The Arab Spring

As soon as Putin decides he wants it.

In fact, historically, a territorial grab is exactly what you do just before proposing a partition.

Hmm.

edited 13th Oct '15 2:45:34 PM by DeMarquis

The Lebanese Civil War is instructive here, as Syria's closest possible analogue. That war took 15 years to finish, and only really did so because Syria occupied the whole thing for another fifteen years. But the latter would only be necessary if you wanted to keep it together (which at this point, isn't happening), so then the factions would agree to partition if the following happened: One of the factions straight up loses, a black swan event (like someone offing Assad or something happening to one of the powers involved by proxy), or the war's tempo (and battle lines) settle down enough that de facto simply becomes dejure.

One of the factions losing outright is unlikely at this point, unless the refugee crisis got bad enough that the warring sides ran out of fighters. A black swan event is, in terms of foreign affairs, no different from luck. The last one is the most likely, but has the most prerequisites.

Oh come on.

Yeah, no.

Too far and too unstable for a land grab.

Why the hell would you even try to annex a land the fuck far away from your own territory to begin with?

Because Putin is just this puppy-kickingly evil, of course.

I think he meant land grab as in a land grab on Assad's behalf. As in make a massive push to get a bunch of territory under Assad's control, then propose a partition, that obviously has the land freshly under Assad's control staying with him.

That. (I got to use an arrow too!). Putin isnt grabbing the territory, Assad is. Then Putin goes on world TV and says "You know, I love peace so much, lets all negotiate!"

Why not? He's basically done it before.

That one could theoretically happen, especially if the majority of that territory comes from the ISIS.

Sorry I completely misinterpreted your post.

edited 13th Oct '15 6:39:08 PM by KnitTie

What I find most funny about this is that in the terrorism thread I just explained to De Marquis what Shinra meant about something.

I'm the special needs kid here and yet somehow I'm the only one who actually understands what people are trying to say?

edited 13th Oct '15 6:49:29 PM by Silasw

You are the wind beneath our wings. Thanks.

Eloquence on the internet is a gift.

Also, never even noticed til you mentioned it just now. And even then, still don't.

On the subject of Putin wanting peace once Assad is in a position of strength, thats a common tactic for everyone. Obama would like to do that too. As would everyone else involved in the conflict. It's a generic and wide-spread strategy.

Yeah, Putin does not plan to annex any land where he can have a puppet in place instead. See Belarus.

However, were Assad to be removed from power, then all bets would be off. Or, more likely, Putin would find some remote Assad family member to fit in the current ones' shoes.

I'm certain Assad's extended family and clan can handle that all by themselves. Putin isn't that all-powerful.

Not Putin alone, no. But the combo of him, Iran, and Hezbollah are.

I wouldn't use Belarus as an example of not annexing land. At this point I think Lukashenko is simply grandfathered in, for all the puppeting Russia even needs there.

Better example is probably Cold War era Cuba. Or today's Venezuela.

Wait, Maduro is a puppet? I always thought he was too wild-card to be a puppet.

Man. So much crap keeps happening all over there that I seriously just cannot keep up with it.

Can you guys stop blowing things up for a minute or something.

Maduro is a puppet to his own ideology. Think of him like a dumber, less deadly version of the Best Korean leaders. I would not liken Maduro to Putin, more to the Kims.

edited 14th Oct '15 8:47:13 AM by Aszur

foreign policy-wise, Venezuela hasn't changed all that much from Chavez.

Hah!

Actually part of me wants to go through the thread again just to see the history of our coverage, but then I see the page numbers and go "hah, no."

edited 14th Oct '15 8:44:32 AM by FFShinra

Thousands of Iranian troops amass for all-out assault on Aleppo

This true?

As far as anyone can determine, yes.

This Russo-Shia alliance is pulling out all the stops on the northern front.

So who currently controls Aleppo?

Nobody and everybody, it's very very contested and has been pretty much since this entire thing started.

And if Hezbolla takes it, what will be the consequences?

Assad control, I don't believe they're taking territory independently.

@ Allepo Assault: I knew the Iranians had advisors and special forces in Syria but thousands of troops? If the city falls,which is assured now that Assad has Russian airpower to support him and the Iranians. I'm pretty sure the fall will mean the deathblow to all non ISIS non Kurdish rebels, as it is their last major stronghold in the country, apart form hiding out in the mountains and some areas in the south that are sure to be retaken once they are done with Aleppo. Thus the world will have no choice but to accept both Assad and a unified Syria,until the next revolt happens. At this point the only question remains if he will grant the Kurds semi-autonimy in exchange for them returning to the fold, or crush them as well.