(October 13, 2016 at 12:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure that chips with the assad family are worth much. Those chips are a direct and current cause for the continued status that they -seem- to want to shed. In any case, the ultimate winner in syria is going to owe the russians, if the russians are part of the coalition that installs them. That's the basis of loyalty for assad as well.
@Thump
We're capable of offering something that's worth a hell of alot to russia, that goes beyond base security (and how secure is a base that erdogan is rattling sabers at if you;ve turned yourself into a pariah state through warcrimes?). I'm not proposing that they step away from victory, which isn't secure or a given in any case, but that they step onto the victors podium with someone other than assad. They're already cultivating rebel groups willing to deal. Why not deal with them, and cut assad out? Why not be seen /w the US, brokering a peace that benefits them...the us who has already supported those rebel groups? Or, I suppose, they can continue to be outcasts, languishing in sanctions...but you know...have assads syria as an ally...for all that's worth.
I hope your view is borne out. I'll confess being less sanguine; we've tried just recently to get "our" rebels to toe the line, to no avail. I suspect part of the reason for our failure in that respect is the legacy of Iraq; between how we left the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq in the lurch in 1991, and how we broke that entire nation starting in 03, I don't see those rebels placing much hope in us -- we'an arms source, not an ally, I think.
Now, Russia? Do they place much value on our opinion? I doubt it. Weak as they are conventionally, they probably think that possessing nuclear arms means that they will sit at whatever table they damned well please ... and they're probably right. They cover about 1/7 the Earth's landmass. We can make them a pariah nation diplomatically, perhaps, but the brute fact is they will keep on selling their oil and minerals and going about their business. This is a country, remember, that had no compunctions over supplying SAMs that shot down an airliner and tried to cover it up after the fact. As you suggest, we should deal with them -- indeed, we must. But in dealing with them, we have to assess who holds the stronger hand. And our hand is pretty weak.
I'm a notably shitty poker player, and by everything I've seen of you, I'd guess you probably sling some good 5-card stud, so that might probably explain our differing views. I fold on a shit hand to minimize losses. And we have a shit hand in Syria ... the only players we support are noted for turning their weapons over to ISIS and going face-down into the dirt, aside from five guys (not the ones running the burger joint) we trained and equipped for half-a-billion dollars.
If we want a say in any peace deal there, we will have to pony up troops, bombs, and balls. We haven't done that so far, and to be honest, that ain't a hill I'd want to die on. I say let the Russians expend capital -- both blood and money -- and, if they fix the mess, great. If they get bogged down, and bog down a shitload of extremists while doing so, well, I'll spare them a little heartbreak.
When you've got two adversaries fighting each other, and lack the power to impose your own peace, let them weaken each other.
