Russian General: Why Assad can't win the war in Syria

So why is Iran funding the al Houthis in Yemen?

 

Assad doesn't have 30 countries which are his allies. There are 30 countries who refused to accept the idea that the issue about Assad couldn't be settled through elections and were willing to send observers. The rest of the countries followed the campaign by the US, UN, EU, Arab League and the rebels to dismiss the idea of elections, because frankly they all knew who would win as they had access to polls which have always told the same story: between Assad and the rebels, Assad is far more popular among the Syrian people.

To be sure, I am not suggesting Assad is a democratic leader or that Syria is or was a democracy. But between the choices in front of them, the Syrian people clearly prefer Assad to the foreign supported rebels and terrorists that have plunged their nation into mayhem and bloodshed.

 

Unlike Hezbollah, which Iran does fund and support, I doubt very much that Iran provides or provided any substantial support to the Houthis. The Houthis are a totally homegrown phenomenon in Yemen.

 

There is considerable coercion which drives the majority of reporters to maintain certain "necessary illusions". These illusions serve to keep the current power structure fed and watered (some call it the establishment - I have a different term). For example, there must be an enemy. If there is no enemy then the Trillion dollar annual Total Military Spend (TMS) is not justifiable. This enemy must be very scary. The job of the media is to pump up this enemy (fear factor) to create a sense of impending disaster.

A Good vs Evil, God vs Devil, Black vs White paradigm is created ... anything that we are doing is "Good" and "the Other" is always evil. The other is normally a nation or group of nations but, does not have to be. It can be a concept such as communism.

Once the establishment goes after "the enemy" real or made up, a process of demonization occurs to make the enemy look as evil as possible and create the illusion that we are some white horse riding to the rescue. Woe to any reporter that would challenge this illusion. Phil Donahue (the male version of Opera) criticized the Iraq war and has never worked since. This and other examples keep the majority of the media in line. The few small fish that go against the grain do not matter because the raging masses are largely uninformed and the message will never take root.

The oligopolies are international and the power struggle is global. The western sphere (which include other countries) of influence is the largest and is fighting for hegemony against other factions.

Eadora posted a few links showing how the media control extends to other nations. Since the end of WW2, Russia has been withdrawing from eastern Europe. As Russia withdraws NATO/US has been expanding. Russia takes out its military presence ... NATO builds a base.

The Bear had been mostly quiet while this has been going on but Ukraine ( the mere idea that the would be considered as a NATO member) was the straw that broke the camels back. Crimea has been Strategic Interest (Port) of Russia for over 400 years and there was no way they were going to cede this to NATO. And every leader knew it because Russia stated it bluntly - drew a red line in the sand. Watching all the European leaders feigning dismay when Russia moved to secure this strategic interest was laughable. Right at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis the media reported - the above. As soon as the Administration started it's demonization of the enemy, all explanatory reporting ceased. Russia was all bad and Ukraine was all good and we were the white knight riding to the rescue.

Not only has NATO/US expanded into what was previously the Russian sphere of influence (which was against the spirit of various treaties/agreements), they have been destabilizing nuclear detente.

In 2002 Bush unilaterally pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. Putin's comment was (this is a mistake). The ABM treaty was based on the MAD principle (mutually assured destruction). The point of this treaty was to discourage some buckaroo from thinking a nuclear war was winnable " we can strike first and when they strike back we can shoot their missiles down with our "missile defense"

Then, in 2007 Bush makes plans to put ABM's on Russia's border in Poland and Czechoslovakia which destabilizes nuclear detente and forces Russia to take counter measures. Can you imagine if Russia started putting ABM's/missile defense on US borders. The Pentagon would cry loudly.

Russia threatened various counter measures. The most scary was "nukes in space". Right now it takes roughly 30 min for a nuke to make it here from Russia. It would not make me sleep better at night having a nuke above my head 30 seconds away. Talk about hair trigger.

Fortunately Russia did not select this option. There are other options such as more nuclear subs but, the option Russia choose was build short and intermediate range nuclear cruise missiles which would take out the ABM's prior to launch. This of course violates the short and intermediate range treaty.

