-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Russia is gearing up its support of Assad in Syria with Soldiers and Hardware
- Thread starter Gabriel_Logan
- Start date
- Status
Soyongdori
Member
Maybe? He's definitely the lesser evil compared to those IS fucktards.
Nusra, AKA AlQuaeda in Syria, is already operating a large number of high tech US and other Western equipment, Night Vision googles, communication equipments to advanced TOW missiles, all of them were supposedly intended for the "moderates" but ended up in their hands.
Also it would be interesting to see what sort of schism a direct US contribution to Nusra would create in the jihadi think tanks and groups on the ground. I would imagine many Nusra would defect and renounce Al Golani as an apostate, in the end JAN and ISIS aren't theological different, they're just vying for power and control.
Randomizer123454444
Member
Any forced regime change will cause internal chaos. There is no guarantee that a leader will emerge that will be able to keep things together. And what about while the leadership change is happening? I think there is a very real danger that if someone forces a leaderships change now, it will cause the state Syria to collapse under pressure of civil war. Bombing Syria would have only weakened the state, not forced Assad out. Only boots on ground could have done that IMO.
About Russia in Syria: either Syrian government thinks they might collapse without Russian aid, or they called them in to turn the tide and take Syria back.
Whatever the case, in my opinion government of Syria collapsing would be the worst case scenario. ISIS would have free reign over the country. Once they are done with looting, instead of fighting a war on two fronts, they would be able to focus their full force on Iraq.
About Russia in Syria: either Syrian government thinks they might collapse without Russian aid, or they called them in to turn the tide and take Syria back.
Whatever the case, in my opinion government of Syria collapsing would be the worst case scenario. ISIS would have free reign over the country. Once they are done with looting, instead of fighting a war on two fronts, they would be able to focus their full force on Iraq.
Stiflers Mom
Banned
After what we have witnessed over the last 13 years, I'd take my bets with Assad, honestly.
He may be a tyrant, but at least he kept things stable.
He may be a tyrant, but at least he kept things stable.
Drive all the Nusra fighters into the ISIS camp... brilliant! Petraeus' idea is almost as bad as the one someone in the Obama administration came up with for a reconciliation between Al Qaeda and ISIS just to rescue a few hostages, as detailed in this article.
Does this look like stable to you? People are quick to blame the Bush administration but the whole Arab spring was not just a result of western intervention.
It was normal people who started these revolutions (and then they were co-opted by radical Islamists). The kind of citizens who were constantly harassed by local bureaucrats and despots.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Oh great
Supporting Assad is just a non-starter at this point, the only reason Russia does it is because they really don't give a shit about human rights. The Assad regime is just an example of "lawful evil" to ISIS "chaotic evil". The regime still kills scores more of civilians than ISIS and operates no less than 27 regional torture centers that account for most of the deaths.
http://www.businessinsider.com/assa...ills-way-more-civilians-than-isis-2015-2?IR=T
If Assad wins and crushes both ISIS,the remnants of the FSA and the al-Qaida affiliated factions he will turn what remains of Syria into the bloodiest dictatorship on Earth. He was bad enough as it was before the war, fighting for 5 years sure as hell hasn't made him softer. You can fully expect a limited genocide against the Sunni population as a start and horrible repression of basically everyone after that.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2013-08-21/day-after-assad-wins
No matter who wins, Syria loses. It probably won't recover into something even comparable to the middle income country it was before the war for the rest of the century.
http://www.businessinsider.com/assa...ills-way-more-civilians-than-isis-2015-2?IR=T
If Assad wins and crushes both ISIS,the remnants of the FSA and the al-Qaida affiliated factions he will turn what remains of Syria into the bloodiest dictatorship on Earth. He was bad enough as it was before the war, fighting for 5 years sure as hell hasn't made him softer. You can fully expect a limited genocide against the Sunni population as a start and horrible repression of basically everyone after that.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2013-08-21/day-after-assad-wins
No matter who wins, Syria loses. It probably won't recover into something even comparable to the middle income country it was before the war for the rest of the century.
Have to agree with that.
