Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[CptBork]

It is going into TeX mode, so that you can write formulas like $\int\sqrt{a}b^c_d\hbar$, and a \ before the \$ should be sufficient to prevent this.

I appreciate the assistance. I figured something was going on with the TeX features but as you can see, it's a little wonky. It seems to be dollar signs in pairs that cause the issues, and single uses don't need the backslash, but I will have to play around with it some time.

As for this China fantasy that they're somehow going to pay to clean up the mess Putin and Assad just made, if China were to loan Assad $300 billion to be repaid in oil deliveries, and all of Syria's oil production went straight to Beijing, Assad wouldn't be able to pump out enough oil per day to even pay the interest costs. And you still have to factor in all the Russian companies expecting a cut of the profits. This is where your fantasies about Russian power and Assad's legitimacy become so blatantly detached from reality that one doesn't even need to read the news to know how far you've stuck your head up your ass.

 

[Schmelzer]

Some news about some small villages in the North-Western part of Daraa having accepted a reconciliation agreement. As usual, it will take some time until it is finished. How much time depends on the local contract, something where no information is available. In general, it looks like those who want to continue fighting will not be traveled to Idlib, but simply go away, and in practice, they simply join the IS. So, from the IS enclave, one hears that many former FSA and Al Qaida fighters now join the IS. Nobody is really surprised, the real differences are irrelevant anyway.

the quick attention to Assad in the wake of Trump's Russian-aided electoral college win (Flynn talking to Assad's folks within 48 hours) highlights another motive for Putin: he wants slack on the annexation of Crimea and more injury to NATO, and Syria provides sources of pressure on the US (due to the disaster of Iraq, and the role of oil in the dollar economy, and so forth and so on) - bargaining chips.

Putin will not bargain about Crimea, thus, does not need bargaining chips. I see another clear line in the Russian actions: Putin prepares Russia for an increasing conflict with the West. Say, such a conflict could include a complete embargo for everything. What is the best way to prepare for this: To start to produce everything you need for survival in Russia itself, to decrease the dependence on imports, and to establish better connections with countries not ruled by the West. So the counter-sanctions for agriculture (which leads to Russia producing all this itself), the low Ruble (which makes imports expensive), the creation of own SWIFT and credit card systems. The already existing sanctions against everything related with Crimea makes Crimea a good training ground, thus, there is not much reason for Putin to get rid of Crimea-related sanctions now. This is also about the question why the Donbass, Abkhasia and South Ossetia will not become part of Russia: They appear more useful as formally independent states. Say, Russia selling weapons to Donbass could cause some problems on the diplomatic front. Russia selling weapons to Abkhasia or South Ossetia not. What about Abkhasia selling weapons to Donbass? Not a problem for Russia. In the other direction, this works too. So, the Ukrainian Nazis heavily fight everything related to imports from Donbass. Except for the smuggling where they get some income. But so what? Donbass sells all this to Abkhasia, and then it somehow gets from Abkhasia to Ukraine. Same with Iran. Iran under heavy sanctions will be a nice training ground for future Russia under heavy sanctions, so Russia develops trade with Iran using ways which cannot be controlled by the West at all. All this direction has nothing to do with bargaining, it has to do with real independence, sovereignty so that the West has nothing to blackmail Russia. An IS ruling Syria would be a powerful thing for the West to blackmail Russia with a terrorist war. So, Russia destroys it.

As for this China fantasy that they're somehow going to pay to clean up the mess Putin and Assad just made, if China were to loan Assad $300 billion to be repaid in oil deliveries, and all of Syria's oil production went straight to Beijing, Assad wouldn't be able to pump out enough oil per day to even pay the interest costs. And you still have to factor in all the Russian companies expecting a cut of the profits. This is where your fantasies about Russian power and Assad's legitimacy become so blatantly detached from reality that one doesn't even need to read the news to know how far you've stuck your head up your ass.

Don't worry, the Chinese do a lot of such things in various Third World states. This includes states which can, possibly, not pay back some credits. For those cases, the Chinese are always prepared. So, Sri Lanka was unable to pay back a credit, and the result was that China now controls an important port there, for some 99 years or so. The American behavior in a similar situation is the government would have to submit to US policy, forever, or forced into economic bankruptcy. The Chinese prefer a port useful for their economy but leave the government politically independent. I don't have to care about what the Chinese may find interesting in Syria - but they will find something.

