Putin and Russia in Syria

Ballache said:
See, you can't make these statements and pretend like that's the truth! your good guys statement did my head in! I can understand people hating Assad, and I'm one of them but come on!! Are you honestly telling me that you firmly believe the opposition in Syria can run a country? Or are we all blinded by sectarianism? Your passion towards the opposition is what made me ask the question because let's cut the bullshit, our religious affiliations have a lot of effect on what side we choose to side with.
Click to expand...

Yes - if you look at the make up of the make up of the FSA/Syrian Revolutionaries Front (group hierarchy), they are made up of ex military and gov't personnel.

To the rest - religious affiliations aside, Assad is a mad dog, and I find it inconceivable anyone can support him knowing what he's done to cling to whatever diminishing power he has and I've said this from the start. If you want to believe I'm anti-Assad because of religion that's entirely up to you.

Also, if I'm 'very Sunni' (your words), wouldn't I be supporting IS?

Raoul said:
This notion that ISIS is bad, but Assad is less bad is quite problematic imo. Surely we can agree that Assad and ISIS are both bad, in which case, there's a clear cut moral case for supporting a moderate position that rejects both.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Uzz said:
Yes - if you look at the make up of the make up of the FSA/Syrian Revolutionaries Front (group hierarchy), they are made up of ex military and gov't personnel.
Click to expand...

Another way to interpret this - they are totally complicit in the regime's pre-2011 crimes, only jumped ship in 2011/2012 when dictators across the region were dropping like flies and it looked certain Assad was next, and they are therefore totally unsuitable candidates to lead Syria.

Never mind the fact that if Assad does fall, they'll likely be next for the jihadis chopping board.
 
Raoul said:
It's quite alright. He's a bit ruffled by all the truth bombs I've been laying down on Putin's Russia and has to vent a bit. :)
Click to expand...

I only hope those bombs were launched to promote democracy and western civilization values.
 
2cents said:
Another way to interpret this - they are totally complicit in the regime's pre-2011 crimes, only jumped ship in 2011/2012 when dictators across the region were dropping like flies and it looked certain Assad was next, and they are therefore totally unsuitable candidates to lead Syria.

Never mind the fact that if Assad does fall, they'll likely be next for the jihadis chopping board.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much power these guys really had when ownership and control had been between two people for nigh on 40 years.

Even so, should we colour them the same as Assad? And surely if it was about self preservation, they would have stayed? I mean, I don't know what exactly you're trying to insinuate here. That they're as bad as Assad? That they're looking after their own backs? I don't think that's a fair representation.

Which jihadis chopping board? IS?
 
Uzz said:
I mean, I don't know what exactly you're trying to insinuate here.
Click to expand...

I'm insinuating that it's very doubtful that these people suddenly saw the light in 2011 and converted to democracy-loving secular hippies ready to promote a genuinely pluralistic political order in Syria. They're creatures of over 40 years of Ba'athism, they know only one way to operate politically and yes, that's survival. Which is why they jumped when it looked like Assad was finished.

Which jihadis chopping board
Click to expand...

IS, Nusra, and the others that dominate the opposition and that as far as I recall you have never mentioned once in your discussions of Syria - Ahrar al Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Jund al Aqsa, etc.
 
2cents said:
I'm insinuating that it's very doubtful that these people suddenly saw the light in 2011 and converted to democracy-loving secular hippies ready to promote a genuinely pluralistic political order in Syria. They're creatures of over 40 years of Ba'athism, they know only one way to operate politically and yes, that's survival. Which is why they jumped when it looked like Assad was finished.
Click to expand...
They saw a real opportunity for change and went for it. Any other time in the previous 40 years, how do you think that would have ended up? How has it always ended up? The incident in Daraa was the spark that was needed. How do you think it should have happened? Tbh, it's a really strange thing to hold against them.

And I haven't dressed them up as 'democracy loving secular hippies'. But if you don't think they have a good representation of the different groups within Syria, I'd suggest you look at their group structure.

