Assad Plans To Retake "All Syria," Will "Confront" Saudis, Turks If Invaded

Tyler Durden's picture

Nine months ago, things weren’t look good for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

Four years into his country’s bloody civil war, he found himself fighting a multi-front war against a long list of largely Sunni extremist elements and the government’s forces were stretched thin. The rebels enjoyed the support not only of the US, but of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. That meant that their resources were essentially unlimited.

It had taken longer than expected, but by summer of last year, the plan that was revealed in a leaked diplomatic cable from 2006 penned by Deputy Chief of Mission in Syria William Roebuck had materialized. The West and its regional allies had managed to engineer a Sunni uprising against the Alawite government by fomenting sectarian discord and within months, Assad would either flee (likely to Russia) or end up like Gaddafi - executed by an angry mob.

Russia’s intervention changed all that by giving Hezbollah an advanced air force to back ground offensives and now, four months since Russia first begun flying combat missions from Latakia, Assad is poised to recapture Aleppo, securing his grip on the country’s main urban centers.

Assad has given several interviews since the end of last summer. We’ve documented most of them here. In September for instance, he had the following advice for the West, which suddenly became acutely aware of the “problem” in Syria when the indelible image of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi drowned on a Turkish beach was plastered all over the nightly news: "If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists. That's what we think regarding the crisis. This is the core of the whole issue of refugees."

Then, in the wake of the Paris attacks, Assad condemned the assaults as “savage” but reminded the media that “what France suffered from terror is what the Syrian people have been enduring for over five years.” "We said, don't take what is happening in Syria lightly. Unfortunately, European officials did not listen,” he added.

Then, in December, Assad invited Die Presse to Damascus for a sweeping interview in which the President described the country’s infrastructure as “pretty much destroyed” and blamed Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar for turning Syria into a “hotbed for terrorists.”

Now, with Iran and Russia set to rout the rebels at Aleppo, Assad sat down with AFP and said from Damascus that pro-government forces would “without any hesitation” look to retake the entire country from the rebels. Below, find excerpts from the interview in which Assad also touches on the possibility of a Saudi or Turkish ground invasion, and on Europe’s culpability in vis-a-vis the conflict.

*  *  *

Highlights from AFP and al-Arabiya

Speaking Thursday in Damascus, Assad said his armed forces would try to retake all of Syria “without any hesitation,” but that the involvement of regional players “means that the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price.”

“The main battle is about cutting the road between Aleppo and Turkey, for Turkey is the main conduit of supplies for the terrorists,” he said in an interview conducted Thursday in Damascus.

He warned that the French government should change its “destructive policies” in support of extremists.

France has implemented “destructive policies extending direct support to terrorism... It is France’s duty to reverse or change its policies,” Assad said.

“We have fully believed in negotiations... however, if we negotiate, it does not mean that we stop fighting terrorism. The two tracks are inevitable in Syria,” he said.

But he said he sees a risk that Saudi Arabia or Turkey could launch a military intervention in his country.

He said he “doesn’t rule out” such an intervention, but said that his armed forces “will certainly confront it.”

On the issue of the refugee crisis he said Europe was a “direct cause” of Syrians fleeing their homeland and must stop “giving cover to terrorists” before people return.

He called on European governments “which have been a direct cause for the emigration of these people... to help in making Syrians return to their country.”

"I would like to ask every person who left Syria to come back," he said.

"They would ask 'why should I come back? Has terrorism stopped?'"

Full transcript

Question 1: How do you feel when you see tens of thousands of your citizens starving, running away from hunger, from their areas which are being shelled by your Russian allies, and trying to cross the borders to Turkey? And how do you feel when you see the pictures of them drowning in their attempt to cross the seas?

President Assad: If we talk about emotions, I belong to this people; and it is self-evident that I have the same feelings my people have. Any scene of suffering is painful to all of us as Syrians. But as an official, the question for me is less about emotions than about what I, as an official, should do, being responsible before my people.

However, when the cause of this suffering is the terrorists, not the Russian shelling as claimed by Western media, and when one cause for migration is the almost five-year-old embargo against the Syrian people, naturally my, and every Syrian official's first task is to fight terrorism essentially using Syrian capabilities, but also using our friends' support in the fight against terrorism. That's why I say the problem of Syrian refugees abroad, as well as the problem of hunger inside Syria, as you referred to it, is a problem caused by terrorism, Western policies, and the embargo imposed on the Syrian people.

Question 2: Mr. President, can we talk about the possibility of putting an end to shelling civilian populations and also lifting the blockade imposed on certain areas?

President Assad: The conflict has been, since the beginning of the crisis in Syria, about who wins the support of the people in Syria. Consequently, it doesn't make sense for us to shell civilians if we want to win them to our side. This is in theory. Practically, while moving around in Syria, you will find that in any area under the control of the state, all sections of Syrian society, including the families of the militants, are being cared for by the state. What is more is that in a city like Raqa, which is under the full control of Daesh (ISIS), the state continues to pay the salaries of employees and send vaccines for children. So it doesn't make sense for the state to shell civilians while doing all the above, unless we are talking about mistakes which happen in every battle. The general rule is that there are innocent victims in every war. This is a rule of thumb in wars, but this is definitely not the Syrian state's policy.

