Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course. But that requires both sides to be looking for such a solution. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

It absolutely does.  Russias involvement in syria is nothing other -than- a quest for legitimacy, that they feel has been denied to them.

The fact that Assad's opposition is so fractured means that negotiations are much more complex. Is it easier to sign a cease-fire with one opponent, or six or seven? Be realistic here.

And yes -- cease-fires can be and often have been pauses used for resupply.

I don't think that this was the case, in this case.  I think they took a minute, listened to the offer, and felt that it wasn't sweet enough yet.

The problem with this reasoning is that the only bribe that would seem to sate Russia is secure basing, and the folks who stand in the way don't seem amenable to negotiating. The rebels, too, seek a military solution to Assad's regime. Who's going to knock heads here? Us?

Without russia backing him up, any number of people.  Secure basing, sure..why not.  Who in syria is going to say no to a cohesive and cooperating US/Russian force?  Fine, let them have their base (we've certainly secured such accomodations many times ourselves), but I think that legitimacy, again, is even sweeter.  Even backing them on securing bases grants legitimacy.

What bribe would you offer Russia for that nation to stand down its forces? And how would we obtain the compliance of the many rebel factions which have heretofore disregarded the cease-fire negotiated in September?

I don;t -want- them to stand down, I would like to see the bombing of aleppo stopped.  I want them to beat the shit out of isis, just like they said they would.  It would be even better if we did it together.

I get your angst over Aleppo, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole. It's an unfolding tragedy, people starving, gassed, shelled. But what can we Americans do? Tell Russia to knock it off or else? Or else what? And is that country worth our what else?

Or else they will inevitably be embroiled in a war against two states that they cannot handle, due to thir entanglement with assads allies, and the kurds......states that do have the will that we don't, currently.  

I keep searching your posts for suggested policies, and keep drawing blanks. What do you think we ought to do?

Be specific.

Like, leashing in turkey and SA while legitimizing base agreements...and cooperating with them in the destruction of isis as a unified force? Provided they cease bombing aleppo and agree to a transition away from assad?  There is, ofc, the issue of sanctions as well.  Honestly, I don't see russia as holding any chips beyond the borders of syria (and what's that, real estate in hell, lol?)...and how much is it worth to them if they can get a few of these things?  The world will condemn them if they continue, regardless...further robbing them of the larger prize even if they succeed, which isn't a given.  The trick is to allow them to back out of the course they're on while appearing to gain something, to win.  The course they;re on doesn;t get them want they want either, so I;m guessing it wouldn't be impossible...they're not morons.

Give me an hour or two to reply to this post, if you would, please. I haven't even read through it all, but can tell I'm going to have to chew and digest it, there's a lot in there.

Wanted to say too that I'm enjoying this conversation with you, R, and I'm sorry for the snark that snuck in on my part.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not sure that chips with the assad family are worth much.  Those chips are a direct and current cause for the continued pariah status that they -seem- to want to shed.

I think what he's saying is that the Assads have been co-opted, and are now painted into a corner?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that chips with the assad family are worth much.  Those chips are a direct and current cause for the continued pariah status that they -seem- to want to shed.

The Alawites have a vested interest in supporting the status quo and the Russkis.  Without them and Assad they will be on the receiving end of the genocide.

I'm sure russia could find some other tiny group of assholes to subjugate the local populace (doesn't seem to be any shortage).  They have to have thought about it, shedding the global stink of assads regime -and- securing their interests. That a bunch of fractured rebels stymied assads forces would have me doubting their ability to deliver.

[Minimalist]

Maybe but why bother when they have the perfect set up now?

[The Grand Nudger]

Longer term goals?  Better positioning on a larger stage? If there were any way to get all of this done and come out the other end smelling more like roses than shit, wouldn't it behoove them to do that? I suppose it boils down to me not thinking that they -have- the perfect setup now.

I understand why they needed assad at the outset, they're not invaders(lol) - and hey, look over here, never mind those other invasions! But now?

[Minimalist]

I can't see it being a major concern for them.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see further sanctions as a major concern for them.  That's the likely terminus of this business in aleppo if they don't play ball. Hell, they practically needed a little war to show off their new toys, with prospective buyers watching. Moneys getting tight.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I can see further sanctions as a major concern for them.  That's the likely terminus of this business in aleppo if they don't play ball.  Hell, they practically needed a little war to show off their new toys, with prospective buyers watching.  Moneys getting tight.

