Russian General: Why Assad can't win the war in Syria

Of course it would be much better if Assad army and ISIS make a meatmincing show..., but for whom is it better?
I would very much like if ISIS would surrender, decreasing casualities of their own and non-combatants around them. The only political move which increases the possibility of the scenario is the official claim of the US that they and their NATO allies will not perform any deblockading operation.

PS. Alleppo seems to be a syrian 'Stalingrad'.

 

Putin shut it off because Ukraine refused to pay its bill and was stealing from the gas pipe lines going into Europe. So tell me who is to blame: Russia or Ukraine? Do you think they should have gotten a free pass from Russia or from the countries they were stealing the gas from?

This is why Russia wanted Southstream, so it could bypass Ukraine and go through Bulgaria, but the US put a stop to that at the expense of Bulgaria which needed the money and would have made billions each year, and the Central and Southern European states which needed the gas badly.

Russia now switched to Turkey and the pipeline will stop at Greece. Russia will be signing an agreement this week ...although things are ticklish, since no one knows how long that friendship will last. Turkey is using ISIS and Al Nusra for its territorial ambitions in Iraq and Syria, and its threatening the Greek islands in the Aegean for the same reasons.

 

It all depends on Turkey. The latest attempt to overthrow Erdogan gives some hope that it would last for some time. I personally wouldn't build a long term project there. But probably Putin has some more information than me.

 

Two resolutions were vetoed at the UN. A ridiculous one from France, which stated that only coalition planes should have the right to fly over Aleppo...not Russian or Syrian planes. Since Washington has never killed any Al Nusra terrorist, and drops its bombs here and there as a pretense, it was nothing but a publicity stunt. France knew Russia would veto it.

The other one was by Russia and was suggested by a member of the UN. It gave the Al Nusra terrorists the right to leave with their arms... and they would even be escorted out by the UN. Then a peace deal could be arranged in Aleppo and the people would get some aid.

Naturally Washington vetoed it which proves they could care less about the Syrian people. Other than toppling Assad, Washington wants that part of Syria to become part of a Saudi aligned Sunnistan. ISIS and Al Nusra are being used to purify the area and ethnically cleanse and kill off the Christians and Yazidis.

 

I would very much like if ISIS goes to Qatar or Saudi Arabia and builds the Islamic State there - Russia the first will open for them embassy in Moscow.

 

Why would you like that?

ISIS declared war on Saudi Arabia a couple of years ago and have pulled off 30 in country attacks in the past 2 years.

 

Look like for me all this practising radical Islam - identical. In Turkey and Syria the majority for secular society - a way of life. In Arabia and Qatar, terrible human rights close to ideology of ISIS. Better if ISIS fights in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, than in Syria or Iraq or Turkey... if to choose one from two evils, I choose this scenario...

 

Turkey...secular? LOL

 

Earlier in Turkey several times wanted to establish sharia laws, but military haven't allowed it...LOL my ***s

 

Unless you are saying what I am saying, namely that he couldn't count on those who were giving him the "choice" to keep their word, what you are saying is belied by all the reports from all the various countries involved in the back channel negotiations with Syria over many years on this issue. Reports from the US, Israel, Russia, Turkey, France, even to some extent Iran (which was voicing concerns about these plots).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/w...-peace-talks-involved-golan-heights-exit.html
Secret Israel-Syria Peace Talks Involved Golan Heights Exit

 

I really dont think they control the rebels that much in order to tell them where to fight, where to retreat and when to surrender, the ppl that fight Assad have their own agenda, "support" means sharing targets and give guns assuming they agree on political goal to begin with.

 

There is no stuctural alliance between ISIS and NATO. But there is certainly an alliance of aims.

Example. The USA was certainly an enemy of Japan in WW2. They were certainly allies with GB. But when Japanese forces attacked Singapore they acted as allies of the US. Because the aim of the US in the war was to gain control over the asian-pacific region. They could have taken it from the hands of Japan, but it was almost impossible to perform if Japan didn't attack and gain control over the powerful base of GB.
Another example is the action of Hitler which made decisive factor to form an alliance between the USSR and Allies in th same war. If Hitler didn't attack the USSR in 1941 this alliance would never been formed. And we would remain enemies. This is why Stalin wanted Hitler to attack and made a series of political actions to make him do that.

I am sure that there is no unity among american people to be allies of ISIS. Moreover I am sure that there is no plan among the US leadership. The policy doesn't look like comics book with bad villains and good superheroes. But when I see the way how the latest ceasefire was broken I see that the airstrike of NATO during the ceasefire led to an attempt of ISIS to deblock their positions in Alleppo. I see a clear mutual alliance in this given episode. But I don't deny that NATO planes attack ISIS as well. The chaos and weakening of all the political powers in the region is suitable and desireable for both NATO and ISIS.

 

You NEVER shut off supply to your customers.

The result is Europe is looking for other suppliers and the U.S. is only too happy to help.

AA

 

Take this to heart.

There will come a point where we will decide to eradicate ISIS.

We were hoping we could get the Sunni Arab Nations to do this on their own.

But if now.....eventually...we will have to eradicate them.

AA

 

There'll be no ground troops in Syria.

But oh goodie we can carve out Kurdistan. The Kurds were just about the only ones to help us fight ISIS.

 

We don't need ground forces in large numbers.

All we need is to increase the number of members of U.S. Special Forces.....Special teams...."That's me."....and CIA Teams on the ground to direct massive U.S. Air Strikes.

AA

 

The Arab Spring, throwing off the yoke of dictators, elite royalty, and foreign occupation, is an idea whose time has come.

The US had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam and dropped over 7 MILLION TONS of bombs on Vietnam trying to maintain French and US colonialism, and failed.

Victor Hugo was probably right when he said that Even armies cannot stop an idea whose time has come.

 

Like I've just said elsewhere - brainwashed from the cradle . . .

 

You should have got on with it 4, nearly 5 years ago when Syria kicked off. You've left it too late - far too late. For one thing you have no idea where they are, or even who they are? Just more meaningless jingoistic blathering as usual.

 

You know the problem I think you have is you simply cannot accept the fact that much of the freedom and security you enjoy is provided by US!!

AA

 

You seriously underestimate our capabilities.

It's not a question of whether we can get the job done it is a question of whether or not we want to commit to any huge extent in that area.

Right now it has been about containment but I personally feel we much be much more aggressive.

AA

 

You overstate your capabilities, which is what got America in this mess in the first place. The main capability you have is to blow up the world into pieces, but that isn't exactly in any one's interest -- and not in the interests of the military industrial complex that promotes these agendas.

 

If anything we understate them.

If there is one thing I know we never tip our hand.

AA

 

I am not talking about specific capabilities of military systems, but the overall capability of the US to accomplish any meaningful political objectives using its known or secret systems! As I mentioned, the adventures which the neocons and the purveyors of a Project for a New American Century listed for the US turned into disaster, and none of their promises materialized either.

 

What YOU might think is a meaningful political objective may not necessarily be one for us.

We are VERY big picture.

Unfortunately the result of this kind of planning can be things like the Shah.

AA