Wondering what the new Syrian government will be like...

[stevenkesslar]

On 12/13/2024 at 7:06 AM, Moses said:

and regarding the Russian army: it is better for the West that it stays there, because if the Russian troops leave Syria, in a week they will be on the Ukrainian front, where Ukraine is already in a very bad situation...

Now, that is an interesting one.  I'll get to a question, but first several comments.

This one really came out of the blue.  And it is during this period when there is daily drama about Trump, and I have been traveling a lot with family.  So it sort of all slipped under my radar.   And I don't feel I have a clue.   So the AI briefing seemed accurate, and helpful.

Mostly it seems like this has huge potential to be "out of the frying pan, into the fire" for Syrians and Kurds.  That said, there's a reason millions of Syrians fled under Assad, as @unicorn has noted in several posts.  

In the few articles I have read, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey are the perceived regional winners, and Iran the perceived regional loser.  To the degree that is true, on the level of a global geopolitical chess board, this actually may end up being a stabilizing force.  Your own AI summary suggests that HTS is every but as fanatical, but wants to steer clear of global jihad and instead focus on "Syrian issues".  If true, that is perhaps good news for everyone but Syrians and Kurds.

The US is a winner is at least once sense, maybe.  While Afghanistan did not turn out as planned, and in retrospect Biden was right to advise Obama to get out a decade earlier, the US at the very least sent this message:  "Fuck with us, and you are dead or homeless.  Or fish food at the bottom of an ocean."  That could be one good reason why jihadists in Syria think it might be best not to fuck with the US.  At least for now.  The same would go for Russia and Putin, which might be why they won't mess with Russian bases.

Which leads to my question:  just how bad is this for Russia?  Because in the few articles I have read, Putin and Russia (along with Iran) are named as the big losers.  And Assad did end up in Russia.  How could Putin let this happen?

Is the perhaps obvious answer that Russian military forces were so focused on Ukraine that Putin simply had to lose in Syria?  Which, if true, was no doubt part of the rebels' strategy.

It is an interesting and unexpected outcome of standing up to Putin.  The Ukraine war has certainly not helped the Ukrainians (or Russians) live and prosper.  But it has helped them survive, and remain sovereign.  It has not hurt the US in any measurable way to help Ukraine.  I'd argue it helped the US, only in that it strengthened NATO.  And it gave us at least neutral moral credibility.   Meaning instead of invading Iraq for all kinds of bullshit reasons, and creating chaos in the region, this time we were actually helping a democracy that asked for our help to defend themselves.

It's also consistent with my belief that the Russian Federation is well on its way to collapse, just like the Soviet Union did.  The Soviet Union was of course way more powerful than Putin and his Genocide World.  But he obviously can't keep it together.  Meanwhile, US support for Ukraine is a blip on the US financial radar.  And Trump will make Europe pay more of the bill.

This actually is one of the better parts of Trump winning.   It now seems clear that neither side in Ukraine can win a decisive victory - for now.   I do think time is on the side of Ukraine.  Just like time was on the side of the much weaker armies in Afghanistan, who defeated both the Soviet Union and the US.  So Ukraine will be a cold cease fire, while Russia is allowed to fester.  And Syria will NOT be another military adventure for either the US or Russia, hopefully.  The rest of the world will probably appreciate that. 

The likely losers will be Syrians and Kurds, who will get slaughtered in jihadist and nationalist military campaigns.  But after two decades of drama and failed invasions, no one is looking for a new Forever War.

 

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, Moses said:

You shouldn't joke about the Tsar... Almost all the royal houses of Europe are related...

Yes, I think that was the problem.

 

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

...The likely losers will be Syrians and Kurds, who will get slaughtered in jihadist and nationalist military campaigns...