IS, Nusra, and the others that dominate the opposition and that as far as I recall you have never mentioned once in your discussions of Syria - Ahrar al Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Jund al Aqsa, etc.
Click to expand...

al-Nusra wouldn't and their associated alliance groups wouldn't.

IS would though.

It's awfully easy criticising the opposition because they might do something, even though evidence suggests they might not, yet excusing what actually has been committed by the regime, Shabiha and Hezbollah et al.
 
Last edited:
Uzz said:
Whether you're white, brown, purple, black, Sunni, Shia, Jewish, Scientologist, Alawi...

I can never support a megalomaniac who has caused untold destruction and death to his own people. The evidence is before your very eyes. The rapes, the torture, the napalm, chemical gas, whatever crime you want to see, he's done it to hold on to power.

That's the skinny of it.

You can call me 'very Sunni' or a 'Sunni fanboy' or all the names under the sun, but this is the fact of the matter. If you are pro-Assad you are pro-destruction of the Syrian people.
Click to expand...

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Shias and Kurds when he was in power. Where was the outrage in the middle east and the Western media then? If any thing has become apparent to the average viewer of media in the past 10 years, it's that the media has an agenda.
 
Nikhil said:
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Shias and Kurds when he was in power. Where was the outrage in the middle east and the Western media then? If any thing has become apparent to the average viewer of media in the past 10 years, it's that the media has an agenda.
Click to expand...

In fairness, that was before the information age was in full flight. These days with social media, outrage manifests itself much quicker and more intensely.
 
Nikhil said:
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Shias and Kurds when he was in power. Where was the outrage in the middle east and the Western media then? If any thing has become apparent to the average viewer of media in the past 10 years, it's that the media has an agenda.
Click to expand...
Where have I mentioned the media in my post? Unless you're making a general point to which I agree. But information travels a lot faster now than it did back then.
 
Why hasn't this been merged with the other thread ?
 
The US and Soviet Union were competing for influence in the vital strategic area of the Middle East from the 1950s. Syria has always been close to Russia, with Iran in the American corner until the overthrow of the Shah. Egypt under Nasser was a Russian ally, but, after the peace agreement with Israel, tipped towards the US under the leadership of Sadat.

In recent decades America has been dominant, and Russia has exercised little influence. Obama inherited a strong American hand, with a large army occupying an intimidating position in the very center of the region, Iran weak, Libya becoming more amenable, Israel no longer under serious threat from the states around it etc. He wasted no time in changing all that.. :D

Obama withdrew the army from Iraq; plunged Libya into anarchy - a contagion with raced through the region, briefly delivering Egypt into the hands of Islamic fundamentalism, before, of course, destroying the Syrian state. Which then became a breeding ground for IS, which, in turn, destroyed an American army less Iraqi state; he then made a deal with Iran which gives it the resources to pursue its ambition to become the regional superpower. All in all, not a bad day's work.

Russian power is now moving to fill this violent vacuum. In alliance with Iran, which could well eat up a fractured Iraq.

Israel now has Russian air power, and perhaps Russian ground troops, close to its northern borders. Other American friends in the region are looking shaky.

One thing is certain - interesting times ahead.
 
@Uzz to each their own I guess, I am from that region and I have seen what happens when you remove a secular dictator like Assad. Also being very sunni has nothing to do with supporting IS, and that's not what I was insinuating. There's a general feeling among Sunnis that a majority Sunni country should not be ruled by an Alawite that's allied with Iran. Doesn't mean you're an Isis supporter.

@Raoul i fully agree with you, the dream is to have a secular democratic system where everyone has freedom and all that but that's not how shit works in the Middle East. I'm siding, in my opinion, with the lesser of two evils. As I said before, I'm not pro-Assad I'm more anti revolution.
 
