Russia.. what's going to happen?

[Arakan]

Ok people, let's be honest...let's start with a simple analysis and let's start with the oldie but goldy: cui bono? 

Who doesn't like that Russia, Iran and Turkey are starting to work together to find a solution in Syria? The answer is clear like 1+1=2: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jihadists...and the USA. 

So maybe that guy who killed the ambassador was a jihadi-inspired lone wolf, a jihadi agent or it was a false flag operation (backed by either or all: Saudi Arabia, Qatar...CIA). 

At this stage I consider all options as possible answer. 

[Kalbear]

Assuming rational actors only is never a good option. Anger doesn't require a rational response. 

And how, pray tell, would someone assassinating an ambassador make relations between Russia and Turkey worse? If anything, doesn't that point to said 'false flag' being someone from Russia or Turkey, and not the US? The only way this makes sense for the US to do it is if they wanted Russia and Turkey to move closer. Neither Russia or Turkey are blaming each other for it so far - both have openly blamed Syrian rebels. 

[Wouter]

38 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The money by all indications isn't really reaching them particularly well, they don't have much in the way of supply lines at this point and the US - which had been attempting to help - is backing away. Furthermore, the rebels have nothing that is going to stop civilian airstrikes worth a damn, and if Russia/Assad is interested in blowing the shit out of Palmyra - which apparently they are - they're going to do that and the rebels are hosed. 

Palmyra is held by the Daesh. If Russia/Assad decides to blow the shit out of it, the non-Daesh rebels will be happy that this would mean less firepower being used on them, for a little while.

Allthough many of the groups in Idlib are Al-Nusra or similar types, so the distinction with Daesh is quite thin, at least on the ideological side.

[Kalbear]

Good point. I realize that I don't know enough about the geography. This map is pretty useful to give an idea of who is where and what is going on. 

It also makes it really clear that doing anything against Aleppo is doing fuck all against ISIS. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

23 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Ok people, let's be honest...let's start with a simple analysis and let's start with the oldie but goldy: cui bono? 

Who doesn't like that Russia, Iran and Turkey are starting to work together to find a solution in Syria? The answer is clear like 1+1=2: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jihadists...and the USA. 

So maybe that guy who killed the ambassador was a jihadi-inspired lone wolf, a jihadi agent or it was a false flag operation (backed by either or all: Saudi Arabia, Qatar...CIA). 

At this stage I consider all options as possible answer. 

Too much plauisble deniability for Turkey given the circumstances.  Can't see Russia being able to take a hardline on this one.

[Arakan]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Good point. I realize that I don't know enough about the geography. This map is pretty useful to give an idea of who is where and what is going on. 

It also makes it really clear that doing anything against Aleppo is doing fuck all against ISIS. 

ISIS are not the only jihadi head choppers in Syria, just the most famous one. Enough jihadi head choppers like Jabhat Fateh al Sham (aka Nusra aka AQ) or Ahrar al Sham were active in and around Aleppo. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Arakan said:

ISIS are not the only jihadi head choppers in Syria, just the most famous one. Enough jihadi head choppers like Jabhat Fateh al Sham (aka Nusra aka AQ) or Ahrar al Sham were active in and around Aleppo. 

I'm not sure you're making the point you're trying to make. It was stated repeatedly by Trump that Russia was going after ISIS. They were clearly not. 

[Arakan]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Too much plauisble deniability for Turkey given the circumstances.  Can't see Russia being able to take a hardline on this one.

Nah, Turkey sure as hell had no interest in something like that to happen. On the contrary. As Erdogan's relationship with the West (USA, EU) is deteriorating, he looks again to Russia or China. 

As I said in another thread: there is no friendship between states but partnerships based on common interests. That's about it. 

When and if Erdogan reinstalls the death penalty in Turkey then it's going to get really interesting...because this means the end to the EU membership plans. Of course there's still the NATO thing. But the NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey the NATO. It's not 1990 anymore. 