At this juncture, the future of Syria is much in the air. I doubt that even the best experts in the USA and RF would feel confident in predicting what will happen. Yes, it will probably be pretty bad for the Kurds, although even that isn't certain. For non-Kurdish and non-Shiite Syrians? Things might not be so bad. It's difficult to imagine that things could be worse than under Assad. I suspect that some country will pay big $$$ for the military bases, be it the Russians, Turks, or someone else. If so, if the rebels don't pocket everything in the way Assad did, that could help the local economy. A friendly alliance with Turkey could end up well (except for the Kurds, of course). 

[stevenkesslar]

56 minutes ago, unicorn said:

I doubt that even the best experts in the USA and RF would feel confident in predicting what will happen

I think the axiom of politics for the US, when anything like "Islam" or "jihad" are involved, is simple:   Be careful what you wish for.   The people we helped to beat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11.  The "good guys" in the Arab Spring lost, mostly quickly and pathetically.  And we ended up with much worse, as @Pete1111 already pointed out.   Let's not even talk about W.in Iraq and Hillary in Libya.  Again, I'm with Trump (and probably Putin) on this one.  Just stay the fuck out.  No good will come of it.

This is an interesting article that reaches the same conclusion as @Moses's AI homework:

What Syria’s triumphant rebels learned from Al Qaeda’s striking failures

Quote

Between the Taliban, which similarly announced a strictly nationalistic Sunni Islamist project in Afghanistan, and the HTS-led victory in Syria, the Sunni Islamist jihad movement has apparently returned to its origins in the early 1990s: nationalistic jihad. This is a direct result of the striking failures of Al Qaeda’s internationalist jihad against the West and the ISIS transnational caliphate jihad project.

Al Queada's gig never made sense to me.  That article above describes it in a way that seems particularly insane:  that these jihadist rebels somehow had to defeat the West before they could take down their lackey surrogates running Islamic countries.   And the chances of that were?????

The version I've usually read made a bit more sense.  The idea was that by attacking America, bin-Laden could stir up an anti-American, pro-jihad sentiment on the Arab street in places like Saudi Arabia that could be used to topple the regime.   Still didn't make a whole lot of sense.  And still never happened.

The thing I have always wondered, in some alternative reality, is what would have happened if the US never invaded Iraq under W., but did occupy Egypt in some way during the Arab Spring, under Obama, in order to support the democracy movement there?  It would be different going in, armed, after a country had their own popular revolution.  Which is not what happened in either Afghanistan, or Iraq.  Arguably, if there is any Islamic country that could have worked in, Egypt might have been the place. 

Ukraine gave us a taste of what might have happened.  The US did support a democratically elected leader.  We are on the side of the people, overwhelmingly.  But it basically led to a draw.  In Egypt, since there was no Russia behind a counter-revolution, maybe it would have ended up in a solid victory for democratic institutions.  We don't have to worry about that now.  The issue now is: how bad will it get?

Every article now suggests that Americans (and Russians, and Europeans) have less to worry about in the short term, but possibly more to worry about in the future.  The switch to fighting national wars based on extremist ideas, rather than global jihad, is practical in nature.   Syria will encourage more of that, based on the idea that a more limited goal (taking over a country is never a modest idea) is more winnable.  But if that does happen in a number of countries, at some point it becomes a much bigger terrorist threat than Afghanistan was.  

There is a story I have told a lot about a former conservative client, Epigonos, over at Daddy's old site.  The essence of the story is that he and I completely disagreed about the Iraq War.  But it took both of us all of 15 minutes to understand why it would eventually fail.  And we were both right. 

My main point was that the idea was awful, and like every other US quagmire it would backfire.  Most Americans would now agree with me.  Epigonos supported the basic idea, but argued that W. would fuck it up by putting boots on the ground.  He argued we should just bomb the living fuck out of Iraq.  How lovely!  So I asked what happens if we bomb the fuck out of it, and what rises out of the ashes is worse than what we bombed the fuck out of?   He said, I think verbatim, "That's simple.  Then we go bomb the fuck out of it again."  In effect, we did that.   We bombed the fuck out of it, and then got ISIS.  And then we did have to go back and bomb the fuck out of it again.  It was and still is one big tragic mess.

