At a hastily convened meeting at the G-20 gathering, Putin and Obama met in some hallway where, according to reports, Putin agreed with Obama's demands for a "transition" in Syria.
"The United States and Russia have reached consensus at the G20 on the need for “a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition” following a sidelines meeting between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin on Sunday." Read more.
Does this mean a transition like, Assad has to go? If so, then why the hell did he send in his military to take out the U.S. backed anti-Assad "moderates?"
If Putin is selling out now, I am done...I am totally done. Is there not one politician on this earth that does not sell out? Kim Jong Un?
WTF is happening to this world?
13 comments:
"the U.S. backed anti-Assad "moderates?"
Mike it may look that way from 30,000 feet if those forces were anti-ISIS too...
imo things can look strange when the strategy is implemented purely via Special Operations.. they are probably paying off everyone they can to do all kinds of shit...
imo its a failed approach... its driven by their belief that "we're out of money!" so they try to do it on the cheap via SOF... its been popular for last 20 years there... the whole Patreus BS came out of this same paradigm... he showed them how they could "save money!" so they bought his BS hook, line, and sinker....
This is going to be interesting to see what exactly they agreed to.... Dems could be front-running Trump's popular policy of increased cooperation with Russia...
Maybe O agreed to lift "the sanctions" as a quid pro quo for them to let us in with more conventional forces.... carrier strike group is on the way this afternoon...
Left is looking pretty pathetic after Paris attacks... Obama the day before said and I quote "ISIS is very contained!" then the next day they turn Paris into a blood bath he looks like a complete idiot .... they need to turn this thing around pronto...
US and Russia cooperating is a positive development, which will help isolate the fanatically anti-Russia neocon horde. Team Hillary is probably seething.
Matt, I disagree. The US has plenty of conventional forces to deploy in Syria. the reason they are not there is that the US public is in no moot for another foreign adventure that will inevitably involve blood and treasure. No case has been made as to why leaving Bashir Al-Assad in power remotely affects US interests that are also interests of most Americans. Most people now say that getting involved in Iraq was a mistake.
In addition, Obama is not going to deploy conventional forces in either Iraq or Syria without first going to Congress. Then, there is the question as to the legality of it under international law. Russia has that covered by having been invited by the government of Syria. Syria has not invited the US to intervene, and the Iraqis had already requested that the coalition remove its forces from Iraq under W. Obama complied with that.
And as I said above, the reason that the US was not able to prevail long term in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan was not insufficient resources. The problem was with the strategy, basically trying to force a round peg into a square hole. All the troops in the world couldn't make that work and the result would be perpetual occupation and continual resistance.
What works is the previous US strategy of putting out thug in power and funding and supplying his goons. The new strategy of imposing democratic government on tribal societies is unrealistic, at least the way that the US has approached it.
The big mistake is assuming that liberalism is natural. It is not. It is learned and many societies are structured to be traditional rather than liberal, which translates into traditionally anti-liberal. Such societies view liberalism as impious and corrupting the youth. They are opposed to its imposition vehemently enough to resist violently.
Everyone snickered when W said, "they hate our freedoms," but he hit the nail on the head regarding traditional societies. They don't want to be liberated American-style and even a large conventional force is not going to change that. In fact, it is the antithesis of liberalism.
The way to liberalize a country is to seduce its youth with sex, drugs and rock n' roll rather than to conquer it. Works like a charm. Which is why traditional cultures so vehemently oppose it.
Post-9/11, Colin Powell, who saw the world in something like the way the realist Bush the First saw the world, began work immediately after 9/11 on building a US-Russia-China anchored coalition against international terrorism:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cpowell11-19-01.htm
The neocons freaked out completely over that move, and Bush II, under the influence of the PNAC crowd, walked it all back. We would have a much safer world right now if Powell's approach had won out, but instead the silly and criminally unachievable cause of the "unipolar" world order and a Middle East reconstructed from the ground up entirely according to Israeli preferences took hold. The barbarous stupidity that followed has sowed more disorder and violence.
