Syrian Civil War: World Leaders Try Again

red_elk said:
Ground operation is out of question, Putin won't be able to sell this to the people.
Click to expand...
Will see, he managed to "sell" even Ukraine. Which was unthinkable just a year ago.
And... ministry of defence got few thousands of new subscribers on youtube, since video was uploaded, so they will continue operation ;d
 
JustAnotherNerd said:
Will see, he managed to "sell" even Ukraine. Which was unthinkable just a year ago.
Click to expand...
Ukraine doesn't have to be sold, Putin actually has trouble explaining to the people why he is letting Kievan government kill Russians there instead of sending army to stop that mess.
Syria is a totally different case, people remember Afghanistan and Chechnya and won't approve ground operation there. Unless something extraordinary happens, which I hope will not.

Difference between Syria and Ukraine for the Russians is probably like difference between Somalia and Florida, for Americans.

Edit: BTW, what is "ФЬТРЫЩЯИХЦЮ"?
 
red_elk said:
Difference between Syria and Ukraine for the Russians is probably like difference between Somalia and Florida, for Americans.

Edit: BTW, what is "ФЬТРЫЩЯИХЦЮ"?
Click to expand...
Pardon my poor english, but that's exactly what I was going to say. If he managed to sell even Ukraine, he will be able to sell operation in Syria even easier. Since, as you noticed, difference is significant for russians. And he's already succeed. It was accepted, with this pace maybe relatively soon, in year or two, maybe less? even ground ground operation could be accepted.

Afghanistan and Chechnia is not an argument, unless we know how exactly they were finished, and why did they last so long. And we probably don't? Or we do? Anyways it's not for this thread.

And ФЬТРЫЩЯИХЦЮ is common russian word, at least I know it as russian, H@H@. You are russian too I assume, have to know this word. ;d Or you are not even russian:hmm:
 
Borachio said:
I suggest some lateral thinking is in order.

How about a massive influx of volunteer tourists into Syria?

Imagine two, or three, hundred million of them milling around all at once. IS would be powerless.
Click to expand...

People wouldn't know what would have hit them. The tourists and the terrorists alike
=============


While I sound like a broken record on this issue, we should have intervened in some meaningful way at/near the start of this crisis. Syria is a massive nation that stands at the center of the Middle East, people thought (and probably still think) they can get away with doing nothing about Syria when the fact remains there is an emerging lost generation displaced by war that will probably cause numerous problems in the next 40-50 years. Thankfully (some) Europeans are taking in (some) refugees, but the humanitarian issue will evolve into further realpolitik problems for the next couple of decades.

Anyways since the start of the crisis has long since passed - there will be a larger mess from any action than if we had acted at the start. The Afghan model was incredibly successful due to having pre-existing local forces with vested interests in retaking traditional territory, we do have the capability to do more with the Kurds and Iraqis in regards to Syria's eastern front. On the southern/western front the troops we are training are struggling to accomplish too much by themselves.

No one wants to hear it, but the truth is the best solution might actually be a multi-nation military intervention. The result will still be a mess - extremists would definitely still exist after said intervention, moderates who survived and have since been hardened by the war may do things we don't approve of, secular retaliations against minorities that supported/support Assad might happen, etc. Point is intervention will/would probably have all of these non-desirable side effects, but it would cause the civil war to wrap up faster and allow Syria to proceed on the path to recovery faster. As it stands without intervention, this conflict could go on for another half decade and then recovery for Syria will take at least three decades. Intervention could cut down this time needed for recovery maybe in half while reducing numerous threats of terrorism and spillover violence to nations with interests at stake.
 
I think its too late, I would suggest let Asad and Russians to handle Syria. If should be some international intervention its in Iraq and maybe Libya.

If will conflict in Syria continue, it will be at least useful light trap for moths islamists.
 
REDY said:
I think its too late, I would suggest let Asad and Russians to handle Syria. If should be some international intervention its in Iraq and maybe Libya.[/B]

If will conflict in Syria continue, it will be at least useful light trap for moths islamists.
Click to expand...


While Khadaffi was a brutal and dispicable dictator, didn't the intervention by European countries (with President Obama "leading from behind") in Libya greatly contribute to the current situation?

Khadaffi was not a benevolent ruler but for a very long time he managed to keep the Islamist extremists under control.

I'm not sure how another international intervention in Libya will improve the situation there.
 
Once again a really naive assessment. Do you honestly think the moderate council in Libya would even be in the position that it is without the said intervention? Once civil war begins - there will nearly always be a mess. You are mistaking the said mess that followed after the intervention as a "result of the intervention". Extremists were always present in Libya, no action we could have done would have ensured they wouldn't have existed afterwards. What we did was give the moderates in Libya a chance and they do in fact have control of their destiny today - its now up to the Libyans to fight against said extremists holding swaths of Libya.
 