Sanctions enforced by whom? The UN? On what goods? They're rich in oil, coal, iron, rare-earth metals.

Would the EU go along with sanctions? They get about 33% of their oil and 39% of their natural gas from Russia. Think domestic European politicians would go along with a sanctions program?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A little longer than two hours, and thanks for your patience.

Of course. But that requires both sides to be looking for such a solution. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

It absolutely does.  Russias involvement in syria is nothing other -than- a quest for legitimacy, that they feel has been denied to them.

No doubt. Historical inferiority complex, driving the flexing of muscle.

The fact that Assad's opposition is so fractured means that negotiations are much more complex. Is it easier to sign a cease-fire with one opponent, or six or seven? Be realistic here.

And yes -- cease-fires can be and often have been pauses used for resupply.

I don't think that this was the case, in this case.  I think they took a minute, listened to the offer, and felt that it wasn't sweet enough yet.

Probably true -- but that doesn't demean my point about the complexity of multi-party cease-fires.

The problem with this reasoning is that the only bribe that would seem to sate Russia is secure basing, and the folks who stand in the way don't seem amenable to negotiating. The rebels, too, seek a military solution to Assad's regime. Who's going to knock heads here? Us?

Without russia backing him up, any number of people.  Secure basing, sure..why not.  Who in syria is going to say no to a cohesive and cooperating US/Russian force?  Fine, let them have their base (we've certainly secured such accomodations many times ourselves), but I think that legitimacy, again, is even sweeter.  Even backing them on securing bases grants legitimacy.

There's sticking points here. Russia said it would only cooperate with us there if we laid our intelligence bare -- which of course gives good intel on methods if not actual sources which could be popped -- er, plucked -- to our deficit. You're right about their basing; not only do we do the same thing, but acknowledging that by conceding to them their own would probably be oil on rough waters. But then how much control would we have over rebels insistent on overthrowing the same regime which granted those basing concessions? If those rebels knew we were agreeing to that, would they listen to our admonishments to stop fighting?

What bribe would you offer Russia for that nation to stand down its forces? And how would we obtain the compliance of the many rebel factions which have heretofore disregarded the cease-fire negotiated in September?

I don;t -want- them to stand down, I would like to see the bombing of aleppo stopped.  I want them to beat the shit out of isis, just like they said they would.  It would be even better if we did it together.

What's happening in Aleppo is a crime against humanity. But all the hand-wringing in the world won't change that; it is unfolding as we type, the negotiations are shattered, Russia and America are as distant as they were 50 years ago, and we've got very little skin in the game there.

I get your angst over Aleppo, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole. It's an unfolding tragedy, people starving, gassed, shelled. But what can we Americans do? Tell Russia to knock it off or else? Or else what? And is that country worth our what else?

Or else they will inevitably be embroiled in a war against two states that they cannot handle, due to their entanglement with assads allies, and the kurds......states that do have the will that we don't, currently.  

They are embroiled in a war already. Why should we pull their chestnuts out of the fire?

I keep searching your posts for suggested policies, and keep drawing blanks. What do you think we ought to do?

Be specific.

Like, leashing in turkey and SA while legitimizing base agreements...and cooperating with them in the destruction of isis as a unified force? Provided they cease bombing aleppo and agree to a transition away from assad?  There is, ofc, the issue of sanctions as well.  Honestly, I don't see russia as holding any chips beyond the borders of syria (and what's that, real estate in hell, lol?)...and how much is it worth to them if they can get a few of these things?  The world will condemn them if they continue, regardless...further robbing them of the larger prize even if they succeed, which isn't a given.  The trick is to allow them to back out of the course they're on while appearing to gain something, to win.  The course they;re on doesn;t get them want they want either, so I;m guessing it wouldn't be impossible...they're not morons.

Turkey's gone. The coup took care of that; it was Erdogan's Reichstag fire. Turkey is nominally a NATO member, but they are not our ally, and we have no sway there any more, given the tensions of the last few months.

Saudi? Perhaps we can, in concert with the UK, leash them in by restricting arm sales. But maybe not -- they're engaging in proxy-war with Iran both in Syria and Yemen (after their failure in devastated Iraq).

You're sure right about allowing the Russians to back out and save face at the same time, but I don't see that American ground troops allows that -- it'll be seen, in the Kremlin if not elsewhere, as turning to America for help.