SYRIA thread

[Sarmatian]

We haven't really had a dedicated Syria thread, we mostly talked about it in other threads. I do think that it deserves a thread of its own so I'm starting one.

Recently, Syrian army launched an offensive into Aleppo and is threatening to encircle the city. The loss of Aleppo would be a major defeat for Al-Nusra and ISIS, apparently.

According to this article on Huffington Post, written by Alastair Crook, the former MI6 member, this means the end of the war is close.

[Fragony]

The war is just begining I think, I hope I am wrong

[Montmorency]

To put it baldly then, as things stand, Syria seems to be heading not towards a "quagmire" as many western politicians have suggested, but rather to a clear military outcome. As one knowledgable commentator noted, the negotiating table is not in Geneva. The true negotiations are taking place on the battlefields of Idlib and Aleppo -- and what has just been negotiated is the near encirclement of rebel forces into a cauldron.

That's rather silly, and it makes out 5-year-old news sound as a brilliant analysis. There will be a clear military outcome, just as there was a clear military outcome in some other states in the region. The military component is not in question - the quagmire has simply been the fact of the matter. There is no indication that this will change.

As for the "cauldron", that has more to do with what territory those rebels are actually based in. rather than any particular facts of military deployment on the ground. Are they expected to break out into the arms of IS?

Nor, it seems, is Syria heading toward a low-intensity guerrilla war in the aftermath of any military victory on the ground.

Clever equivocation, but the question is less of "low-intensity guerrilla war" in this or that city block, but of such throughout reclaimed areas.

I also expect Syria to soon again constitute a strong regional state. The meaning of this will be evidenced in a powerful, cohesive northern arc through the region -- and perhaps closer relations with Iraq. Correspondingly, certain Gulf states will find themselves eclipsed.

Now the author dives into pure fantasy. For Syria to reassert power in the region to the point of overshadowing Iraq and "certain Gulf states", all IS territory in Syria-Iraq would have to be overrun with main force, followed by long-term occupation and mop-up of resistance from the hinterland and sporadic terrorist activity. Then, the Syrian government would have the task of re-establishing governance and authority over all this area, reintegrating refugees, rebuilding infrastructure, and attracting foreign (not just Russian or Iranian) investment.

At this point, forget about rebels or IS - Turkey could break Bashar's regime simply by repatriating a million refugees.

Peoples who undergo the kind of trauma to which Syrians have been subjected either emerge as a psychologically defeated nation or they are strengthened by the crisis through which they have passed.

It's clear that Iraq's experience in the war against Iran strengthened its regime and its nationhood. Nevertheless, both were still far too fragile to survive more pressure. Syria's catastrophe, on all levels except perhaps debt incurred and proportion of armed forces service members killed, is considerably worse.

The 4+1 coalition (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah)

The basic error here is that these no more constitute a coalition than do: Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the United States.

Assad is happy to align with Iran for survival, but he is much more comfortable as a client of Russia, as Russia can bring more international influence and Iran is just too close to home to tolerate its dominance. Iraq is a rump state in its current form, and to that extent a client of Iran. Most importantly, Iran is not inclined to be friendly with Russia. Russia counts as a major competitor to Iran in terms of its national security, and where it aligns with Russia it does so to counterbalance American coercion. Russia is no more a partner of Iran than it is a partner of China.


In fact, the author of the article is not merely sloppy and ignorant, but is an active advocate for political Islam.

[Sarmatian]

His ponies and rainbows scenario after the war does seem a little far fetched, but I'm mainly interested in the military aspect - will taking of Aleppo cripple ISIS and is Turkey really preparing an intervention in Syria? Russia seems to be getting ready for it.

In fact, the author of the article is not merely sloppy and ignorant, but is an active advocate for political Islam.

What do you mean by political Islam?

[Greyblades]

I trawl through the guardian from time to time; reading the raw ideological stupidity of the articles being called out in their own comments sections never fails to entertain, however I stumbled upon a rare nugget of (almost) complete sanity today that you may be interested in.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ent-assad-west

[Gilrandir]

Recently, Syrian army launched an offensive into Aleppo and is threatening to encircle the city. The loss of Aleppo would be a major defeat for Al-Nusra and ISIS, apparently.

ISIS has nothing to do with Aleppo.
I have been following for a month or so what's going on here:
http://syria.liveuamap.com/


Haven't noticed any changes in (the city of) Aleppo. In other places some villages are reported to change hands, but there is no clearly marked tendency in such events - sometimes Assad's forces capture a village from the Sunni opposition, sometimes Kurds from the same, sometimes it is vice versa.

