Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's explore a little more, shall we?  What putin wants and what the us want in syria are very nearly the same things.

Yeah, as I said earlier, there is an overlap of interests.

 

They're -using- assad and his grudge against aleppo.  His only purpose -to them- is being a yesman for their involvement.  Their bombing is more than likely a tool to grant them, not assad, a better position at the negotiating table.  

Sure -- they're sticking their foot in the door so that when everyone sits at the table, they'll have a chair too.

I'd make the case that the us and other involved parties can grant russia the legitmacy they desire in ways that a man who gassed his own people simply can't (not necessarily in syria, but legitimacy -in syria- hardly seems to be the prize).

This is where I think you're going off the rails. Russia is not looking to Assad to legitimize themselves; Russia is giving Assad the only legitimacy he has -- and that's mighty thin, at best. Were it not for Russia, Assad's head would be in Damscus and his body would be in the desert, a year ago.

We don't have the power to grant Russia what they want -- security for their western Syrian bases -- unless we want to lay down a massive deployment (and, by the way, raise another generation of jihadis resentful of American occupation, BTDTGTTS).

 Further, this negotiating table has to materialize soon, before turkey and suadi arabia (hello iran, pewpewpew) hop in proper...because dealing with them won't be the walk in the park that bombing civilians and unconventionals has been.  Those two, point of fact, will fuck them up royally.  

Well, first, that negotiating table collapsed last month, and second, the Iranians have been there for years; the Revolutionary Guards have lost 1100 personnel in this civil war. I don't know about the Saudis, I understand they're kinda busy bombing the shit out of the Yemenis -- but the crisis in Aleppo is a result of the failure of a negotiated cease-fire, not a result of no negotiations. The problem seems to be that neither side can stop shooting, no matter what is said at the table.

A Russian/US brokered transition is the goal.  If that can't happen unless they stop the bombing of aleppo, and if we can offer them what they hope to get out of that bombing (that better seat above) without the need of the bombing in question...they'd probably be interested.

But we can't offer that, can we? Do you want to put 30,000 troops into Syria in order to secure Russian basing rights? I sure don't. But that's what they want -- secure Mediterranean bases. How can we offer them that without putting an occupying force in place ... and giving hostages to fortune? Can you give us any idea of how many troops, over how many years, such a task might require?

 

Assad is the only fly in the ointment, but as this develops he's becoming more of a liability than he's worth to -anyone- involved.  That russia desperately -needs- a us more amenable to working with russia, even making concessions, is evident in their involvement in our current election cycle.  If you think were overextended...imagine russias predicament juxtaposed against putins need to win?  They -know- they won't get what they want if they have a hostile white house to deal with, no matter how many towns in syria they level.

Perhaps. But I'm not thinking Russian concessions really jibe with, as you put it, "Putin's need to win". Nor do I think either nominee for POTUS will present a "hostile" face to Russia.

Russia's having deep troubles, no doubt -- oil staying between $42 - $50/bbl when the Russian budget is predicated on $60/bbl. But that says to me that Russia won't be amenable to compromise ... especially now that Syrian national forces have gained the upper hand in the war. They control the western half of the country, and are besieging its last major road-hub. Do you for a moment think they'll walk away from the brink of victory to accept compromise?

I don't. Not for a moment.

Personally, I think we have alot of leverage here (and so does russia), but we cant use it while playing up to cold war stereotypes and fears, by repeating the mistakes of both of our countries pasts.  The idea that russia cant be stopped -in this particular thing- without a declaration of war or direct hostilities between our countries, is, imo, one of those mistakes.  An offer to help de-escalate is what we have here, I don't think any tough guy bullshit (like, say, a no fly zone) will work because it can't get russia what they want...and so they'd have no reason to come to the table in the first place....and we obviously lack the will at present, even if we don't lack the ability.

I don't think we have much leverage at all. After the Iraq fiasco, what Middle-Easterner would welcome us? It'd be like Reagan's joke -- "Hi, I'm from the government, here to help."

I've got no doubt we could stop the Russians if things came to blows, but you and I both know that not only won't happen, but shouldn't happen. I'm not dabbling in Cold-War stereotypes in my posting here, either. I've got a lot of respect for Russian statecraft -- they've been around the block a couple of times and play games inside of games inside of games. But -- our problem is that we have nothing to offer them. We cannot give them what they want (basing security), because we don't control that. The Syrian rebels threaten their basing security. What happens if we stop supporting the rebels?