The thing is that western intervention was necessary when this conflict started and Obama really made a mess of it after his red line was crossed but he failed to act properly. When we allow these power vacuums to fester, then society descends into anarchy and criminal lunatics like ISIS members take over.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Half of the posters in this thread are commenting from the wise school of Tales from my Ass. I'm going to make a mega-post on the Middle East using basically my thesis and citing journals and whatnot soon, GAF ignorance on the area is astounding. People in here arguing we should support Assad or that there are no good factions or that ISIS are actually threatening and god knows what other wrong things.
I have a suspicion that the Obama administration somewhat got wind of the fact that a lot of the rebel factions were compromised by extremist elements early on. The support they provided always came with a lot of vetting and was very limited. Direct intervention was always a no starter for the US too unfortunately, Obama barely got the Libyan intervention approved - and that was as limited as can be. A direct intervention into Syria to stabilize the situation, in a theater where the US couldn't find a lot of dependable rebel factions for support, would have been more like Iraq than anything else. The US was still too war weary for that back then. Still are. Will probably still be for another decade or so. The Iraq War essentially dampened the American population's tolerance for conflict in a way comparable to Vietnam.
That aside, the right time to stop ISIS was sometime back when they were still busy fighting the Iraqi Army and hadn't entrenched themselves in Syria yet. The US military could have intervened with the support of the Iraqi Army fairly easily. Yet, getting the American people to support going back to Iraq pretty much right after leaving it in the first place would have been impossible. I imagine that US intelligence also overestimated the Iraqi Army and thought they could handle it on their own (which they should have, going by conventional capabilities, they mainly lost because they kept fleeing at the first sign of fighting).
This entire chain of events is basically one huge clusterfuck where previous decisions and failures came back to bite pretty much everyone in the ass except ISIS and made early interventions impossible, even in hindsight.
What about the wise school of I actual live here and I don't need someone from across the globe to write a "thesis" in order to educate me about my own region?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
On phone so can't really be expansive, but ISIS are numbered at around 25,000 fighters by CIA. Contrast to Assad army, currently at 178,000 - about seven times larger (and this doesn't even count pro-Assad militia). ISIS exist because Assad doesn't care about the areas they control and is willing to let them exhaust other rebel groups in the north for him. ISIS can't even beat the peshmerga, if any serious army turned up, they'd get rolled.
Russia is, for once, in the right side of a conflict, go figure. In fact, Russia's policy regarding the ME have been heaps and bounds better than the US "do as Israel and the Saudi's says" (until the Iran deal, that is).
That being said, "the lesser of the two evils" does take a darker meaning when one of said proverbial "two evils" is frigging ISIS. There's no pretty solution nor happy ending to this conflict, I fear.
If Assad wins, he will surely double down on the repression. I am not expecting a full scale genocide, for the majority of Syria's popullation is sunni (as it would be logistically impossible for the regime commit such a crime, even if they would surely love to do it) but the resulting dictatorship will be an Orwellian nightmare for sure full of political repression and bloody aftermaths.
If the other side (aka, sectarian sunni guerrillas) wins, however, make no mistake: We will probably see an ISIS redux, but bigger and better: A theocratic, wahabbi terrorist state sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and hell bent on exacting sectarian vengeance of all these years of religious persecution. Also, this will surely mean the utter extermination of the Yazidis (Assad's religious minority), make no mistake.
As for the Kurds, they don't want a stable Syria (nor Irak nor Turkey for that matter), they just want their own goddamn state. But if they have it, it will create the mother of all crisis in the middle east, as it will de-stabilize 4 different countries at once (aka, the four countries that comprises Kurdish territory).
In short, every possile outcome for this civil war sucks balls for everyone involved. I don't see how a Western or Russian intervention could do any modicum of good here.
That being said, "the lesser of the two evils" does take a darker meaning when one of said proverbial "two evils" is frigging ISIS. There's no pretty solution nor happy ending to this conflict, I fear.
If Assad wins, he will surely double down on the repression. I am not expecting a full scale genocide, for the majority of Syria's popullation is sunni (as it would be logistically impossible for the regime commit such a crime, even if they would surely love to do it) but the resulting dictatorship will be an Orwellian nightmare for sure full of political repression and bloody aftermaths.
If the other side (aka, sectarian sunni guerrillas) wins, however, make no mistake: We will probably see an ISIS redux, but bigger and better: A theocratic, wahabbi terrorist state sponsored by Saudi Arabia, and hell bent on exacting sectarian vengeance of all these years of religious persecution. Also, this will surely mean the utter extermination of the Yazidis (Assad's religious minority), make no mistake.