Obama took to the stage tearing into Russia "Russia has violated the Short and Intermediate range nuke treaty". For 3 or 4 days the mainstream media shows footage of Reagan signing various nuclear arms treaties. What Obama (and the media) fail to mention (of course) is that "WE WERE THE ONES THAT FORCED RUSSIA TO TAKE COUNTER MEASURES DUE TO US DESTABILIZING NUCLEAR DETENTE"

 

I never asked you to read them. I said that you clearly hadn't read what I wrote.
You're the one that cast the first stone here not me so what is there to respect in you?
So you have trouble writing and now reading. Go back to school.

 

So far we haven't actually engaged in a debate about where ISIS gets its money from.
All you've done is just endlessly complain that because I don't share your view that I must be wrong which needless to say is not a debate.

You seem to have a lot knowledge about masturbation but if you want to talk about your hobby then I don't think that this is the place to do it.

Well you are rude. You've accused me of various things without foundation and then insulted me and then you expect me to behave like I should be grateful for the chance to have a debate with you. Someone who clearly has mental health problems.

I've been very open and I've actually been here a lot longer than you have under a different name

Another accusation. I would love to know where I wrote that.

Well there's a difference between someone who is in the kitchen and to someone who has put their head in the oven. If you want I can raise the temperature.

But I doubt it.
Amazing; all of this over a single little comment which was never even contested.

 

That this became civil war does not change the fact that Syria is a "Secular" Nation and the "rebels" are Extremist Militant Sunni Islamist Jihadists who want strict sharia/theocracy to be the law of the land/political structure. The population of Syria is mostly Sunni so of course the Sunni rebels have lots of support.

The reason this became a civil war is because the nation states (Saud, Turkey, US and others) started arming and funding the extremists (Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Salafi, and various other groups of the same militant Islamist ideology)

Arming these radicals quickly turned Syria into a Jihadist wonderland. These Jihadists were attacking civilian areas of Damascus and other areas held by Secular Syrians. What is Assad supposed to do ? sit and watch.

What would Israel do in a similar situation ? What would the US do.

Arming these rebels (extremist nut jobs or otherwise) is completely against international law. The nation states arming these rebels are responsible for creating the worst humanitarian crisis of this decade (killing hundreds of thousands so far) and the refugee crisis.

Arming these Islamist extremists in Syria also led to modern incarnation of ISIS. After taking over most of Syria man of these Islamist's decided to form a caliphate - Islamic State - IS- ISIS/ISIL and then they moved into Iraq. Many of the Sunni Islamist's in Syria came from Iraq. Radical Islamist Jihadists from numerous other Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world started pouring into Syria in response to the call to Jihad.

The Palestinian population is (by some estimates) supposed to outnumber the population of Jews by 2020. Is it then OK for Nation States such as Russia, Iran and others to start arming "rebels" in that country ?

 

What a disingenuous person you are.

You do in fact suggest that I read your "in depth" post. They when I ask you for the # you tell me to go find it myself.

You seriously need to get some material.

 

Again a false accusation

No I did not suggest that you read my post. I stated that you clearly had not read my post.
Again you have trouble reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh
Looks like I was right. Hersh is talking out of his backside.

 

More disingenuous backsliding. You chastise me for not reading your post

a post that I had no idea you had written because it was not to me.

Then when I ask you for the Post# you tell me to go find it myself and claim you never asked me to read your posts.

What a joke.

 

Yet you chastised me for criticising a source and you could have looked for yourself.

Which is true I never asked you to read my posts. You asked me for the post no. which I refused to give as not only does it require small amount of effort to actually find but your attitude was pretty bad

I agree you are a joke.
You call yourself gifted one and yet have trouble reading when you're involved in something which actually requires such a skill.

 

Name calling and nonsense and unsupported gibberish is the only material you have presented thus far.

Did you have anything relevant to the topic ?

 

I think that you seem be referring to yourself.

I did if you had bothered to read it in the first place.