Question 3: Mr. President, what do you say to those emigrating to Europe? Do you ask them to come back?

President Assad: I would like to ask every person who left Syria to come back. That's natural but not enough. Emotions are not enough. They would ask: "Why should I come back? Has terrorism stopped? Have the basic requirements for life been restored?" Many of those who have emigrated are neither against the Syrian state or with the terrorists, but sometimes there are circumstances which force people to emigrate. So, my answer to this question is: when terrorism recedes, and things are better, they will return of their own volition without any invitation. So, instead of asking these people to return, I'll call on the European governments, which have been a direct cause for the emigration of these people, by giving cover to terrorists in the beginning, and through the sanctions imposed on Syria, to help in making the Syrians return to their country.

Question 4: Mr. President, will the Syrian state regain control over Aleppo in the next few days? If so, what is next?

President Assad: The battle in Aleppo now is not about regaining control over Aleppo, because the Syrian state is there; but the main battle is about cutting the road between Aleppo and Turkey; for Turkey is the main conduit of supplies for the terrorists. The battle is going on now on more than ten fronts at the same time, from north to south, to the east, to the far east too, and to the west in Latakia. It was going on in Homs, and now it's over. So, all these stages are moving in parallel.

Question 5: Do you think, Mr. President, that you can regain control over all Syrian territory?

President Assad: Regardless of whether we can do that or not, this is a goal we are seeking to achieve without any hesitation. It makes no sense for us to say that we will give up any part. The timeframe is dependent on two scenarios. Suppose that the problem is purely Syrian, i.e. that Syria is isolated from its surroundings, we can put an end to this problem in less than a year by moving on two fronts: fighting terrorism and political action. The second scenario -- which is the case now -- taking the shape of continuing supplies to terrorists through Turkey, Jordan, and partly from Iraq ? because Daesh (ISIS)exists in Iraq with Saudi, Turkish, and Qatari support -? naturally means that the solution will take a long time and will incur a heavy price. So it is difficult to give a precise answer about the timeframe.

Question 6: Can't you say precisely how many years you need to restore peace to Syria?

President Assad: The question is: for how many years will Turkey and Saudi Arabia continue to support terrorism? That is the question. And when will the West put pressure on these countries to stop supporting terrorism?

Question 7: Who is your main enemy? Is it the so-called moderate opposition and the Islamists, or is it Daesh (ISIS)?

President Assad: I don't think that the term "opposition" can be used, in France or anywhere else in the world, to describe somebody carrying a weapon. Opposition is a political act. Suppose that you mean to say "moderate terrorists", this is a different term. Saying that, you mean that they do not belong to Daesh (ISIS), Al-Nusra, or to these extremist groups. Obama said that the moderate opposition is a fantasy. Biden said the same thing. But what's more important is reality which says that such an opposition is non-existent. Most of the militants belong to extremist groups, such as Daesh (ISIS), Al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others. So, my answer is that every terrorist is an enemy. We respect every political opposition; and we do have political opposition inside Syria. They adopt tough positions against the state, and we are not attacking them.

Question 8: You see no difference between these armed groups and Daesh (ISIS), Al-Nusra, and others?

President Assad: Legally speaking, there is no difference. The state will confront all those who carry weapons. It will not ask them about their ideology. But the difference is that the extremist groups refuse to have any dialogue with the state. They believe that they will fight, die, and go to heaven. This is their doctrine. The other groups are not ideological. Most of them have been misled. They got involved in dialogue with the state later. Some of them have laid down their weapons, and some are actually fighting with the Syrian Army today. We grant them amnesty in return for laying down their weapons.

Question 9: Mr. President, what do you think of Jaish al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham? They did negotiate with you, and went to Geneva.

President Assad: They went as part of the opposition formed by Saudi Arabia, because it is Saudi Arabia which supports terrorism worldwide. So it is only natural for the representatives of Saudi Arabia to be terrorists, not politicians.

Question 10: So you will not negotiate with those?

President Assad: In principle, direct negotiations were not supposed to take place in Geneva 3. They were supposed to take place through de Mistura. And here we should be precise: we are not negotiating with Syrians, but with representatives of Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, and others. So, if you mean Syrian-Syrian dialogue, the answer is naturally no. Dialogue with these people is not a Syrian-Syrian dialogue at all. A Syrian dialogue is that conducted with Syrian groups which have grassroots in Syria, like the political opposition in Syria, for instance. Any persons calling themselves opposition but belong to foreign states or foreign intelligence services do not represent Syrians in the dialogue, and simply we do not consider them Syrian.

Question 11: All those who went to Geneva were based outside Syria. Can you explain?

