Ted, let’s make babies. Have you got a womb?
I have balls
Turkey’s involvement is certainly a major development, but I don’t see how it invalidates my opinion that a military victory for Assad won’t be the end of this. Nor do I see how it will bring about a solution that won’t be coercive one way or another.
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at in your second paragraph. Which regime is alleged to have been channelling ISIS money? Turkey? Syria? I’d read that Turkey were accused of that - what does this say about their motives? And what does Turkey splling beans on US/western plans and interests have to do with anything?
On your third point, I think it highly likely that talks were already well beyond the planning stage; Turkey and Russia are keen for them to go ahead and have decided to do so in spite of the assassination of the Russian ambassador. Talks of this type don’t just spring up overnight. Were I so inclined, I could posit a plausible scenario in which the assassination of the Russian ambassador was agreed between the two countries in advance. For Russia he’s dispensible, Turkey don’t care one way or another whether he lives or dies. After the killing, the two countries agree to talks - how good do they look now? And they’ll both be even better placed to clamp down on any opposition, as they will continue to equate opposition with terrorism. Wins all round. Before dismissing this obvious pile of bollocks for what it is (an obvious pile of bollocks), stop to consider how you’d greet a similar suggestion if much the same thing had happened between the US and another state.
Turkey certainly has a great deal of skin in this game. So how might the outcome of these tripartite talks look? Assad wants to stay in power; Putin wants Assad (or another Russian-friendly regime) to be in power; Turkey’s main interest is to make sure that the Kurds don’t gain any ground (or, better still, to take control of the areas currently in Kurdish hands). So I guess we can look forward to a carve-up of Syria, with Assad remaining in place and Turkey having a large say in the region closest to their border (and, just coincidentally, where most Syrian Kurds happen to be).
How will this putative deal look for the citizens of Syria who aren’t enthused (to put it mildly) by Assad’s regime? They’re hardly a body of people who can be dismissed as terrorists to a man (or woman or child), much as some might seek to do so. They will have no more than they have had under Assad; if anything, rather less. So will opposition to the Assad regime (or to a similar one that may replace it) diminish? Hardly, unless the interests of those who oppose the regime are taken into account. Will this be the case? I seriously doubt it - any and all oppostion has been dismissed as terrorists time and again by Assad and Russia.
None of this looks too promising to me, but my analysis could be wrong. What outcome would you expect to see from the tripartite discussions? Do you think that Assad, Putin and Erdogan have the deeper interests of the Syrian people at heart, any more than the Western powers do?
Just before I teabagged you last week.
1 Like
Interesting analysis, Fowllyd. Mine is almost boring by comparison, certainly not as inventive.
I reckon that if people who didn’t want Russia and Turkey working together found out they were about to announce they were working together, a major diplomatic incident might have been a way to put the kibosh on that.
1 Like
Well, my thinking on the ambassador’s assassination wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, as I thought was pretty clear (the repeated ‘obvious pile of bollocks’ bit being the clincher).
That’s the one light-hearted bit of my post addressed then. What are your thoughts on the rest?
Originally posted by @Fowllyd
Turkey’s involvement is certainly a major development, but I don’t see how it invalidates my opinion that a military victory for Assad won’t be the end of this. Nor do I see how it will bring about a solution that won’t be coercive one way or another.
I watched the entire press conference. All parties were at pains to stress that they were seeking a negotiated diplomatic solution. So no, a military solution won’t solve owt on its own, but the Syrian government is going to enter those negotiations in a position of strength. There’s no question over their sovereign legitimacy. There will soon be little question over territorial integrity. What will the “moderates” have to bargain with?
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at in your second paragraph. Which regime is alleged to have been channelling ISIS money? Turkey? Syria? I’d read that Turkey were accused of that - what does this say about their motives? And what does Turkey splling beans on US/western plans and interests have to do with anything?
Turkey has been alleged in handling ISIS oil sales. If that’s true, they’ll have intel on ISIS oil operations, contacts.
I’m surprised you have to ask the last question. You’ve no doubt seen the damage leaks have wrought on political careers. What do you think will happen if a solid chain of evidence is established that says the prosecutors of the war on terror are sponsoring the people they’re trying to destroy. A NATO member might have that.
Turkey certainly has a great deal of skin in this game. So how might the outcome of these tripartite talks look? Assad wants to stay in power; Putin wants Assad (or another Russian-friendly regime) to be in power; Turkey’s main interest is to make sure that the Kurds don’t gain any ground (or, better still, to take control of the areas currently in Kurdish hands). So I guess we can look forward to a carve-up of Syria, with Assad remaining in place and Turkey having a large say in the region closest to their border (and, just coincidentally, where most Syrian Kurds happen to be).
How will this putative deal look for the citizens of Syria who aren’t enthused (to put it mildly) by Assad’s regime? They’re hardly a body of people who can be dismissed as terrorists to a man (or woman or child), much as some might seek to do so. They will have no more than they have had under Assad; if anything, rather less. So will opposition to the Assad regime (or to a similar one that may replace it) diminish? Hardly, unless the interests of those who oppose the regime are taken into account. Will this be the case? I seriously doubt it - any and all oppostion has been dismissed as terrorists time and again by Assad and Russia.
Are you suggesting Turkey wants more Kurds? I’ll comment further once I get the answer.
None of this looks too promising to me, but my analysis could be wrong. What outcome would you expect to see from the tripartite discussions? Do you think that Assad, Putin and Erdogan have the deeper interests of the Syrian people at heart, any more than the Western powers do?
I genuinely think we’re approaching the endgame in Syria. Assad will be re-established, some hugely damaging shit will come out about the West. Any lingering legitimacy we have in the region, if it exists at all, will be gone.
An alternative view of Verbal’s beloved white helmets:
Have the Russians ever solved a crisis?
Just asking
WWII?
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Originally posted by @PhilippineSaint
Have the Russians ever solved a crisis?
Just asking
WWII?
Well I can give you an assist in that one
interesting comments from former UK ambassador to Syria - we fucked it up and made it worse. His words, not mine.
Have the Russians ever won a war without the assistance of the western powers?
More obvious lies from the mainstream media
An obvious link would be nice.
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @SaintBristol
More obvious lies from the mainstream media
An obvious link would be nice.
Don’t be too harsh, most forum software I.e. Steveweb, automatically turn links into errrm hyperlinks for you, but then Steveweb is run by a better programmer 
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @SaintBristol
More obvious lies from the mainstream media
An obvious link would be nice.
An obvious read of the content and not a chep jibe