It's easy to say that Ghaddafi 'kept the extremists under control' when you aren't willing to admit he was in large part responsible for them in the first place.

Obviously 'Murica#1! created all the extremists in history in all the places and never the people/leaders in those places.
 
Gucumatz said:
Once civil war begins - there will nearly always be a mess.
Click to expand...
Especially when "moderates" are being supplied with weapons and money by their foreign benefactors.
Civil war and mess are pretty much guaranteed.
 
hobbsyoyo said:
It's easy to say that Ghaddafi 'kept the extremists under control' when you aren't willing to admit he was in large part responsible for them in the first place.

Obviously 'Murica#1! created all the extremists in history in all the places and never the people/leaders in those places.
Click to expand...
Yet there he was fighting against the al-Qaida in joint cooperation with the US. Once he was defeated, a well-known major al-Qaida leader was put in charge of the military. Coincidence, or what?

And anybody who criticizes the completely inane foreign policies of the US, which directly foment even more terrorism instead of stopping it, is really saying that "'Obviously Murica#1! created all the extremists in history in all the places and never the people/leaders in those places"? Is that your actual position in this regard?
 
More Iranian troops have arrived in Syria for an upcoming ground operation to accompany Russian airstrikes, defense officials confirm to Fox News.

“It has always been understood in this building that the Russians would provide the air force, and the Iranians would provide the ground force in Syria,” one official said.

Another official tells Fox News, “The Iranians have always been on the ground [in Syria].” The officials could not disclose the size of this new Iranian force due to the sensitivity of the information.

These Iranian forces are under the command of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the Quds Force commander in charge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s international operations, which runs a network of proxy forces throughout the Middle East, including Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon.

Fox News first reported a secret meeting between Soleimani and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which took place in late July. Part of the discussions between Soleimani and Putin was the future Russian build up in Syria, coordinated closely with Iran.

In addition, sources tell Reuters that Lebanese Hezbollah forces will soon arrive to aid in the ground operation. Hezbollah, a Russian and Iranian ally, has fought alongside President Bashar al-Assad's forces since early in the Syrian civil war.
 
Formaldehyde said:
Yet there he was fighting against the al-Qaida in joint cooperation with the US. Once he was defeated, a well-known major al-Qaida leader was put in charge of the military. Coincidence, or what?

And anybody who criticizes the completely inane foreign policies of the US, which directly foment even more terrorism instead of stopping it, is really saying that "'Obviously Murica#1! created all the extremists in history in all the places and never the people/leaders in those places"? Is that your actual position in this regard?
Click to expand...


Forma - you very well know this isn't the point Hobbs was making. And if you honestly believe that said intervention in Libya "fomented more terrorism than stopping it" then you really haven't followed any academic scholars in recent years. This common talking point of American action leading to more terrorism than stopping it, would perhaps be a somewhat true analysis if we were talking about pre-1990. Then again you have shown you support coups as long as they support your notion of "western progress" as seen in the thread about Hawaii so I shouldn't be surprised a supporter of said coups cares less about the human beings living in these regions than you do in repeating talking points and refusing to address issues in said threads.
 
As you drag Hawaii into this in yet another nonsensical personal attack?

:rotfl:

And that was indeed the absurd "point" you were both trying to make. Toppling Qaddafi has obviously created far more "terrorism" in the region.
 
chijohnaok said:
While Khadaffi was a brutal and dispicable dictator, didn't the intervention by European countries (with President Obama "leading from behind") in Libya greatly contribute to the current situation?

Khadaffi was not a benevolent ruler but for a very long time he managed to keep the Islamist extremists under control.

I'm not sure how another international intervention in Libya will improve the situation there.
Click to expand...

Clarification - I do not want intervention and I am not sure if this will improve situation, I just say that it should be considered. Because how you said we are partly responsible for situation in these countries.

I feel that Iraqi and Libyans have problems with islamists too and unlike Syria we should get approval from their leaders. And do not risk conflict with Russia.
 
Did Ghaddafi finance and/or train the Lockerbie bombers or not? Did he run training camps for jihadis or not?

That was my point Formaldehyde, thanks for the close reading.
 
Gucumatz said:
People wouldn't know what would have hit them. The tourists and the terrorists alike
=============


While I sound like a broken record on this issue, we should have intervened in some meaningful way at/near the start of this crisis. Syria is a massive nation that stands at the center of the Middle East, people thought (and probably still think) they can get away with doing nothing about Syria when the fact remains there is an emerging lost generation displaced by war that will probably cause numerous problems in the next 40-50 years. Thankfully (some) Europeans are taking in (some) refugees, but the humanitarian issue will evolve into further realpolitik problems for the next couple of decades.