Then, I don't understand your $300 billion number. You know, even if there will be not a single dollar credit, Syria will survive, and probably even better than with expensive credits. Taking credits because something has been destroyed makes sense only under special circumstances. Say, when you need something (like a replacement for a machine) and the losses if you don't get it (like the whole fabric cannot work) will be much larger than the interest you have to pay. Or credits to buy seeds because else the land remains unused and gives no crops. If you have no financial advantage from taking the credit and paying it back completely, taking the credit is a bad idea.

So, what happens if Syria does not get a single penny Western credits? The Syrians will not die of hunger. If there would be such a danger, humanitarian aid would solve the problem, and even Russia alone would be strong enough to deliver enough of such humanitarian aid. It already delivers where it is necessary (in the recently liberated places). The infrastructure will be recovered anyway. Because this is what Syria is actually doing already now - at least the main roads, which have been cut many years, are reconstructed in some weeks. Schools are already reopened in the regions liberated a month ago. Maybe the quality is low in comparison with Western standards - don't worry, Arabs are used to these low quality standards anyway.

Oil and gas production will be recovered anyway - here there will be money for credits if necessary. Same for all commodities. (Are there commodities China does not need?) With oil and gas recovered, electricity will be reconstructed too. After the war is finished, there will be new possibilities, like tourism. Tourism from Russia has been a good income source in Turkey and Egypt. Here, Syria has good hope to get its share, simply because of Russia being quite popular in Syria, and especially in the regions attractive to tourist, near the sea - these are the Alawite strongholds, where the support for Assad was the strongest one anyway. So, here the competition will be a purely economic one, not easy because those Russians who can and do afford such vacations are used to the quality provided by Turkey and Egypt, but the emotional side will be much stronger. (A problem similar to Crimea tourism - it cannot yet compete with Turkey purely economically, and depends on the emotional connection and the low price).

What remains are the people on the ground who have to rebuild their homes. They will succeed too. It will not be easy, but much easier than to survive in a civil war.

 

[iceaura]

Putin will not bargain about Crimea, thus, does not need bargaining chips.

He is facing sanctions and various blowback from his annexation, he needs to keep the money laundering and offshore wealth caches in good shape and undisturbed - he needs bargaining chips.

I see another clear line in the Russian actions: Putin prepares Russia for an increasing conflict with the West.

Including leverage over ME oil and gas, critically important to the Western economies.

All this direction has nothing to do with bargaining, it has to do with real independence, sovereignty so that the West has nothing to blackmail Russia.

That's bargaining.
Putin is setting up blackmail for himself, not merely - or even centrally - forestalling blackmail by others.
And he has China to worry about, as much as the West. China wants Iran on China's side, not Russia's.

The Chinese prefer a port useful for their economy but leave the government politically independent.

Uh, no, when the Chinese control your ports and major infrastructure, and you are stuck in the deal for 99 years, your government is not independent. In South America these are called "banana republics".

So, what happens if Syria does not get a single penny Western credits? The Syrians will not die of hunger. If there would be such a danger, humanitarian aid would solve the problem, and even Russia alone would be strong enough to deliver enough of such humanitarian aid.

Russia did not help, earlier, when the drought set in. It's nice that Syrians will not die of malnutrition in the future, by some magic, but depending on Russia is nobody's choice.

Yet another factor in the military situation of Syria: AGW. The water supply is already vulnerable, with people building dams upstream and so forth, but these droughts are worse than that.

 

[Schmelzer]

The villages which have accepted reconciliation in the North of Daraa yesterday are shown as violet in the left map. On the right map, some of the progress today can be seen. Russian military police has entered Tafas, to realize the reconciliation agreement with the town, and the Syrian army has taken, in agreement with the FSA, some positions West of it, to support the FSA in the village Hayl located West of Jillen against the IS. There has been information about some attack of the IS against FSA in Hayl. The Syrian airforce has helped here the FSA. The village Al-Yadoudah (the closest to Daraa) has also accepted reconciliation. And there has been information that there is reconciliation in Daraa itself too. It is claimed that they have started to give away their weapons.

An interesting information is that during the negotiations the question of a transfer to Idlib has been raised, and it was said that the Russians have not recommended it, giving the information that anyway Idlib will be the next.

He is facing sanctions and various blowback from his annexation, he needs to keep the money laundering and offshore wealth caches in good shape and undisturbed - he needs bargaining chips.

As explained, the sanctions will remain forever, or this is at least what the Russian leadership expects. They will not even offer some cheap bargain to get rid of them. The offshore is what Putin is happy to get rid off because Russia loses a lot of money which could be invested in Russia in these offshores. So, Putin is happy with British confiscations of the wealth of some Russian oligarchs - it forces a lot more of them to transfer their money to other places, and Putin has cared about making Russia itself one of such places (essentially an amnesty for those who transfer illegal money home).

