News1 min ago
Ex-U N Chief, Kofi Annan Warns 'proxy Wars' Could Prolong The Syrian Conflict
http://
Without Russia’s involvement in Syria how do you think the war would have progressed? Would the country be in a better situation now – or worse?
Without Russia’s involvement in Syria how do you think the war would have progressed? Would the country be in a better situation now – or worse?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
More to the point, without the USAs involvement, would there be a war at all?
The Bashirs have run Syria for over 40 years. 6 years ago opposition in the country suddenly acquired weaponry from the US and Saudi Arabia and the civil war began. The rebels have continued to be heavily armed with $billions worth of sophisticated expensive missile launchers. ($60,000 each in a poor country)
The Syrian conflict was hatched, financed, supported In Washington. Russia's involvement is to stop its ally from falling. To ponder Russias involvement in prolonging the war somewhat misses the reason they are fighting in the first place.
The Bashirs have run Syria for over 40 years. 6 years ago opposition in the country suddenly acquired weaponry from the US and Saudi Arabia and the civil war began. The rebels have continued to be heavily armed with $billions worth of sophisticated expensive missile launchers. ($60,000 each in a poor country)
The Syrian conflict was hatched, financed, supported In Washington. Russia's involvement is to stop its ally from falling. To ponder Russias involvement in prolonging the war somewhat misses the reason they are fighting in the first place.
Of course the other proxy war that is less glamourous and ignored by Kofi Annan is the Turkish/Kurdish conflict. Nothing will happen about that one because Turkey is a NATO ally so the US does not want to upset them. So the Turks daily bomb the Kurdish fighters who are fighting Islamic State, and the US sits by and lets it happen.
naomi24
I've answered. Russia does not want its ally to lose a war being raged by the US, so it is supporting Assad. If it was for the Russians, of course the US would have won long ago and set Syria to the same fate as Iraq and Libya (ie, they would have let the Islamic Extremists invade and terrorise the population).
Islamic State, al qaeda, al Nusra and the rest of the Islamic extremist terrorist groups have all thrived in territory lost by Assad and under US influence.
I've answered. Russia does not want its ally to lose a war being raged by the US, so it is supporting Assad. If it was for the Russians, of course the US would have won long ago and set Syria to the same fate as Iraq and Libya (ie, they would have let the Islamic Extremists invade and terrorise the population).
Islamic State, al qaeda, al Nusra and the rest of the Islamic extremist terrorist groups have all thrived in territory lost by Assad and under US influence.
For Funks Sake its a proxy war - between the US and Russia.
If Russia hadn't have turned up the war would have been over 6 years ago and Islamic State or some such would be in Damascus terrorising the country. But Russia did turn up so the conflict drags on. It is a bleedin stupid question to ask what the result of a proxy war would be if one side didn't get get involved.
If Russia hadn't have turned up the war would have been over 6 years ago and Islamic State or some such would be in Damascus terrorising the country. But Russia did turn up so the conflict drags on. It is a bleedin stupid question to ask what the result of a proxy war would be if one side didn't get get involved.
Not different sides, several different wars in the same place. That is why Annan said 'wars' plural, not singular
Cold War - US/Russia
Muslim War - Sunni/Shia
Syrian Civil War - Government/Rebels
Kurdish War - Turkey/Kurds
Regional Influence War - Saudia Arabia/Iran
As I said on another thread, all with different agendas, expectations and outcomes. It is a tall order to end one conflict, but to end 5 or 6 simultaneous wars is almost impossible.
Cold War - US/Russia
Muslim War - Sunni/Shia
Syrian Civil War - Government/Rebels
Kurdish War - Turkey/Kurds
Regional Influence War - Saudia Arabia/Iran
As I said on another thread, all with different agendas, expectations and outcomes. It is a tall order to end one conflict, but to end 5 or 6 simultaneous wars is almost impossible.
It's 's worth recapping for the umpteenth time how the war started: peaceful protests ruthlessly suppressed by the ruling dynasty.
Followed, inevitably, by an armed insurrection against the state. Further complicated by the emergence of the Islamic State.
All along, the west has tried to persuade Assad to back off, but UN efforts have consistently been blocked by Russia and China. As the conflict has intensified, many moderate Syrians have felt let down by the west, and the UN in general, and this disaffection has swelled the ranks of extremist groups.