As for the Kurds, they don't want a stable Syria (nor Irak nor Turkey for that matter), they just want their own goddamn state. But if they have it, it will create the mother of all crisis in the middle east, as it will de-stabilize 4 different countries at once (aka, the four countries that comprises Kurdish territory).
In short, every possile outcome for this civil war sucks balls for everyone involved. I don't see how a Western or Russian intervention could do any modicum of good here.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Literally ISIS cannot win. There are 20 million people in Syria. There are 25,000 ISIS fighters. You cannot sustain an occupation with that ratio. This is not 'do we pick ISIS or do we pick Assad'. Any group capable of deposing Assad would deal with ISIS like it was nothing. Such a dreadful false dichotomy.
Those CIA figures are wrong, ISIS controls territories stretching from Rakka to Ramadi, Mosul alone has over 1 million in population, no group can assert that much control over such vast territories without significant numbers or the local population is complacent and supports ISIS, which means that ISIS could swell well over 100K and have large recruitment pools from Mosul, Rakka and to Fallujah. They managed to sustain their so called occupation for over a year, they were about to breach the Kurdish capital if it weren't for US direct intervention and bombing raids, the Pesh and PKK were loosing ground faster than the Iraqi army.
Second as I previously stated, the Syrian army is engaged in heavy fighting against ISIS around Palmyra, in the eastern countryside of Homs and Aleppo. ISIS took over a pro government village in eastern Homs and are threatening government lines from Damascus to the Latakian coast. Just a few months ago the government lost their last foothold in Rakka and had 300 of their own soldiers executed. Deir Ezzor is battle scene between gov forces and ISIS. Last year the government mounted an offensive with Hezbollah to kick ISIS and Nusra out of the Qalamoun mountains, which succeeded.
Saying that Assad and ISIS aren't fighting is ignoring facts on the ground.
Trump.
Faced by a Trumpocracy the Earth would shake, milk would sour in the udder and the very stars would dim. It would be year zero, and every year thereafter would be counted as Anno Trumponi.
All would bow before the Trump.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Will reply when back and not on phone so I can do this response justice. Not for two - three days, quoting so you can bookmark or whatever.
Kenshin001
Member
I hope Russia does get involved. Don't care for Assad but it's clear Syria is a hopeless mess, Islamists have ruined any chance of a functional democratic country existing and millions of people are suffering. Destroy IS and Al Nusra and get some semblance of stability.
Damerman
Member
it's not even about that... this is just another business transaction to them.
Damerman
Member
if this is the case, like i said... this is another business transaction for Russia. They should be opposing assad, but if they did, who would buy their export of military stuffs?
Honestly, the only good thing for syria at this point is a western military occupation and then UN peace keeping. Get rid of assad and get rid of all radical rebels(this is somewhat impossible.). Both of theses groups seem to be at a stalemate and it's only taking a toll on the people.Just set up UN peace keeping after military intervention and set up a democracy.
The UK and France should do it since they started this damned mess.
Damerman
Member
who allowed such incompetent decision making? you'd think that dumb fuck would learn from 9/11?
August 2015:
- Government forces killed 1213 civilians, 410 armed opposition gunmen
- Kurdish self-management forces killed 14 civilians
- ISIL killed 117 civilians, 119 gunmen
- An-Nusra Front killed 6 civilians, 5 gunmen
- Armed Opposition Forces killed 104 civilians
- International Coalition Forces killed 14 civilians
Now decide who is the best option.
Everybody knows Assad is no saint, like Saddam never was. People will always want revenge on him, but this is no way to do it.
SNHR has been criticized for selective reporting in the past. Their founder was jailed multiple times for taking part in early anti-Assad movement.
I don't consider leaders that gass their own people "the lesser evil".
At some point the situation has deteriorated so much you can't just reinstate the previous status quo. Let's not forget that Assads regime is a big reason the situation is what is today.
The country needs stability, but Assad is not what will bring it long term.
That criticism was directed towards SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights), not SNHR (Syrian Network for Human Rights). These are two different organizations.
It should be immediately obvious, though, that it's impossible under these conditions for the information to be 100% accurate.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Welcome to modern geo-political struggles, where everyone is horrible and thousands of innocent civilians caught in the middle will die regardless.
