Syria

DannyL

Wild Horses
There's a quote that I can't find the original source for right now, from a Russian mercenary, which I thought was indicative. It ran something like "this war will drag on for at least another three years, the people in Syria, they don't want Assad, they can't stand him. It's only Russia and Putin that want him". My question would be - can this really be imposed? Can a rump state really impose it's rule through sheer violence? That's what we're seeing currently and I'm assuming that there are substantial economic costs for doing so, to Russia and Iran. A lot of the recent unrest in Iran has focused on what they're doing in Syria, in terms of the economic cost, not just the bloodshed. So - I wonder how long can this be sustained?

if it ever does "settle down" I imagine we'll end up with a Syrian populous much like the Palestinians, permanently displaced and stateless.
 

droid

Well-known member
I would say that within a year or so of Assad's 'victory' there is a strong chance that he and his family will be quietly disposed of and replaced by a quasi-military administration.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
A final thought - in 2013 when Syrian officials thought that Obama was going to retaliate for the first Ghouta attack, lots of 'em started to relocate across the border to Lebanon. I think - unless I'm misremembering - I've heard similar stories more recently. There's no loyalty to Assad's state and no internal strength. I'm no expect but my impression is that the whole house of cards could fall very quickly.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
There's a quote that I can't find the original source for right now, from a Russian mercenary, which I thought was indicative. It ran something like "this war will drag on for at least another three years, the people in Syria, they don't want Assad, they can't stand him. It's only Russia and Putin that want him". My question would be - can this really be imposed? Can a rump state really impose it's rule through sheer violence? That's what we're seeing currently and I'm assuming that there are substantial economic costs for doing so, to Russia and Iran. A lot of the recent unrest in Iran has focused on what they're doing in Syria, in terms of the economic cost, not just the bloodshed. So - I wonder how long can this be sustained?

As long as Putin wants. And the paranoical imperialist that he is, he will do all that's necessary to keep Assad in power. As we have seen the last few years. On the other hand Putin is getting old. I suspect even greater chaos will ensure when Putin is no more (for whatever reason) and Russia has lost interest in keeping their mini-me dictator (if that ever happens)
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
My question would be - can this really be imposed? Can a rump state really impose it's rule through sheer violence?
going by the many, many precedents yes, but w/caveat that it works until it doesn't, tho that can be a very long time esp when propped up from outside. + as Droid says reshuffling at the top is always possible tho I wouldn't overestimate the easiness of that - superpowers (or whatever u wanna call current Russia) often have problems w/that in client states, tho less so when they are authoritarian + don't have to pay lip service to democratic ideals. also Assad seems like a pretty wily political in-fighter.

hard to see Syrians becoming like Palestinians tho? many refugees/displaced obv but there will still be a Syria no matter what, so not stateless.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I suspect even greater chaos will ensure when Putin is no more (for whatever reason)
that v much remains to be seen. there's the whole entrenched siloviki/oligarch ruling elite. we'll see. at v least there'll be a power scramble at the top I'm sure - Russia certainly has a lotta experience there - w/some potential chaos in its wake and possible changes in foreign policy depending on how it shakes out. too far out to speculate, tho maybe actual Russia experts might have some idea.
 

firefinga

Well-known member
There is another aspect to the Syrian debacle, which is very much to the liking of Mr. Putin: the Syrian refugees work very well in order to destabilize European democracies. They perfectly work as the boogie-men which get those right wing/populist parties votes, often those parties have close ties to Putin or groups linked to him.
 

droid

Well-known member
Shouldn't be a problem. There'll be 150 million climate refugees on Europe's borders soon enough.
 

droid

Well-known member
British troops mobilising in Cyprus. US carrier group on the way to the Mediterranean, Russian jets armed with ship killing missiles buzzing French and US vessels, significant increase in activity in airspace off the Syrian coast, Trump's cabinet ashen face at the press conference today.

Looks like this might be happening.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Shouldn't be a problem. There'll be 150 million climate refugees on Europe's borders soon enough.