Including leverage over ME oil and gas, critically important to the Western economies.
That's bargaining.
Putin is setting up blackmail for himself, not merely - or even centrally - forestalling blackmail by others.

That's an interpretation which plays a role in anti-Russian propaganda - don't buy from Russia, they will blackmail you. What I have explained is forestalling blackmail by the West. A point of Northstream II is, btw, forestalling blackmail against German/Russian gas trade by the Ukraine/US. To name such measures bargaining seems strange, even if forestalling such blackmail helps if there will be some bargaining.

And he has China to worry about, as much as the West. China wants Iran on China's side, not Russia's.

This is actually not an issue at all. At worst, a minor one.

Uh, no, when the Chinese control your ports and major infrastructure, and you are stuck in the deal for 99 years, your government is not independent. In South America these are called "banana republics".

You have lost sovereignty over one part of your territory. But you have full sovereignty over the remains. A banana republic has formally full sovereignty, but de facto none. I think the first is preferable. The Chinese will build good infrastructure for themselves, which gives a lot of trade, and trade gives profit to the locals too. The other part is undisturbed.

Russia did not help, earlier, when the drought set in. It's nice that Syrians will not die of malnutrition in the future, by some magic, but depending on Russia is nobody's choice.

Syria is rich enough to prevent malnutrition, without magic. All that is necessary is peace.

 

[iceaura]

That's an interpretation which plays a role in anti-Russian propaganda - don't buy from Russia, they will blackmail you.

And a factor which plays a role in international politics generally - because Russia's government uses whatever leverage it has, in its own interests entirely. As with any such organized criminal enterprise, it is unwise to make oneself vulnerable to it.

As explained, the sanctions will remain forever, or this is at least what the Russian leadership expects.

The Russian leadership has already obtained significant relief from them, via the election of Trump and the Brexit. They would like more, obviously.

The offshore is what Putin is happy to get rid off because Russia loses a lot of money which could be invested in Russia in these offshores

Nonsense. Putin could get rid of Russian mob money laundering tomorrow, if he wanted to. He knows all those guys, and where they bank.

You have lost sovereignty over one part of your territory. But you have full sovereignty over the remains.

As banana republics illustrate, and China knows very well, if others control your economy and trade and so forth you have no sovereignty. China leads with economic influence, not force, because it has intelligent leadership capable of long term strategy and that is its strength. It is a winning strategy, one would expect (although as with most "realistic" and totalitarian governments they have a blind spot for the ecological - internet, wilderness and landscape, banking, human liberty, etc, - that will do them in if not corrected).

"And he has China to worry about, as much as the West. China wants Iran on China's side, not Russia's."
This is actually not an issue at all. At worst, a minor one.

I doubt Putin is as nearsighted as that.

Syria is rich enough to prevent malnutrition, without magic. All that is necessary is peace.

So are most places where malnutrition afflicts, including the US. The peace of authoritarian rule works otherwise. Syria will have malnutrition as long as it has prisons with torture facilities and procedures built in. And AGW will make it worse.

Hence the significance of these factors in evaluating military events: oil and gas, first, AGW and the rest as they come up.

 

[sculptor]

And a factor which plays a role in international politics generally - because Russia's America's government uses whatever leverage it has, in its own interests entirely. As with any such organized criminal enterprise, it is unwise to make oneself vulnerable to it.

fixed it for you

 

[iceaura]

fixed it for you

You changed it to another plausible statement, but one that is less true overall: the US leverage is - or has been, anyway - often used in behalf of interests quite different from those of the US government. The Russian government has incorporated those interests, made them identical with its own.

The US government, in other words, has not been (and may not be yet) entirely a criminal enterprise - even the rise of fascism since its takeover of the Republican Party has not been sufficient to destroy all legitimacy so far. Note that even very large and powerful corporate interests find it necessary to bribe and intimidate and rig elections at significant expense, find themselves settling for less than they preferred, find themselves unable to prevent the selection of Trump or other loose cannon politicians.

 

[Schmelzer]

There appeared to be more detailed information about an agreement between the Syrian army and the jihadists in Daraa itself, so it looks like they are handing over their weapons without fight.

And a factor which plays a role in international politics generally - because Russia's government uses whatever leverage it has, in its own interests entirely. As with any such organized criminal enterprise, it is unwise to make oneself vulnerable to it.

Any country doing something different? Except for the colonies doing what the ruler says?