In any case only an intervention of other players (involving land operations) can bring any side to a decisive military victory. Otherwise it will last for quite a longish time with no palpable results for anyone.

[Montmorency]

I trawl through the guardian from time to time; reading the raw ideological stupidity of the articles being called out in their own comments sections never fails to entertain, however I stumbled upon a rare nugget of (almost) complete sanity today that you may be interested in.

This terrible war must clearly fight to some sort of finish. But it is not our war, and will not be our finish. The thesis that humanitarian goals are best served by grandstanding, by taking sides in foreign conflicts and pretending to “resolve” them, is the madness of our age. It has reduced much of the Middle East to bloody chaos.

Our sole obligation to the Syrian people is humanitarian. It is to relieve suffering with charity, not increase it with bombs. It is to send aid to bordering countries, and take in those refugees that fate washes, quite literally, on to our shores. It is to do good, not to pretend to do good by doing harm.

Solid enough.
@Sarmatian I will reply later, I have to complete my itinerary for today.

[Fragony]

Not that you are going to be responding anyway, but what good is robbing them from their young (unqualified) males who don't stand a chance here, and will never be anything but a burden.

[Sarmatian]

While we're discussing refugees to no end, things have not been quieting down in Syria. Ankara now blames the Kurds for the terrorist attack and is looking to exploit that claim and intervene militarily in Syria.

With Kurds entering into a de facto alliance of convenience with Assad, there is a very real possibility of an actual, truly autonomous Kurdish region in Syria, which in fact may link up with Kurds in Iraq and Turkey. Interesting article about it in the Independent.

According to them Obama didn't manage to persuade Erdogan to drop the plans for invasion, and that means things could get really ugly, really quickly. Some other articles suggest that Turkey wouldn't dare perform an invasion unless they get US support, which they apparently aren't getting, but I'm not 100% sure Erdogan will be able to ignore his ego.

[Brenus]

Hmm, that and the probability some Russian pilots might be eager to see if Turkish pilots are keen to engage Russian air planes fully aware that they are under rules of engagement. And then, what id the Assad Forces, still legitimate President of Syria, decide that is an invasion, so it is a war started by Turkey.

NATO will not have the legal right to side for Turkey, as Turkey would have to cross an internationally recognised borders (not that did stop NATO before, I grant you this), but this is coming with a possibility of war wit Russia.
I am not sure that the Turkish Mussolini is ready for this, as first he has a opposition in Turkey, and for sure the PKK will received modern equipment... If some incidents arrived between Russian and Turkey, the Russian can move troops along the borders (sea).
So, it looks that Putin keeping Sevastopol was a good move, after all, even if, of course, he lost everything.

[Tuuvi]

While we're discussing refugees to no end, things have not been quieting down in Syria. Ankara now blames the Kurds for the terrorist attack and is looking to exploit that claim and intervene militarily in Syria.

With Kurds entering into a de facto alliance of convenience with Assad, there is a very real possibility of an actual, truly autonomous Kurdish region in Syria, which in fact may link up with Kurds in Iraq and Turkey. Interesting article about it in the Independent.

According to them Obama didn't manage to persuade Erdogan to drop the plans for invasion, and that means things could get really ugly, really quickly. Some other articles suggest that Turkey wouldn't dare perform an invasion unless they get US support, which they apparently aren't getting, but I'm not 100% sure Erdogan will be able to ignore his ego.

It's pretty certain the bomber was a Kurd, the real question is whether or not he was involved with the YPG. A Kurdish terror organization called TAK (Kurdistan Freedom Falcons) has claimed responsibility while the YPG denies it was involved, however like you said Turkey is itching for an excuse to invade Syria and destroy the YPG so they claim the bomber was a Syrian Kurd who entered Turkey from Kobani.

I think it's unlikely that the YPG carried out the bombing, their goals are to establish an autonomous zone within Syria and defend themselves against ISIS and Islamist rebels, they haven't fired back when Turkey shells their positions and they are trying to appeal to the West for support. Carrying out a terrorist attack against Turkey would give Turkey a real reason to invade and ruin everything.

Meanwhile TAK is a PKK splinter group which has a history of carrying out terrorist attacks against Turkey, and a lot of Kurds are upset about Turkey's crackdown in the southeast.