Will Putin save Assad - Debate

[Grant]

From Al Jazeera


[video=youtube;LOvjATYqgB4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOvjATYqgB4[/video]

 

[Xarog]

Without looking at the clip:

Yes, Assad is probably going to survive this.

 

[Arthur]

Though I'm no fan of Assad, he's almost certainly less bad than any likely replacement. The ME is swarming with fanatical clothheads who, should they seize power, will make his regime seem almost benign in comparison. They're counting on misguided Westerners chucking out Assad so they can take over.

Sometimes you have to work with people you detest so as to defeat an even worse enemy - as the Western Powers did with Stalin & thugs.

 

[yebocan]

Though I'm no fan of Assad, he's almost certainly less bad than any likely replacement. The ME is swarming with fanatical clothheads who, should they seize power, will make his regime seem almost benign in comparison. They're counting on misguided Westerners chucking out Assad so they can take over.

Sometimes you have to work with people you detest so as to defeat an even worse enemy - as the Western Powers did with Stalin & thugs.

The Russian Foreign Minister , Sergey Lavrov - summed it up nicely. You may not like the incumbent, but he is way better proposition than unknown players, that are waiting on the sidelines. And added, the last time the West effected regime change, promising liberation to masses...the net result has not been stability and democracy...but a mess, sighting the removal of Saddam Hussein and Gadafffi.

 

[konfab]

The Russian Foreign Minister , Sergey Lavrov - summed it up nicely. You may not like the incumbent, but he is way better proposition than unknown players, that are waiting on the sidelines. And added, the last time the West effected regime change, promising liberation to masses...the net result has not been stability and democracy...but a mess, citing the removal of Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi.

The don't forget the people were the ones who wanted Gadaffi and Assad gone.

 

[FNfal]

I agree better the devil you know than a worse devil

 

[Space_Chief]

Though I'm no fan of Assad, he's almost certainly less bad than any likely replacement. The ME is swarming with fanatical clothheads who, should they seize power, will make his regime seem almost benign in comparison. They're counting on misguided Westerners chucking out Assad so they can take over.

Sometimes you have to work with people you detest so as to defeat an even worse enemy - as the Western Powers did with Stalin & thugs.

That was pure cowardice and betrayal on the West's part and it will stay because people in Eastern Europe will never forget this. They just sold Eastern Europe out. The West had nuclear weapons and instead chose to drop those on women and children who would have surrendered anyway in Japan but kept it up with Uncle Joe instead of insisting he pull back on his imperial ambitions. Apparently Roosevelt was a Commie to some degree as were many academics and other useful idiots. Which tells us, if you're "yellow", Arab or Eastern European, you're worth s--t. Hence now I'm hoping Eastern Europe does not get drawn into a war the West wants with Putin over the Ukraine.

 

[etienne_marais]

 

[Xarog]

That was pure cowardice and betrayal on the West's part and it will stay because people in Eastern Europe will never forget this. They just sold Eastern Europe out. The West had nuclear weapons and instead chose to drop those on women and children who would have surrendered anyway in Japan but kept it up with Uncle Joe instead of insisting he pull back on his imperial ambitions. Apparently Roosevelt was a Commie to some degree as were many academics and other useful idiots. Which tells us, if you're "yellow", Arab or Eastern European, you're worth s--t. Hence now I'm hoping Eastern Europe does not get drawn into a war the West wants with Putin over the Ukraine.

Well well well, it seems you're learning. Did I not tell you that the U.S. would start sacrificing the other pieces of the chess board?

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure what brought about the change of heart. In what way do you think that Eastern Europe got sold out by the United States?

 

[Space_Chief]

Well well well, it seems you're learning. Did I not tell you that the U.S. would start sacrificing the other pieces of the chess board?

What do you mean I'm learning?

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure what brought about the change of heart. In what way do you think that Eastern Europe got sold out by the United States?

What change of heart?

Where did I want Eastern Europe to fight Russia? But Russia a potential threat to Eastern Europe for sure.

 

[w1z4rd]

Though I'm no fan of Assad, he's almost certainly less bad than any likely replacement. The ME is swarming with fanatical clothheads who, should they seize power, will make his regime seem almost benign in comparison. They're counting on misguided Westerners chucking out Assad so they can take over.

Sometimes you have to work with people you detest so as to defeat an even worse enemy - as the Western Powers did with Stalin & thugs.

Just something to factor in. Assad has killed more Syrians than ISIS have :/

But with Russian support I dont see him going anywhere anytime soon (well depending about the length of commitment from Putin).I dont think Putins war piggybank is very deep, so whatever they do has to be decisive and quick.

 

[w1z4rd]

Watching that video.

That Russian dude can barely keep a straight face. The Russian propaganda machine likes using a tactic known as "muddying the waters". You see two examples of that right at the start. He goes "who knows whats going on, so few people on the ground actually know whats happening" (thats him trying to cast doubt on eye witness accounts) and "video from human rights groups are very unreliable"(to cast doubt on video evidence).

Another way to look at this. Russia allows EU/US intervention in Libya, 30 000 people die, the main part of the conflict ends in a shortish time. There is still conflict now, and Libyans are picking up the pieces, but right now their GDP was improving... until recent ISIS developments. There is still some fighting for power, but by and large, the worst is over.

Russia blocks EU/US intervention and 200 000 Syrians are now dead. Millions more have fled their country. No end of sight to the war. Things are getting more pear shaped.

If I was a Syrian (not associated with Assad), I know who I would blame.

 

[Xarog]

What do you mean I'm learning?

Which tells us, if you're "yellow", Arab or Eastern European, you're worth s--t.