The Russian leadership has already obtained significant relief from them, via the election of Trump and the Brexit.

No.

Nonsense. Putin could get rid of Russian mob money laundering tomorrow, if he wanted to. He knows all those guys, and where they bank.

As in old antisemitic propaganda, the Jew, sorry, Putin, is almighty. You seem to forget that, first, Putin has no control over foreign banks, second, such schemes are usually sophisticated formally legal schemes so that it is hard to fight them even if you know them if you follow the law.

As banana republics illustrate, and China knows very well, if others control your economy and trade and so forth you have no sovereignty.

No, China was a sovereign state, not a banana republic, even during the time Hong Kong was British. Then, if China controls a port which would not have played any role at all without Chinese investment into the port the lost sovereignty is not a big loss at all.

China leads with economic influence, not force, because it has intelligent leadership capable of long term strategy and that is its strength. It is a winning strategy, one would expect

Correct.

I doubt Putin is as nearsighted as that.

This is not nearsightedness, this is understanding what is important. If humanity survives the transformation from the unipolar to the multipolar world without a big war humanity as a whole is the winner. (Propaganda disposed of.)

Hence the significance of these factors in evaluating military events: oil and gas, first, AGW and the rest as they come up.

For the military events, your list of significance is irrelevant. They play some role by increasing the danger of war, that's their main influence.

The US government, in other words, has not been (and may not be yet) entirely a criminal enterprise - even the rise of fascism since its takeover of the Republican Party has not been sufficient to destroy all legitimacy so far. Note that even very large and powerful corporate interests find it necessary to bribe and intimidate and rig elections at significant expense, find themselves settling for less than they preferred, find themselves unable to prevent the selection of Trump or other loose cannon politicians.

You think in criminal enterprises there is no competition and bribe and so on? The economic theory of crime tells that there the size of criminal enterprises is usually small and that the role of big mafia bosses is more close to some supreme court, with the obligation to judge about conflicts between various gangs than a dictatorship. The structure of Russian power has shifted from a completely criminal oligarchy (as usual for criminal structures, with several big players - the period was named "the rule of seven bankers" - in Jeltsin time to something much closer to a state of law.

 

[iceaura]

Any country doing something different?

Different in degree, yes. Those countries in which the interests involved are separate from, and not in complete control of, the government.

This is not nearsightedness, this is understanding what is important. If humanity survives the transformation from the unipolar to the multipolar world without a big war humanity as a whole is the winner

There is no such transition - the US never succeeded in establishing a unipolar world, or even approaching such a state.
Humanity will not benefit from the expansion of oppressive and authoritarian governance, regardless of its polarities. There are real problems, such as AGW, and such government is not competent in these matters.
The influence of decades of multiple polarities of oppression can be seen now in Africa, South America, and SE Asia. Canadians and Australians have more freedom and liberty than Nicaraguans and Indonesians.
And much more than Syrians, whose miseries are rooted in a multipolar world all of whose poles have plans that include Syria without consulting Syrians.

For the military events, your list of significance is irrelevant.

So you claim. That's why you omit them from your analysis of military events in Syria, and ignore Iraq altogether.
- - - - - -

You think in criminal enterprises there is no competition and bribe and so on?

Not of their own underlings.

The structure of Russian power has shifted from a completely criminal oligarchy (as usual for criminal structures, with several big players - the period was named "the rule of seven bankers" - in Jeltsin time to something much closer to a state of law.

Putin won. A unipolar criminal organization will often be more orderly than a multipolar one - whether that is a state of law as well as order depends on whether the wealthy and powerful are subject to it.

No, China was a sovereign state, not a banana republic, even during the time Hong Kong was British.

No what? Nobody claimed China was a banana republic - the claim is that China knows very well what sovereignty is left to those who have lost control of their economic infrastructure, their ports and resources and productive land. It wasn't an occupying British army that held China in oppression for so long.
China knows what it is doing.

As in old antisemitic propaganda, the Jew, sorry, Putin, is almighty.

He's not almighty - he's just the guy running that criminal enterprise. He has the same kind of control as any mafia boss.

You seem to forget that, first, Putin has no control over foreign banks, second, such schemes are usually sophisticated formally legal schemes so that it is hard to fight them even if you know them if you follow the law.

Putin doesn't need to control foreign banks to shut down Russian embezzlement. He manages the Russian oligarchs. And the only people who would need to know all about the schemes in detail would be the oligarchs who were directed to ravel them or become enemies of Putin.
But that is never going to happen, as you well know.

