One wonders how often we’ve surprised the Russians with a sudden call to get their advisors off the ground over there someplace lest they be inadvertently targeted.
This was unusually deceptive because there were apparently direct talks on Syria Monday night. Putin and his people knew exactly what they had planned. They just strung us along. That’s not acceptable.
A great opportunity was wasted. Imagine the psychological effect on ISIS if France, US and Russia had launched a coordinated attack. It would have sent one heck of a message.
Instead a message of deception was sent. It calls into play the real intentions of Russia. NATO can’t trust a word Putin says.
I do agree that the ideal approach to take would have been to make an agreement with Russia “We won’t attack your allies in Syria if you don’t attack our allies in Syria. You and Assad want ISIL dead, we want ISIL dead, let’s just kill these bastards together and then talk about Assad and the FSA once our common enemy is extinct.”
I don’t agree with the automatic assumption that those dastardly Russians are going back on their word. Unless you know what was discussed on Monday, it is wrong to simply assume that Putin violated the spirit of whatever was in that black box.
At least both sides are talking. That’s a good sign. So far they say they won’t target the FSA. We’ll have to wait and see.
There’s a lot at stake for Russia. They have a significant Muslim population. Get them stirred up and Russia has a serious problem at home.
When will the world realise that only the United States and its vassals and satraps are allowed to make the Middle East worse?
Russia doesnt want ISIS dead. They only care about keeping their naval base in the Mediterranean.For that , they need Asad to keep his control over the coastal area of Syria, so they are willing to defend him there. They dont care about anything else.
I don’t think this is quite accurate - as aceplace57 mentions, Putin is also worried about Islamo-fascism in the former republics. He doesn’t want ISIS ramping up closer to the Rodina.
But this is the usual clusterfuck. ISIS shouldn’t win, Assad shouldn’t win, Putin shouldn’t win. Putin’s airstrikes aren’t going to work any better than the ones the US and her allies are making (cite). If Assad gets overthrown, whoever replaces him will be as bad as he.
Obama wants to defeat ISIS, get rid of Assad, and put moderates into power. ISIS is not being defeated, Putin is supporting Assad, and there aren’t any moderates. Apart from that, there are tons of Syrian refugees in Iraq, and the Kurds are trying to protect their oil and their autonomy.
“In Berlin, things are serious but not hopeless. In Vienna, things are hopeless but not serious”. In Syria, they are both.
Welcome to the Middle East.
Regards,
Shodan
Australia are also conducting missions in Syria. I think we have a Sopwith Camel.
Whatever. As said earlier, I think Assad is better than the alternative (ISIS).
What’s the situation with the Southern Front? They’re portrayed as moderate. I don’t think they’ve been bombed yet.
I struggle with the concept of “moderate rebels”, too.
What is the thought process there? “My moderate, watered-down ideas have led me to take up arms against my government.” It just doesn’t seem to be the way it works.
Or are we talking moderate vs. hard-line Muslims? See above. Seems to me the moderate thing to do is get out of Dodge for greener pastures in Europe &etc.
Feel free to clear this one up for me, folks.
Seems to me you’re wrong. There is nothing about not being a religious zealot, or even being an atheist, that means you can’t have a cause worth fighting for.
The civil war in Syria reminds me of China. Mao and Chiang Kai-shek’s forces fought a long, bitter civil war that continued even after the Japanese invaded. They were so locked into their struggle even an invasion from outside didn’t stop it.
The Syrians need to come together and find some solution to end the civil war. Focus on the bigger and more dangerous enemy, ISIS and Hezbollah.
I don’t know if Russia’s support of Assad will help or not. This thing could go in a dozen different directions.
@Grumman: Maybe I’m wrong, I dunno. In what way are the ‘moderate rebels’ supposed to be moderate?
Beyond quibbling about that- if the rebels win, then we get the collapse of Syria with ISIS next door. Hopefully it isn’t an al-Qaeda rebel group that takes control- I guess some rebels are more ‘moderate’ than that, sure. Can any of them run a government? Under these conditions? Of course just stopping the war would be a huge improvement, but we get another revolution in the ME, and look how those have turned out elsewhere.
So Russia steps in. They have tangible interests in Syria, and in their view defending the status quo is best. So they strike everyone who threatens Assad, moderate or not, and if they are successful we end up with Assad and ISIS. Yay!
Actually, choice C would be to let Al-Nusra take over Syria. Of course, my own preference would be choice D–to let the Kurds take over Syria. 
Too close to the Israeli border. The rebel groups there are under tacit Israeli protection, with the aim of keeping Hezbollah away from the Golan.
Hezbollah? Why specifically Hezbollah?
If you said “ISIS and Assad” I would understand, but just singling out Hezbollah without mentioning Assad makes no sense at all. Hezbollah are only in this fight as one pro-Assad force amongst many, no better and no worse than any of the others.
The Kurds have so far shown no interest whatsoever in running non-Kurdish areas, let alone the entire country.
300k Syrian lives have been lost thanks to idiotic American policy.
What policy do you think we should have used that would have prevented these 300K deaths?
Assad is a secular leader supported by everyone except the Sunnis. A resourceful leader commanding a strong army. The only policy was to strengthen Assad. American policy was moronic, caused so much suffering and destruction. There should not be any issues accepting this.
This is wildly untrue, but even if it were true, it would still have rendered Assad deeply problematic in terms of legitimacy and strategic alliance: Sunnis were the majority in pre-war Syria.