A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Putin was willing to commit ground troops. Without groundtroops, there was no way to beat IS. Saudi Arabaia, the Emirates and Turkey were not really that eager to fight the IS, and followed their own agenda. Erdogan topped it off, when he started to bring the hammer down on the Kurds instead of ISIS. You have to admit, the situation was overall quite favorably for Putin to succeed. He said he wanted to back Assad from the getgo, so for him forming a coalition with Iran (like Assad shiites) to fight the sunnite IS was a bit easier. God forbid the US cooperate with Iran, it could upset Israel. After Turkey downed that Russian jet, he also had no reason not to go to the Kurds and help them. And for the Kurds Russia is strategically probably way more valuable than the US. Afterall, Russia has the connection to the Iranian and Syrian goverments. Considering Iran's growing influence on Iraq, those are the two countries the Kurds need to stay more or less autonomous. While the US influence over Turkey is rather meagre. ANd for Putin supporting the Kurds is a nice way of screwing with Erdogan. So there were quite a few factors in place that favored Putin's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, Notone said: Putin was willing to commit ground troops. Without groundtroops, there was no way to beat IS. Saudi Arabaia, the Emirates and Turkey were not really that eager to fight the IS, and followed their own agenda. Erdogan topped it off, when he started to bring the hammer down on the Kurds instead of ISIS. You have to admit, the situation was overall quite favorably for Putin to succeed. He said he wanted to back Assad from the getgo, so for him forming a coalition with Iran (like Assad shiites) to fight the sunnite IS was a bit easier. God forbid the US cooperate with Iran, it could upset Israel. After Turkey downed that Russian jet, he also had no reason not to go to the Kurds and help them. And for the Kurds Russia is strategically probably way more valuable than the US. Afterall, Russia has the connection to the Iranian and Syrian goverments. Considering Iran's growing influence on Iraq, those are the two countries the Kurds need to stay more or less autonomous. While the US influence over Turkey is rather meagre. ANd for Putin supporting the Kurds is a nice way of screwing with Erdogan. So there were quite a few factors in place that favored Putin's actions. Or rather, Putin acted based on considering all of those factors first. Heck, he is even on friendly terms with Israel now. Despite being on Iran's side. How he managed that, I don't know, but it looks like quite a masterstroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgrnosfe Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Putin was willing to commit ground troops. Without groundtroops, there was no way to beat IS. Saudi Arabaia, the Emirates and Turkey were not really that eager to fight the IS, and followed their own agenda. Erdogan topped it off, when he started to bring the hammer down on the Kurds instead of ISIS. You have to admit, the situation was overall quite favorably for Putin to succeed. He said he wanted to back Assad from the getgo, so for him forming a coalition with Iran (like Assad shiites) to fight the sunnite IS was a bit easier. God forbid the US cooperate with Iran, it could upset Israel. After Turkey downed that Russian jet, he also had no reason not to go to the Kurds and help them. And for the Kurds Russia is strategically probably way more valuable than the US. Afterall, Russia has the connection to the Iranian and Syrian goverments. Considering Iran's growing influence on Iraq, those are the two countries the Kurds need to stay more or less autonomous. While the US influence over Turkey is rather meagre. ANd for Putin supporting the Kurds is a nice way of screwing with Erdogan. So there were quite a few factors in place that favored Putin's actions. Good analysis. In fact turkey traditionally does not trust eu, iran, Russia, Kurds and basically all its neighbours since they all have betrayed the Turkish ottoman empire in the past. The most influencing country for turkey is the US. Like I once said before, I like Obama as a person and a president but if there was a republican president (but not trump, no please...) Putin would have never been able to go this far to trap an ally. Turkey and Israel are also natural allies with each other and the US in the middle east. Erdogan undermined his own power when he turned his back on Israel. There is a harsh debate between us and turkey these days. It is about the Kurds, us does not see Syrian Kurds as terrorists while erdogan insists that they have to. It is interesting for two allies to openly debate about an organisation is terrorist or not. If the US also ceases support for turkey, Putin might go as far to try and invade turkey or at least parts of it. Ww3? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, cgrnosfe said: Good analysis. In fact turkey traditionally does not trust eu, iran, Russia, Kurds and basically all its neighbours since they all have betrayed the Turkish ottoman empire in the past. The most influencing country for turkey is the US. Like I once said before, I like Obama as a person and a president but if there was a republican president (but not trump, no please...) Putin would have never been able to go this far to trap an ally. Turkey and Israel are also natural allies with each other and the US in the middle east. Erdogan undermined his own power when he turned his back on Israel. There is a harsh debate between us and turkey these days. It is about the Kurds, us does not see Syrian Kurds as terrorists while erdogan insists that they have to. It is interesting for two allies to openly debate about an organisation is terrorist or not. Of the US also ceases support for turkey, Putin might go as far to try and invade turkey or at least parts of it. Ww3? Anyone? Putin has no interest in invading Turkey. It is quite clear though that Putin has made up his mind about Erdogan, and will work to topple him in whatever way he can. Sanctions, supporting the Kurds, driving millions of refugees into Turkey, anything to weaken Erdogan domestically. He even went as far as openly stating that Erdogan is an Islamist who does not represent Turkey's secular history and previous good relationship with Russia. Putin won't invade Turkey. That will not serve his interests at all. But if he can orchestrate a change of government in Turkey, to one that is on good terms with Russia, that would serve his purposes perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Or rather, Putin acted based on considering all of those factors first. Heck, he is even on friendly terms with Israel now. Despite being on Iran's side. How he managed that, I don't know, but it looks like quite a masterstroke. I don't really think it is, India is a very close friend to both Israel and Iran, Iran meanwhile has good relations with both North and South Korea, the US is allied with both Saudi Arabia and Israel, and is an ally of Pakistan whilst being very friendly towards India. The fact is in international politics the friend of your enemy is not necessarily your enemy, indeed I would argue that it is mostly only the NATO block which has more or less exactly the same allies and enemies, most other countries have allies on both sides of international disputes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 On 09/02/2016 at 2:06 PM, Free Northman Reborn said: Among them, I proposed that the Syrian intervention allowed Putin to manipulate the refugee situation in a way that allows him to apply pressure on Europe and thereby give him increased leverage in his ongoing troubles with the West. This suggestion was scoffed at by some members of this forum, and lambasted as a ridiculous idea. Well, now, months later, this article seems to be suggesting something similar. https://euobserver.com/foreign/132186 Basically, it suggests that Putin is using the refugee crisis to reduce Merkel's popularity in Germany, in a bid to weaken or potentially even topple her. In short, the more Russia bombs areas like Aleppo, the greater the stream of refugees to Europe, and the more unpopular Merkel becomes. I still feel that Putin engineering a refugee crisis is a very ridiculous assumption. First of all, the biggest refugee waves were before Putin even came or when the air strikes didn't turn the tide of war yet. And secondly, do you honestly believe that if Putin didn't come to Syria, there would me no more refugees? That's completely wrong. It would be the opposite - if Assad would have lost (and he was loosing before Russia came to his rescue), the current refugee crisis would be nothing compared to what would have happened if the rebels won. Aleppo, from where the current refugees run from the Russian airstrikes is not fully rebel-held. Only half of it is. And the government's half has a more than a twice bigger population then rebels' half. The rebels taking it would create a massively bigger amount of refugees than Assad taking other half. The government-held territory overall has like 70% of total Syrian population. The biggest amount of current refugees are also in the government - held areas. What do you think will happen if the rebels take these regions? Millions from Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, Latakia, Tartous who sided with the government will run away. 2 millions of Alawites that many of the rebel factions promised to exterminate will run away. The current crisis will be a small nuisance in comparison and I don't even imagine what will happen to Merkel if she let them all in. In general, Putin doesn't create more refugees, not less would have come without his intervention. He also simply helps the government to capture more territories. It's not like he can do that without displacing many people. He doesn't have bombs that target only insurgents and leave the civilians, their homes and civilian institutions unharmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Oh man, the duplicity and selective truth of mainstream media establishment are such a brilliant thing (just ask Sanders). Today in New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/opinion/a-chance-to-halt-the-brutality-in-syria.html (...)an agreement announced early Friday morning in Munich between the United States and Russia to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to besieged Syrian cities, followed by at least a temporary cessation of hostilities. (...) As Secretary of State John Kerry noted, “The real test is whether all parties honor those commitments.” Given the brutality and dictatorial ambitions of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and the duplicitous behavior of his chief ally, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, that is a huge if. Yeah, evil Ruskies undermining peace whenever they can... at least until you come upon words of one Martti Ahtisaari, former Finnish president and negotiator in multiple international conflicts: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time. Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition. But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal. So let me get this straight. Russians offered to remove Assad 3 or 4 years ago and were ready to work with the West on a peace plan for Syria. West sabotaged the idea because they thought Assad was going to fall quickly, much like Gaddafi, and so weren't really interested in a compromise. And only now, in 2016, after years of horrific and brutal warfare, when the so-called "moderate opposition" backed by Turkey, Saudis, Qatar and the West is at its knees, only now a peace deal sanctioned by the West is on the table. Put this into a timeline. Deduce for yourselves who's been against peace talks and who's been for them all this time. Regardless of what "independent journalists" tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dofs Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 It's ridiculous to claim that Assad and Russia are undermining peace talks after what happened in Geneva last time where the opposition refused to negotiate because Assad was continuing to fight the opposition at that time. The opposition apparently didn't come to negotiate ceasefire and piece, but demanded a ceasefire and piece so that they can negotiate. How does it even make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Putin understands the most basic principle of negotiation: Only negotiate from a position of strength. His position in Syria is now so strong that he can basically dictate the course of the negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 To be fair, Obama et al also understand this principle -- that's why they refused the deal back in 2012. The problem is getting to the position of strength. Putin has obviously made some headway in that direction whereas the US spent $500M on... to be honest, I still don't understand what they did with that money, but it obviously didn't do much towards putting us in a position of strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Northman Reborn Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Altherion said: To be fair, Obama et al also understand this principle -- that's why they refused the deal back in 2012. The problem is getting to the position of strength. Putin has obviously made some headway in that direction whereas the US spent $500M on... to be honest, I still don't understand what they did with that money, but it obviously didn't do much towards putting us in a position of strength. True. However, looking back at events since 2003 I honestly believe that Arab countries are better off with dictators in charge. The Middle East was a better place with Saddam, Gaddaffi and Assad in power. Because once they go, the extremists take over. Idealism is misplaced in the Middle East. Pragmatism should rule the day instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Altherion said: To be fair, Obama et al also understand this principle -- that's why they refused the deal back in 2012. The problem is getting to the position of strength. Putin has obviously made some headway in that direction whereas the US spent $500M on... to be honest, I still don't understand what they did with that money, but it obviously didn't do much towards putting us in a position of strength. Well, you can take what I said about Russia and Putin and the factors that favored him. Now look at the same factors for Obama and the US. Using ground troops was never in the cards, after that immensely succesful Iraq campaign. The US allies Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Turkey followed their agendas. And deploying and losing troops actually fighting the IS was not that high on their priority list. Erdogan tried to become a major player and hegemon for the region, and he wanted to lean back and wait for the IS to fight the Kurds and Assad. So he could more easily deal increase Turkey's influence. As a bonus all those refugees finally gave Erdogan some leverage over the EU. Saudi Arabia had a similar agenda, just that they really didn't care about the Kurds or refugees (as long as they don't come there). Their aim was to get rid of Assad somehow and increase their sphere of inluence. In addition, deploying ground troops against the IS, who are not that different in terms of religion, I am not sure the folks at home, would be that understanding. That left the Kurds and some moderate groups (whatever they might have been) to fight for the US. Supporting the Kurds too much, would have upset the Nato partner Turkey. Military cooperation with Iran? The Democrats had to battle heavy