This. I tried to tell you as much when it came to US policy with regards to Europe. It's nowhere near as beneficial as you have made it out to be in the past, and people recognise that.

What change of heart?

Where did I want Eastern Europe to fight Russia? But Russia a potential threat to Eastern Europe for sure.

It's not that you wanted Eastern Europe to fight Russia, it was that Eastern Europe was being used by the United States to fight Russia. In particular, Ukraine was used thus.

 

[Space_Chief]

This. I tried to tell you as much when it came to US policy with regards to Europe. It's nowhere near as beneficial as you have made it out to be in the past, and people recognise that.

OMW! You do realise that US foreign policy sometimes coincides with the wishes of people on the ground and sometimes does not?
For example Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ronald Reagan = Good guys. Obama Barrack and McCain = not so good.

It's not that you wanted Eastern Europe to fight Russia, it was that Eastern Europe was being used by the United States to fight Russia. In particular, Ukraine was used thus.

Eastern Europe wants to have defence against Russian imperialism. But it does not want to get involved in an unnecessary and cruel fight with anybody. Sometimes US policy supports this, and to a degree this is still true. Some elements want to provoke problems but these elements do not have genuine US interests at heart. Also Russians are not bad people and their government could be reasoned with. Hopefully after elections coming up soon this will materialise. But all of this is nuanced. US bases in Eastern Europe are a good thing, although Russia does not like it, it's none of Russia's business.

 

[Xarog]

OMW! You do realise that US foreign policy sometimes coincides with the wishes of people on the ground and sometimes does not?
For example Zbigniew Brzezinski and Ronald Reagan = Good guys. Obama Barrack and McCain = not so good.

Except that Brzezinski was the one who pointed the United States at Ukraine in the first place. When has a regime change for the purpose of creating a democracy ever worked, really?

Eastern Europe wants to have defence against Russian imperialism. But it does not want to get involved in an unnecessary and cruel fight with anybody. Sometimes US policy supports this, and to a degree this is still true. Some elements want to provoke problems but these elements do not have genuine US interests at heart. Also Russians are not bad people and their government could be reasoned with. Hopefully after elections coming up soon this will materialise. But all of this is nuanced. US bases in Eastern Europe are a good thing, although Russia does not like it, it's none of Russia's business.

The United States long ago lost any politicians who could act with any kind of genuine concern for US interests.

And I'm not criticising the presence of US bases, I'm saying that while the United States views Russia as an enemy to be undermined, it's going to try to use Eastern Europe as one of the policy tools in its arsenal to achieve its aims. The Ukrainians did not benefit by having Yanukovych overthrown in the manner that he was. At some point the bases are going to become something that Eastern Europe as a whole regrets being on their soil, I think.

 

[Space_Chief]

Except that Brzezinski was the one who pointed the United States at Ukraine in the first place. When has a regime change for the purpose of creating a democracy ever worked, really?

Zbig is in charge in the US? He's retired. He's not the foreign policy adviser anymore. I was speaking earlier on when USSR was around and it attacked Afghanistan.

The United States long ago lost any politicians who could act with any kind of genuine concern for US interests.

You have to divorce the politicians from the effects of their actions. While fire breathing McCain and inept Obama are not the best a more moderate approach could work out. Anyhow it does not matter what the politicians want, it's the effects which are important.

And I'm not criticising the presence of US bases, I'm saying that while the United States views Russia as an enemy to be undermined, it's going to try to use Eastern Europe as one of the policy tools in its arsenal to achieve its aims. The Ukrainians did not benefit by having Yanukovych overthrown in the manner that he was. At some point the bases are going to become something that Eastern Europe as a whole regrets being on their soil, I think.

Nope. History is longer than several years. You have still not learned this about people from Central/Eastern Europe. Russia will always been seen as a threat by Central / Eastern Europeans. Germany comes at a No 2.
Note that some in Central Europe are also not so pro-Ukrainian because also of history.

Funnily enough a more Islamic Germany may actually be of some benefit.

 

[TriGuN]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/05/us-mideast-crisis-syria-rebels-idUSKCN0RZ18F20151005

More than 40 Syrian insurgent groups including the powerful Islamist faction Ahrar al-Sham have called on regional states to forge an alliance against Russia and Iran in Syria, accusing Moscow of occupying the country and targeting civilians.

The insurgents, including rebel groups under the umbrella of the Free Syria Army, said such regional cooperation was needed to counter "the Russian-Iranian alliance occupying Syria".

Last week Russian jets based in western Syria launched air strikes against targets Moscow has identified as bases of the hardline Islamic State group, but which President Bashar al-Assad's opponents say disproportionately hit rival, foreign-backed insurgents.

The joint rebel statement criticized what it described as the "Russian military aggression in Syria and the blatant occupation of the country" as well as the targeting of civilians with air strikes in the Homs countryside in western Syria.

"Civilians have been directly targeted in a manner that reminds us of the scorched earth policy pursued by Russia in its past wars," the statement said, without specifying.

The statement, sent to Reuters by Ahrar al-Sham, did not name which regional states it was addressing but Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have backed the insurgency against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The 41 groups which signed the statement did not include Islamic State or al Qaeda's Syria wing Nusra Front, which is in an insurgent coalition with Ahrar al-Sham that captured most of Idlib province in the northwest.

Insurgents have renewed calls for their Arab backers to supply them with more powerful weapons such as anti-aircraft systems in light of the Russian intervention in the war but Monday's statement appeared to be the most concerted rebel call for action against Russia's move.

Dozens of Islamist Saudi Arabian clerics, not affiliated with the government, earlier called on Arab and Muslim countries to "give all moral, material, political and military" support to what they term a jihad, or holy war, against Syria's government and its Iranian and Russian backers.

Holy Shi'ite....