That said, after decades of Forever Wars, it actually sounds like a pragmatic, if brutal, idea.   And Trump is the kind of bad ass to send the message, unilaterally.  Although Harris would have done it just as well, after working closely with NATO and a lot of democratic leaders in Europe and Asia.  Leave us the fuck alone, and we'll leave you alone.  Fuck with us, or any of our allies (if it were Harris saying it) and we will bomb the fuck out of you.   As many times as it takes.   The US does have the receipts (or bloodbaths, if you prefer) for being credible about that.

 

[Moses]

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

of Syrians fled under Assad, as @unicorn has noted in several posts.  

They fled from ISIS, and the peak of fleeing was at the summer 2015 - more than 2 millions. After Russian intervention to conflict at October 2015 within next few months flow more than halved and to summer 2016 almost stopped, then both - Russia and US announced ISIS defeated in Syria.

 

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Which leads to my question:  just how bad is this for Russia?  Because in the few articles I have read, Putin and Russia (along with Iran) are named as the big losers.  And Assad did end up in Russia.  How could Putin let this happen?

I suppose there were some deals btw current movement  and Russian security services in advance, because at days when some embassies were closed in Damask and Iranian embassy was destroyed, Russian embassy worked as usual without any problems. Therefore operation of the evacuation Assad was prepared in advance and was done without problems.

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

his time we were actually helping a democracy that asked for our help to defend themselves

Is this what your media is telling you? Well then you will have the opportunity to tell it to these people who will be hanged on poles in Damascus by the rebels, as they have already announced...

Why do you trust your media so blindly? The leading force in this rebel movement is Al-Qaeda, which carried out 9/11, and now you are talking positively about how it has taken over Syria and about "democracy".

All that awaits Syria is Sharia law, burqas on women and religious control of all aspects of Syrian life. It is simply amazing how much the media has brainwashed you in an attempt to pass off what is happening as a Biden victory. But in fact, the last secular state in the region has fallen.

Moreover, Al Qaeda will now be legalized as the government of Syria, but will also have at its disposal the resources of an entire country rich in oil and gas.

[stevenkesslar]

4 minutes ago, Moses said:

I suppose there were some deals btw current movement  and Russian security services in advance, because at days when some embassies were closed in Damask and Iranian embassy was destroyed, Russian embassy worked as usual without any problems. Therefore operation of the evacuation Assad was prepared in advance and was done without problems.

I'm completely ignorant about what's going on in Syria.  But this makes sense. 

What was pretty clear in Afghanistan is that the Taliban cut all kinds of deals with tribal leaders, as well as the supposedly weak and corrupt Afghan security forces,in advance.  The basic idea that seemed to work was, "Why wipe each other out, when the US is leaving, anyway?" 

n terms of the US media, they actually did a decent job for a long time of pointing out that while lots of Afghan citizens - like women- wanted the US to stay, the government and security forces were corrupt.  And the whole picture was always on the brink of disaster to one degree or another.  Which is why Biden was drilling Obama to pull the plug as far back as 2009.  Before the surge that generals like Petraeus advised that killed lots of American soldiers and Afghans.  

Trump essentially signed the death contract for the Afghan government when he made that deal with the Taliban.  It gave the Taliban plenty of time to cut deals and organize a mostly bloodless takeover.  The difference in Syria is there's no appearance that something similar took place.  The rebel forces were able to pull themselves together to attack Assad.  But Russia was not part of that, at least based on what we know now. 

It was very clear that Trump wanted to get out of Afghanistan.  And presumably expected the withdrawal would occur at the beginning of his second term in 2021.  There is no evidence or reporting that Putin was looking for a way out of Syria.  Quite the opposite.  He got pushed out, like it or not, because his military was weak and spent and focused on Ukraine.  So whatever he thinks he has won in Ukraine, he now has a big collateral loss in Syria and the region.

