Topic: Syria Updates: Ruzzian soldiers escape Syria. Nothing left there for Ruzzia. (Read 204 times)

I do not think there's going to be a democracy in Syria for now. The "caretaker" is likely to take care for a long time. In general, radical religious regimes tend to think they are the only ones with truth and reason so there's no need to let people decide.

I think the US is playing a very good card against Ruzzia, because they have been force out of Syria, probably because they were too busy in Ukraine and empires fall from the borders.

A caretaker prime minister Mohammed al-Bashir has been appointed to lead Syria toward transition to maybe a democratically elected government. Normalcy has returned to the country as economic activities have started fully. There are reports that the commanders of the opposition groups have ordered armed men to leave the street. Some news outlets reported that the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US fully supports the appointment of an Interim leader and the transition process. For now, the process of governance looks good but nobody knows how long this peaceful coexistence will last.    

Israel has taken advantage of the situation and has basically destroyed anything that was left from the Syrian ex-government forces. Ruzzia has reach a deal with the new government - Ruzzia leaves and they are in exchange... not attacked?? Well, this is certainly minus one port for Ruzzia. What is now to be seen is how the new radical islamist goverment behaves.

But it is not a false narrative in case of Al Asad. He was ruling on two grounds: representing a minoritarian, yet influential sect in Syria and because he had Ruzzian support, which was conditional to having the naval base at Tartus http://www.hisutton.com/Russian-Navy-Base-in-Tartus-Syria.html which now Ruzzia had to leave.

Also and more importantly, the corridor that took weapons from Iran to Ruzzia is now broken. I mean... they may be able to bribe their way, but will be more difficutl.

I am happy that Al Asad is gone, I am not happy with the new tenants. As I said, I think the only party I could potentially suport here are the Kurdish forces and that with  a pinch of salt as they are backed by US which usually spells future problems.


It was technically the only base in the Mediterranean.


He did already.

Not sure if we should be happy or sad about this. Basically the country is going from under the influence of a russia-backed dictator into the hands of extremists.
In the old times you'd say that kings wage wars but it's the people that bear the consequences.

The only good thing in all that is that Russians evacuated their whole fleet from their base at Tartus and abandoned Assad. Looks like after the damage that Ukrainians did to their ships they're afraid of losing any more units.

Russians held that base since the 70s and it was supposed to be their main naval base in the Mediterranean. It was supposed to be a line of defense against NATO forces. Not anymore Mr. Putin, you're taking another L here.

So, al-Assad's regime has fallen as rebels has taken over control of capital Damascus, while al-Asad most likely run away from country to Russia. Whole situation in Syria isn't that plain - there isn't just black and white. So, probably it won't turn into calm place soon.
But there is one thing that I'm glad about - Russia lost their influence zone here. And it's good warning for other countries who are aiming friendship with them that they're not ally that you can rely on in such complicated situation.
You can argue about some things, but Trump made not bad summary of events for Russia here:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1865434273953509462

I follow the news in the Middle East and it seems that the scene in Syria is currently dominating the scene. Almost all analyses indicate that no one can accurately understand the situation and why all this is happening at this particular time. The power in Syria was in control of the situation in the southern provinces and it was never expected that the opposition forces would control this area of ​​​​the territory. Entire provinces were announced to have been withdrawn by the army and we did not hear that the army had regained them until recently.

The Lebanese Hezbollah group recently suffered from the Israeli attack in Lebanon, which played a crucial role in helping Assad repel the opposition in the early years. While the Israeli strikes led to the elimination of Iranian military leaders in Syria and the deterioration of supply lines for pro-government forces there, Russia is distracted by the war in Ukraine. All of these reasons could be a factor of surprise for all parties.

I really regret how the conflict is moving from one region to another only to serve larger agendas that want to maintain chaos in the entire region. I sincerely hope that this struggle for influence there will end.

Well, in the early stage of Russia's security operation in Ukraine and Donbas, nations/people who supported Russia were elevated, and that includes Syria, but under the condition she is not unreasonably anti-israel. She likely breach that condition which explains what is currently going on that country.  The short-term solution is to remain neutral in the Israel's conflict (or possibly support Israel) and the security should be restored quickly. 
 

