I always respected Stratfor's balanced reports, this one is probably the best on in a long while; I would add that the interest Russia has in this issue is that they support both Syria, Iran and, if they are able to somehow achieve success with a settlement with Syria and the US, they allow Assad to stay in power, oppress his people and, create a benchmark where they do the same for Iran and then, the Shia Russo nexus changes the entire balance of the Middle East. I would propose that Obama ensure that any agreement on this issue be given the caveat that benchmarks be made whereby if certain accomplishments are not made that total force including regime change be made at the outset if Assad does not meet scheduled expectations. Thes would include both WMD inspections and destruction but also human rights improvements, all under the auspices of the UNSC. At the same time, I would like to see something whereby the VETO of the permanent members be taken away and replaced with something akin to say ... two votes per meaning the total vote accumulation of the UNSC be twenty rather than fifteen with no veto power with thirteen votes to pass a resolution. In any case, this is far deeper than meets the eye and should provide for some interesting times.
“The issue has morphed into a U.S.-Russian confrontation.” Taxcutter says: A confrontation dating back to the late 1940s. “…it will be seen as the United States lacking the will to act…” Taxcutter says: It should be seen that way because that’s precisely what it is. “If the United States chooses to hit Syria, Russia can do nothing about it and will be made to look weak…” Taxcutter 100% agrees. Hussein Obama ventured into Syria when his optimum policy would have been to ignore it. America’s interests are best served by an ongoing low-grade war in Syria. Assad cannot get too strong in such a war. Russia and Iran would have an endless sinkhole for their resources. Lebanon will be drawn in as Lebanon is nothing but an extension of Syria. Further, Syria would provide Al Qaeda with a place for their young fighters to die fighting other Moslems. America's optimum course of action is to let the Persian gulf supporters of AQ in Syria drain their resources into AQ. Thus America wins and everyone else gets a low-grade Vietnam.
I think Putin has handled this brilliantly. Almost certainly if it were not for Putin's effective diplomatic intervention, the warmongering American's would by now almost certainly have rained bombs down on Damascus. The Stratfor piece highlights that by successfully taking the initiative, Putin stole Obama's thunder by reining him in, pulling the warmongering rhetoric from under his feet. I think that Putin's recent statement made to the New York Times is not solely aimed at cynical tactical positioning, but rather is essentially motivated by the recent reports of systematic killing of Christians by the so-called rebels in the ancient Christian village of Maaloula. Putin is a committed Christian. A Russian commentator alluded to this point on Sky News this afternoon. Russian diplomatic intervention is already showing positive signs. Assad has agreed to the international monitoring of his chemical weapons in talks due to convene at any time now in Geneva. This Russian proposal has wrong-footed America and as such it is clear that it is Putin who is the one in the driving seat, taking the initiative and dictating terms to Obama. Despite this, I'm still not discounting the possibility that Obama will resort to military strikes as the precursor to regime change in an attempt to trump Putin. But that possibility is increasingly made all the more difficult with every passing day.
There you have it. So posting a Stratfor report most likely also has a purpose to disguise the real agenda. Few points here. It’s getting tedious accusing Asad of human rights violations. Assad's regime was/is simply incomparable with human rights violations committed by Saudia Arabia and its satellite states. Syria before civil war was an example state how different religions and minorities can successfully live together. Until the moment dark forces supported by Washington DC and Tel Aviv policy makers got involved. Talking about vetoes. Don’t make me laugh. Have you got any clue how many times U.S. blocked UN resolutions regarding Israel? You definitely have an agenda here. You do not give a flying fig about civilian casualties in Syria or human rights. If you were honest, you would not be supporting medieval savages represented by Takfiris and Wahabis well known human rights lovers, would you?
Interesting observation considering I made no such accusations. I however, make one on our post -please, if you can't be bothered to actually read the post prior to commenting, troll elsewhere. Thought this thread was about Russia and Syria, please, troll elsewhere. Assad regime killed tens of thousands of their own people long before this episode. Please, if you can't actually read what others write then troll elsewhere. Which is one of the reasons why I am against it. Please, if you can't actually read what others write then troll elsewhere. Nowhere have I supported or not supported any party in this conflict. Please, if you can't actually read what others write then troll elsewhere.