"The Russian leadership has already obtained significant relief from them, via the election of Trump and the Brexit."
No.

Yes. For example, the long delay between the most recent round of US Congressional sanctions on Russian oligarchs and the Trump administration even beginning to enforce them was quite valuable to those oligarchs - that alone paid for the out of pocket expenses of influencing the US Presidential campaign.

 

[CptBork]

fixed it for you

When's the last time the US made refugees out of half a country? If you want to blame America and Israel for the violence in Syria, why are millions of refugees choosing homelessness in desert tent camps rather than returning to areas they lived in under Assad's rule? Why are they fleeing to areas under US, Israeli and allied control rather than away from them? Do you buy Schmelzer's excuse that they're living in luxury hotels on German welfare?

No it doesn't add up, and screaming over and over that Zionists are to blame for everything doesn't change that, anymore than yelling about a flat Earth makes it flat, as growing numbers of conspiracy morons are now thinking.

 

[Schmelzer]

There is good news from Syria, the city of Daraa is now under full control of the Syrian army, and this has been reached without any further fighting. For some fighters who did not like this, a transfer to the Western part of Daraa was organized.

In this map, this is not yet fixed:

Yadudah and Musayrib are also already under Syrian army control. In Inkhil the heavy weapons are transferred now to the Syrian army. So, it looks like that all the region under FSA/Al Qaida control will be given up, and those who want to continue the fight will switch to IS.

There is no such transition - the US never succeeded in establishing a unipolar world, or even approaching such a state.

Of course, for those who rule the world, it is easy to see that they cannot rule everything. In some sense, not even close. But the US was the only remaining superpower, and nobody has openly questioned their rule. And they have heavily influenced the whole world, made it worse.

Humanity will not benefit from the expansion of oppressive and authoritarian governance, regardless of its polarities.

Humanity will benefit from more diversity. Many really sovereign states will be part of this diversity. That most of them look somehow authoritarian is a consequence of two things: First, Western propaganda, which presents them as authoritarian even if they are not. In fact, Putin has transformed Russia from a highly criminal oligarchy into something close to a state of law and continues to do this. The second is that democracy and freedom of the press are known to be tools of US control, they buy the mass media and the press has decisive power in a democracy. Those who do not submit to the US are therefore endangered as by the US-controlled media empires, as by color revolutions. They see this and have to prepare, to minimize these dangers. And one way to do this is to reduce some of the freedom of the press as well as to restrict the possibilities for protests.

The influence of decades of multiple polarities of oppression can be seen now in Africa, South America, and SE Asia. Canadians and Australians have more freedom and liberty than Nicaraguans and Indonesians.

As if the US unipolar rule would have cared about freedom and liberty worldwide. For the US rule, local US-submissive dictators were always fine. A local dictator here and a democracy there were not some multipolarity if both submitted to the US. Democracy was more comfortable for them because it was easier to replace a ruler who made problems. If that guy is a dictator, he may remain in power even if he is no longer pro-US. Like Saddam Hussein - they had to start a war to get rid of him. To get rid of Merkel would be much easier.

Of course, this media control is deep state control, and certainly not (at least not yet) under Trump's control.

And much more than Syrians, whose miseries are rooted in a multipolar world all of whose poles have plans that include Syria without consulting Syrians.

No. The Syrian misery was rooted in the US wish to overthrow him. Assad was not sufficiently submissive to the US.

Some anti-Putin bs disposed of. This was really funny:

For example, the long delay between the most recent round of US Congressional sanctions on Russian oligarchs and the Trump administration even beginning to enforce them was quite valuable to those oligarchs - that alone paid for the out of pocket expenses of influencing the US Presidential campaign.

In reality, Putin has told the oligarchs a few years ago that these sanctions against the oligarchs will come, and that they would better take their money home before it is too late. Those who had them yet there are, therefore, not the ones who follow Putin's recommendations. Be sure that he does not care about their interests too. In fact, they don't have to follow Putin - the agreement was that they stay out of politics, in exchange for their money remaining untouched.

 

[CptBork]

As if the US unipolar rule would have cared about freedom and liberty worldwide. For the US rule, local US-submissive dictators were always fine. A local dictator here and a democracy there were not some multipolarity if both submitted to the US. Democracy was more comfortable for them because it was easier to replace a ruler who made problems. If that guy is a dictator, he may remain in power even if he is no longer pro-US. Like Saddam Hussein - they had to start a war to get rid of him. To get rid of Merkel would be much easier.

