Russia getting more involved in Syria.

[mellowheart]

Russia have said they don't want to see Assad toppled are are determined he won't be. What does all this mean for us.Its a bit scary.

Assad should stay in power. Better the devil you know than ISIS and the other mentalist jihadists.

Interesting. DH is just back from a few days in Bucharest and he said that the talk amongst .eastern Europeans is that Russia is behind a lot of what is going on. My comment was that Eastern Europeans tend to see Russia behind everything but maybe I was wrong.

It's not scary OP it's rational. ISIS is scary and will prevail. ISIS is not going away. It may be grass roots terrorism now but it is a backed and funded organisation that will become a fully fledged regime. It has not been brought to its knees at all. I wonder why. Don't you? This is an incredibly complex situation and all is not quite what it seems. Russia is not the power you need to fear. You fear Assad. What about our friend Saudi Arabia's human rights record? Oh but every one of our Western leaders wants to shimmy with the King of Bling because everything, EVERYTHING is about economic power, oil, and the social elite making sure that the biggest slice of the pie is always theirs alone. Assad was ousted for economal reasons dressed up as political ones. I'm not a lover, but he should not have been ousted. The vacuum left behind has been disastrous for humanity. Read John Pilger, the journalist. His website is full of archived articles. If you want insight, he's your man.

Yes I worked in Budapest for 6 months about 9 years ago and they too are deeply suspicious of Russia. I'm really not sure we can put the appalling situation in Syria down solely to the "baddies". Namely Russia/Assad and the Western non-interventionists who objected to plans in 2013 for the US and UK to begin bombing Syria.

Please tell me it won't turn into WW3?

'Please tell me it won't turn into WW3?'

No, I don't think Syria will be a WW3 situation. We came close to that a few years ago, but Parliament voted against air strikes against Syria. You need to read conspiracy sites to get a feel for what may happen and what is going on. There are still lobbies who want to attack Syria, but with the refugee crisis, there will now be countries who want to end the war so that the refugees can return and the country can be rebuilt by a joint United Nations type programme.

However, conspiracy sites think that there is still a danger of WW3 based on the precarious financial system and that it will more likely occur over Ukraine in the form of some sort of provocation against Russia.

I'm no conspiracy theorist but I do think the Ukrainian situation is the biggest threat to Russian vs European peace.

How long before we have streams of Ukraine refugees coming into mainland Europe?

"Cameron signals he would drop Syria airstrikes vote if Corbyn is Labour leader

Prime minister says ‘general consensus’ in UK on extension of military action would be necessary for him to put plan before parliament"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/04/david-cameron-abandon-syria-airstrikes-vote-jeremy-corbyn-wins

If Corbyn wins, we are less likely to be dragged into any more wars.

'How long before we have streams of Ukraine refugees coming into mainland Europe?'

Yes, Ukraine is on the verge of economic breakdown and there are threats to its President by far right extremists. It is a very unstable situation and it could spill over to the EU. Germany again will bear the brunt. Of course, if you read the conspiracy sites, they say that is intended for Germany and the EU.

The whole thing is very dangerous because the political problems are just a manifestation of the deep financial problems of the world economic system. It is what happens in finance that will determine what happens in politics.

But there are no winners in a nuclear war surely, so what would be the point?

'But there are no winners in a nuclear war surely'

Yes, I would think so, but these type of things are long planned and who knows what the planners and Dr Strangeloves think and know.

You would think there would be no winners in a 5 year civil war in Syria with millions of people displaced, but it must be in someone's interests or it would have been solved by now. Maybe the refugee crisis will be the spur to finally solve it and end it.

Batshitlady - we lived in Budapest too. 2004 to 2011.

Surely Assad (while a bad guy), is preventing ISIS from over-running the whole of Syria? Therefore, he's the least bad option ...

Winners? There are two big players. Interesting comment from a poster in today's Guardian:

Timeline.
2003 - the US invades Iraq, installs a new government and rounds people up into enormous prison camps. ISIS, known then as ISIL is born in these camps.

2009 - the Arab spring in full swing, USA-friendly dictators of Yemen, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Jordan quickly suppress the uprisings in their own countries without any Western politician or western media even so much as voicing concern. 2009-2011 - the Arab spring in USA unfriendly countries of Libya, Syria and Iraq receives enormous support from Western politicians and media. 2011 - Gaddafi is bombed out of existence by NATO led coalition, Libya breaks into three parts. 2009-2014 Syria rapidly descends into war, as Assad claims that his country is being invaded by terrorists. This is immediately dismissed as propaganda by most of the media. 2012 - Assad is accused of using chemical weapons, a claim that the UN investigation has never confirmed. 2013 - first tentative reports of Al Nusra's atrocities (cannibalism) by the BBC and other mainstream media 2014 - ISIS is brought to attention for the very first time, as it begins to advance on Baghdad (!) having already conquered many Syrian and Iraqi regions. 2014 - A blitz campaign supported by Iran halts the advancement of ISIS in Iraq, as the former Iraqi president is made to resign and is replaced. The US promises to supply fighter jets to Iraq but doesn't. 2015 - the US (white house rep Josh Earnest) calls the refugees a "European issue".

America is fighting a proxy war with few or no costs. Big Business benefits.

At the same time, the West has had a war declared on it by Islamists,

"It bears noting that neither Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement based in Lebanon, nor Iran has declared a global war on the West and non-Muslims, unlike Saudi-inspired salafists and their jihadist brethren" (New York Times).

Two beneficiaries - America, Saudi Arabia.

CiderwithBuda I worked on a couple of films being made there. What about you? I liked it, though I was so busy I didn't really get to see much of it beyond the locations we were in... I was glad to get home.

