What would you do in Syria

[Bengalzona]

(04-13-2017, 05:56 AM)hollodero Wrote: Some thoughts as well. I hate to be the cynic, but it struck me that in a sense Russia actually is a beneficiary of the whole Syria conflict. It brings waves of refugees to Europe, which is by far the biggest talking point for the destructive parties Putin supports. You can't influence elections in a more effective way.

Why would Putin want a solution then? If there were peace in Syria... the meddling gets a lot harder.
Which is why I believe Putin actually wants nothing of that kind to happen. I don't think human life interests that man the tiniest bit. What are Russians doing in Syria anyway. Nothing to ensure an Assad victory or an end to the fighting and killing. Nothing which would bring peace. But avoiding through their presence that anyone else could.

No doubt that Russia has been benefiting from the disorder in Europe caused by the Syrian refugees. But I think that he has played that situation as much as he can. It was starting to wind down before this happened. Also, I don't think that the refugee situation was something that Putin planned. Rather, I suspect it was an situation he saw unfolding and decided to use to his advantage. I believe that he was already trying to position himself to be the "great peacemaker" in Syria. He wants peace in Syria (under a favorable regime to him) for Russia's prestige. It demonstrates that they can solve problems within their sphere of influence where the U.S. could not. This is old Soviet Cold War style thinking, but a lot of what Putin does can be defined that way.

As far as what Russia has been doing against the rebels, they have been bombing the hell out of them. The U.S.-allied rebels, that is. Not so much ISIS. Russia actually has been doing business with ISIS (A Russian refinery in Syria pays ISIS to bring crude oil there for processing and resale. The Russians have an agreement with Assad not to interfere with their deliveries, now that Assad's forces have retaken the refinery.). The Russian air campaign has been very effective and a main reason why Assad's forces have been able to retake all of the major urban areas during the past 2 years. 

Quote:Your optimism is honored, but even if Putin isn't as sinister as I think he is, peace is as far away as ever, the strike didn't do anything stabilizing. The US made itself a referee throwing flags in a civil war, that's about it. I don't want to criticize the move or the US. Just the cynicism that goes with all this was so clear when Spicer talked barrel bombs. Which kill several thousands civilians every year. But no one is throwing a flag there, barrel bombs are "in bounds" and that needed to be clarified. That's the bottom line of the message to Assad, keep on killing, just do it by means we don't deem too despicable.

Putin is sinister. He is probably about as sociopathic as they come. Any effort he makes to appear caring is disingenuous and done purely for publicity and politics. He wants to be perceived as a peacemaker only for political purposes. 

Chemical weapons have been universally deplored since World War I. It is something that just about every nation in the world agrees with (except Assad, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Whichever, etc.). It is the only class of weaponry which the world has made an attempt to outlaw. I have heard the argument about "Why do we only ban chemical weapons?" My response is "At least we try to ban them. Isn't that a start?"