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

The Ukraine war ... helped the US, only in that it strengthened NATO.  And it gave us at least neutral moral credibility.   Meaning instead of invading Iraq for all kinds of bullshit reasons, and creating chaos in the region, this time we were actually helping a democracy that asked for our help to defend themselves.

 

14 minutes ago, Moses said:

Is this what your media is telling you? Well then you will have the opportunity to tell it to these people who will be hanged on poles in Damascus by the rebels, as they have already announced...

First, in case it was not clear, you quoted me from the end of a paragraph about Ukraine, not Syria.   So I am not sure what people who will be hanged on poles in Damascus has to do with Genocide Man's mass slaughter of civilians in Ukraine.   

It sounds like we agree about Syria.  At best, there will be relatively minor carnage for targeted groups.   Including Gays, of course.  At worst, it will be a jihadist bloodbath like ISIS.  Like a decade ago, one factor will be whether it gets bad enough to cause a mass exodus.   Assuming people can get out.  But this time Europe will be much less welcoming.  Which is another factor that may lead to some restraint.  

If you were referring to Ukraine, and not Syria, what is your media telling you?   Because the polls of Ukrainians are incredibly clear.  And it is awful news for Genocide Man and Genocide World. 

For a long time, like most of the time since the Cold War ended, Ukraine was split politically between favoring Russia and favoring the US and Europe.  And a lot of that was based on all the cultural and historical and linguistic bonds Putin wrote about in his treatise.  The war has changed that.  Ukrainians hate Russians, and do not want to be a part of Genocide World.  If they make a peace deal, it will only be based on pragmatic constraints given that Trump is now in charge.  But even if Harris had won, I am sure they feel exhausted, and now realize that a complete victory - like getting all the seized territory back - is impossible for now.  But Ukraine will despise Russia probably for at least as long as any living Ukrainian is alive.  There is just no getting around that.  There is no getting around the fact that they will wait for Russia to weaken.  Just like Poland and all those Iron Curtain nations waited for the Soviet Union to stagnate and die.

One can make a great argument that what happened in Ukraine can all be blamed on the CIA, or NATO, or some combination of horrible Western forces or institutions.  Putin of course made that argument in his treatise.  Great.  That's what the polls say most Russians believe, right?  So that's fine to believe.  But then you also have to believe that Putin is desperate, or stupid, or both.  Because he took the bait.  He started a war that changed everything.   And now he has a country full of people right next door that hate him, and can't wait for the Russian Federation to collapse.  And he also has a collapse in Syria.  

This is a different version of what happened to the Soviet Union.  It is death by inches, not one big climactic end.  Some kind of deal on Ukraine will be brokered, probably, which will at best be a ceasefire.  There will be an economic reprieve for Russia.  But what Syria makes a little more clear is that Genocide World is much more fragile than the Soviet Union.  And it won't be a surprise to anyone if at some point it collapses.   

For the US there is good news.  For sure from the perspective of most Trump voters.  The US is freed up to focus on other things.  Mostly domestic.  But the coup for the US would be if Trump can somehow pull off the kind of grand peace deal in the Middle East he at least thinks he can.   And which our cheerleading sycophant @EmmetKruelty surely thinks Trump will get finished in his first week.

I ain't holding my breath.  Trump 1.0 failed to achieve peace with Iran, or North Korea, or China, or Putin for that matter.  He just talked a lot from 2017 to 2020.  But what Biden did in Ukraine - pinning Putin down - and what the rebels did in Syria - weakening Iran - probably helps Trump and US interests in the Middle East.  I think where you and I would partly agree is that war criminal Bibi Netanyahu is every but as genocidal as Putin.   So good luck to Trump getting the war criminal to agree to something other than ethnic cleansing or genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.  

Mostly what seems to be falling into place is not World War III, but Cold War II.  Cold War I was actually a pretty good time that ended well for most of the world.   Except the Soviet Union, of course.