Will Absolute said:
The US and Soviet Union were competing for influence in the vital strategic area of the Middle East from the 1950s. Syria has always been close to Russia, with Iran in the American corner until the overthrow of the Shah. Egypt under Nasser was a Russian ally, but, after the peace agreement with Israel, tipped towards the US under the leadership of Sadat.

In recent decades America has been dominant, and Russia has exercised little influence. Obama inherited a strong American hand, with a large army occupying an intimidating position in the very center of the region, Iran weak, Libya becoming more amenable, Israel no longer under serious threat from the states around it etc. He wasted no time in changing all that.. :D

Obama withdrew the army from Iraq; plunged Libya into anarchy - a contagion with raced through the region, briefly delivering Egypt into the hands of Islamic fundamentalism, before, of course, destroying the Syrian state. Which then became a breeding ground for IS, which, in turn, destroyed an American army less Iraqi state; he then made a deal with Iran which gives it the resources to pursue its ambition to become the regional superpower. All in all, not a bad day's work.

Russian power is now moving to fill this violent vacuum. In alliance with Iran, which could well eat up a fractured Iraq.

Israel now has Russian air power, and perhaps Russian ground troops, close to its northern borders. Other American friends in the region are looking shaky.

One thing is certain - interesting times ahead.
Click to expand...

A bit of revisionism in there - Obama had little say in whether or not US troops would stay in Iraq as the Iraqis declined to sign a bilateral agreement (by way of Iranian pressure) to extend the stay of US troops. Libya was a European project with the US in the background. The Syrian civil war was started by Assad when he sent his henchmen to crush activists demonstrating in Darra, which led to a series of knock on effects leading us to where we are today.
 
Will Absolute said:
Russian power is now moving to fill this violent vacuum. In alliance with Iran, which could well eat up a fractured Iraq.

Israel now has Russian air power, and perhaps Russian ground troops, close to its northern borders. Other American friends in the region are looking shaky.

One thing is certain - interesting times ahead.
Click to expand...

Aye... A Russian plane drifting into (or very very close to depending which side of the story you would believe) Israeli airspace would provide a potential flashpoint... Not sure how they would react but in theory you scramble a fighter and if they don't leave do you risk ww3?
 
Raoul said:
A bit of revisionism in there - Obama had little say in whether or not US troops would stay in Iraq as the Iraqis declined to sign a bilateral agreement (by way of Iranian pressure) to extend the stay of US troops. Libya was a European project with the US in the background. The Syrian civil war was started by Assad when he sent his henchmen to crush activists demonstrating in Darra, which led to a series of knock on effects leading us to where we are today.
Click to expand...

And the fact that the vast majority of Iraqis wanted the US occupiers to feck off?
 
Uzz said:
They saw a real opportunity for change and went for it. Any other time in the previous 40 years, how do you think that would have ended up? How has it always ended up? The incident in Daraa was the spark that was needed. How do you think it should have happened? Tbh, it's a really strange thing to hold against them.
Click to expand...

I find it equally strange that you seem to think that having worked within the Assad regime for however long makes one a good candidate to lead Syria in the future. Nobody forced them to work for the regime pre-2011, Syria actually had a principled opposition movement throughout those years, only the Assads either killed, imprisoned or exiled them all. Nobody still with the regime by 2011 can be trusted with the future of Syria.

al-Nusra wouldn't and their associated alliance groups wouldn't.

IS would though.

It's awfully easy criticising the opposition because they might do something, even though evidence suggests they might not, yet excusing what actually has been committed by the regime, Shabiha and Hezbollah et al.
Click to expand...

Nusra have fought and defeated the FSA's Syrian Martyr's Brigade in Idlib, their leader Jamal Maarouf now lives in Turkey, he was the main guy in that region the US had pinned their hopes on. Since then, the FSA in Idlib and Aleppo have 'let' the jihadists lead the fight. Jaysh al-Islam have also fought FSA units around Damascus.