Ghostmaster
Member
Putin did learn a lot from Afghanistan, that's why you never see Russia involved anywhere "directly", even if there is ample proof of it.
He's a KGB guy through and through, smoke and mirrors everywhere. And like someone said this is purely a business decision, Asad had to give something or promise something in return for this aid.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Assad doesn't NEED to promise anything because Russia already has something in Syria that it will need to protect regardless, Russia NEEDS that naval base in Syria, that base is of utmost strategic interest to Russia so how people could think that Russia will let a government that has allowed them to keep that base for decades fall is beyond me. Its the same motivation for entering Crimea, those naval bases are crucial to the Russian navy. Any government that succeeds Assad regime will either be a puppet of the west, or an Islamist government. None of those will be particularly welcoming to Russian presence, and they can and will kick the Russians out. So no, Assad doesn't need to promise anything, as it stands the Russians just need to protect what they already have and that base is reason enough to march an army into Syria and decimate ISIS. I doubt they would though, aint nobody got the stomach or money for such an endeavor. But a limited engagement is indeed possible.
DudeWithNoName
Member
I support whomever is least likely to want to disembowel me just for being a non muslim. Assad it is.
Assad will surely ask you about your religious affiliation before dropping a couple of barrel bombs on your head.
The eastern part of Syria is mostly desert though. The areas the government has control over are much more valuable.
Most of his top generals and advisers are Sunni such as general Mamluk, his foreign and prime ministers are Sunni, most of his army is comprised of Sunni, Druze, Christians and Shia.
This idea that Assad is sectarian is bullshit when you look at the sectarian composition of his government and security forces which are more diverse than whatever moderate opposition exists.
MisterFalcon
Member
The Russians have two small piers in the port of Tartus they use, it's not close to anything that can be called a naval base that is crucial for the Russian military. It's not even big enough to support any ship over 100 meters in length which means most Black Sea fleet vessels can't dock there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus
Bing Maps has a very good picture, I've circled the Russian leased part of the port:
The Russians are far more concerned about keeping their intelligence gathering stations in Syria, one of which was captured by the FSA in late 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GDDbYfp7Sc
Agent Gibbs
Member
as much as i hate to see it, right now the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and assad's forces are fighting ISIS and they are the greatest scourge of our time, we wouldn't have a refugee crisis if ISIS weren't displacing people - arguably we wouldn;t have ISIS as powerful as they are if we hadn't tried to back channel equip fighters during the arab spring to over throw ISIS
Canis lupus
Member
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The refugee crisis is caused by Assad bombing civilians every single day. He's the one who has destroyed Syria.
ISIS are horrible people, but the refugees are from Assad, the civilian deaths are from Assad.
Oh yeah, you're right, the white is al-Qaeda, misread the legend, sorry.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
The Russians have two small piers in the port of Tartus they use, it's not close to anything that can be called a naval base that is crucial for the Russian military. It's not even big enough to support any ship over 100 meters in length which means most Black Sea fleet vessels can't dock there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus
Bing Maps has a very good picture, I've circled the Russian leased part of the port:
The Russians are far more concerned about keeping their intelligence gathering stations in Syria, one of which was captured by the FSA in late 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GDDbYfp7Sc
Yes that pier (shouldn't have called it a base cause it isn't) is of strategic value and as you say they also have intelligence gathering stations in the country. In any event Russia is going into Syria not because they care for the people nor for Assad in particular either but because Syria is important strategically to them. On another note the story hasn't even matured yet and our lord and protector, the oh so pious US of A is already trying to stop it or atleast make it hard for the Russians, http://news.yahoo.com/russian-experts-syria-inspect-expand-air-bases-report-093005783.html. We really are in a new cold war aren't we.
They're the Islamic front which encompasses multiple islamic groups such as sukour al sham, jund al sham who's main army is called Jaish al Fateh or army of conquerors. They're spearheaded by Nusra front which opened the way for the Idlib takeover, Nusra front is always spearheading every major offensive with many chechens in their ranks. FSA died a long time ago, even ambassador ford admitted as much.
This is the most important point. Assad has at least a coalition of the various religions in Syria. The Druze, Shia, yadizi and Christians would be eradicated by a majority Sunni group (ISIS) taking control of the country.
- Status