As for Russian involvement, Russia has been involved all along, so it is hard to imagine how things would have progressed without them. Although it is likely that without it the war would now be over.
Certainly the last year of bombing has been a humanitarian disaster. And a lot of innocent lives would have not been wasted, a lot of people not as embittered by the perceived failure of the international community to help. A lot fewer refugees.
So from a "Better/worse" point of view it's a no-brainer
Followed, inevitably, by an armed insurrection against the state. Further complicated by the emergence of the Islamic State.
All along, the west has tried to persuade Assad to back off, but UN efforts have consistently been blocked by Russia and China. As the conflict has intensified, many moderate Syrians have felt let down by the west, and the UN in general, and this disaffection has swelled the ranks of extremist groups.
As for Russian involvement, Russia has been involved all along, so it is hard to imagine how things would have progressed without them. Although it is likely that without it the war would now be over.
Certainly the last year of bombing has been a humanitarian disaster. And a lot of innocent lives would have not been wasted, a lot of people not as embittered by the perceived failure of the international community to help. A lot fewer refugees.
So from a "Better/worse" point of view it's a no-brainer
Gromit, //Not different sides, several different wars in the same place. That is why Annan said 'wars' plural, not singular//
I’m aware of that. That’s why I typed ‘sides’ rather than sides.
//If Russia hadn't have turned up the war would have been over 6 years ago and Islamic State or some such would be in Damascus terrorising the country.//
The point exactly. So in the long term is that what Russia’s critics would have preferred?
ichkeria, //And a lot of innocent lives would have not been wasted, a lot of people not as embittered by the perceived failure of the international community to help. A lot fewer refugees.//
Had, as Gromit says, ‘Islamic State or some such’ been free to terrorise the country, would that have resulted in less innocent lives lost and a lot fewer refugees? Is it really a no brainer?
I’m aware of that. That’s why I typed ‘sides’ rather than sides.
//If Russia hadn't have turned up the war would have been over 6 years ago and Islamic State or some such would be in Damascus terrorising the country.//
The point exactly. So in the long term is that what Russia’s critics would have preferred?
ichkeria, //And a lot of innocent lives would have not been wasted, a lot of people not as embittered by the perceived failure of the international community to help. A lot fewer refugees.//
Had, as Gromit says, ‘Islamic State or some such’ been free to terrorise the country, would that have resulted in less innocent lives lost and a lot fewer refugees? Is it really a no brainer?
-- answer removed --
Divebuddy, // A better question might be along the lines of... Is it true that without Saudi Arabia (backed by the USA) there may never have been a full scale civil war in Syria.//
I didn’t ask that question because that’s not what I wanted to ask.
//Without Russian involvement, Assad would have been ousted and in all probability Syria would have been reduced to a wasteland by various warring factions. Just like Iraq and Libya.//
Exactly. So the question is ‘Is that what Russia’s critics would have preferred to see happen - especially bearing in mind the presence of IS in the region?’
I didn’t ask that question because that’s not what I wanted to ask.
//Without Russian involvement, Assad would have been ousted and in all probability Syria would have been reduced to a wasteland by various warring factions. Just like Iraq and Libya.//
Exactly. So the question is ‘Is that what Russia’s critics would have preferred to see happen - especially bearing in mind the presence of IS in the region?’
-- answer removed --
The idea that Russian involvement has prevented Islamic state from taking over Syria is contentious at best. The rise of IS has been facilitated by the chaos of the war, which has been worsened and prolonged by Russian support for Alawite genocide. In fact, Assad and Russia almost certainly helped IS in the early stages.
It is a complicated situation which can't really be grasped simply by obsessing about IS, who are now not even Syria's biggest butchers, if they ever were ...
It is a complicated situation which can't really be grasped simply by obsessing about IS, who are now not even Syria's biggest butchers, if they ever were ...
ich; //It is a complicated situation// You can say that again! Putting aside the Russian alliance, the Americans are literally backing both sides in the war. In the battle against ISIS in the north, they supply airstrikes and weapons to a Kurdish force that is in tacit alliance with the regime and involved in skirmishes with Arab rebels also backed by the U.S. Since the regular U.S. military is helping the Kurds and the CIA is helping the rebels, the Syrian war can be understood as a CIA proxy war against the Pentagon.
The sooner the clueless Obama is out of the picture, the better.
The sooner the clueless Obama is out of the picture, the better.
Latest Posts
Technology1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Staying Safe In Manchester.....
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.