In
his first foreign trip since Syria's civil war started in 2011, Syrian President Assad
made an unannounced trip to Moscow to discuss Syria with Russian President Putin. Assad arrived in Moscow on Monday.
Since
Russia began its direct military involvement in Syria on 30 September, it has effectively assumed
the leadership of the pro-government coalition fighting the opposition and Islamist extremist groups in the country. Putin told Assad
that Russia was ready to contribute to the fight and to a
political settlement of the conflict that has raged for more than four years,
the Kremlin said in a statement today. The statement did not say if the future
of Assad was also discussed in the meeting, but interestingly Assad was not accompanied by his military or political teams during the visit.
Meanwhile, Turkey said on Monday that it would accept the Syrian leader’s staying in office for the first six months of a political transition, at the end of which he must go. (The New York Times, 21 October)
UPDATE: Russia said on Tuesday that president Putin had telephone conversations over the course of the day with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, President Erdogan of Turkey, President Sisi of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Jordan to discuss his talks in Moscow with Syrian President Assad. (President of Russia/Twitter)
Photo credit: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin; Tuesday 21 October 2015 (AFP)
Meanwhile, Turkey said on Monday that it would accept the Syrian leader’s staying in office for the first six months of a political transition, at the end of which he must go. (The New York Times, 21 October)
UPDATE: Russia said on Tuesday that president Putin had telephone conversations over the course of the day with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, President Erdogan of Turkey, President Sisi of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Jordan to discuss his talks in Moscow with Syrian President Assad. (President of Russia/Twitter)
Photo credit: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin; Tuesday 21 October 2015 (AFP)
26 comments:
Syria will become a failed state and be thrown into never ending chaos if the Assad government falls. Arab countries need strong leaders in order to remain intact, without an inspiring leading figure, they fragment completly. What ensues is a mixture of religious sectarianism and inter-tribal conflict. Gamal Abdel Nasser was a great example of the kind of leader that is able to unify the people of a nation.
It appears Russia flew Assad into Moscow on Ilyushin Il-62:
http://mil-avia.livejournal.com/127654.html
Dear General
Syria already is a failed state , and I might add it's a hellish failed state . The rest of the Arab world , with exception of few tiny examples , is a fragmented failing world .The nightmare scenario you are warning about , is taking place in front of our eyes . Anybody who can spend a few minutes on YouTube can testify to that .
The Assads have (mis)ruled Syria for five decades now . If Syria was a fortune 500 company and Assad was its CEO , he would have been relieved of his duties a long time ago .( To be fair to Bashar Assad , it's needs to be added that he offered to resign early in the civil war and seek asylum in Qatar in exchange of amnesty for his family but he was rebuffed .)We must hold these leaders accountable for what befalls their people and country , for we have to pay for their misrule and take care of the mess they create .
Despite his near universal popularity in the Arab world , Nasser was a false prophet who led the Arabs down the abyss of Arab/Israeli conflict .Nasserism preached the false gospel of anti-colonialism, without giving the involved colonial powers their due for crafting the modern Arab world out of the wreckage of the vanquished Ottomom Empire , however clumsy and so far disastrous undertaking it turned out to be .Nasser never really offered any solutions to the ills of the Arab world except to blame everything on bogeymen .
The task at hand is to rid the region of wahabi/takfiri terrorism
FOR the first in the 'world' you have spoken truth !! !- indeed it is true Arabs fare so well under a monarch or an inspiring benevolent dictator .
and history is the best witness.
Interestingly, Assad was not accompanied by his military and diplomatic teams during his visit to Moscow. Was it probably because the meeting was focused on his personal future?
Maybe he has gone house hunting in Moscow? :o)
Assad is the last hope not only for Syria but whole region. In case of his fall country will be taken over by the extremists and terrorist and no one even those who has supported them so far will not be safe. So what ever Assad is 1000 times better than the alternative. This is the obvious fact regardless of any historical and political debate or argument.
@Anon 1:25 just like to expand the company example. If Syria was atop 500 company, its current state is like another top 500 Company to pay the workers to disrupt the work of the company in order to put it in chaos and fire its CEO.
That is what François Hollande said Putin told Assad! May be!