I actually didn't mean the 'chopping board' thing literally, but the fact that their primary sponsor, Saudi Arabia, regularly beheads undesirables suggests it's not that farfetched to think that it would happen in a jihadi-dominated Assad-free Syria. In any case, Nusra have beheaded plenty in Syria, they just haven't gone all Hollywood with it like IS. Until 2013, Nusra and the IS (then ISI) were one and the same, and al-Julani was trusted enough by al-Baghdadi to expand the group into Syria in 2011/2012. I really doubt he also saw the light in 2013.

And you still refuse to comment on the other jihadists in Ahrar, JAI and others, despite the fact that they would clearly wipe the floor with the FSA if it came to that (which it would if Assad falls).

I've no problem with you wanting Assad gone btw, if you believe he is the worst of the worst in Syria. I'm just very skeptical of the wishful thinking you seem to have with regard to the nature and influence of the FSA, and your downplaying of the nature of Nusra.
 
sun_tzu said:
Aye... A Russian plane drifting into (or very very close to depending which side of the story you would believe) Israeli airspace would provide a potential flashpoint... Not sure how they would react but in theory you scramble a fighter and if they don't leave do you risk ww3?
Click to expand...

A scary thought.

I'd be fecking pissed if me and my whole family including my young child were killed in a nuclear holocaust as a result of external world powers falling out over Syria.
 
holyland red said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-mideast-crisis-russia-israel-idUSKCN0RZ24820151005

Russian forces are nowhere near our borders, but this certainly calls for discussions with the only superpower willing to get involved in the Syrian mess.
Click to expand...
^This.

To be fair, I'm not keen on interventionism but that headline seems positive.

OT: I've only just seen your tagline. Pretty unfair. How the feck are you a fundamentalist when Uzz gets off scot-free despite supporting groups that wish to wipe out Israel and kill Jews?
 
Raoul said:
That's worked out quite nicely hasn't it.
Click to expand...
You hinted the yanks were forced out because the Iranians said so, ignoring the fact that Iraqis themselves wanted them out. But again I wouldn't expect the US to care about what Iraqis want.
 
Kaos said:
You hinted the yanks were forced out because the Iranians said so, ignoring the fact that Iraqis themselves wanted them out. But again I wouldn't expect the US to care about what Iraqis want.
Click to expand...

Depends which Iraqis you ask I suppose. The Kurds certainly didn't want the US out, nor did a good number of Sunni leaders. The broader point is that in hindsight it was clearly a bad choice by the Maliki regime, but they had to do it because they needed the Sadr trend's support to remain in power, and Sadr at the time was in the Iranian back pocket because they hosted him in Qom for a few years. Thus Iran, in its obsession to reestablish influence in Iraq, tacitly created a situation where ISIS was allowed to materialize. Had the Americans stayed, the ISIS presence would've been snuffed out before it had a chance to gain steam. Although they would've probably still formed in Syria thanks to Assad.
 
The Syria bombing campaign is a nice distraction while he leaves the Donbass "pro-Russia rebels" to their fate - that's why it is happening now since I'm not aware Latakiya (Russia's port on the Med) is in significantly greater danger as compared with a few months ago). There's no strategic master plan, it's just the usual short term tactics from Putin.
 
MoskvaRed said:
The Syria bombing campaign is a nice distraction while he leaves the Donbass "pro-Russia rebels" to their fate - that's why it is happening now since I'm not aware Latakiya (Russia's port on the Med) is in significantly greater danger as compared with a few months ago). There's no strategic master plan, it's just the usual short term tactics from Putin.
Click to expand...

It is, as I wrote above...

"the Jaysh al-Fatah rebel coalition recently completed the conquest of Idlib Province, from where, for the first time in the conflict, they can directly threaten Assad's ancestral homeland and, more importantly from a Russian perspective, the Syrian coastal cities of Latakia and Tartus."​
 
12036504_1501828820115426_6369666661411913579_n.jpg
 
holyland red said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-mideast-crisis-russia-israel-idUSKCN0RZ24820151005

Russian forces are nowhere near our borders, but this certainly calls for discussions with the only superpower willing to get involved in the Syrian mess.
Click to expand...