You seem to blame the US for everything under the sun. The Ukraine crisis started with Ukraine's parliament signing a trade treaty with the EU, which Putin forced Yanukovych to immediately cancel in meetings behind closed doors. That's when the anti-Yanukovych riots began, followed by the Russian invasion etc. How is Ukraine signing a trade deal with Europe reflective of a unipolar US-dominated world?

 

[Schmelzer]

In the South of Daraa, the Syrian army now controls everything except the IS pocket. In the middle, in particular, Nawa and Jasim, no progress is known, and it is expected that there will be some fighting in the future. In the North, the Syrian army is now in Kafer Shams and Inkhill, and there have been reached some agreements about the villages marked here in the purple color. Additionally, there is also an agreement with Al Harah. This agreement is considered important because near Al Harah there is an important hill, Tal al Harah, which controls the whole part West of it. There are, last but not least, only 10 km remaining from there to the Golan Heights.

You seem to blame the US for everything under the sun. The Ukraine crisis started with Ukraine's parliament signing a trade treaty with the EU, which Putin forced Yanukovych to immediately cancel in meetings behind closed doors. That's when the anti-Yanukovych riots began, followed by the Russian invasion etc. How is Ukraine signing a trade deal with Europe reflective of a unipolar US-dominated world?

This is because that trade treaty played, in reality, no role. Who decided about who will rule Ukraine after the coup was the US. Remember "f*ck the EU" Nuland telling who was the American choice? The German choice ended as the mayor of Kiev.

 

[CptBork]

This is because that trade treaty played, in reality, no role. Who decided about who will rule Ukraine after the coup was the US. Remember "f*ck the EU" Nuland telling who was the American choice? The German choice ended as the mayor of Kiev.

Has the "German choice" complained that the elections to select the "American choice" were rigged against him/her by the US?

 

[iceaura]

The second is that democracy and freedom of the press are known to be tools of US control,

So we won't be seeing any of that. Naturally - the multipolar world will have less of this US-dominated "democracy" and "press freedom". And everybody will be better off without it.

No. The Syrian misery was rooted in the US wish to overthrow him.

Syrian misery predates actual efforts to overthrow him - he is part of it, and his father before him. And the drought, and so forth. Not to forget Israel, either.

In fact, they don't have to follow Putin - the agreement was that they stay out of politics, in exchange for their money remaining untouched.

Remaining untouched by the US, as well. Putin saw to that.

In reality, Putin has told the oligarchs a few years ago that these sanctions against the oligarchs will come, and that they would better take their money home before it is too late. Those who had them yet there are, therefore, not the ones who follow Putin's recommendations.

In reality, Trump's delay and avoidance of the specific sanctions allowed several Russian oligarchs (some named in the sanctions) who seem to be quite comfortable under Putin's management to get more of their money out of danger. That alone easily paid for the election meddling etc. But there is yet more - the amount of money accumulated by Russian businessmen and "invested" in - say - US and British real estate, is quite large and centrally important. So Trump has an important role to play, as well as an opportunity for yet more financial gain, even without his service in NATO weakening and Russian expansion issues.

One common take in US circles is that Trump, from Putin's pov, is essentially just another oligarch - an American version of something familiar to him in Russia, whom he manipulates in similar ways. In that sense, his use of Iran and Syria as leverage is aimed more at other Americans (and Israelis, etc), and is a side or minor matter with Trump.

 

[mathman]

After all is said and done, Assad will almost certainly remain and control most of the country. The only question, as far as I can tell, is what will happen in the north, where the Kurds are in control, and the U.S. has an interest, making sure ISIS doesn't come back?

 

[CptBork]

After all is said and done, Assad will almost certainly remain and control most of the country. The only question, as far as I can tell, is what will happen in the north, where the Kurds are in control, and the U.S. has an interest, making sure ISIS doesn't come back?

If America leaves, Russia will accuse the Kurds of violating existing ceasefire agreements by attempting to build nukes for Ukraine, and proceed to carpet bomb them while Iran drives out half the population and replaces them with Iraqi shiites. Then ISIS will go back to thriving as it previously did under Assad's protection and guidance.

 

[Schmelzer]

There have been some serious advances of the Syrian army. Unfortunately, it is much less clear what is now under Syrian army control, what has been simply taken by the Syrian army, what has been taken after a more or less serious fight with Al Qaida, and what is in the process of giving away weapons to the Syrian army after successful reconciliation agreement.