Your media is not telling you that, is it?

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, Moses said:

...Is this what your media is telling you?...

Actually, no, I've haven't seen/heard this in any media reports (TV or radio) in the US. None of the pundits feel democracy is even likely, much less guaranteed. Very few are bold enough to make any predictions. My understanding is that the Turks helped the rebels, so I have some hope that the Turks will have more influence with the new regime than the Russians. However, that's just a hope on my part. I'm certainly not willing to stick my neck out to make a prediction. 

[Moses]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

Turks will have more influence with the new regime than the Russians

Sure, they have border. But it isn't about influence - it is about mutual interests: both sides want to exterminate or push out Kurds.

[stevenkesslar]

8 hours ago, Moses said:

it is about mutual interests:

Interesting article about Saudi Arabia and the 30,000 foot political view of the region.  It reinforces the idea that what happened in Syria will likely help rather than hinder Saudi/Israel/US alignment.

‘China on Steroids’: A Saudi Path to a Peaceful, Modern Middle East

After a violent and reckless start, the crown prince is transforming his kingdom on the Gulf.

Quote

But there’s a simple reason why Saudi Arabia might be part of the solution: The kingdom is embarked on the most radical transformation in its history. It wants to modernize its economy and society. It isn’t looking to become an Arab superpower. The most overt threat to those plans isn’t from within — dissent isn’t allowed. It is from the many sources of instability across the region, like Gaza, Syria and, above all, Iran.

Quote

The aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks makes an even more compelling case for Saudi Arabia to strike a deal. The key element — the one that Riyadh cares most about — is the promise of an American security guarantee for Saudi Arabia, preferably in the form of a Senate-ratified treaty along the lines of NATO. The violence that Oct. 7 unleashed that brought about direct confrontations between Israel and Iran reminded Saudis of their own precarious security — the threat from extremists and from their rival Iran, which has nuclear ambitions.

 

The logic is compelling:   fuck war.   Let's build a regional economic juggernaut that is prosperous, peaceful, and stable.   Why not?

One problem is solved.   MBS has figured out that, at the very least, you just can't chop up anyone who is even a minor voice of dissent.   Putin is better at this.  He just arranges for them to get a bullet in their head, with no fingerprints on the gun.

The real problem now is my least favorite Genocide Jew, war criminal Bibi The Baby Killer.  He has been patiently outwitting US Presidents seeking to cut a peace deal since Bill Clinton in the 90's.  Trump and Bibi The Baby Killer may share the same pollster.  But they don't share the same interests.  War criminal Bibi can't stay in power without his war crimes coalition.   If we throw John Mearsheimer's views in, we can debate whether the Israeli war criminal coalition is for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, or simply for genocide of Palestinians.   Whatever it is, it ain't peace and it ain't democracy.

This would all work if war criminal Bibi could convince most Israelis, and most democracies, that democracy is bad and genocide is good.  Just annex the whole thing, keep the majority of Palestinians from voting, and kill the ones that speak up.   They could even argue it is what MBS does.  Why not let Israel be just like Saudi Arabia?  It's no fun there anymore, since they got rid of public executions and replaced them with cinemas.   Why not have public executions of Palestinians in Israel?

It is a dark and sick vision.  And it is certainly not the basis of a peace deal Trump will push.  We all know how successful he was convinving Krazy Kim to stop being Krazy.  So I just don't hold up much hope that Trump will get war criminal Bibi and his war crimes coalition to stop being who they are.

Nor will Ireland.   Anyone who opposes war criminal and genocide Jew Bibi The Baby Killer is now "anti-Israel".  I'm glad Bibi is calling the question.   The new framework is you can either be for israel, or against genocide.  You can't be both.  

Go ahead, Bibi.   Make the world choose.   You are making MBS look like the pussycat.

