In end, Russians were right on Syria

[DA60]

'“The Russians had a more realistic analysis of the situation than practically anybody else,” said Lakhdar Brahimi, the former United Nations special envoy to Syria. “Everyone should have listened to the Russians a little bit more than they did.”

Brahimi was referring to the Russian offer in 2012 to end the growing civil war in Syria by forcing the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to leave power. The Russian proposal went before the UN Security Council, but the United States, Britain and France were so convinced that Assad was about to fall anyway that they turned it down. Why let the Russians take the credit?

So Assad is still in power, several hundred thousand more Syrians have died, and millions more have fled. But Brahimi’s comments are still relevant, because the Russians are still right.

Finally, very reluctantly, the United States is coming around to the long-standing Russian position that the secular Baathist regime in Syria must survive, as part of some compromise peace deal that everybody except the Islamist extremists will accept (although nobody will love it).'

In end, Russians were right on Syria | The London Free Press

 

[Cyrylek]

The assumption here is that the Kremlin actually had any intention of deposing Bashar. The record of their dealings with allied dictators (and that would be the only allies they have) shows that the relationships they develop are strong and personal, based on shared values, so to say.

 

[reinoe]

The assumption here is that the Kremlin actually had any intention of deposing Bashar. The record of their dealings with allied dictators (and that would be the only allies they have) shows that the relationships they develop are strong and personal, based on shared values, so to say.

No, the Russians had no intention of deposing Assad. The Russians were asking Assad to step down. It's the dumbass American policy to depose people and then install someone who's much worse. For example, Hillary wants to depose Assad and allow ISIS or Al-Qaeda takeover. It doesn't matter to her as long as they're an Islamic Extremist group.

 

[Cyrylek]

The Russians were asking Assad to step down.

Supplying a dictator with weaponry, while vetoing UN resolutions merely urging to follow the Arab League peace plan - that's a funny way of asking him to step down.

Face it: the Putinist regime is a slow-motion aggressor, and an enabler of tyrants. Its staunch long-term support of the Baathists is at least as much responsible for what is happening as all Western mistakes put together.

 

[OrphanSlug]

In some ways the article is right. It is near unheard of for a nation to admit that their foreign policy and intelligence gathering was wrong.

However the article does downplay a critical element, the renewed cold war like attitude between Putin and all things west. You could say that underline problem exacerbated how poorly the US and western interests handled al-Assad's long term relationship with Russia.

Russia may have been right even at the start of this multiple way civil war in Syria, but it still gives us a problem of handling the various entangling alliances for many nations over there. Namely the conditions of Turkey and Kurdish factions, Saudi Arabia against Iran regional interests, etc.

The ultimate problem was no one other than Russia really considered the dynamics of so many factions in Syria alone willing to have temporary alliances just to oppose al-Assad, and we specifically made matters worse politically deciding who is and is not a "moderate." Even McCain got in on that action.

 

[reinoe]

Even McCain got in on that action.

McCain has constantly and consistently got it wrong on foreign policy just like Hillary. His foreign policy cred is a figment of the media's imagination.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In some ways the article is right. It is near unheard of for a nation to admit that their foreign policy and intelligence gathering was wrong.

However the article does downplay a critical element, the renewed cold war like attitude between Putin and all things west. You could say that underline problem exacerbated how poorly the US and western interests handled al-Assad's long term relationship with Russia.

Russia may have been right even at the start of this multiple way civil war in Syria, but it still gives us a problem of handling the various entangling alliances for many nations over there. Namely the conditions of Turkey and Kurdish factions, Saudi Arabia against Iran regional interests, etc.

The ultimate problem was no one other than Russia really considered the dynamics of so many factions in Syria alone willing to have temporary alliances just to oppose al-Assad, and we specifically made matters worse politically deciding who is and is not a "moderate." Even McCain got in on that action.

Putin was never supposed to have a significant hand in Syria, he was a bit player till the West in general and Obama in particular proved to be either incompetent or without interest in the carnage of Syria. Our incompetence in Iraq, and leaving Iraq, of course played a hand as well. Assad and his coalition only then turned to Russia, invited them back in.