But it looks certain that Al Mashara (with nearby Tal Mashara hill), Aqrabah, Al Harra with nearby Tal al Harra and Tal Ahmar hills are now under Syrian army control, together with everything East of it (for Al Tayhah, Kafr Shams, Umm al-Awsaj, Kafr Shams there has been such information, for Kafr Naseij not). Also that Inkhil and villages South of it are now under army control, and that the negotiations with Jasim were successful and handing over of weapons has started, seems not to be questioned. It seems like the village Al Harra itself was taken as a result of negotiations, while the nearby hill Tal al Harra has been taken after a quite heavy fight with Al Qaida. At least this sounds reasonable, given that the Tal Harra hill is quite decisive from a military point of view so that it is not good news for Al Qaida if the Syrian army controls it, and bombing a hill does not endanger civilians, so that there is no point of negotiating about a hill for the Syrian army. So, except that I think black line is more accurate because Agrabaa is under army control, this map seems quite accurate:

For the black shaded areas, there has been some information that they have switched to IS. So, mainly by negotiations, the Syrian army has reached quite important gains, essentially except for Nawa all that can be, without big exaggeration, named a town.

For illustration, a picture of that hill Tal al Harrah:

Not really impressive, but given that the distance to the Israeli occupied Golan Heighs is only 10 km, it is sufficiently impressive.

So we won't be seeing any of that. Naturally - the multipolar world will have less of this US-dominated "democracy" and "press freedom". And everybody will be better off without it.

If the US would give up these regime change games, and start to behave like a civilized state which respects other states, and does not do to others what they don't like if it is done by others (like influencing elections), this would be very helpful for freedom of press and democracy.

Syrian misery predates actual efforts to overthrow him - he is part of it, and his father before him. And the drought, and so forth. Not to forget Israel, either.

It was not enough to start such a civil war.

Remaining untouched by the US, as well. Putin saw to that.

Nonsense.

In reality, Trump's delay and avoidance of the specific sanctions allowed several Russian oligarchs (some named in the sanctions) who seem to be quite comfortable under Putin's management to get more of their money out of danger.

Maybe, but this is irrelevant for Putin. Fantasies about election meddling disposed of. Of course, Putin did not like all those investments of Russian money into London instead of Moscow, so, he thanks May and Trump for forcing them away. In the case of Trump, one can invent that Putin has asked him to do something in this direction, but in the case of May, this is quite implausible. Whatever, the Russian government is happy about these repressions against Russian oligarchs in London and the US, and the Russian media are full of glee for these predators too.

One common take in US circles is that Trump, from Putin's pov, is essentially just another oligarch - an American version of something familiar to him in Russia, whom he manipulates in similar ways. In that sense, his use of Iran and Syria as leverage is aimed more at other Americans (and Israelis, etc), and is a side or minor matter with Trump.

Maybe that's popular in some US circles, but it is completely off. America considers itself as the hub of the world and thinks Putin cares about leveraging it. Instead, Putin cares only about another thing - that the US gains no power to leverage Russia. Russia has also no big interest in forcing Israel to do something. If they need, they openly think about giving Syria S-300, this is usually enough.

After all is said and done, Assad will almost certainly remain and control most of the country. The only question, as far as I can tell, is what will happen in the north, where the Kurds are in control, and the U.S. has an interest, making sure ISIS doesn't come back?

The interest of the US is certainly not that the IS does not come back. Instead, there is some US interest in a Kurdish independent state, because such a state, hated by all its neighbors, would depend 100% on US support, thus, be an unsinkable airforce carrier for the US. If Russia succeeds to scare the US away (the equipment has already been presented - some partisan movement supported by local tribes against foreign aggressors, so that US troops already can move only from base to base in heavily protected convoys), then there will be a peace with some local autonomy for the Kurds. Else, the situation will be more complex and all this will last long.

How this will be presented by the US propaganda you can see from CptBork's postings.

 

[iceaura]

If the US would give up these regime change games, and start to behave like a civilized state which respects other states, and does not do to others what they don't like if it is done by others (like influencing elections), this would be very helpful for freedom of press and democracy.

Yes. But that does not mean installing authoritarian and totalitarian governments allied with other such governments would be helpful as well.

Maybe, but this is irrelevant for Putin. Fantasies about election meddling disposed of.

They are not fantasies. They are documented events.
And if you think the disposition of huge sums of money by Putin and his oligarchs is of no relevance to Putin, you have a view of human nature and Putin's nature that few adults share.

"Remaining untouched by the US, as well. Putin saw to that."
Nonsense.

Documented.

"Syrian misery predates actual efforts to overthrow him - he is part of it, and his father before him. And the drought, and so forth. Not to forget Israel, either."
It was not enough to start such a civil war.