First af all, Pres. Bashar Assad attempted to create his inclusive and not based on religious beliefs political system in Syria.
Current prime minister Halgi and defense minister as well as of many generals are Sunni.
Before that, a Christian defense minister who held that post until he was assasinated couple years ago, together with Assad's brother in law; Mr. Shawkaat, who was a Sunni and married to Assad's sister.
Also generals from the Tlaas family held top posts in the Syrian Army......and the younger one left for the West, because like some say, he liked French Riviera and expensive sport cars.
I believe that for the good of Alawites, Christians and others who support Assad, a separate entitiy is necessary, and in the maximum case new Syria can only exist as a loose federation of different entities with their own security or peacekeeper forces.
+A
This is indeed a worrisome development. Makes it look like the Russians are trying to use their leverage on Assad to get him to compromise with the so-called "rebels". Probably by stepping down. As bad as the Al-Assad regime has been, the alternatives are way worse. Secular rebels hold now real power in Syria. If Assad goes, the takfiri islamists will take over.
"Secular rebels hold real power in Syria." No. Syria has been ruled by Assads for more than four decades, representing the Alawi clan. And at least until the breakout of the civil war the power was concentrated in Assad's hands.
BTW, secularism in itself does not mean much. Number of dictators, like Assad, claim to be secular, as in Hitler. You need to be a secular democrat, which Assad is not. You want to tell us that secular dictators are better than Islamists. Probably. But the solution is not the return of Assad dictatorship, but a government of national unity to reverse the current trends in the country. Assad is of an era that has ended in Syria.
Bashar Assad and his father ruled with iron fist over Syria for more than four decades, which was the main cause of the rise of opposition to his rule during the height of Arab Spring. Dictators are not inclusive, as they need to force their will on the country and society. Assad was no exception. His family represented the Alawi clan during those four decades and they had the real power. Naming Sunni ministers does not negate that fact.
You seem to suggest that a Little Syria should now be created under Assad's dictatorial rule. Probably it's too late for Assad even to rule over little Syria. Let's hope a government of national unity could be formed to reverse the current trends in the country.
All hyperbole not withstanding Dr. Assad is not going anywhere, nor will Syria "fall apart". Heard this nonsense for 5 years now. Syria faces a foreign inspired terrorism problem and that will be dealt with.
THIS IS how the west loves dictators and would even kill to protect them PROVIDED THEY LOOK INTO THEIR INTERESTS.
- Assad almost knighted by the GB- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023538868
With respect, you are reading into my words things I never wrote. I never meant to imply that "secularism" or "islamism" I inherently good or bad. What I will say, more clearly this time, is that the so-called "moderates" do not exist in Syria. All of the people who could even remotely be labeled as such have long fled to Europe. The people that are left and still fighting are the hardened terrorists with nothing left to lose, people who's only wish is to die and take as many allawites, shia, christians and others they consider apostates down with them.
By the way, I think you misinterpreted my previous comment due to a typo. I wrote "secular rebels hold now real power in Syria". I meant to write "secular rebels hold no real power in Syria". I never meant to imply the Assad regime is inherently good because it is secular. Quite to the contrary, as you've pointed out, some of the most horrific regimes in the world, Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's Cambodia come to mind, were secular.
And just who would you include in your little government of national unity Nader?,isis,al nusra?,or perhaps "moderate" sunnis like this fellow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egQoplDnLzM&feature=youtu.be&t=17,just who are these mythical moderates you would form this government with?,or are you perhaps seriously suggesting that a government could be formed with isis and al nusra?
The choice at the moment is a stark but obvious one,either assad and the syrian government prevails in which case syria will continue to exist as a viable modern functioning nation state or the jihadis win and syria ceases to exist and becomes instead a failed state ruled by various warring jihadi gangs
Thanks so much for clarification. I should have caught the typo. Thanks again.
Hundreds of thousands of Syrian citizens, who marched peacefully in all major Syrian cities in 2011, asking for more freedom and less police state and better living conditions, were following a moderate approach to political development in their country (you can view photos and videos on those protests in this very blog). Assad’s brutal response killed that chance and let types of Nusra and ISIL to blossom in ungoverned territories. The masses participating in those peaceful demonstrations do have people who could represent them. The choice is not between ISIL and Assad, but the real choice is formation of a moderate government to save what’s left of Syria.
