The Arab Spring

Jack, you'd risk losing Syria entirely or possibly having to send hundreds (perhaps thousands) of troops to fight an insurgency and then a fresh rebellion just to spite the US? The Russian and Iranians aren't stupid, they're not going to risk everything to piss in the US's cornflakes. They'll ensure a 'victory' here and then 5-10 years from now Assad will 'retire' and place somebody else in charge, someone that the Russians and Iranians trust to do the job properly and not fuck it up like Assad did.

They've even floated the name of that Tiger guy, that Syrian Army field commander.

I'd be very interested to see if he stands for election, or someone else of similar stature within the Assad power base.

Anyway, keeping Assad around too long, you get dumb shit like his current delusion of ruling all of Syria.

The and Assad kinda has to be punished, he didn't follow the script, he got to big for his boots. Keep in mind that Assad allowed to rise of ISIS to prevent forign involvement, effectively he tried to do both his job (crush the rebels) and Russia's job (use diplomatic smarts and games to keep a western intervention from happening) and thus cocked the whole thing up.

If Assad had trusted that Putin could protect him from enemies abroad then we'd have no ISIS, I suspect that Putin has realised this himself and isn't to happy with Assad for not trusting him. I suspect that Putin envies the US for how efficient the Saudi's were at doing a brutal crackdown with no fear that their ally would abandon them.

edited 12th Feb '16 8:15:15 PM by Silasw

Why Assad's Army Has Not Defected

I wouldn't trust 80% of everything that magazine says, if I were you. It's more than a bit crazy and dedicately partizan.

It claims that the SAA is still a fighting force because... it's pluralistic?

Hmm, wasn't there an article a while back that pointed out that the current SAA officer corps are people who would be Fifty Shades of Screwed if Assad became history, hence their devotion to the cause?

And I wonder what would happen if it were possible to grind up the comments and snort them. I think we might just be the least batshit public internet forum discussing these matters out there...

We're part of the civilised Internet, we're always going to be more sane then the uncivilised intent, though I do suspect that we compare favourably to even other sections of the civilised Internet.

As for the SAA, it never had leadership defections because it never really looked as if Assad would loose, there was a time when he looked unlikely to win, but strait up loosing is another thing. Also I belive before we had a thing about how Assad had accidentally managed to separate the officers from the general population almost Roman style by accident.

Low level defections were stopped by Assad keeping his ground troops away from rebel groups troops, that's why he started using artillery early on.

If Assad had looked like he was going to loose (say there'd been a western intervention when one was practical) then I suspect we would have had plenty of defections.

edited 13th Feb '16 12:59:19 AM by Silasw

The reason people aren't defecting from the SAA is because everybody who did want to defect already has. The FSA was formed from SAA officers angry with the handling of the protests in 2011.

A huge, 60-minute long video on the Russian intervention in Syria. Aside from the dedication to the American party line that Russia's air campaign has been unsuccessful and that Russia is being dragged into a "quagmire," it's rather objective.

Edit - And another piece on how the costs of Russian intervention have so far been low. If there's one thing we are better at than the Yankees, it's running our military adventures on a budget.

edited 13th Feb '16 4:02:35 AM by KnitTie

Shit. They really are serious.

I dunno how this will affect the situation in Syria itself, but I think the Houthis will find a new ally in the coming weeks or months.

Uuuuuuhhhh...

Meanwhile in Yemen:

So what can the Turkey/Saudi alliance actually do? I suppose certainly not just invade and start fighting the SAA. Create a safe zone, perhaps?

I vote they just invade and fight everyone. Since it's Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Both can make things much worse than already it is.

Well, the Saudis are surely the comically inept guys whose epic failures at warfare are funny to watch, but the Turks have the stongest army in the region and could probably roll all over everyone in Syria if this wouldn't most likely result in apocalyptic amounts of diplomatic and military shit hitting the fan via Iran and Russia.

edited 13th Feb '16 1:26:36 PM by KnitTie

Indeed.

I have to wonder how Russia will respond to this. This can spread fast to other unrelated regions if people aren't careful.

I'm also wary of the Yemen reports. Al Arabiya is a Saudi mouthpiece and has lied about its successes there before. I don't doubt they took the camp (Reuters did repeat the report after all), but I have to wonder what they had to sacrifice elsewhere in Yemen to do it....

edited 13th Feb '16 1:26:15 PM by FFShinra

I think the most apocalyptic scenario would be an open war between Russia and Turkey that spill over into Armenia and Azerbaijan. Though in all fairness I don't think that NATO would look kindly at Turkey if it gets involved in a shooting war with a nuclear power.

edited 13th Feb '16 1:31:22 PM by KnitTie

NATO needs to say something one way or another. Soon.

Well, if this results in another World War, I'm going to enlist in the military and die with a smile on my face, knowing that I participated in one of the most hilariously stupid fuck-ups in human history.

Edit - Sargesyan and Garik the Highlander are spamming my facebook feed with incredibly gung-ho proclamations about how they want Turkey to "attack" so that Russia will have an excuse to get Mt. Ararat back for Armenia.

edited 13th Feb '16 1:40:52 PM by KnitTie

There are still geopolitical release valves to prevent it from going that far.

Here's hoping.

Would it be a more pointless conflict than WW 1?

@ Shinra:

Turn into a Not-So-Omniscient Council of Bickering, with a German-led group wanting to do one thing while the Americans, possibly British and Eastern Europeans want to do another?

Depends on what you mean by pointless. If it reorganizes the middle east into something reflecting societal reality, it will be a steep cost, but not pointless.

Seems there is a twitter post on Turkish positions on the other side of the border, in preparation for the invasion. I'm not versed in the Turkish military. Is that strength significant for them?

Also, there are reports that the Turks are now shelling the Canton of Afrin. The US is telling them to desist but I don't know if they are listening....

EDIT-

Don't think Obama will be interested in following the Turks into hell, frankly. Poland and the Baltics on the other hand might...

edited 13th Feb '16 1:48:35 PM by FFShinra

Probably not, but it sure will be a close second!

I doubt Poland and the Baltics be able to actually do anything to support Turkey if it starts a war with Russia beyond their usual cheerleading.

My friendly neighbourhood nationalist tsaraboo organisation has posted a textwall message on their site urging "Russians and their fellow Rossiyane" to prepare for a war against "the Turkish menace and their Central Asian and Caucasian sympathisers." I've given up on worrying and now just want to watch the upcoming disaster.◊

edited 13th Feb '16 1:55:48 PM by KnitTie

They won't lift a finger, agreed, but I was more referring to the pro/anti factions that would arise within NATO at current Turkish actions.