The Arab Spring

I have to wonder if these conclusions are applicable to the press centre or to the whole ministry at times...

No, the ministry generally tends to know what it's doing. It's one of the few institutions that weren't ran into the ground in the USSR, and it shows.

A writeup on the Russian bombing runs, who they've been hitting, and how. Russian media is showing a lot of high-powered, unguided weaponry, plus attacks on moderate groups unaffiliated with JAN. In particular, the strikes on Lataminah I linked earlier seem to have been against Tajimmu al-Aaza, a US-backed moderate group with no significant radical Islamist links, and the reason they kept pounding it like that appears to have been poor accuracy on those huge bombs they were using.

Because thats a trustworthy source on its face.

Clearly, you don't listen well.

I cant speak to the source, but the analysis certainly seemed meticulous.

It's an open-source journalist report, which means everything in it is meticulously sourced and they're careful to show their work. You can click through their links yourself, and most of their info is taken from Russian media (which you normally wouldn't expect to be unfairly biased against Russia).

Drop the condescension unless you actually have the info to back it up.

edited 4th Oct '15 4:23:38 PM by Iaculus

What part of "there is more to Russian involvement than where they are launching airstrikes" did you not get? I'm not condescending when you aren't even listening.

Second, it was proven, by Vice News and other sources, weeks before Russian involvement increased, that the FSA is subordinate to the jihadists everywhere except in Daraa. Daraa province is the only place where the FSA is in control.

Talibiseh is not in Daraa. Even if the FSA are there, they have accepted help from Jihadists, and that comes with consequences. Move on.

... not really? That 2014 Vice piece is the most recent one on the northern FSA and other moderates, and doesn't show anything like a complete JAN takeover, even if they are powerful there.

edited 4th Oct '15 4:44:23 PM by Iaculus

The fact that 2014 is the most recent they have should tell you something, considering they have footage from just a month ago in Dara'a. Where they actually say Dara'a is the only area where the FSA takes lead.

EDIT 1- And I didn't say "complete takeover". I said subordinate.

EDIT 2- The video in question. Now let's move on to actual discussion rather than conspiracies.

edited 4th Oct '15 5:53:07 PM by FFShinra

Actually, I think this matters. It's not about a bombing- it's about whether or not we are to conclude that the Russian intervention is going to be constructive or not. The bar cant be "if they accepted help from the Jihadis, they deserve to die". They accepted help from us as well, that says nothing about their ultimate loyalties, which likely is to their own families and neighbors before anyone else. If the Russians insist on dropping a bomb on anyone who they think may be associated with Jihadis, including civilians, well that's not ok with me.

The West jumped to conclusions before the bombing even started, they're making snap judgements now, and they'll conclude its not constructive even after, regardless of outcome. As long as Moscow does it, it's wrong by the West's reckoning. What else is new? So say it, and let's move on, because I'm not going to pretend the current PR drivel is actual analysis and evidence when its filled with confirmation biases and puts a hell of a lot more emphasis on Russian action than anyone else's.

They accepted help and now they are part of them. It's not like they accepted help and kept them at arms length...that's what the FSA in Dara'a does, since that area isn't bereft of Jihadist elements either.

One could (and plenty have, I should point out) argue that giving the FSA enough just to survive but not enough to topple Assad negates the US's role, since it led to no constructive end, instead damning these people to a half life until the FSA had to take Jihadist help.

So again, Russian bombing being constructive or not is not something the West really has any position or right to talk about because the West's own efforts weren't constructive in Syria with the sole exception of the Kurds, whom the Russians aren't bombing and indeed don't seem to even have a beef with.

Playing gotcha games on locations does nothing to further the discussion, it just muddles the conversation until it becomes a meaningless blame game, as it is right now. There is plenty to wonder and talk about with Russian involvement, but this is nothing notable.

edited 4th Oct '15 6:59:42 PM by FFShinra

I'm not the "West", and I don't think the effectiveness or lack thereof of the US intervention is relevant at all regarding whether or not the Russian's intervention is morally defensible or not. And I'm not aware of any information that every FSA unit outside of Daraa is in the pocket of extremists. So right now I'm leaning toward "not": they dont seem to be making a distinction between groups that are truly dangerous and groups that might be reasonable if they could find a reliable patron (i.e., not the US).