[Arakan]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure you're making the point you're trying to make. It was stated repeatedly by Trump that Russia was going after ISIS. They were clearly not. 

so what? I am not American so what do I care what Trump said in the election campaign? Not everyone on the internet is American you know...

And for your information: Russia is fighting the IS, amongst others in Palmyra and they did bomb the shit out of the mobile IS oil pipeline (aka Trucks)...

but the essential point is: jihadi head chopper is jihadi head chopper. I don't care if they call themselves IS, Jabhat Fateh al Sham or Ahrar al Sham...

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Arakan said:

so what? I am not American so what do I care what Trump said in the election campaign? Not everyone on the internet is American you know...

And for your information: Russia is fighting the IS, amongst others in Palmyra and they did bomb the shit out of the mobile IS oil pipeline (aka Trucks)...

Because my point was that Russia was stating (and Trump was repeating) that Russia was going after ISIS when bombing Aleppo. Which...they weren't. Not at all. You arguing against that seems incredibly weird. Now you've moved the goalposts to state that them  going after Palmyra is actually what matters. 

I get that you appear to be incredibly angry about SA and apparently angry at me because I said that Russia was bad, but please try to actually read what I wrote. 

[Arakan]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Because my point was that Russia was stating (and Trump was repeating) that Russia was going after ISIS when bombing Aleppo. Which...they weren't. Not at all. You arguing against that seems incredibly weird. Now you've moved the goalposts to state that them  going after Palmyra is actually what matters. 

I get that you appear to be incredibly angry about SA and apparently angry at me because I said that Russia was bad, but please try to actually read what I wrote. 

Mate, this is an international forum. I dont really give a shit about what Trump said about Aleppo. You understand this? I am not American. 

Where was Russia what stating? Please be specific. 

I am not angry at you at all. Why should I be?

[Kalbear]

I know you're not, but again - Russia said it. 

In July, the US and Russia agreed to tentatively go after ISIS. Later, Fox News reported (somewhat incorrectly) that they were attacking ISIS targets. Russia said that's what they wanted to do as early as October 2015.

But that really isn't what they've done, especially as of late.

[JLE]

It's not in the interest of any rational nation on this earth for any two or all three of America, Russia or Turkey to go to war against each other.

Simply put: Even if Hillary had been President instead of Trump (and there was a lot of paranoia about "Hillary wants a war with Russia", which I believe to be bullshit, there wasn't going to be a US/Russia direct nuclear war, because both sides have too much to lose. Neither side can win with a first strike, it could be assured that there *would* be retaliation, it would be massive, and even with the most sophisticated known anti-missile defences, you can't cover the whole of a nation the size of either, and it would only take one or two bombs to get through (and it would be a lot more than that) to ensure that the "victor" would be completely ruined as well.

So, since nobody could possibly have an interest, in either financial or power terms, in such a war in *this* world... who could? A religious apocalyptic, in the belief that they would be rewarded, and infidels on both sides punished, in *the next* world that they believe in. Someone who not only believes in an apocalypse where only the faithful are rewarded, but in bringing it about.

So, this shooter's going to turn out to have links to jihadists - and even if said jihadists turn out to have American arms, that link will be played down, for several reasons:

(1) Some of the groups America were providing assistance to, were genuine moderates...
(2) Some of said moderates didn't last very long because they were promptly attacked and overrun by actual jihadists, thus getting control of their military capabilities.
(3) And others may have been fundamentalist shill groups all along... and who convinced us they were moderates in the first place? An obvious place to look would be, erm, NATO's closest Muslim ally, Turkey... a nation that is known to hate (a) Assad, and (b) the Kurds, who seem one of the few genuinely "moderate" forces out there - at least, they're moderate in religious terms, but are no shrinking violets themselves when it comes to terrorist attacks in Turkey: so there have been factions in Turkey whose logical allies, among people who hated both Assad and the Kurds, were indeed ISIS and other fundamentalists, and some of these factions may have representatives in the intelligence community. Turkey is itself hardly a united front: even if President Erdogan (although a known Islamist himself) may have turned against ISIS (or been against them all along, it is never clear). The USA may not have known much about whom they were "assisting" at all, and may easily have been mistaken or deceived. It's already been noted that some CIA-backed factions turned against Pentagon-backed factions...

