Is It Right For Our Foreign Secretary To Call For Mass Demonstrations Outside The Russian Embassy?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-calls-for-demonstrations-outside-russian-embassy-over-moscow-s-role-in-the-syrian-a7356066.html

[ichkeria]

A no fly zone would not work, desirable and necessary as it may seem, because it would require Russia's agreement. And they are not going to give up their chief weapon. It would be have been like having a 'No gas' agreement with the Nazis

[jno]

presumably he has no plans for Britain to strike trade deals with Russia to replace those with the EU after Brexit.

[Peter Pedant]

// No politician, especially a senior government minister, should be encouraging pubic order offences.//

pubic? golly andie, I knew Boris was 'at it' at the Sextator
but is he still at it ?
The demonstrators should I agree keep their clothes on

Demonstrations are lawful by the way boys and girls
( but wait for the Great Repeal Bill of British Freedoms and it probably wont be)

[mikey4444]

AOG...on the contrary, I and others have given this plenty of thought.

It would relatively easy for us to target Syrian aircraft, especially the helicopters pouring chemical weapons and barrel bombs down on Hospitals and women and children in Aleppo. We could do that from bases in Turkey and also from ships in the Med.

[dieseldick]

no

[Gromit]

Mikey, Don't be daft.
The only way to get a no fly zone is through a UN resolution, and Russia would veto it.
The US wouldn't be keen either because their whole campaign is air based. If tnere was a no fly zone, the Americans had might as well go home.

[mikey4444]

Gromit...well that means that Assad and Putin will just continue to slaughter 100,000's of innocent people, until they are all dead, which won't be long at this rate.

[ichkeria]

The no fly zone would be over Aleppo not the whole of Syria.
It won't happen because the generals would need guarantees of top quality intelligence, which they will never get.
We would also need, as they say, to be prepared to shoot down Russian helicopters and planes. Even with a UN approved no-fly zone in place it is likely that Russia would flaunt it. If a plane or two gets shot down so much the better for Putin. He can blame the west and get another popularity boost. And maybe the excuse for more mayhem.
Arguably, Russia is seeing if they can bargain for an end to sanctions over this. This is why the correct response would be sanctions of the sort which would, as Boris Johnson rightly says, make Russia an international pariah state: cutting them off from the SWIFT banking system would be nice.
We need to start squeezing them a lot harder where it really hurts.

[mikey4444]

ichkeria...I agree with what you say about sanctions. Putin has shown in the past how he hates sanctions, and its something we should try harder with.

[Orderlimit]

"It would relatively easy for us to target Syrian aircraft, especially the helicopters pouring chemical weapons and barrel bombs down on Hospitals and women and children in Aleppo."

Unbelievable.

[Khandro]

Orderlimit; Yes, I agree, It's hard for some people to get the big picture when they only have such a small screen.

[naomi24]

//"It would relatively easy for us to target Syrian aircraft, especially the helicopters pouring chemical weapons and barrel bombs down on Hospitals and women and children in Aleppo." //

Oh my!

[dave50]

Can you imagine if the Americans had been blamed for the bombing of hospitals and aid workers? You wouldn't have been able to move outside the American embassy for demonstrators. It just goes to show that as far as the left is concerned, only the west, in particularly America is evil.

[naomi24]

Dave, I think that's precisely what Boris Johnson is implying.

[Khandro]

Dave; //It just goes to show that as far as the left is concerned, only the west, in particularly America is evil.//

I think that is true - and I'm not "of the left".
Can you explain what Obama's, the CIA's and Britain's policy actually is in Syria, because I'm blowed if I know.
I do know what Russia's is though; to support the legal government (Assad) and remove the so-called Islamic State.

[naomi24]

Khandro, //Can you explain what Obama's, the CIA's and Britain's policy actually is in Syria, because I'm blowed if I know. //

Good question. Do you not think that warrants its own thread?

[ichkeria]

Russia's policy in Syria is to keep Assad on power in at least a part of the country. It is not to defeat Islamic state, and never has been. It will target Islamic state only insofar as it is a threat to this policy
The west doesn't really have a policy: I am not sure if that is good or bad.
We had a firm idea of what we wanted to do now years ago via the UN but that was rendered impossible by Russian and Chinese vetoes.
The west gets criticised for doing nothing and also for doing something, mainly by organisations like Stop the War, which has become little more than a cheerleader for brutal regimes. But you've only got to look at some of the comments on here to see that it isn't only far left sloganeers and agitators who like to have a go. We all love to hate or criticise our own 'side' and in doing so offer succour to the tyrants, albeit unwittingly
That is why Boris's remarks were so refreshing, even if they've ruffled a few feathers. And he's absolutely right to point the finger at Stop the War.

[Khandro]

Ichkeria; //Russia's policy in Syria is to keep Assad on power in at least a part of the country. It is not to defeat Islamic state, and never has been.//

I really don't understand you, can you please clarify that statement. ISIS's aim is to overthrow the Syrian government and replace it with (as it says on the tin) an 'Islamic state', therefore the elimination of it is the main objective of Assad and Russia, which is what they are doing and will continue to do so until that mission is accomplished.
Obama, Washington, the CIA and Britain have varying and confused objectives.
Since the Suez debacle in 1956, every intervention by the US and Britain in the Middle East has had disastrous consequences through not understanding what the consequences might be, this is no exception.

[ichkeria]

Er, it could hardly be any clearer.
What bit do you not understand?

There are are lots of sides in Syria. IS is only one element of that, and in fact their aim would appear to be wider: to create an Islamic caliphate that straddles borders, so they do not seek to "overthrow the Syrian state" as such. Of course, insofar as the threaten Russian interests in the region, then Russia opposes them, but Putin is not in Syria primarily to fight IS.
The idea of the "Syrian state" is a somewhat quixotic one these days. There really is no such thing any more, and Assad is about a legitimate a leader of that country as Hitler ever was of Germany.