Why the Syrian war never was a civil war and how Russia has been an annoyance to the OPPOSITION

[Titanium100]

Iraq passed a resolution saying that USA must vacate Iraq as a reaction. Iraq may be weak but it has huge support and influence of Iran. 65% Iraq is Shia and listen to Iran. Even if USA manage to convince Iraq government to allow pipeline, Iranian influence and agents will regularly sabotage it. Many Iraqi politicians are in support of Iran and it is impossible yo make a pipeline from Qatar in Iraq.

Israel is non recognized state and hence none of the Arab countries will openly allow a pipeline via Israel. Secondly, Arabs have intention of annexing Israel and hence are wary that any pipeline via Israel will affect that chance as that will bring EU involvement. Lastly, Israel can't antagonize Russia by allowing ots soil for anti Russian activity. Doing so may make Russia offer arms against Israel. This will be a disaster for Israeli security.


Turkey is an open hater of Israel. Arabs openly refuse to recognize Israel. How will you make pipeline via Israel in such case? Refer to my reasoning above.

There is monthly anti-Iranian demonstrations in Iraq i don't know if you have seen this or not and coming from the shia themselves they are not fond of being controlled by persians and in responds there was recently an Iranian demonostration to counter that calling the iraqi arabs out. So it's not an alliance as smooth you may think. It's not that smooth. Another thing to consider is that Iraq is not a sovereign country currently it may have the title but it's under American occupatiion. Thats why you see Moqtada come out and say shit about the americans from time to time but they are under occupation the politicians are controlled by the americans such as who takes the throne etc etc so all the highest postions are puppets for Washington DC. Exxon is involved with the Oil-field in the Kurdish region which is the biggest in iraq.

Israel is non recognized state and hence none of the Arab countries will openly allow a pipeline via Israel. Secondly, Arabs have intention of annexing Israel and hence are wary that any pipeline via Israel will affect that chance as that will bring EU involvement. Lastly, Israel can't antagonize Russia by allowing ots soil for anti Russian activity. Doing so may make Russia offer arms against Israel. This will be a disaster for Israeli security.

Turkey is an open hater of Israel. Arabs openly refuse to recognize Israel. How will you make pipeline via Israel in such case? Refer to my reasoning above.

All the mentioned countries already do business with Israel and would have done business with Israel in such a big operation if it was real? But fortunately it's just a hoax

 

[Smarana Mitra]

All the mentioned countries already do business with Israel and would have done business with Israel in such a big operation if it was real? But fortunately it's just a hoax

Show me how Saudi Arabia does business with Israel. Then we can talk further.

There is monthly anti-Iranian demonstrations in Iraq i don't know if you have seen this or not and coming from the shia themselves they are not fond of being controlled by persians and in responds there was recently an Iranian demonostration to counter that calling the iraqi arabs out. So it's not an alliance as smooth you may think. It's not that smooth. Another thing to consider is that Iraq is not a sovereign country currently it may have the title but it's under American occupatiion. Thats why you see Moqtada come out and say shit about the americans from time to time but they are under occupation the politicians are controlled by the americans such as who takes the throne etc etc so all the highest postions are puppets for Washington DC. Exxon is involved with the Oil-field in the Kurdish region which is the biggest in iraq.

Even a small set of opposition is enough to sabotage pipeline. So, it is not enough to just have formal approval from government but real approval from all faction is needed

 

[jamahir]

USA has lot of stake as it is a religious struggle rather than economic struggle

This I will agree. NATO basically is a neo Crusader alliance. If I remember correctly, there was a Putin's interview from 2012 or 2013 where Putin called NATO ( in the context of the Syria war ) a Crusader bunch.

 

[Titanium100]

Show me how Saudi Arabia does business with Israel. Then we can talk further.