Marking place.

Really interesting post four

Russia has always supported the Assad’s in Syria, and will continue to do so, as Syria is now one of its only ‘footholds’ in the Middle East – but must be worried now as Assad controls less than 20% of Syria’s land - as despite Russia’s help to prolong this war against HIS OWN PEOPLE, he is now continually falling back.

September 2015; ”Vladimir Putin admits supporting President Bashar al-Assad in Syrian civil war”
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladmir-putin-admits-supporting-president-assad-in-syrian-civil-war-10488165.html

”The Russian President Vladimir Putin has given his biggest admission yet on the extent of Moscow's involvement in the Syrian civil war – saying "serious" training and equipment are being provided to the Syrian army by Russia.”

Let us remember that President Assad in a region where this matters, as an Alawite (Shia) religiously represents only 18% of his population, and that this problem started over 4-years ago when he began murdered his own Sunni Muslim people (that form around 75% of his population) during a peaceful uprising for ‘rights’, calling them all ‘rebels’.

“Arab uprising: Country by country – Syria”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12482309

“The wave of popular unrest that swept the Arab world came late to Syria, but its once peaceful uprising has evolved into a brutal and increasingly sectarian armed conflict.”

“Protests demanding greater freedom and an end to corruption began in the southern city of Deraa in March 2011. After security forces opened fire on demonstrators, more took to the streets. By July 2011, hundreds of thousands of people across the country were attending protests demanding President Bashar al-Assad's resignation.”

In August 2013 Cameron attempted to STOP Assad killing his own people in their homes by air and big guns and gas on the land, but the UK parliament that looked to support him, changed their minds at the last minute - unable to distinguish between STARTING a war with a country pretending a country has WMD’s and protecting the majority of citizens from a dictator 2-years into a killing spree – with KNOWN large stocks of nerve gases etc.

August 2014; “UN Says Syria May Have Used Chemical Weapons”
news.sky.com/story/1325488/un-says-syria-may-have-used-chemical-weapons

“The United Nations has said it believes the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in civilian areas eight times in April.”

"Reasonable grounds exist to believe that chemical agents, likely chlorine, were used on (northern Syrian villages) Kafr Zeita, al Tamana and Tal Minnis in eight incidents within a 10-day period in April," it said.”

"Witnesses saw helicopters drop barrel bombs and smelled a scent akin to domestic chlorine immediately following impact," it pointed out.”

“Victims, it said, had suffered "symptoms compatible with exposure to chemical agents, namely vomiting, eye and skin irritation, choking and other respiratory problems".

Not to detract from Assad's probable/possible use of chemical weapons, but the UN has never been able to confirm the above (e.g., both sides had sarin), hence the careful use of language in the reports. Again, not to detract from the possible actions, but this fact may be a way in to 'negotiate' with Assad in the hope of ending the war. Then, next steps could be taken.

fourmummy ... The U.S. and Russia had ‘negotiated’ with Syria’s Assad to safely remove Syria’s proven stock pile of unsafe chemical weapons – the last I heard, Assad was stalling.

BTW how did the Syrian citizens ‘rebekget hold of Sarin gas and when was it alleged to have been used.

But any further negotiations with Assad would be to what end, he promises to love and trust the Syrian Sunni Muslims and be a good President in the future?

Why would you think that would make a difference to the Syrian Sunni Muslims, after the continued attacks and losses they have suffered due to Assad’s forces – the link below just outlining those within the first several months of 2015?

”Syria: living under the horrors of barrel bombs in Aleppo”
www.channel4.com/news/barrel-bombs-syria-assad-aleppo-deraa-idlib-civilian-deaths

”The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights has said around 7,000 barrel bombs have been dropped by the Syrian regime in the first five months of 2015, killing around 3,000 people - mostly civilians - and these numbers continue to rise.”

”Among the dead were 452 children and 290 women.”

”Barrel bombs are oil barrels, fuel tanks and gas cylinders packed with explosive, fuel and metal fragments that are dropped from helicopters. They devastate the surrounding areas where they land, and those not killed in the blast are often maimed by flying shrapnel. Chemical weapons such as chlorine are also often deployed in the barrels.”

”Bashar al-Assad has denied the Syrian regime uses barrel bombs - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

No, Assad won't promise to be a good President henceforth but he's not stupid. He knows that he'll have to co-operate up to a point. After that, who knows. Strategically, I just can't see how removing Assad now aids any action.

If Assad continues to fall back to new defensive lines and controls less than 20% of his country, it IS ‘being done internally’ – by the Syrian citizens he branded ‘rebels’ and ISIS – so the only way he will survive is if the other ‘bad guys’ that historically support his and his fathers regime (Iran and Russia), fight/kill on his behalf the oppressed Syrian Sunnis.

And THAT would be a recruiting sergeant for Sunni ISIS, as the only reason ISIS was able to form this caliphate across Syrian and Iraq lands (getting the financial backing from rich Sunnis within the rich moderate States) - was because in Iraq the regime change from Saddam was to a non inclusive Shia government and in Syria Assad was killing moderate Sunnis - and the West was doing feck all about it.

ISIS exists as Sunnis within Syria and Iraq swallowed the ISIS ‘vision’ of a safe haven for Sunnis and either joined, supported, or just didn’t OPPOSE them.

So supporting Assad based on his anti Sunni record with him knowing the only way dictators CAN rule and be safe themselves is via iron rod ruling oppression – can only INCREASE ISIS numbers – across both Syria and Iraq from those Sunnis within, and those outside joining the anti Shia Jihad, with Iran increasingly more prominent on the opposite side.