Obama now has another chance to help build a more stable and balanced world order, where criminal elements like the Saudis, ISIS and Israel are put in their place. This time, the French have a prominent say, instead of being forced to pull back on a rampaging US-neocon lunatic fringe.
Please stop it with the "we re not spending anything on defence" warmonger agenda, USA is spending more than 2 times of what was being spent on 2001 and around the same amount during the "occupation" years while not being so over-extended. If the military is unable to carry out a campaign like in the Balkans as suggested in other thread is because complete incompetence and corruption, not lack of funds.
At what point do you start questioning those failure "bridges to no where" trillionary programs? The amount of failures of the cronies in the last years has been outstanding, with very little bang for the buck, on offensive capabilities that are not needed or going to be used anyway. All that money could have been spent on actual not-bullshit things like crippling infrastructure or a decaying NASA and science programs. You know, the actual type of things that are not a massive waste of real resources like military spending and that are needed in a world were almost 8 bill. people are aspiring to be american consumers and that could bring real trouble in the future.
As for the news, I believe is a good development as Dan above says. Assad, the dictator who wanted to be a MD, can steep out and maybe we can see some sort of non-failed state formed over there which is the only real solution to the problem, not imaginary bombing campaigns, non-occupation forces, flash wars and other demonstrated failures which the western population does not want and does not back up. People eager to send others to crappy places to die can go there themselves for a change.
Putin and Obama have probably worked out the deals about the necessary oil pipelines and lifting the stupid USA-isolating-itself-from-the-world embargos which are just strengthening the embargoed countries (hilarious) and the supply to the European markets. Maybe even starting to isolate the non-allies of gulf states for a change (too much wishful thinking on my part on this though, tbh). No one except Matt and a couple guys cares about that damn desert for anything else anyway, despite the odd "Death to America" demonstrations and bombing here and there each 10 years. Sorry, now the crackpots in the GOP + hawks in democratic party will have to seek elsewhere to bomb or ramp up useless military spending while we can hear how little they are spending on defence and they should cut down social benefits some more to screw the disappearing middle class plus the poor.
A victory for humanity, a lose for the crazies (ISIS, warmongers in the West, S.A and Israel, defence contractors all lose, everybody else in humanity wins and half of the population of Syria can go back home after having escaped their country). Now a REAL plan is starting to shape instead of infantile rambles about "bombing something".
The problem still is there about those "moderates" or if we end up again with a failed state and maybe the remaining 50% of the population leaving the country. You never know with the dumb asses in charge, can always screw it up more.
Mike, Russia has never made Assad staying a demand. The Russian policy is that it is undemocratic to start with the assumption that Assad must go. The Russians have been arguing for an orderly transition to a government in Syria that is the outcome of the choice of Syrians.
The obvious solution is a negotiated settlement that preserves Syrian national sovereignty and territorial integrity (a demand of China, too) and allows the Syrian people to decide their government which would likely involved democratic elections at some point.
The sticking point has been the US and its allies have demanded that Assad not be permitted to participate in government, whereas the Russians demand that he be permitted to stand for election if he chooses to do so.
The US and Russia are not that far apart. It really pretty much hangs on whether Assad is forced out. Syria is now in a position to see that this doesn't happen.
Russia has made clear for some time that it is not committed to Assad staying in power in Syria but rather defending the right of the Syrian people to choose their own government, and if that be Assad, so be it. Assad said recently that he is not hanging on to power either, and he is willing to stand for election under circumstances that guarantee a free and fair process.
Anyway, it looks like this is going to the UN rather than be a brokered deal that Syrians don't participate in, as some parties want to see happen if regime change cannot be forced.
So I don't see any indication of Putin selling out at his point. He has the strongest negotiating position now, and he knows it. The US propaganda machine is trying as usual to put a favorable spin on a turn of events that went bad for the US in just a couple of weeks.
