paramilitaries would have had a much harder time of it if the British army was pushing into RoI to create buffer zones for itself and weed out lines of communication.

 

[africanspur]

Expansionist is Putin in Ukraine, characterising Israel as being expansionist for taking (hopefully) temporary control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian troops is being disingenuous, reading a dictionary definition and thinking that proves some great truth irrespective of the context.

So if it’s not temporary, will you change your tone? Or will you continue providing defence at every turn?

 

[africanspur]

Hardly surprising given that you think Israel unilaterally started the 6 day war for shits and giggles and in no way was it provoked by Arab nations aggression. The place is a shit show but being so one eyed won't hale improve things.

I didn’t say that they started the war for shits and giggles. Read the thread before making stupid comments.

 

[2cents]

Hatay was pre WW2 was it not?

Yes, and there are important contextual differences, as there are in all such cases. However, if we are accepting of the idea that certain states have an inherently expansionist impulse, and open to citing historical examples stretching back over decades to those states’ first years of existence, then a nod to Hatay doesn’t seem out of place in the context of a discussion of neighboring states’ territorial designs on Syria. Moreso given what Turkey has done in a place like Afrin during this war.

You won’t find me defending either Turkey or Northern Cyprus, though I’m not aware to what extent Turkish politicians claim the land as their own (happy to be educated).

Turkey is the motherland, North Cyprus the baby and basically regarded as an overseas province. There has been no formal annexation, it more closely follows the post-Soviet model of internationally unrecognized puppet government. Its existence rests to a large degree, of course, on the “exchange” of the entire Greek population during the war, and has been bolstered by the settlement of “mainland” Turks to supplement the native Turk-Cypriot population.

 

[africanspur]

Yes, and there are important contextual differences, as there are in all such cases. However, if we are accepting of the idea that certain states have an inherently expansionist impulse, and open to citing historical examples stretching back over decades to those states’ first years of existence, then a nod to Hatay doesn’t seem out of place in the context of a discussion of neighboring states’ territorial designs on Syria. Moreso given what Turkey has done in a place like Afrin during this war.



Turkey is the motherland, North Cyprus the baby and basically regarded as an overseas province. There has been no formal annexation, it more closely follows the post-Soviet model of internationally unrecognized puppet government. Its existence rests to a large degree, of course, on the “exchange” of the entire Greek population during the war, and has been bolstered by the settlement of “mainland” Turks to supplement the native Turk-Cypriot population.

By recent, I meant within our living memories. I would not expect the French, Brits, Americans, Germans or Japanese to start colonising and annexing a territory after an invasion now, regardless of their previous expansionist histories.

For the second point, thank you for the explanation. That point can be removed from the list I gave then.

 

[africanspur]

Bloomberg:

Russia Pushed Assad to Flee Syria After Concluding He'd Lost


With Syrian opposition forces advancing rapidly toward the capital, Damascus, President Bashar al-Assad's fate lay in Russia's hands as his army melted away.

Still haunted by video of the mob killing and mutilation of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi in that country's civil war in 2011, the Kremlin moved to save its ally even as it concluded that it could do nothing to prop up Assad's regime any longer.

President Vladimir Putin is demanding to know why Russia's intelligence service didn't spot the growing threat to Assad's rule until it was too late, said a person close to the Kremlin with knowledge of the situation.

Russia persuaded Assad that he would lose the fight against armed groups led by the former al-Qaeda offshoot HTS and offered him and his family safe passage if he left immediately, according to three people with knowledge of the situation, asking not to be identified because the matter is sensitive.

Russian intelligence agents organized the escape, flying Assad out via its air base in Syria, two people said. The aircraft's transponder was turned off to avoid being tracked, one of them said.

The intervention to carry the Syrian dictator and his family into exile ended the Assad dynasty's more than half a century rule, after Bashar succeeded his father Hafez who was president from 1971 until his death in 2000.

Within hours of Assad's departure, the militants swept unopposed into Damascus and claimed victory in the Syrian conflict that had raged for nearly 14 years.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Putin hasn't spoken publicly, so far, about the collapse of the Assad regime.

"This was damage control," said Ruslan Pukhov, head of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a defense and security think-tank. He said it was"very logical" for Russia to tell Assad to give up as it wanted to avoid a bloodbath in which he met the same fate as Qaddafi or Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was hanged in 2006 following a trial.

With Russia fearful for the future of its two key military bases in Syria - a naval port in Tartus and the airfield at Khmeimim - the Kremlin is putting a brave face on the outcome after officials were caught by surprise at the speed of
events unfolding on the ground.

Russian media are pushing a message that Assad was to blame for his defeat, while Moscow kept its word by not abandoning him and should now focus on maintaining its strategic interests in Syria and the wider Middle East.

Russia had bombed opposition fighters initially, in an attempt to push them back and bolster Assad's forces. But with the Syrian army offering little resistance as rebels seized the city of Hama within days of capturing Aleppo, Russia concluded it couldn't protect the regime as the opposition bore down on the strategic city of Homs, one of the people said.

The Foreign Ministry in Moscow on Sunday announced that Assad had stepped down and left his country, adding that Russia was in contact with "all Syrian opposition groups."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held talks on the Syrian crisis with his Iranian and Turkish counterparts in the Qatari capital, Doha, on Saturday.

Iran, like Russia, was a close supporter of Assad. The two countries came to his defense in 2015, when Putin dispatched Russia's military to Syria to help Assad push back rebels who were surrounding Damascus. Turkey backed the insurgents who finally succeeded in ousting the longtime Syrian ruler.

 

[Mainoonited]

I cannot believe some people here are actually defending Israel destroying Syria's military infrastructure.

The golden child can do no wrong.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Expansionist is Putin in Ukraine, characterising Israel as being expansionist for taking (hopefully) temporary control of the buffer zone abandoned by Syrian troops is being disingenuous, reading a dictionary definition and thinking that proves some great truth irrespective of the context.

I said almost exactly this yesterday to the same 2 or 3 people. It's so obviously true, but it's really, really important for them to be able to connect Israeli actions to Russian actions. So much so that they'll overlook the glaring differences.

 

[africanspur]

The Turks and their proxies continue to strike in North eastern Syria, seemingly pretty indiscriminately.

Syrias neighbours continuing to increase stability.