And just who would represent these mythical moderates?,it seems to me that we have already seen their representatives,they are the "moderate" fsa and the not so moderate head choppers of isis and al nusra,but let us pretend that these "moderates" were able to organize on a political level and select credible political representatives from within syria to join a government of national unity,do you honestly think for one minute that the not so moderates and the foreign jihadis would then simply stop and say "well no point in us doing anymore fighting here we`ll take our guns and try and establish our medieval caliphate somewhere else" and then they would pack up and leave and of course by the same token the turks and the gulfies and the west would stop funding,training and equipping the terrorists,surely Nader you can see how this scenario is not just utterly implausible its just plain silly,the simple truth is that even if by some miraculous act of god you were able to form some government of national unity with genuine moderates you would still face having to militarily defeat the not so moderates.To talk about moderates who appear to have been completely politically sidelined at best or who dont even exist at worst forming some government is just silly,at this point things will likely be decided on the battlefield not at the ballot box and on the battlefield the choice is between isis and assad or rather between a medieval sunni caliphate or more likely a failed state run by jihadi gangs or a functioning modern inclusive secular state even if it is a dictatorship,I must say for me its stark,simple and a no brainer.Idealism is all well and good Nader but until there is an actual credible moderate political force that can muster widespread political support any talk or even idea of a government of national unity is simply ignoring the realpolitik of the situation.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b5_1445519362 --- West refuses to share intel on ISIS with Russia
Anon 10:02 PM,
You might be right that Assad could remain as president for sometime to come. But that's the tragedy for a country during a long civil war, which really needs a government that can unite the country.
BTW, Syria has already fallen apart, partly thanks to Assad who forced armed conflict on the country through brutal suppression of the opposition, continued by the use of barrel bombs on his own country's major cities. He's a disgrace to Syria and to the region.
So are you saying that Russian and Iranian leaders are telling lies, or as you put it are silly, when they keep saying publicly that a political solution to the conflict and formation of a unity government is vital to ending the civil war in Syria? Are they hallucinating about a political settlement of the conflict? And is it only you who understand the complexity of the situation and push for continuation of policies that have brought the country into the brink of disintegration?
No Nader they like their western counterparts are simply paying lip service to the "we all want a peaceful end to the conflict" mantra that everyone including the west,turks and gulfies have been mouthing since the beginning of the war even while they were supplying weapons to all the warring parties,its the worst kind of cynical blood thirsty hypocrisy but sadly that is a big part of realpolitik.Ask yourself this Nader if the russians were truly interested in a political settlement do you really think they would have sent all that fire power to back up assad?,the russians have said on more than one occasion that they would be willing to talk to the moderates its just that they cant seem to find any to talk to which I suspect is probably true,the other problem is that the moderates dont represent the armed opposition so a government of national unity wouldnt mean an end to the fighting the only way that would work is if you included the jihadis in this unity government and that is never going to happen.In this war there is no room for compromise one only has to look at the actions of all the players to see that,this is one occasion where the actions of the players are far more truthful than the nice platitudes they are mouthing in public.Now it is possible that you might see a peace brought about by the mutual exhaustion of the warring parties but at the moment that doesnt look very likely at all,indeed the only remotely possible political settlement I see on the horizon would be the government negotiating a general amnesty with some of the armed groups but that would still leave the foreign jihadis to deal with so either way you`re still looking ultimately at a military solution at least on some level
At least Russians do not agree with your ideas. Putin said today that a political process is necessary and should "encompass all patriotic forces of the Syrian society."
The idea that this conflict should be won solely by military means is not just silly, it would have happened by now, but will contribute to so many more people being killed in the process. I am sure if you were in Syria and a party to the conflict, you wanted a political process at the end of the day.
Moderates and extremists are concepts that generally defines the world view/ideology and political stance of individual and groups. Moderates generally are expected not to take up arms, but if they are attacked by armed forces of their own government, or by foreign invaders, they could choose to take up arms, and rightly so. So the fact of being armed does not identify a group as moderate or extremists, although more are of the latter. ISIL, Nusra and Shia militias fighting in Syria are surely extremists. But there could be moderates fighting Assad as well, and they are.
Post a Comment