There's been quite a bit recently about Putin changing his position, which many blogs have documented is not true. The Russian position is unchanged over several years. There is nothing in the Guardian report about Putin agreeing to Assad leaving.
What I think is the most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement under UN auspices between Syrians that can be shown not to be associated with AQ affiliates or ISIS and the Assad regime about a transitional government involving some power-sharing and UN supervised elections down the line.
Putin would consider that a win even if Assad doesn’t survive the process politically as long as there is no prior condition that he go.
Where Russia and the US do agree, I expect, is that Syria should remain a secular state in which Christians are safe and accorded full rights. I anticipate that the US and Russia will cooperate in ensuring that this is written in stone.
"Middle East reconstructed from the ground up entirely according to Israeli preferences took hold."
I'd agree with that Dan but realize that this is being re-adjudicated as we speak within the GOP primary...
Trump is going to deviate from that course while Jeb/Rubio/Cruz want to maintain it... the primary process will dictate which course the party takes ... right now Trump ahead big league...
Tom,
" seduce its youth with sex, drugs and rock n' roll"
LOL thats what those mfers bombed and machine gunned read the communique for crying out loud.. people at a rock concert and having romantic dinners in Paris... LOL!!!!!!
oh and dont forget about Hezzbollah which Assad has not delivered them there and they probably had him on a clock... time is up...
At the start of the GWOT you had Al Queda, Hezzbollah, Hamas, and now you can add ISIS and ultimately Iran as a state sponsor...
All these or what is left of them are still targets... Assad probably assigned the Hezbollah account and he has not delivered in 10 years.... he's out... he probably missed some milestones assigned to him...
Bush did Iraq because he could not work with Saddam as he tried to have his father assassinated after gulf war 1.... so new leadership required there from day 1....
Things of course have proceeded far from perfectly... "out of money!"....
"Obama now has another chance to help build a more stable and balanced world order"
LOL. Dream on. Swampland on sale in Florida too. Want some? Rumor also has it that the latest influx of immigrants will be conservative Christian "crazies". Certainly you'd do anything to prevent this, no? Minutemen generalship looks appealing with this cretin influx, no? Minutemen General Kervick has a nice ring, no?
Matt: "Obama lifting sanctions." That's what I thought.
Tom: "Russia never insisted on Assad." Doesn't seem that way from what I've been reading.
LOL thats what those mfers bombed and machine gunned read the communique for crying out loud.. people at a rock concert and having romantic dinners in Paris... LOL!!!!!,
This is what is happening in traditional societies to whatever degree. It's happening in all the traditional religions, Islam being the most obvious in terms of outright violence and repression, but not necessarily. Both traditionalist Sunnis and Shi'ites strongly resist liberalism and Westernizing but in terms of social repression rather than violence against Westerners. But even if you are Westerner, don't get caught out in Saudi Arabia.
However, there is major pushback against the gains in contemporary Western culture and liberalism, even in the US among Christian traditionalists. Russian Orthodoxy is pushing back hard against the "degenerate" West, and traditional India is resisting Westernizing influence, too.
Russia's position on settling the crisis in Syria and on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's future remains unchanged, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said.
"We have taken note of new attempts by Western media outlets to present the situation in such a way so as to allege that Russia has changed its position regarding Assad's fate. I can reaffirm that the Russian position regarding a settlement in Syria has not undergone changes," Zakharova said.
Moscow has never said whether it supported or did not support Assad, she said.
"Russia has firmly followed the line that it is the Syrian people who are supposed to decide on the fate of the president of a sovereign Syria. The preservation of Syria's statehood is fundamentally important to us," she said.
Moscow says its position on Assad's future unchanged
Moon of Alabama provides the details:
BREAKING NEWS: Russia's Position On Assad Unchanged Since 2011 - Reuters, BBC
Partition is not being considered, hence the bloodshed will continue. Alawite and Sunni cannot live in the same state, this is impractical.
Post a Comment