There have been several uprisings and revolts and coups in Syria, some US instigated others not, over the decades;
and a couple of severe crackdowns by the Syrian government (including a classic "Hundred Flowers" style government provocateur operation around 2000/2001). The major new misery factor in the latest instigation seems to have been the drought starting in 2006, creating a large number of refugees on top of the strains of the Iraq invasion.

America considers itself as the hub of the world and thinks Putin cares about leveraging it. Instead, Putin cares only about another thing - that the US gains no power to leverage Russia.

I don't think that America is the hub of the world for other people, but nevertheless observe that Putin cares about leveraging it - cares to the extent of devoting significant resources and effort over years to the project. I don't know what his personal motives are - that he has no significant ambitions beyond removing US interference with Russian projects seems reasonable, and entirely irrelevant. That he seems to view Trump as a sort of auxiliary oligarch is an amusing observation.

The US has done quite a bit of damage to other countries with no ambition except to remove their government's interference with US projects, after all - and quite a bit of damage to the world in general. Putin seems undisturbed by this aspect of his US vandalism - that he and his government benefit thereby, at least in the short term, may explain this apparently unconcerned approach.
Whether or not he allows the Kurds and their oil fields to fall under US oversight and protection will not be decided on the basis of what is best for the Kurds, or their neighbors, or anyone else except Putin and his pals, for example. [/quote]

 

[Schmelzer]

Not much news. There have been either confirmation that the Syrian army really controls the towns where this was not confirmed, or the negotiations have reached a state where the Syrian army has entered the towns and the Syrian flag is raised. The Syrian army also goes around the villages and takes control of various hills, often with some fights. But to take the towns there was, up to now, no necessity to fight, the negotiations were successful. So, actually, the map looks like this:

The only exception seems to be Nawa. The Syrian army plans to start a fight for Nawa, South of Jasim, the only remaining town in this region (everything else is villages) and has started bombing positions of the remaining fighters, mainly Al Qaida.

Yes. But that does not mean installing authoritarian and totalitarian governments allied with other such governments would be helpful as well.

There are no such plans and proposals.
There is simply the point that once a big rich power like the US misuses freedom of the press and democratic freedoms to install puppet governments in other countries, they will start to defend themselves. And this, naturally, reduces these freedoms. This is simply a consequence of this misuse. Which, of course, may be misused itself by those who govern these countries, to restrict the freedoms of the legitimate opposition of the citizens of these countries.

Documented.

Maybe, but once you don't give links to evidence, this remains a worthless claim.

... but nevertheless observe that Putin cares about leveraging it - cares to the extent of devoting significant resources and effort over years to the project. I don't know what his personal motives are - that he has no significant ambitions beyond removing US interference with Russian projects seems reasonable, and entirely irrelevant.

It was difficult enough to remove US interference.

The US has done quite a bit of damage to other countries with no ambition except to remove their government's interference with US projects, after all - and quite a bit of damage to the world in general. Putin seems undisturbed by this aspect of his US vandalism - that he and his government benefit thereby, at least in the short term, may explain this apparently unconcerned approach.

I don't understand this point. If the US damages other countries, this is, of course, bad, but it is not Putin's job to stop this. Putin's intention is certainly not that Russia gains a global role as a sort of world policeman. In the multipolar world, there will be no such policeman.

Whether or not he allows the Kurds and their oil fields to fall under US oversight and protection will not be decided on the basis of what is best for the Kurds, or their neighbors, or anyone else except Putin and his pals, for example.

Indeed, the international law, as a contract law between states, does not care at all about the interest of whatever people. The only way to create a new Kurdish state is either via negotiations, supported by civil resistance or so, or by war, being a strong enough force to win a civil war. International law is certainly not a libertarian ideal world.

Once Putin supports a multipolar world ruled by international law, he will certainly not support local civil wars for independence. It makes no sense for Putin to support Kurdish independence, given that some Kurdistan, hated by all neighbor states, would be nothing but a large US base with local criminal gangs around it, like Kosovo.

Putin's support for the international law is, of course, not unconditional. Putin is, first of all, pragmatic, and tit for tat is a principle which is superior. So, once the US regularly violates international law without hesitation, you should not expect that Putin will follow international law 100% so that you can play him by violating international law as you like. So, once the West almost openly supported terrorists in Syria, Putin has also supported the separatists in the Donbass. Nonetheless, he does not support a separation of the Donbass, but has forced them to accept the Minsk II ceasefire, which does not question that the Donbass is part of Ukraine.