If they're in Syria, they're close enough.

The discussions are interesting, although I wouldn't forget the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact, if I were you. In the short term, Israel's reputation for uncompromising defense of its territory is likely to stand it in good stead. The Russians will be very, very careful. It's the real possibility of radical, long term change in Middle East politics that poses a threat to its security.
 
17 Van der Gouw said:
^This.

To be fair, I'm not keen on interventionism but that headline seems positive.

OT: I've only just seen your tagline. Pretty unfair. How the feck are you a fundamentalist when Uzz gets off scot-free despite supporting groups that wish to wipe out Israel and kill Jews?
Click to expand...

:lol: Not fair... The CE forum... Surely not.
 
I think Netanyahy visited Moscow about a week ago. I'm sure, he and Putin had a serious discussion on what needs to be done to avoid the misunderstandings.
 
2cents said:
It is, as I wrote above...

"the Jaysh al-Fatah rebel coalition recently completed the conquest of Idlib Province, from where, for the first time in the conflict, they can directly threaten Assad's ancestral homeland and, more importantly from a Russian perspective, the Syrian coastal cities of Latakia and Tartus."​
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. And on his birthday as well.....

Seriously, though, I do see a link with the loss of appetite for pouring further blood and treasure into the Donbass, even if the situation for Assad has got worse as you say. After 18 months of relentless propaganda about fascists in Kiev, they can't skulk away without a convincing pretext.
 
MoskvaRed said:
I stand corrected. And on his birthday as well.....

Seriously, though, I do see a link with the loss of appetite for pouring further blood and treasure into the Donbass, even if the situation for Assad has got worse as you say. After 18 months of relentless propaganda about fascists in Kiev, they can't skulk away without a convincing pretext.
Click to expand...

Knowing nothing about what's going on in Ukraine, I'll take your word for it.
 
Will Absolute said:
If they're in Syria, they're close enough.

The discussions are interesting, although I wouldn't forget the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact, if I were you. In the short term, Israel's reputation for uncompromising defense of its territory is likely to stand it in good stead. The Russians will be very, very careful. It's the real possibility of radical, long term change in Middle East politics that poses a threat to its security.
Click to expand...

Israel attacked Assad's army positions in retaliation to firing into Israeli territory the day after Netanyahu met Putin in Moscow. I'm sure this is not about sharing Syrian territory but making sure a collision between the two countries is avoided as they both pursue their interests. Official Israel is not against Assad remaining in power so this shouldn't be a problem for Putin.
 
Raoul said:
Depends which Iraqis you ask I suppose. The Kurds certainly didn't want the US out, nor did a good number of Sunni leaders. The broader point is that in hindsight it was clearly a bad choice by the Maliki regime, but they had to do it because they needed the Sadr trend's support to remain in power, and Sadr at the time was in the Iranian back pocket because they hosted him in Qom for a few years. Thus Iran, in its obsession to reestablish influence in Iraq, tacitly created a situation where ISIS was allowed to materialize. Had the Americans stayed, the ISIS presence would've been snuffed out before it had a chance to gain steam. Although they would've probably still formed in Syria thanks to Assad.
Click to expand...

Kurds don't consider themselves Iraqis. And the point stands - the vast majority of Iraqis wanted them out, and for good reason too. An occupying force that had completely destroyed the nation and plunged it into anarchy aren't exactly going to be continued welcome guests. Furthermore, Americans staying did little to quell the wave of Islamic terrorism that had plagued Iraq soon after the war, in fact it had probably exacerbated it. Government officials became targets for merely working with the Americans.

You can add an anti-Iran spin to this all you want, but in the end the Iraqis wanted you out and for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.