What would you do in Syria

[hollodero]

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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.

Probably true.
Ironically enough, Trump obviously undoes what Putin tries to do... people in Europe turn away from the far right again because they see what's going on in the US. Trump effect, we even gave that a name after Geert Wilders didn't even come close to meet expectations.

Regarding refugees, if I'm right (and that I don't know), Putín's next logical move would be setting the refugees in Turkey free and creating a secondary wave into Europe. We pay Erdogan quite a lot of money to prevent that from happening. Putin would have to support a divide between Turkey and Europe - which, according to my observations, he actually does. Red Troll army already rallying up Turks in Europe. (I also have a whole conspiracy going on there, regarding that ominous "military coup" in Turkey, without any proof I claim maybe Putin was behind what I call a designed smokescreen to strengthen Erdogan and estrange Turkey from Europe.)

Oh btw. I despise Putin and I would beg all Americans to do the same :) We are all under severe Russian propaganda fire (that is not a conspiracy theory), and still it gets widely downplayed despite all evidence and alarmed voices. Would need an own thread to get into this, but I want to make this unhonorable mention anyway.

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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.

This also might very well be true. I'm just still not so sure whether he wanted peace or ongoing war in Syria. Going with Assad alone is not a peaceful measure, his being a butcher and all was a great (not the only) cause for the civil war in the first place, so what's the peace point here. Putin, if he really wanted it, failed miserably in bringing peace. Russian influence has done nothing to get closer to a peaceful solution. Whether that's due to incompetence or to more cynical goals, I can not say, but I am inclined to think it's the latter.
I mean, you're wiser and more knowledgeable in these matters, your voice counts. So well, maybe he wants to be the peacemaker and I just fail to see it.

(04-13-2017, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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?"

I don't fully disagree. I did not condemn the air strikes and didn't hold it against the Trump admin. I also don't praise it though, because I want to see it like it is (to me). A start without further engagement in a race just gains you a participation medal, which is a symbolic price, and that's what this is, a symbolic gesture. In reality, I am not sure if I can say that one single casualty in the future is avoided by the strike. What might be avoided is gassing, Assad might turn back to barrel bombing, shooting, bombarding and all these conventional killing methods that don't make the victims any less dead. Is it less gruesome as a chemical attack? Well. Debating such nuances seems cynical to me. Assad is inclined to go back to barrel bombing, which explicitely doesn't trigger any reaction. I can not really regard that as a step towards more humanity.
I do get how one could take a different stance, standing up to the no gassing principle is not inherently wrong and maybe it really does something. That's why I'm OK with the strike. I just have my doubts it does anything substantial.