It won't, in all probability, turn out to be a simple lone nutter with a genuine grievance for Aleppo, because surely they would have known better than to shoot a diplomatic ambassador. It'll be someone with a religious agenda who is *hoping* to start a war by shooting a diplomat.

[Arakan]

@JLE

good read albeit I wouldn't cancel out KSA or Qatar in the background, but of course you can argue that KSA are religious nutters themselves (except the times when Saudi sheiks go on party holidays in Dubai, Switzerland, Austria or Germany...a lot of booze and boobs involved there). 

[Mr Fixit]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Good point. I realize that I don't know enough about the geography. This map is pretty useful to give an idea of who is where and what is going on. 

It also makes it really clear that doing anything against Aleppo is doing fuck all against ISIS. 

Eh, ISIS, not-ISIS... The myth of moderate rebels has been dispelled a long time ago. The guys in Aleppo may not be ISIS, but the majority of rebel groups there are still hardcore Islamist terrorists, quite a few of which have a history of cooperation with various Al-Qaeda clones. The whole pitch of "Assad is fighting good guys instead of ISIS" is nothing more than a Western propaganda tool. And anyway, to end the civil war, one kinda needs to deal with ALL of those factions, not just handpicked few, right? Why this insistence on ISIS? They are just one example of a broader phenomenon that started long before they first appeared. As if defeating ISIS and ISIS alone while not touching anyone else would change the paradigm. People need to stop operating within the artificial definitions provided by US and Middle Eastern terror sponsors.

[DireWolfSpirit]

If the Jihadis are pissed enough to be assasinating Russian diplomats, I'll take that as evidence Russia's bombing the right people. They need to stay resolved at continuing the job and reliberating Palmyra next. The rebels have committed grotesque crimes there. Completely obliterating Unesco World heritage sites like the ancient Temple of Baal, which had predated the bible. They (the rebels) are trying to erase history, these people are beyond diplomacy with there fanatic attempt to establish a caliphate or be martyrs. Theres no middle ground with these groups who reject civilization as we know it.

Its sad but the only two options for Syrians are to fight them or be conquered, at least for the ones who havent resorted to evacuating.

[Arakan]

I am right now watching the joint press conference of the Russian, Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers...

Basic statement: Russia, Iran and Turkey will jointly fight IS AND Al Nusra. 

What does this mean? In short, we really might see an end to major hostilities in Syria within the next year...

- IS and Al Nusra will be dealt with in a very hard manner, expect hammer and amboss

- a new US administration with a supposedly different approach towards the war 

- without IS and Al Nusra, the Syrian opposition is toothless (ofc I exclude the YPG/SDF)

- coming 2017, the Gulf Cartel (KSA, Qatar will be isolated) 

- Egypt as biggest Arab nation is already on the Russian / Syrian government side 

 

Maybe it's time to be slightly optimistic that the tragedy and bloodshed in Syria will be coming to an end in the not too distant future. 

[BloodRider]

19 hours ago, Arakan said:

Yes indeed dark times. I can only hope that Russia, Iran, Turkey will find a workable agreement at their trilateral meeting. 

Otherwise I cannot even imagine...

Thank god, from a world POV, Trump got US president. With Clinton the whole Syria tragedy could have gotten totally out of hand. The Gulf Arabs will always be part of the problem. Too much money and nothing else to do. 

Que?  Trump is gonna tie us to Putin's fuckery, I'll wager.

[Arakan]

2 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Que?  Trump is gonna tie us to Putin's fuckery, I'll wager.

Wow what an insightful post. Well thought through and sophisticated. Consider me speechless. 

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

Wow what an insightful post. Well thought through and sophisticated. Consider me speechless. 

One can only hope.