Nothing. We're dealing with terrorists every day, and we have to worry about the arabs killing eachother? Turkey will not attack Syria. Instead, we should plot the downfall of those Russians!
They are the ones who have shot down our plane.

Please, the Syria thing is just another western backed coup by using al-queda terrorists to cause terror in a nation. Libya all over again. If the drugged terrorists can't defeat Assad then some NATO action will be taken, once they start a course of action they hardly ever stop.

(July 5, 2012 at 2:07 pm)paintpooper Wrote: If the drugged terrorists can't defeat Assad then some NATO action will be taken, once they start a course of action they hardly ever stop.

Hello there, Muammar Gaddafi!

Terrorists, usually associated with ultraconservative Islam, taking drugs?

You've truly hit batshit.

Basically, Syria and Libya were two reasonably friendly ports which Russian Navy could use to maintain a presence in the mediterranean.

Having secured access to the mediterreanean has been the penultimate geopolitical aim of Russia since Peter the Great. Russia and the west went to war in 1854 because Russia sought to crush the Turks to gain secure access to the Mediterranean, while Britian and France would prop up even the turks, and directly invade Russian territory, to keep Russia bottled up in the Black Sea. Russia went to war in 1914 because she convinced herself that by joining the allies, and Allied victory over the central powers would give Russia control over Bospherus and secured access to Mediterranean. So convinced were the Czar about this that Russia's 1915 naval program, approaved just before the war in 1914, was essentially a program to build a battlefleet for the Mediterranean assuming the defeat of Turkey and Russian naval base in Corfu. Part of Soviet aim in the Russo-NAZI pact in 1939 was to give Soviet leverage in the Balkans towards eventual seizure of constantinople and secure control of access to Mediterranean.

When the west intervened in Libya, it did so with Russia's acquiescence because it was done under the pretext that intervention would not topple the Kaddahfi regime, and therefore would not jepardize continued Russian access to the less important of their two potential naval footholds in the Mediterranean.

To the Russians, the subsequent toppling of Kaddahfi was a complete stab in the back by the west after Russia offered her cooperation.

It is sheer fantasy that Russia would now make the same mistake again and lose her most important naval foot hold in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Clinton is a total idiot if she thinks she could conceivable cause Russia to "pay a price" that, in Russia mind, could match the weight of giving up the penaltimate geostrategic goal of the Russian nation for the last 300 years.

Russia will accept even a shooting war to maintain her accesss to Syrian port and her influence over Syrian regime. West is not willing to stomach a shoot war with Russia to topple Syrian regime and install a Regime friendly to western interest, and therefore hostile to penaltimate Russian strategic goal.

That's the bottom of it. To everyone outside of the west, the more the west blow hot and cold over Syria, the more it appears that it is Russia who is the really genuinely serious player with eye on the grow up's ball.

(June 30, 2012 at 2:43 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Explain why Assad is "toast".

I see that he now has every reason to use any means to fight the rebels, especially given that Russian and the US are deadlocked over dealing with it, and, as Chuck pointed out, Turkey has no reason to visibly upset the power balance between the US and Russia. This means he might become more entrenched and has a better chance of surviving the revolt, if only through the knowledge that he must succeed or die like Gaddhafi.

Assad and toast: Wishful thinking on my part and not necessarily informed prognostication. I prefer his ouster to the alternative. I also recognize that his ouster does not guarantee a 'better' fate for the people of Syria, but it would present an opportunity for reform.

Russia's interest and resulting military equipment support seems to be motivated by the never ending quest to maintain a warm water port. U.S. and other western nations support for the rebels seems to be driven by the continued vainglorious mission to forceably spread democracy.

I agree with your take on Turkey not wanting to upset the Russia/U.S. power balance, but Turkey along with Lebanon and Jordan will have to seriously take a stance to address the refugee issue, particularly if the conflict escalates to a full blown civil war.

It seems to me American policy in the Middle east is driven by a schizophrenic oscillation between three poles:

1. Spread democracy (underlying assumption is democracy must be friendly to the interest and outlooks of the west)
2. Spread compliant regimes (underlying assumption is democracy has nothing to do with friendliness)
3. Spread what hawks in Israel wants (underlying assumption is what is good for the Likud is good for America, in this world or the next, no questions needs to be asked)