Even a small set of opposition is enough to sabotage pipeline. So, it is not enough to just have formal approval from government but real approval from all faction is needed

They do trading thru 3rd parties to disguise the trade but they definitely trade. All the bravado is for local consumption. Business and money has no enemies.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inte...-states-worth-almost-1-billion-study-suggests

 

[jamahir]

They do trading thru 3rd parties to disguise the trade but they definitely trade. All the bravado is for local consumption.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inte...-states-worth-almost-1-billion-study-suggests

That is not unknown.

What would have been a surprise would be Syria, Libya and former Iraq trading with Israel.

 

[Yaseen1]

russia has not entered Syria only for money,they have entered in to Syria also for religious or ideological matters to protect orthodox christan in Syria from neocons zionists

 

[Titanium100]

russia has not entered Syria only for money,they have entered in to Syria also for religious or ideological matters to protect orthodox christan in Syria from neocons zionists

Who are these so called Orthodox Christian in syria? Don't tell me some tiny minority in the thousands Or some irrelevant Assyrian peasants in the mountain villages

 

[WarDaddy97]

This I will agree. NATO basically is a neo Crusader alliance. If I remember correctly, there was a Putin's interview from 2012 or 2013 where Putin called NATO ( in the context of the Syria war ) a Crusader bunch.

if Putin said jamahir growing horns should we believe him?
of course Vlad would lambast NATO that rhetoric of Russian policy makers hasn’t changed since the Cold War

This is pure propaganda. You think Russian are stupid? or You think Putin is dumb?

Everyone here knew Syria is gas pipeline to Mediterranean, and a strategic position to connect Europe, ME and Africa. Just like Israel does.

It's has nothing to do with wealth, nor oil/gas field. Russia has more gas than anyone else. It's about control of the gas pipeline.

There is much bigger strategy, which I don't need to explain, militarily and geopolitically.

Syria is a strategic point to connect 3 continents?
Ain’t that something?!
What gas pipe thru Syria? Lemme guess...hmm Qatari gas?

You don't get it. A pipeline from Qatar to Syria is an alternative for European countries. I am not saying that's the only way to Europe.

No countries like to dependent on a pipeline, they all want to diversify.

A Syria puppet regime which planned to be installed by US serves the interest of Israel national security. Everyone knew it. Hezbollah will be fully blocked, Iran influence will be wiped out from Syria.

Don't try to fool others here. You need better propaganda. Try harder.

Even if there was no civil war in Syria there would never be Qatar gas pipe thru Syria. Should I explain you main reason or you’ll go back to drawing board and do your homework?

 

[jamahir]

if Putin said jamahir growing horns should we believe him?
of course Vlad would lambast NATO that rhetoric of Russian policy makers hasn’t changed since the Cold War

OK, agreed about Russian policy, but do tell me why is USA's government eager to make a peace deal with the Taliban while with Iraq they ( US government ) didn't stop until they hanged Saddam and in Libya ensured that Gaddafi was killed ?? Why the different policy ??

 

[WarDaddy97]

OK, agreed about Russia policy, but do tell me why is USA's government eager to make a peace deal with the Taliban while with Iraq they ( US government ) didn't stop until they hanged Saddam and in Libya ensured that Gaddafi was killed ?? Why the different policy ??

USA main objective in Afpak was to hunt UBL. We are not interested in building nation state in tribal area. Had we whacked UBL in 2001 trust me we would never stay in that region.
After 2011 we end up staying there because Obama admin couldn’t make up its mind but the writing was on the wall that our pull out is on the horizon. So Obama reduced our troops, more was allocated to Kandak and ANA.
personally I am glad we out, let Afghanistan be russian/Iranian/Chinese headache
We didn’t stop even after we killed Saddam we pulled our troops in 2011 4 years after Saddam was hanged. Hello!
Qaddafi got a stick up his *** and since then we had minimal presence in Syria and none these days, except maybe some SF and CIA paramilitaries

 

[Smarana Mitra]

