Someone explain to me what the point of this "cease fire" will be.Well, we all know it's to give the "moderates" a chance to regroup and get resupplied.
The question is why Putin and Lavrov bought into something like this. The Russians know from experience that the Americans are insincere and are continually trying to game them.
Lavrov is also a lot more experienced and savvy then John Kerry, as is Putin over Obama. I would venture to say that Lavrov regards Kerry as something of an ass. Heaven knows what Putin thinks of Obama but I suspect he thinks that Obama is a dangerous moron with nukes.
The Russians know that people pulling the levers are neocons like Susan Rice and Samantha Power, and that NATO is run by people like Gen. Breedlove. The are all russophobes determined to destroy Russia as world power. They haven't moved past the USSR and the Cold War, and they are enraged that Putin upset their plans — temporarily they think.
But since Putin, Lavrov, Shoygu etc. know all this, we can assume that they have a plan to deal with it.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
A cease fire made in hell
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.), former military intelligence officer at the US Defense Intelligence Agency
27 comments:
Did Lang edit his post since you posted it?
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/02/a-cease-fire-made-in-hell.html
The Russians have an incurable longing to be friends and all buddy, buddy with America. They have a habit for self-sabotage until their backs are really against the wall. They have no "plan" for this. Like a dumped lover they're just hoping the Americans are sincere this time in "wanting them back." But they're not.
The Russians are a lot more savvy than that, Mike. Putin is running rings around Obama. And they have no illusions about him. You need to listen to Stephen Cohen every Tuesday night on WABC-NYC. Of course, Cohen isn’t allowed inside the WH.
Did Lang edit his post since you posted it?
No
Mike, Lang has been calling what he calls “R+6” in Syria correctly since Russia took on ISIS last fall. It started when Putin embarrassed Obama by showing Russian satellite photos to the G20 the thousands of ISIS-controlled oil tankers making hay into Turkey...the source of ISIS revenue. The US had no option but to bomb them after claiming (to the G20) that they were doing everything they could to defeat IS, which they weren't. Russia has polished off their supply lines, bombed their refineries, isolated their forces, but always leaving an escape route into Turkey. ;-)
It’s been fun to watch/read Lang and his former military intel guys describe what’s going on. (1) because they surmise ahead of time (2) because they wind up being right. (3) and their disdain for the Obama admin’s skill at this just drips. Lord knows I could never figure it out. All those Arabic names have 20 different spellings; who can keep anything straight.
Well, it’s different now, Tom, or do diff people get diff versions? ;-) ?
This is what I see now:
=======================
Someone explain to me what the point of this "cease fire" will be.
Are Lavrov and Kerry just playing kissy face for the world audience?
Is this an example of the diplomats' delusion that little steps lead to big steps and then to "The Peaceable Kingdom?" Yes, yes, I know all about negotiating techniques. I was a diplomat for quite a long time.
IS, Nusra and "other groups designated by the UN" will not be included in the "cease fire." Does that mean that the US led coalition and R+6 will be free to continue to wage war against them?
In NW and SW Syria the non-IS rebels and the "secular" FSA unicorn groups are very mixed together. The US probably likes that. These favored rebels might be able to gain a respite from the defeats they have been suffering and the disaster they are facing at the hands of R+6.
Trickery, delusions, fantasies, these will be the fruits of such a "cease fire." If the "cease fire" occurs, the parties will use the time gained to prepare for the resumption of hostilities. pl
Yes, that's the same.
I quote the line Someone explain to me what the point of this "cease fire" will be.
I assume that Russia got something it wanted out of this, but so far it is not clear what.
Ah!!! I thought entire post was quoting PL.
I assume that Russia got something it wanted out of this, but so far it is not clear what.
Well, it’s had a long-standing base at Tartus, since the 70s, I think. Then there’s this: http://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2015/09/stephen-cohen-on-ukraine-europe-and.html
Fore!!!!!
http://twitchy.com/2016/02/21/the-struggle-is-real-obamas-golf-outing-cut-short-due-to-inclement-weather/
No point beyond insisting that the US and Russia will not go to war against each other directly.
Is partition of Syria on the table or not?
Not so far, Bob. As Lang says, it’s a basic Principle of War that he who wins on the battlefield gets to dictate the negotiations. Right now, R+6 are winning. Reason the Geneva talks failed a month ago. The rebels backing IS (& Saudi Arabia, Qatar) thought they could set the terms.