You already know that I wasn't comparing political systems, and the two hypothetical scenarios with US and UK are obvious examples of how to easily create a fake narrative like the mouthpieces you read are doing. All that narrative only to justify what NATO and Ukraine are doing in Syria which is to arm and train globally recognized terrorist organizations including Al-Qaeda.

The rest of your posts are just noise, an obvious attempt to bring up irrelevant stuff to avoid the bold part

So... you are comparing an electoral process with what Al Asad is? You must be really runnin out of crap ideas. Obviously Trump was elected by a certain majority across the country - he does not represent an specific race, gender, tribe or sect and has not taken the power by force. I am no fan of Trump, but he won an election.

Feel free to do your own research on the powers of Kings in Europe. Spoiler alert - they are just for decoration. The only thing that annoys me is that in some countries they do not pay taxes in full. I liked the French approach to dealing with them, but they have no power nowadays - other than money power and not all of them.

I am aware of many of the things that extremists groups have done. I cannot for example forgive the destruction of ancient ruins, dating 1000s of years and unrecoverable.  However I am aware that Al Asad excercises power by terror just as much, so ... if you want to defend the guy you need a different argument.

Again, if you are unhappy about "foreign intervention" you could start by asking Iran not to sell the drones that kill Ukrainian civilians - but you will not, because you are utterly biased.

You still are too scared to answer that question

Trump represents a small fraction of America not all America (36% didn't even vote and out of the 64% that did vote, he only got about half of the votes). In Vermont for instance 65% of voters didn't vote for him. Do you think it is OK for Russia to arm tens of thousands of Vermonters to start cutting peoples heads off and rise up against the central government because Trump government does not represent all of America?

How about if Russia armed Mexicans and Canadians to carry out a strike on American soil, killing civilians and cutting their heads off while the Eastern media calls them "rebels" because "Trump is a dictator"?

How about in UK? There is a literal dictator there named King Charles. Do you think it is OK for Russia or any other foreign country to arm a fraction of Brits to carry out terrorist attacks against civilians because Charles doesn't represent all of UK?

Other? You can't even say it, can you
Not other intervention, NATO supporting terrorist groups.
Ukraine arming and training terrorists.
US illegally occupying parts of another sovereign nation and providing air-support for the terrorists in broad daylight.
Erdogan bringing Turkic terrorists mainly from central Asia into Syria calling them "Syrian rebels".

Feel free to do your own research about what atrocities the terrorists you love to call "rebels" have carried out against humanity.

I am calling rebels to rebels. You have a Tyrant in government and number of groups, some of them terrorist organisations, that are rebels against that government. Perhaps you think these are mutually exclusive.

I call Syrians to people born in Syria, of which there are in all the groups to more or less measure. Al-Asad represents a certain faction of Syria, not all Syria.

 I have not said there is nothing wrong, on the contrary, I have left very clear that EVERYTHING in Syria is wrong. Al-Asad is wrong, Islamic extremists are wrong, the aid of Ruzzia is wrong, any other intervention is also wrong. As it is uterly wrong to send drones to Ruzzia from Iran knowing perfectly that they will be used against civilians.

Perhaps the only group with with I could have some level of respect are the Kurds.

BTW, the picture you have posted could be anything. I hope you are not basing your credibility on that.

More important than fighting terrorists is to fight those who support and arm them. Your country included, as a NATO member the equipment, training, and intelligence these terrorist groups are receiving is with your tax money. NATO's big daddy US just provided them with airsupport when their A-10 bombers openly attacked Syrian defensive forces on the backline where terrorists could not reach to help the Turkish terrorist advance in the north!

Ukraine has to also answer for having troops in Syria and Turkey in the terrorist training camps teaching them how to use the Ukrainian FPV drones against Syrian armor


...and then boast about training these animals on Kyiv Post calling them "rebels" just like you did in this topic!!!
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2024/12/04/ptTLw.jpeg
I won't put a "img" tag on it but go ahead and click it and then see if you can continue calling them "rebels" or "Syrians" for that matter (the symbol he is showing with his left hand is enough proof where he is coming from). And this is the lightest thing I could get myself to post here. There are far worse things out there that I don't dare look at, let alone post here.

But of course you don't want to talk about any of that. You are trying so hard to convince yourself that nothing is wrong here. Because you are too scared to ask yourself the only question that matters:
What the hell is NATO and Ukraine doing in Syria cooperating with the terrorists?