 

 

 

[Moses]

12 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Saudi/Israel/US alignment

alignment btw despotic monarchy,  bloody "democracy" and world's gendarme

[Suckrates]

 

While Syrians "smiling" faces reveal a hope and optimism for the future with a New Regime,  Americas faces are ridden with frustration, pain and despair at the thought of a New Trump Regime facing them.    Even "normal" Trump supporters are doubtful Trump will bring any positive change to Americans way of life, and fear their vote was a MISTAKE. . 

[stevenkesslar]

13 hours ago, Moses said:

alignment btw despotic monarchy,  bloody "democracy" and world's gendarme

Look who's talking.

The International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant for Putin

Genocide Man and Bibi The Baby Killer are the two genocidal monsters in the room.

Trump winning makes things easier for me.  Because I don't have to feel conflicted about what Biden is doing in Israel anymore.  It is on Trump now.  And, in theory, maybe he can talk war criminal Bibi The Baby Killer out of being a war criminal.  More likely, Bibi The Baby Killer will outlast him until he dies.   And, given the way Israeli politics and demographics are going, we'll get something worse after the war criminal.  Meanwhile, at some point the Russian Federation will collapse.

It's a little surprising no one is talking about how Israel contributed to Biden's loss.  It is obvious that millions of 2020 Biden voters simply did not vote.  Maybe it was about rent and mortgage rates being too high.   But the "Genocide Joe" label did not help.  And some 2020 Biden voters, like Muslim Americans in Michigan, voted for Trump out of anger at Biden. 

So the lesson for Democrats is simple.   We can have "Genocide Joe" if we want.  But it is probably a reason millions of Democrats won't bother to vote.  We'll see how that plays out in 2028.

But for now, I'm all for Trump trying to make peace in the region.  Who are you to talk about peace, after Genocide Man launched an uninvited slaughter in Ukraine?

 

[Moses]

10 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

It is on Trump now. 

Nope, dear. Jan 20 is the border. Responsibility for everything before, lays on Joe and dems.

[Suckrates]

9 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

So the lesson for Democrats is simple.   We can have "Genocide Joe" if we want.  But it is probably a reason millions of Democrats won't bother to vote.  We'll see how that plays out in 2028.

But for now, I'm all for Trump trying to make peace in the region.  Who are you to talk about peace, after Genocide Man launched an uninvited slaughter in Ukraine?

 

 

The ONLY way Trump will be a broker for peace is IF he will personally benefit, financially or otherwise.  We have already seen in 2020 he doesnt care about the well being of America.  We will sit and watch it crumble or burn if theres no benefit to HIM...... So I suspect @stevenkesslar, your putting your expectations a bit too high.  You've had enough time and experience with Trump to KNOW better. 

[stevenkesslar]

15 minutes ago, Moses said:

Nope, dear. Jan 20 is the border. Responsibility for everything before, lays on Joe and dems.

LOL.   Picky bitch.

We agree.  I'll repeat what I said.  I think the "Genocide Joe" label contributed to Biden's defeat.  There's been a massive change in how young Democrats looks at Israel.  And not just Democrats.  Independents have shifted a lot, too.

It makes sense.  Without going into any level of complexity at all - which is impossible if we are talking about Israel - there was a moment when Clinton and Barak were the peacemakers, and Arafat was the guy who said no.  There is almost no version of alternative reality where Palestinians would not have been better off, had Arafat taken the deal.  But that is so 20th century.  Young voters can read about THAT Israel in the history books.  Biden will no longer be around to tell warm and fuzzy stories about Golda Meir.

So now what we have is a war criminal, period.  And I am not referring to Genocide Man.  And Trump, whose son-in-law is making a fortune thanks to Saudi Arabia.  So I would not dare to make a prediction on this one.  Fareed Zakaria just had a good program that pointed out how strong militarily Bibi's Israel is at the moment.  And how much risk there is of "hubris" setting a trap for failure. Much like when "should have been a war criminal" George W. Bush decided to fib about WMD and invaded Iraq.  Oops! 