But Americans aren’t hearing the truth except via Stephen Cohen on WABC-NYC (AM) every Tuesday night. As the link I give above said, "Cohen’s appearances are killing the ratings."
Either Trump listens to them, or someone is telling Trump about Cohen’s appearances, because his position on Putin reflects Cohen’s, and Cohen praised Trump last week or the week before as the only presidential candidate using any intelligence with respect to Putin and Russia.
Interesting State Dept. quote in the jpost:
"Russia and the regime will target the areas of the revolutionaries on the pretext of the Nusra Front's presence, and you know how mixed those areas are, and if this happens, the truce will collapse," he said.
But the Obama administration responded to that criticism swiftly on Monday afternoon, defending their decision to exclude the terrorist organization from any cease-fire, as well as Washington's ability to identify its whereabouts.
"If you hang out with the wrong folks," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, "you choose who you hang out with, and that sends a signal."
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Cease-fire-in-Syria-set-for-Saturday-at-midnight-445756
So, are they throwing the moderate head-choppers under the bus?
There will be no peace without partition. Even with partition, the chances are not great.
Perhaps after the oil runs out?
There are no moderates. That's the unofficial motto of this 5 year proxy war.
Bob,
Lang had a quick comment to a commenter who queried partitions: "An armistice in Korea was possible because there was a stable military situation from one coast to the other of a peninsula. Do you see something like that in Syria? Partition? Where would you draw the lines? Do you think the Sunni Wahhabi jihadis would accept a separate state for Alawis, Druze, Christians, Shia, etc.? pl"
Lang is saying there will be no peace. Not being able to redraw borders in an official sense is the same as failing to recognize that the existing borders of Syria and Iraq have become irrelevant.
The territorial integrity of Syria was lost 5 years ago. Iraq had already reached a similar situation due to the civil war following the American invasion. In Iraq there is segregation between Shiia, Sunni and Kurd. There is de facto partition, as each group struggles for more autonomy.
What is the West (America, Russia, and it's allies) trying to do? Impose secularism and democracy across the region? This effort has failed. Iraq is nominally democratic but it isn't secular. Egypt and Assad's portion of Syria are only secular through the use of force. As for Turkey - who knows?
And then there is all this rhetoric about ISIS being evil. Vowing to destroy ISIS while leaving the monarchies that support them intact. Arriving at "ceasefires" without including all parties to the "agreement". This kind of stupidity is evidence that the West has failed to come to terms with radical Islam. The only approach they know is to manipulate, and what they cannot manipulate, they destroy.
Too many cooks (hypocrites) throwing stones in glass houses.
"The territorial integrity of Syria was lost 5 years ago."
What about Hezbollah? They operated in/thru Syria with impunity long before 5 years ago...
Sept 12, 2001 Target Set in no order:
Afghanistan
Libya
Syria/Lebanon
Iraq
Iran
Afghanistan: Taliban nut-jobs so direct attack
Libya: Daffy Kadaffy capitulated/cooperated (eventually failed)
Syria/Lebanon: Assad capitulated/cooperated (eventually failed)
Iraq: Bush couldnt work with Saddam as he tried to have his father assassinated so direct attack
Iran: Isolate and save for last...
didnt work out too well....
What about Hezbollah? They operated in/thru Syria with impunity long before 5 years ago...
They did not have permission?
Syrian army was in Lebanon long time, but they supposedly had permission.
Golan Heights was/were lost to an earlier war.
Afghanistan: US puppet government
Libya, Syria: civil war
Lebanon: refugee crisis
Iraq: functioning democracy (albeit not a government of national unity)
Iran: theocracy
Saudi Arabia & gulf states: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
ISIS: as legitimate a player as the others
Kurdistan: on the cusp of nationhood - or to be betrayed once again?
I'm just trying to illustrate the US perspective...
No one here (US) cares about Turdistan, er... I mean Kurdistan or wtf...
If you are trying to impose a war on terror then you have to go where the terrorists are and the war can either be waged competently or incompetently...
Who needs the 'war on terror' now that the cold war is back in fashion.
Well you make a good point things have gone haywire over the last 16 years...
This "cold war back in fashion" is the policy of morons... that war is over we need to claim victory and move on...
Post a Comment