Anyways since the start of the crisis has long since passed - there will be a larger mess from any action than if we had acted at the start. The Afghan model was incredibly successful due to having pre-existing local forces with vested interests in retaking traditional territory, we do have the capability to do more with the Kurds and Iraqis in regards to Syria's eastern front. On the southern/western front the troops we are training are struggling to accomplish too much by themselves.

No one wants to hear it, but the truth is the best solution might actually be a multi-nation military intervention. The result will still be a mess - extremists would definitely still exist after said intervention, moderates who survived and have since been hardened by the war may do things we don't approve of, secular retaliations against minorities that supported/support Assad might happen, etc. Point is intervention will/would probably have all of these non-desirable side effects, but it would cause the civil war to wrap up faster and allow Syria to proceed on the path to recovery faster. As it stands without intervention, this conflict could go on for another half decade and then recovery for Syria will take at least three decades. Intervention could cut down this time needed for recovery maybe in half while reducing numerous threats of terrorism and spillover violence to nations with interests at stake.
Click to expand...
In the past, I'd only have supported a huge multinational coalition of just about every country launching a full-scale military intervention if there were some sort of diabolically evil group that burned prisoners alive as punishment, openly brought back slavery, and sawed off people's heads. I never seriously thought something like that would happen, though.

Well, it did.

I've always thought such a coalition is appropriate and necessary to deal with something like this. US airstrikes have done a lot to slow down ISIS and enable its enemies like the Rojavan Kurds to hold them off, but nothing short of a full-scale ground invasion that takes and holds all of ISIS territory, followed by a lengthy rebuilding operation, will be enough to conclusively defeat them. Unfortunately, for over a year now nobody has had both the ability and the will to do so, and it looks like this will be concluded by a coalition of Iranian ground forces, Russian air forces, and everything Assad has against all of Assad's enemies, be they ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Kurds, or just anybody who doesn't like him. Assad will come back to full power with all the torture chambers and regular crushings of uprisings that that entails, while the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, and Israel will feel even more threatened by Iran and its Syrian and Iraqi allies. I imagine things will get much worse within the next ten to fifteen years.
 
Phrossack said:
Unfortunately, for over a year now nobody has had both the ability and the will to do so, and it looks like this will be concluded by a coalition of Iranian ground forces, Russian air forces, and everything Assad has against all of Assad's enemies, be they ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Kurds, or just anybody who doesn't like him.
Click to expand...
It's not that simple. ISIS and al-Nusra, yes, they are common enemies for US-led coalition and Shia/Russia coalition. As for Kurds, they are more like enemies for Turkey, but Russia would rather pressure Assad for neutrality or alliance with them. And there are vague reports about talks in Europe between Assad and so-called moderate opposition, may be they will finally agree to share power, or at least maintain neutrality on condition that Syria will hold proper elections after war.

And it's not even clear whether it will be possible to keep Syrian integrity. One of possible scenarios is its breakup and creation of Alawi state on Mediterranean coast.

abradley said:
BBC sez

Iranian troops in Syria
Click to expand...
It's old news, they are fighting there for about a year already, or more.
Iran has probably sent more, to start offensive with Russian air support.
 
Today airstrikes continued.
Defense ministry reports about destruction of ISIS underground command center. Islamists made a video showing a narrow crater, probably made by bunker buster.
Spoiler :


Official video of defense ministry for today. Nothing special, but may be interesting for specialists.


Link to video.
 
Gucumatz said:
PlNo one wants to hear it, but the truth is the best solution might actually be a multi-nation military intervention.
Click to expand...


Sending our sons and daughters to die for someone else's land hardly seems like a best solution to me.

It may well serve to stem the unrest there, and may indeed be the most efficacious means to do so, but it would be a disservice to the citizens and armed forces of the nations making up such an interventional force to engage on such adventurism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bonyduck Campersang
Middle East thread
23 24 25
Replies
487
Views
26K
banzay13
banzay13
Birdjaguar
The Epstein Files
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
IglooDame
IglooDame
Klaus Hergersheimer
That Other Jimmy Carter Topic
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
caketastydelish
caketastydelish
Hygro
How is Europe going to resist succumbing to murdoch style rightwing media?
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
4K
Hygro
Hygro
Dhoomstriker
  • Locked
Proposal to End the Russia-Ukraine War
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
7K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Back
Top Bottom