I'd be happy just dumping actual war criminals Putin and Netanyahu and shoulda been war criminal George W. Bush in Gaza to fend for themselves.

But if I had to bet, we'll get a lot more genocide in Gaza.  And maybe even the West Bank.   We'll see.

[stevenkesslar]

19 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

The ONLY way Trump will be a broker for peace is IF he will personally benefit, financially or otherwise.

MBS has already made Jared Kushner rich.   So we agree.  This is a reason it actually could happen.  If Trump and his family will get more money, he is on it.

Politics

Jared Kushner defends his equity firm getting $2 billion from Saudis after he left White House

 

Quite honestly, I could give a shit.  If the price of saving tens of thousands (or more) Palestinian women and children is that Jared gets super rich, who cares? If Israelis get peace, despite having a war criminal leader who has built his career inflaming war, good for them.

The problem is that war criminal Bibi The Baby Killer can not survive without his war criminal coalition.  He can have either peace, or power.   I don't think it's hard to guess which one a war criminal will choose.   But I'll consult with Genocide Man and see what he thinks.

[Suckrates]

6 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

MBS has already made Jared Kushner rich.   So we agree.  This is a reason it actually could happen.  If Trump and his family will get more money, he is on it.

Politics

Jared Kushner defends his equity firm getting $2 billion from Saudis after he left White House

 

Quite honestly, I could give a shit.  If the price of saving tens of thousands (or more) Palestinian women and children is that Jared gets super rich, who cares? If Israelis get peace, despite having a war criminal leader who has built his career inflaming war, good for them.

The problem is that war criminal Bibi The Baby Killer can not survive without his war criminal coalition.  He can have either peace, or power.   I don't think it's hard to guess which one a war criminal will choose.   But I'll consult with Genocide Man and see what he thinks.

 

Of course Peace is the goal, but selling out America and its people to get it just seems WRONG....  I guess we will just have to disagree on this one  ?

[stevenkesslar]

5 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one  ?

Well, Sis.   You have always been more principled than me.   It always had to be at least 8 inches.   

I was the unprincipled whore who would settle for anything.  😉

[Suckrates]

4 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Well, Sis.   You have always been more principled than me.   It always had to be at least 8 inches.   

I was the unprincipled whore who would settle for anything.  😉

Usually, a person that "settles for anything"  "stands for Nothing".    That's not true in your case.   You are normally a VERY driven and committed girl....   So I will allow you THIS transgression.   

[stevenkesslar]

 

It's interesting that Trump today sort of congratulated Erdogan as the key actor in getting Assad out of Syria. 

Quote

“Turkey is a major force, by the way,” Trump said. “Erdoğan is somebody I got along with great, but he has a major military force. And his has not been worn out with war. He’s built a very strong, powerful army.”

I take that as an opening overture in Trump wanting to be the guy who finally brings peace to the Middle East.  

Arguably, we now have an alignment that is at least as good as Clinton, Barak, and Arafat at the end of Clinton's Presidency.  The problem back then was Arafat wasn't willing to go along.  In part because he thought the Hamas types would just kill him if he made peace.  And look what Arafat got for his efforts! 

Now the problem is war criminal Netanyahu.  But you can make a good argument that if you put four strong men in a room - Trump, war criminal Bibi, MBS, and Erdogan - at least in theory they might be able to come up with something that Palestinians will have to live with.  It would be shades of Nixon being the only guy who could open China.  Or Reagan making a deal with the Soviet Union.  Stranger things have happened.  Two of which I just named.

It's also a bit surprising that, while the Arab Street pretty much trusts no nation, and despises the US,  Turkey is trusted as much or slightly more than Iran.

 

My guess is that Trump will be about as successful at Middle East peace as he was with improving relations with Krazy Kim or Xi.  Like with those two, he can't change war criminal Bibi's fundamental views or interests.  Nor can Trump change the views or interests of the roughly half of Israel that backs the war criminal coalition that empowers Bibi.  But Trump will give it a try.