They do trading thru 3rd parties to disguise the trade but they definitely trade. All the bravado is for local consumption. Business and money has no enemies.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inte...-states-worth-almost-1-billion-study-suggests

They will never trade openly with Israel even via pipeline. Secondly, the indirect trade is used to ensure that it will be easier to impose sanction whenever needed instead of having complicated problem of trading directly. 1 billion export means nothing when the trade is in 1 trillion dollar level in the middle east combined

Even if there was no civil war in Syria there would never be Qatar gas pipe thru Syria. Should I explain you main reason or you’ll go back to drawing board and do your homework

Then what would be the reason for USA intervention? And Russian involvement? Why do you think USA is opposing Nord Stream 2 if gas trade is irrelevant? Do you think USA would give up the opportunity to destroy Russian gas supply to EU?

 

[jamahir]

USA main objective in Afpak was to hunt UBL. We are not interested in building nation state in tribal area. If we whacked UBL in 2001 trust me we would never stay in that region.

That is the main point. If a Regressive movement ( like the Taliban ) holds power somewhere, US government wouldn't mind dealing with them or reduce fighting with them.

OTOH, if there a Progressive movement ( like in Gaddafi's Libya or in Maduro's Venezuela ) the US government will do everything to subvert that society.

Another example is of India. Trump had no problems meeting and greeting the Hindu right-wing party, the BJP, that is governing India. When Trump was in Delhi, a few kilometers away there were anti-Muslim riots happening. Trump chose to be not bothered and said that it was something internal to India. Whereas, in case of Libya and Syria, the NATO got the UNO SC to pass resolutions enabling military action.

All in all, anywhere there is a Progressive movement governing, USA's establishment ( and NATO ) go in and subvert that government and then install a puppet government. But if there is a Regressive movement governing a place, USA's government ( and NATO ) generally won't mind.

 

[WarDaddy97]

They will never trade openly with Israel even via pipeline. Secondly, the indirect trade is used to ensure that it will be easier to impose sanction whenever needed instead of having complicated problem of trading directly. 1 billion export means nothing when the trade is in 1 trillion dollar level in the middle east combined



Then what would be the reason for USA intervention? And Russian involvement? Why do you think USA is opposing Nord Stream 2 if gas trade is irrelevant? Do you think USA would give up the opportunity to destroy Russian gas supply to EU?

USA intervention in Syria has nothing to do with fake gas pipes in ME. We are there to contain Iran not to block so “gas pipes”
our beef with Russia over NS is quite simple-business competition over European market. That’s all it is
As for Russian involvement you have ask them. They still can’t make up their minds why they are there.

That is the main point. If a Regressive movement ( like the Taliban ) holds power somewhere, US government wouldn't mind dealing with them or reduce fighting with them.

OTOH, if there a Progressive movement ( like in Gaddafi's Libya or in Maduro's Venezuela ) the US government will do everything to subvert that society.

Another example is of India. Trump had no problems meeting and greeting the Hindu right-wing party, the BJP, that is governing India. When Trump was in Delhi, a few kilometers away there were anti-Muslim riots happening. Trump chose to be not bothered and said that it was something internal to India. Whereas, in case of Libya and Syria, the NATO got the UNO SC to pass resolutions enabling military action.

All in all, anywhere there is a Progressive movement governing, USA's establishment ( and NATO ) go in and subvert that government and then install a puppet government. But if there is a Regressive movement governing a place, USA's government ( and NATO ) generally won't mind.

Really? Regressive vs Progressive. Is tgat what you learn in Pakistan these days?
Talibs came to power in 94. Very regressively medieval movement. And yet USA-using your logic-had no deals with them from 94-2001
Mid 90s. Russia is very progressive. USA had great relationships with progressive Russia. Using your logic USA/NATO would have to subvert Russia to our will
I can go on and on.
We deal with any country that falls in line whether it’s “regressive or progressive”. We dealt with Pakistan under Zia who was ridiculously backwards and Mexico who were delightfully progressive without subverting them to our will.
Anyway find yourself somebody else for infantile discussion. I am done here

 

[vi-va]

USA intervention in Syria has nothing to do with fake gas pipes in ME. We are there to contain Iran not to block so “gas pipes”
our beef with Russia over NS is quite simple-business competition over European market. That’s all it is
As for Russian involvement you have ask them. They still can’t make up their minds why they are there.