No, but you're making the same arguments as the West with the same flawed logic, so the argument still applies.

And if you don't know, I guess you didn't bother to watch the video, the only media that ain't the Assad regime or the rebels themselves giving actual footage right now, where they say, in their actual description blurbs, that Dara'a is the only place where the FSA isn't marginalized.

You're looking for moral clarity in war. There is way too much going on and too much fog of war to do that while the conflict continues. That kind of "determination" is meant for AFTER the dust has settled. Especially when you aren't applying that standard on the FSA itself.

As for your comment on they might be reasonable, have you ever considered that might be why they are bombing these guys? Surrender/truce, while not wished for, is a reasonable action in the face of insurmountable odds. I've heard theories to the effect that maybe that's Russia's plan.

We assume malice in Russia's intent form the get go, because they are interviewing in support of a tyrant who has used poison gas against his own citizens. Nothing will ever make their intervention morally defensible, especially since they could have convinced Assad to stand down in the early days and appointed another puppet government of their liking. And also, given Putin's history of blatant lying, can you honestly blame the West for not trusting him.

Their intervention is not moral, no, but it may lead to a better outcome than the status quo. We've recently been seeing a growing consensus that Assad will have a say in postwar Syria, and while this is not just, it is more likely to preserve lives and lead to a lasting peace.

Well put. As sad as it will be, it's well put.

And this is why no one takes you seriously, Jack.

Lasting peace? Now that's a laugh. How do you figure? Keeping Assad seems like a sure-fire recipe for a Syrian Popular Rebellion 2.0 in a few decades at the most.

edited 4th Oct '15 9:48:22 PM by MarqFJA

So let me get this straight: Russia is bombing a group that may or may not be either affiliated with or supportive of radical islamists with no concrete information availible, which is already as much as everyone's done to end the godawful mess that is the Syrian civil war. And Laculus is sraching with Shinra about the morality of it. Did I leave anything out?

edited 4th Oct '15 9:49:54 PM by KnitTie

Yeah tbh that kind of logic reminds me a lot of how America helped put a bunch of dictators in power in the Middle East and other countries

edited 4th Oct '15 9:50:23 PM by Xopher001

I've been reading up on the topic lately, and so far the actions of the US seem outright scitzophrenic to me: they want the rebels to win, but at the same time they are giving them only enough help to turn this war into an endless frozen conflict that just keeps trudging on and on. In this context, the actions of Russia remind me of a proverb "when the fruit fails, welcome haws" - at this point, ending the war by diplomatic means (i.e. talking to Assad) seems to honestly be a better solution than prolonging it.

But trying to delete this dictator has so far proven to be much more disastrous than letting him rule.

And I'd also like to add that the Russian bombing campaign has only began. Why don't we reserve judgement on its effectiveness until after it ends?

Reserving judgement is the wisest course. We're like a week into the thing, and from what we know, Russian ground forces aren't even in Syria yet.

Also, Ruslan Leviev's claim that the rebels in Talibseh are moderate and unaffiliated with radical islamists seems to be completely unsourced.

@Marq - The demographic changes in Syria (both deliberate and incidental) are such that the pre-war Syria isn't coming back. Either the country will be fundamentally more Shia and also more Kurdish (by virtue of less Sunni Arabs in the area at the very least) or, more likely, the territory is partitioned.

It has nothing to do with any sort of status quo ante like it was with his father post-Hama 1982. As such, the possibility of this postponing a future revolt is much less likely...that bomb has already gone off.

edited 4th Oct '15 11:52:30 PM by FFShinra

Speaking of Sunnis, and I apologise for semi-offtopic, is it true that the Sunnis rebel much more often than the other social groups found in the Arab world?

No. They just do so because they happen to be in the majority.