Meanwhile, here's the flip side of the argument:

 

Trump's pro-Israel cabinet picks upset Muslims who voted for him

Quote

Several Muslim and Arab supporters of Trump said they hoped Richard Grenell, Trump's former acting director of national intelligence, would play a key role after he led months of outreach to Muslim and Arab American communities, and was even introduced as a potential next secretary of state at events.   Another key Trump ally, Massad Boulos, the Lebanese father-in-law of Trump's daughter Tiffany, met repeatedly with Arab American and Muslim leaders.

 

Quote

Both promised Arab American and Muslim voters that Trump was a candidate for peace who would act swiftly to end the wars in the Middle East and beyond. 

Quote

"It's like he's going on Zionist overdrive," he [Hassan Abdel Salam, co-founder of the Abandon Harris campaign] said. "We were always extremely skeptical ... Obviously we're still waiting to see where the administration will go, but it does look like our community has been played."

 

Ya think?

This is the part of the 2024 election that is incomprehensible to me.  I can get how a young Latino who likes watching the Nelk Boys rip on woke behavior, and is pissed about his rent, votes for Trump.  And I can get how Muslims are pissed at Biden for acquiescing while 50,000 Palestinians were wiped out, courtesy of US weapons.  But electing Trump seems like voting for genocide.  It's surprising that any Muslim who voted for Trump is the least bit surprised. 

Call me cynical, but Trump would be content to let Bibi wipe out 500,000 Palestinians if he thought he could get away with it.  At least Trump is smart enough to know he can't.  Whether it was ever stated or not, the obvious incentive to a war criminal like Bibi was to kill as many Palestinians as he could while Biden was POTUS.  Let Trump at least make noises about peace.

So we'll see.  This will be one of the less predictable and more interesting parts of Trump's Presidency to watch.  But my guess is that, just like with Krazy Kim, the idea of strong man politics is going to let us down.  And in 2028 it will be part of why America is ready to move on to something else.  And why the next four years will be particularly tragic for Palestinians and Kurds.

 

 

[unicorn]

In the meantime, Russian ships have wisely abandoned their Syrian bases, according the satellite imagery:

https://news.usni.org/2024/12/10/satellite-photos-show-russian-navy-exodus-from-syria-syrian-missile-boats-sunk-at-pier

Before:

After:

[Moses]

16 hours ago, unicorn said:

In the meantime, Russian ships have wisely abandoned their Syrian bases, according the satellite imagery:

Photo from December 10. The ships have already returned.

The base is leased until 2066. The current leaders of Syria have already decided on their position on the base - they will implement the previous agreement with Russia.

[unicorn]

1 hour ago, Moses said:

Photo from December 10. The ships have already returned.

The base is leased until 2066. The current leaders of Syria have already decided on their position on the base - they will implement the previous agreement with Russia.

And just let Assad pocket the money? After what Russian-backed Assad did to the country? It's up to the Syrians, but that seems like a foolish decision, if true. Of course, your word doesn't mean much, so I'd have to verify it independently. Assad made agreements and took in money for his own personal benefit. It seems foolish not to revisit those agreements. 

[Moses]

2 hours ago, unicorn said:

And just let Assad pocket the money?

2 hours ago, unicorn said:

and took in money for his own personal benefit

You said that for propaganda or because you was his personal banker and know details?

What Russia really does - it moves C-400 and C-300 to Libya, because technologies are quite sensitive and it will be bad if Islamist radicals will get them.

[unicorn]

8 minutes ago, Moses said:

You said that for propaganda or because you was his personal banker and know details?

...

I guess the Russian press hasn't been privy to see the billion-dollar palace he lived in, which we have been able to see only recently. From where do you think the money came to build that? Syrians were starving to death while he lived in the epitome of luxury. I'm sure the Syrian people weren't thrilled to see this opulent palace.

https://www.nationalreview.com/photos/inside-assads-palace/