Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course it's a pretext. Driving moderates into radical arms would be sound strategy, if you're a Russian commander.

One additional motive not mentioned in the article: Russia may be wishing to terrorize the non-combatants in Aleppo so that other cities don't welcome any rebel presence for fear of similar treatment.

Making an example of them, if you'll pardon the callousness of the phrase in this context.

ETA: At the very end the article makes a nod to this idea. Disregard this comment.

So let me get this straight...radicalizing moderates serves our interests?

No. Killing radicals is in our interest. I was, in the post you quoted, speaking from the point-of-view of a Russian commander (I'd thought I made that clear). There is, of course, a balance, which must be judged, and that is what we're doing here. Are they making more radicals than they're killing? Will those radicals hate America more, or Russia more? Bloody hands draw the flies. Is it not best to let someone else do our dirty work?

Our interest in defeating radicals?  Doesn't that seem counterproductive to -american- interests?
(I;m not concerned with whatever shortsighted and shitty idea a russian commander may have)

You might not be concerned about those views, but the Syrians are. And that's exactly why the Russians are behaving as they are -- to change local views about the value of resistance vs the value of obeisance. Go along to get along, right? The Russians are pushing that at gunpoint, and while it might be wrong morally, from the standpoint of strategy it makes perfect sense. And let the Russians absorb the casualties, the expense, the opprobrium of the world, for this action. Meanwhile, we get some of what we want, at no cost except for enmity from extremists who are already aligned against us.

We cannot enforce our interests in that country, without a massive deployment. POTUS knows he doesn't have support for that. POTUS thinks (I suspect, and he's probably right) that such a deployment would drag us much closer to a war with Russia, which is clearly not a desirable outcome.

Stay above the fray, I say, and let events sort themselves out. Will people suffer and die? Most assuredly. But any intervention on our part seems unlikely to change that -- and I think it'll likely add to the cost. I'm struggling to think of an intervention we Americans have made in a civil war that decisively quelled it ... and I'm drawing a blank.

You got anything?