 

Well "U-Institute"
We haven't engaged in debate because you refuse to share your "sources"
.........................................& true we have made complaint about that FACT


But where in Hell did the Onanism crack come from? -
Where is it that you feel that I admit to, or that I even accuse you of such Onerous Self Pursuit

Was it the my complaint about your "weak wristed" tête-à-tête or your Loose one liners.?
Because if it was I suggest that among the many qualities you have displayed here, besides
..................................avoidance & dodge, we can now add a certain small degree of Illiteracy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look em up ! - in a good idiom dictionary or on the web :
weak wristed - Idiom - syno. "lacking in punch"
one liner - a short joke or retort, lacking in substance
tête-à-tête - Fr Literation - a private conversation between two people.
............... synonyms: Conversation, dialogue, chat, talk, on on one
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no way I was calling YOU a Wanker, "U-Institute" - & if you took it that way -
................................................................................................................... I Apologize

To Clarify
I was complaining about your bad habit haw haw of taking each sentence of a challenge
and answering each disconnected element with a "weak wristed, one liner" rebuttal

But I guess that's OK too. - As more People probably complain about the way I post
....................................................................than complain about the way Yoo Doo

.

.

 

No its because you keep accusing me of getting my sources from the CIA and the fact you clearly made up your mind as to where I got my sources from. Not to mention pretty rude.
So there really wasn't a point in doing so.

It is beyond bizarre to receive such absurd responses on the basis of a single sentence or to dare to criticise a source.

Well I wrote it and it was in response to your allusions.

I never said that but you do keep alluding to it

See above. Maybe we should go through the many malicious qualities that you have demonstrated

Don't you mean definition rather than illiteracy because literacy means the ability to read and write while illiteracy is its opposite? So you actually mean that you want to define certain words ergo definition is an appropriate alternative.

That can have a dual meaning

I don't know why you've included that

Which usually refers to conversations of a romantic nature

I didn't.

Then don't behave in such a juvenile manner
If you want a serious debate then behave and try and actually act your age.
And I've responded to several of your "challenges" with queries which you have failed to answer.

Is this some sort of complement?
Have you considered writing in a more clear fashion so that we can all understand you?

 

what general?

 

I'm going to register my complaint right now!
It's that crazy html posting style of yours.

 

You're right it doesnt change that, but it matters for the accusations on US, the attitude toward Assad and also on possible solutions - forcing them to accept Assad wo'nt be a solution for example.

No they armed the FSA , when FSA couldnt stand the combined might of Hizbullha, Iran modesty guard and Assad army - that's when the FSA remains joined up with the head choppers, now its (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up.

Assad does the same thing he did when he fought poor villagers in Homes, question is what the West should do.

If Israel breaks apart and brother will fight against brother - it's over, no US army will manage to stitch it up.

You are taking a few mistakes as policy and treat all bearded Syrians the same, that's very shallow view on a very complex situation, what do you want? to kill them all till the remains bow to Assad ? is that your idea of peace ?

You suggest some countries dont ??? those that do are not "punished" by international law, its their decision to be at war with Israel and arm them - if the shipments actually get there.

 

https://citeam.org/here-s-why-assad-s-army-can-t-win-the-war-in-syria/

The following is a translation of a scathing article on the state of the Syrian Arab Army that appeared in an online outlet Gazeta.ru, which is Kremlin-controlled but sometimes critical of the Russian authorities online. The author is a retired Russian officer with 8 years of experience working in the General Staff and 5 years as an editor of an established military magazine. The article, originally titled "It would be easier to disband the Syrian army and recruit a new one", mirrors the emerging Syria fatigue sentiments in the Russian military circles and reportedly was confirmed by a serving Russian colonel, who added "Everything is like it’s written but worse". The expert notably omits mentioning regime war crimes even when describing the use of barrel bombs. Throughout the text, he calls Syrian rebels "militants" and "illegal armed groups" — terms widely used by Russian military and media to describe Chechen fighters during the wars. This anti-rebel stance perhaps lends even more credibility to the author’s assessment of their capabilities versus those of the SAA...

 

Yea something (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the replies.......

 

Bothered to read what ? You claimed to have posted something relevant but, this post was not to me. When I asked you for the number of the post that had something relevant you refused to give it to me and told me to go find it for myself.

Why on earth would I go on a search to prove that you have said something relevant when my claim is that you havn't?

The mere fact that you would suggest something so illogical says much and it is not like I am the only one that has noticed.

Perhaps there is a children's playground section that might be more your style.