Really? Regressive vs Progressive. Is tgat what you learn in Pakistan these days?
Talibs came to power in 94. Very regressively medieval movement. And yet USA-using your logic-had no deals with them from 94-2001
Mid 90s. Russia is very progressive. USA had great relationships with progressive Russia. Using your logic USA/NATO would have to subvert Russia to our will
I can go on and on.
We deal with any country that falls in line whether it’s “regressive or progressive”. We dealt with Pakistan under Zia who was ridiculously backwards and Mexico who were delightfully progressive without subverting them to our will.
Anyway find yourself somebody else for infantile discussion. I am done here

You are not that naive, do you?

 

[TNT]

The war in Syria never was a civil war and it may have started as such but that is not the case atleast since 2015.

What started as an popular civilian uprising ended up becoming a full blown war with Russia's full involvement on the ground. The civilian uprising figures didnt sign up to take on Russia as they are not from there altogether and if they knew Russia would get involved to this degrade the uprising would have been postponed.

The question to be asked is what is at stake for Russia to get involved to this degrade in a civil war between local people that are not from Russia? Is there any Oil, wealth or anything Assad can offer the Russians? the answer is simple he has nothing to offer them in return? Some military ports here and there is nothing important at all. Assad was nearly defeated by the rebels when they entered the war and put in alot of work into the war itself.

So why is Russia fighting in this war? Is the question I have been asking myself but I quite didn't get any satisfactory answer?

One way to look at it is from the orthodox church point of view? But even from the Orthodox POV it dosen't make any sense. In order to wage holy war from the Orthodox point of view it has to be in the holy land? Syria is not in the Holy land. You have to go to Palestine or Israel in order to do that but just not Syria. Fighting a resistance group inside an irrelevant country which has zero outcome for the world is an irrelevant cause which raises alot of questions.

So since we now know that Russia has simply nothing at stake in the Syrian war and especially to commit to this war in such degrade is suspicious.

1. No Oil because all the major fields are with the Americans

2. The country is poor to the degrade that the Russians themselves send relief aide to the syrian gov't from time to time. SO there is no wealth to come after nor minerals.

3. No gas as most major gas-fields are with the Americans and even if they do take them sometime in the future it won't be much to warrant such an involvement to this degrade.

4. The Russians themselves have used alot of money on Syria instead which is the opposite they are not getting anything in return but giving everything. It dosen't make sense from a Russian point of view.

Since we all know now that Russia has nothing at stake and even Trump asked Erdogan what dose Putin want with Idlib? Erdogan said there is little oil in Qamshilo not even in Idlib and he said not much as you have in east Syria.

The Rebels could have finished off Assad long time ago and can still do if Russia withdraws tomorrow The iranians couldn't prevent his demise first time and won't be able to do so in a second wave. If Russia were to withdraw completely.

The only annoyance and set-back militarily to the Rebels was Russia and the only one that stood infront of Erdogan's offense against Syria was also once again the Russians.

The only way going forward politically is to offer Russia something somewhere else alltogether in order to get them out of the country softly politically and economically were they sign a MOU to not support Assad and that he would have to fend for himself. Making them leave satisfied with whatever deal they have gotten (CASH or petro-deal) For they don't have much at stake here to be fairly honest currently

A very good analysis and i tend to agree. Would a country like russia spend so much just for a pipeline? Maybe it has strayegic goals. One thing is for sure, without russia, bashar ul asad is a sitting duck and rebels will wioe him off in weeks.