By focusing on Russia and arguing about Bashar al-Assad's authoritarianism, you are simply trying to evade that scary question. The worst part is that your arguments does not even justify your country's actions! Meaning even if you could bring up valid arguments proving Assad is a dictator, that still does not justify NATO and Ukraine's cooperation with these terrorists!!!

Because I do not talk about everything that you think I should talk about or you want me to talk about. There is an obvious other side to what you say here and again, you will not see me efending authoritarians, but I have the feeling you, like most people in the forum, are absolutely fine with dictators them as long as they are in "their side".

The situation in Syria is linked to the inhability of Ruzzia to support their former allies and the "offficial" government of Syria. That is something I would like to talk about. There is a need to fight the extremisms in the region and while this may be good news for the war in Ukraine, is not really good news.

Words have meaning. Rebels is different from Terrorists. And civil war is different from foreign invasion by various NATO-backed terrorist groups. Majority of those attacking Syrian cities today are not Syrian.

Let me put it in words you are more familiar with and see if it is OK to "use whatever name you like".
Tell me, is Russia carrying out a special operation in Ukraine to denazify it? This is also just words describing a situation, isn't it?
You understand that propaganda very well, don't you? It is clear from your usage of the term "Ruzzia" instead of Russia. Then why aren't you calling NATO something like NAZITO? Why the double standard?

Aren't you really? Then why haven't you ever talked about actual dictators like the Saudi family who rule Arabia with an Iron fist and have crushed any movement that has ever tried to establish democracy there? How about the dictator in Egypt who slaughtered thousands of Egyptians not so long ago? How about the dictator of Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain? ...

Of course that is a rhetorical question. I am well aware that you are simply repeating what you read in the Western Propaganda outlets without even knowing any of the countries I named or knowing what has happened in any of them!

To put simply this is what dictator means in Western Propaganda Language:
* A democratically elected president like Assad is a dictator if that president doesn't support the biggest terrorist organization in West Asia named Israel. Regardless of whatever else he does.
* But an actual tyrant family who has taken over one of the largest oil reserves on the planet is not a dictator even if they chop up an American journalist into little pieces and dissolve him in an acid bath in broad daylight to send a message to anybody who dares protest against their tyranny. Just because that family is also a Zionist family and supports Israel.

Well, there are Syrians fighting in most of the parties for the control of Syria, so... yes that is pretty much a civil war of shorts. The fact that other countries support or not does not matter (most civil wars do have external interventions).

But use whatever name you like. I am just describing a situation: if a force is attacking the established government ("good" or "bad") they are rebels. It does not make them any nicer, just rebels.

I am no fan of any radical group, nor terrorists groups. I am also no fan of dictators (which you seem to be ok with). I am not going to get to discuss what Al-Asad does or does not (and believe me, there would be plenty to talk about) or what Daesh does or does not.

Civil war?
Foreigners (from Turkey, Ukraine, central Asia, Uyghurs from East Asia) invading another country is called invasion.

Rebel Force?
When these foreigners are members of radical groups categorized as terrorists (ISIS, Al-Qaida, ...), it is called terrorist attack.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/syria-under-terrorist-attack-update-isisdaesh-rule-is-re-established-5521156

Edit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuAnJmhzBZs

Ruzzia flees Syria. The war in Ukraine is too big to keep troops dispersed.

Ruzzia backed Al-Asad seems to have left the country. The Syrian civil war has been going for years, with several factions fighting each other.


Some of these are extreme islamists, others are authoritarians backed by Ruzzia while others claim to be (yet to be proven) pro-democracy / republic. Iran, Turkey, Ruzzia, Hezbolla, the Sirian Army,... it is a proxy war that seems endless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_factions_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20states%20and,mostly%20Kurdish%20Syrian%20Democratic%20Forces.

It would seem that Ruzzia is busy elsewhere (I wonder where), and has not been able to provide enough ground troops so their allies have to back from the capital city of Aleppo, leaving now Damascus as the main city in the other faction's hand.

2024.12.09 Update: Al Asad confirme to be having a tea with Putin. In Moscow probably. Factions rush to grab land.

Ex- Al Q'aeda leader has taken Damascus and is trying to keep a degree of law an order among troops shooting at the air all night.