Sounds like that editor and periodical, should not even be observed. Then note that the OP writer dont like anyone discounting the 'guidance'..... If syria is already armed with nukes by russia, then the whole 'guidance' of the stratfor, is a joke across the board. Has anyone ever observed the tsar (la bomba) test? The reason that they 'go big', is because they were aware of being at a disadvantage. Please do not discount the "other human beings'" capabilities. The 'guidance' for little green men is worthless because it's biased.
In agreement. I shall call it 'it'. It ticks all the boxes, doesn't it? HT Attributes: 1.Supreme point of view 2.The HT knows best 3.Condescending & Patronising 4.Socialist (Smart and 'caring') 5.Do not have to be Jewish but Pro-Israel 6.Internet experts 7.Narcissistic 8.Provocative 9.Dis-ruptive 10.Like to ask the questions, not answer questions 11.Control freaks 12.Inflamed by anyone being critical of Israel 13.'Moral' Guardians 14.Classic insults: Anti-semite, Neo- Nazi, White Supremacist, Holocaust denier 15.Adept with social networks well trained on IT It fits like a hand in a glove. I always liked 'The Smiths'.
Pretty much. A good observation. He even could have supported both sides like theUS did with the Iraq/Iran war so they could keep on killing each other.
According to Kerry it would not have been much. One that nobody was buying. Interesting but I fail to see the outrage from the Christian world as a whole over this so doubt Putin's rationale for this being that rather, suggest it is the atraction of the opportunity to see the US gelded in the area and replaced by a strong Russian support system in the Shia axis of Iran Syria and Hezbollah. I agree and what is worse is that the plan is a pipe dream at best. In a nation at peace, we are told it will take ten years to bring all WMDs under control but, in a country embroiled in a civil war, how are inspectors going to be able to do their job and, with the contention the Government didn't use CW, that leaves the possibility that it was either a renegade General or the Opposition that did. So cooperation will be next to nil and, the fact remains that if it was the government, they ony have to say they don't have what the Opposition has which can be any amount of CW they care to invent. Bottom line is that the hope of bringing all of the CW under control is not going to happen. And to make matters worse, I doubt Obama and his team believe they can so this is all just him taking advantage of a fantasy to pull his ass out of the frying pan so, welcome to the new Middle East, one in which Russia is now in severe lip lock with the Shia Axis. I agree. Obama could have just done it saying Syria threatened one of our allies and thus US interests but didn't believe it was the right thing to do himself so sought to slough the responsibility off on Congress, one he was fairly certain would say no anyhow so, I doubt he will do a thing without their approval anyhow. On the other end of the possibilities, he lacks the stubborn single mindedness that Bush had and, is shown to be a flip flopper on issues so, is somewhat unpredictable and dangerous given that Putin just may , at some point, misjudge his flip flopping and anticipate he will flip when instead he flops and we then have a crisis on our hands. A dangerous situation to tell the truth. Leaders should be predictable in how they will react and how far they will push.
The source gives Obama credit for being a skilled politician. THat is a different Obama than I know. He is no more a statesman than Yosemite Sam. That aside, I think Obama is in over his head, he has been out played. Instead of acting decisively (even I would have been impressed) he hem-hawed looking for a reason not to act. Then Putin stepped in and showed Obama up both politically and diplomatically making Obama look like the amaturish fool he is.
I understand your viewpoints better now if you think Stratfor is "balanced" http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-industrial-complex?guni=Article:in body link
Egads! Imagine, a private company desires to make a profit, stop the presses! Chatergee's article states pretty much just that and does not support your point that they are not balanced. Possibly if you wish to post off topic meanderings you might state something equally factual to your contention they are not balanced and simply say that possibly Friedman beats his wife. As I said, Stratfor is balanced and, their analysis are intelligent and insightful.
I don't understand why everyone is upset about Putin being in the driver's seat. Let him I say. The US can't do this Middle East police business alone forever, I think Russia should be given a 911 call once in a while.
All this business of US supporting AQ in Syria is nonsense. We are fighting them all over the region. They are taking down govts, or attempting to all over the region. Did America support AQ in Mali as well, just to have the French come in and remove them? This view of US supporting AQ doesn't make sense. It only made sense in the Cold War vs USSR. Now there is no reason to be supporting AQ. AQ does quite well on their own, and seen in Afghan and Iraq against US forces. Now ofc they are doing very well against Assad, who has much less military capability than the US in which they put up a good fight.
Hey, don't ask us. We're not in power, we're not interested in helping out the Rebels. Quite the opposite: Either neutrality, or removing the Rebels in that their atrocities against Christians and Minorities simply cannot be tolerated under INTL. Law.