British troops mobilising in Cyprus. US carrier group on the way to the Mediterranean, Russian jets armed with ship killing missiles buzzing French and US vessels, significant increase in activity in airspace off the Syrian coast, Trump's cabinet ashen face at the press conference today.

Looks like this might be happening.

You could at least pretend not to be excited about it.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Looks like this might be happening
we'll see

a more thorough explanation of current U.S. options (spoiler: they're all bad)

in brief, limited strikes are basically useless, their only real value is for U.S. domestic politics; more advanced but still indirect escalation (i.e. arming rebels) will be not just matched but exceeded by Iran/Russia in an escalation cycle that we're not willing to match; an all out war carries the dire risks of 1) sending Syria completely over the edge into chaos and/or 2) a shooting war w/Russia, w/all the terrible + even apocalyptic potential that holds
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
the Trump X factor makes literally anything possible but I still have a hard time seeing this going from saber-rattling to U.S./Russia war but who knows I guess
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Syria ultimately matters more to Iran/Russia than to us, + U.S. currently much higher on the war fatigue cycle than Russia

majority of Americans support/don't care about more useless missile etc strikes but significant boots on the ground would be wildly unpopular

not a situation where going to war (or escalating current operations I guess) is going to unite country behind President, even if it wasn't Trump

as GOP already looking real bad for midterms, don't need hugely unpopular war to add to their problems
 

droid

Well-known member
They dont need it for political or logistical support. Dunno if May would risk going further, but no reason to think she wouldn't either, especially given the current Russia hysteria.

My main worry is with the cast of characters & the context. Putin's looking weak after the US killed his mercenaries, the ruble is tanking due to the sanctions, Trump and Bolton offer an appalling combination of distraction seeking stupidity and reckless bloodlust, May & Johnson are beyond clownish... then there's Erdogan, Netanyahu... the apocalyptic scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility. The UN inspection agreement is the best first hope for a reprieve, but I dont think its going too well.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
My main worry is with the cast of characters & the context
this is true, plus the ineluctable logic of public brinksmanship. certainly wouldn't be the first time a war that neither side was really interested in broke out.

otoh Mattis is deadset against any stupid/reckless action esp w/o larger strategy, which doesn't exist, + maybe he can counterbalance Bolton/reign in Trump somewhat

+ Putin is surely way too cagey to have any desire to get into a shooting war w/U.S.

problems may come if we send planes + Russia shoots one down, + things go from there
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
btw did quick survey + Syria is still #3 story on major U.S. news sites, left + right, behind Mueller/firing/raid + Zuckerberg/FB/Congress

not that that means anything but I found it interesting
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
we'll see

a more thorough explanation of current U.S. options (spoiler: they're all bad)

in brief, limited strikes are basically useless, their only real value is for U.S. domestic politics; more advanced but still indirect escalation (i.e. arming rebels) will be not just matched but exceeded by Iran/Russia in an escalation cycle that we're not willing to match; an all out war carries the dire risks of 1) sending Syria completely over the edge into chaos and/or 2) a shooting war w/Russia, w/all the terrible + even apocalyptic potential that holds

Interesting article but I kinda disagree with it - 2013 was before concerted Russian involvement so limited strikes would've made a big difference - I mentioned earlier regime officials fleeing at the mere mention of strikes. Also, "Assad tamers" aside, the US did prevent access to MANPAD surface to air missile launchers which would have prevented casualties in a significant' way - barrel bombs launched from helicopters being the war's most significant killer. It strikes me that the writer is writing in a quite conventional political frame can't really conceive of how collapsed and fragmentary the Syrian state has been for a long time. As I said above, it's only being held together by Russia and Iran. It's possible my understanding of this is out of date and all that reconstruction money and demographic changes will bring things back into line, but I remain unconvinced.

Also the talk of escalation and WW3 - Turkey and Israel have carried out strikes against Syrian and Russian targets with no consequences to speak of. 200 Russian mercenaries were killed a few weeks ago, by the US and that's been largely downplayed. Is escalation to a forceful challenge an absolute certainty? I don't know if it is.
 
Last edited:
Top