resistance to get the sanctions lifted. And Netanyahu would have returned to Washington with another doomsday scenario involving Iran. In addition the US (stupidly) commited early on, that removing Assad was a definate goal. And Assad was/is an ally of Iran. Saudi Arabia (another US ally) is a local rival to Iran. Take all that into consideration, and see how tied down the US were diplomatically. So showing some support for the Kurds and lead a few air and drone strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 15 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said: Putin understands the most basic principle of negotiation: Only negotiate from a position of strength. His position in Syria is now so strong that he can basically dictate the course of the negotiations. Yeah, but note the difference. Assad and Putin *are* ready to negotiate. When the wheels turned the other way a few years back and the West thought that their "moderate opposition" would steamroll over the regime forces, the opposition and their backers, trainers, and financiers couldn't care less about peace talks, suffering of the people, millions of refugees... none of that mattered. They could have negotiated from the position of strength then -- and Ahtisaari indicated Russians were well willing to get rid of Assad -- but who cares when you can blow up a country real good and achieve the same thing, right? I mean, it's the same bullshit all over the Middle East and beyond. I'm just stunned and stupefied that once respected newspapers can publish such propagandistic drivel all day long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Haha, propagandistic drivel is entering overdrive, someone got their marching orders, seems like. Top news on Syria on Google News: Russia Plays Familiar Hand in Syria Calling Russia's Bluff on Syria: Analysis Wesley Clark: In Syria, Russia is the real threat Why the Syria Deal Isn’t Really Much of a Deal Why the Syrian cease-fire probably won't work Is Putin playing West for a fool in Syria? 'Cessation Of Hostilities' In Syria Lets Russia Keep Bombing After the bad Munich deal, it's unlikely Syria's situation will improve Do these guys even know to formulate their own opinions without aping every major talking point of foreign policy establishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Doesn't mean they are wrong though. But it's not like the West has many options. They have to bite the bullet one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgrnosfe Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Western media may be worse than north Korean media in these matters. For example, erdogan spends a happy day with Merkel and they agree on some issues, bbc puts a 'news' ın favor of turkey, how they look after migrants, how a friendly little country it is. The next day they are in a debate and the same bbc breathes fire, prepares some news with some migrants that claim to be beaten by turkish police etc... Your media is manipulating you to death. I no longer read any papers or watch news for being informed. I just look at them to see which side is thinking what. It is the same and worse with turkish and russian media. Do it and you will be more free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 4 hours ago, cgrnosfe said: Western media may be worse than north Korean media in these matters. For example, erdogan spends a happy day with Merkel and they agree on some issues, bbc puts a 'news' ın favor of turkey, how they look after migrants, how a friendly little country it is. The next day they are in a debate and the same bbc breathes fire, prepares some news with some migrants that claim to be beaten by turkish police etc... Your media is manipulating you to death. I no longer read any papers or watch news for being informed. I just look at them to see which side is thinking what. It is the same and worse with turkish and russian media. Do it and you will be more free... Well, I prefer the media in the west over that nonsense that gets spread over the Russian news channel. Just how they tried to hijack and spin that news story with the 12 y.o. girl in Berlin... That was really disgusting. Turkish media, there are too few journalists who dare to go to jail, when they criticise that lil' autocrat Erdogan. You know, the guy with the Mickey Mouse voice, who is slowly but surely dismantling laicism, and is instead moving Turkey closer to an Islamic state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgrnosfe Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Haha yeah I get who you are talking about. Truth cannot be found in mainstream western media, however truth can get you to jail in the likes of turkey and Russia. Truth is nowhere to be found in the rest of middle east. What a sad state in the age of information... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 We're lucky Assange is not in jail then, eh? It's voluntary self-incarceration after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 *sigh* Depends on which charges you have in mind. The sexual assault charges in Sweden. He should definately face those. Fame does not equal immunity. The BS charges from the US concerning Wikileaks. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.