And at that time in Aleppo the Syrian army is liberating the Al Assad suburb in the West of Aleppo. This is the only part of Aleppo which remained taken by the terrorists in their latest offensive which has not yet taken back:
Some claims are that it is already completely liberated, some claim that there is yet a lot of fighting neare the border, some also about fighting inside, we will see. To completely revert all the advances of the terrorists in that offensive, a few uninteresting parts outside the town itself remain.
As opposed to someone who tries to support his claim that Putin has bombed no Kurds in Syria by claiming that any people who speak Arabic are not Kurds.
Nonsense. Of course, bombs will have also, as collateral damage, some Kurds as victims. So once there live
some Kurds in Jabal Akrad too, and there was a lot of fighting there, there will have been also Kurdish victims. As among civilians as collateral damage, as among some local self-defense forces, who have failed to make peace with the Syrian army, as among the hardcore terrorists.
But none of the terrorists groups fighting in this region had anything to do with the important Kurdish armed forces like the YPG. Jabal Akrad is not even part of the Kurdish dream of Rojava
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava So, bombing there the Russians were bombing the terrorist groups fighting there, some SSA, some Al Qaida, none associated with YPG, nor of the Hasaka, nor of the Afrin part. And therefore nothing worth to be mentioned in the discussion of Kurdish politics. Except you want to try to sell some SSA or Al Qaida factions as Kurdish groups, maybe because one or another leader of them is Kurdish - I don't know.
You seem to support the terrorist groups fighting in Jabal Akrad, given that you object in such emotional phrases like "bombing Kurds" against fighting them, not? This is the only reason I can see for introducing this.
Note that the very comment you were responding to was an observation that the nature of such actions by the likes of Putin are not excused via a spurious legality.
I have recognized that for you, as a defender of the American empire, legality is "spurious", and does not matter at all. Natural, given that the US never cares about such legality but simply bombs if it likes. At least not that typical double standard of the Western media who blame Russia for a lot of invented violations of international law but do not care at all about the US doing much more horrible things without caring about law at all.
For me, legality matters. Of course, I'm in no way absolutist in this question, and acknowledge that there are situations where violations of international law are justified. For example: In the game of escalation, "tit for tat" is the most adequate and rational strategy. But if one has an opponent which, like the US, escalates using illegal means of various degree, the natural tit for tat answer would be illegal too. What to do? Here I acknowledge that in such a situation a tit for tat, even if illegal, is appropriate and justified. I accept this necessity, as a fact of life. But this should be an exception, justified by such special circumstances. The normal, preferred way should be legal. So, I do not accept your position that legality does not matter. Legality matters, and a lot.
There is, of course, the question if some legal action is somehow otherwise, morally bad. I cannot see anything in this direction, except, of course, for joepistole propaganda lies. The terrorists are armed by the West in such a strong way that airforce is necessary to fight them. The Russian airforce is professional, has the ability to do this job, and does it. This clearly helps destroying various terrorist forces, and has already given peace to some regions.