President Assad: No, some of them are based inside Syria, and some live outside Syria but they are involved in politics and have supporters in Syria. I'm not talking only about terrorists, I'm talking about people who have been formed in a foreign state and act on behalf of a foreign state.

Question 12: Don't you think that had you been more tolerant in dealing with this opposition in the past, you would have avoided this conflict? Don't you bear part of the responsibility?

President Assad: We do not claim that we did not make mistakes in Syria. This is natural in any state. And we do not claim that we, in the Middle East, have reached a stage of significant political openness. We were moving in that direction, not very quickly, and maybe slowly. Back to your question, the more radical segments of the opposition inside Syria, which attack the state, have not been imprisoned or prosecuted by the state, neither before or after the crisis. So, I don't know what is meant by tolerance in this case.

Question 13: Maybe it was difficult for the opposition inside Syria before. Maybe they did not have a margin for movement?

President Assad: You are talking about a general condition in the Middle East. This is partly true, particularly in the Arab world. But the question in this case is not that of tolerance. The question has to do with individuals rather than institutions. The question is: what is the institutional action that we should take in order to move forward. This has legal, social, or cultural aspects, because democracy is more of a culture than a law. You cannot proceed with laws while remaining culturally in your place.

Question 14: Mr. President, do you think that there might be a Turkish intervention in Syria now? And do you think the Saudi threats are serious?

President Assad: Logically, intervention is not possible, but sometimes reality is at odds with logic, particularly when there are irrational people leading a certain state. That's why I don't rule that out for a simple reason: Erdogan is a fanatical person with Muslim Brotherhood inclinations. He is living the Ottoman dream. For him, the collapse which took place in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria is something personal. This threatens his political future, on the one hand, and his fanatical Islamist ambitions, on the other. He believes that he has an Islamist mission in our region. The same applies to Saudi Arabia. The collapse of the terrorists in Syria is a collapse of their policies. I tell you that this process is surely not going to be easy for them, and we will certainly confront it.

Question 15: Mr. President, are you prepared to give northern Syria to the Kurds for self-rule after the crisis?

President Assad: This question is directly related to the Syrian constitution; and as you know, the constitution is not given by the government, all sections of Syrian society have a say in it, and it is put to public referendum. That's why this should be a national question, not a question put to any Syrian official, whether it has to do with self-rule, federalism, decentralisation, or any similar thing. All these things are part of the political dialogue in the future; but I would like to stress that the Kurds are a Syrian national group.

Question 16: Is it true that the Russians tried to persuade you to step down? Don't you fear a Russian-American deal on this issue?

President Assad: If we look at Russian policies and Russian officials in the same way we look at unprincipled Western officials and policies, this is a possibility. But the fact is the exact opposite, for a simple reason: the Russians treat us with great respect. They do not treat us as a superpower dealing with a minor state, but as a sovereign state dealing with a sovereign state. That's why this issue has not been raised at all in any shape or form.

Question 17: Mr. President, are you prepared to give Russia and Iran permanent bases on your territory? Do you fear that Syria will become a satellite to these powers?

President Assad: Having military bases for any country in Syria does not mean that Syria will become a satellite state to these countries. They do not interfere in issues related to the law, the constitution, nor to politics. In any case, the Russian base exists already, while the Iranians have not asked to have one. But in principle, we do not have a problem.

Question 18: So if the Iranians raise this possibility, will you accept?

President Assad: The issue hasn't been raised, and consequently this is hypothetical. But as I said, when we accept it in the case of Russia, it means the principle is acceptable. But this also depends on the capabilities of every state and their role on the regional and international arena.

Question 19: Has Russia asked your permission to build new bases on your territory?

President Assad: No.

Question 20: The American elections are still at the primaries stage. Are you, personally, with candidate Trump or Clinton or is there a third person who might be in the interest of the region?

President Assad: We have never placed our bets on any American president. We always bet on policies; and these policies are not controlled only by the president, but by the establishment in general, and by the lobbies operating in the United States. If you look at the competition between many candidates, now or in the past, you will find that it revolves around who is more inclined to start wars, and this doesn't bode well. The problem with American politicians is that they say something and do the exact opposite, before and after the elections.

Intervention: So, the promises made by Trump do not frighten you?

President Assad: No. As I said, since I don't build on what the American candidates say, I see no reason why I should comment on any of them, i.e. they are all alike to me.

Question 21: Mr. President, do you intend to be a president for life? And if you don't, are you in the process of grooming a successor, perhaps one of your sons?

President Assad: First, the presidency is not a hobby that we enjoy. It is a responsibility, particularly in these circumstances. As to my selecting a successor, this country is neither a farm nor a company. If I want to remain president, that should be dependent on two factors: first, my desire to be president, and second, the desire of the people. When the next elections come and I feel that the people don't want me, I shall not stand. That's why it's too early to talk about this. We still have years before the next elections.

Question 22: Mr. President, you know that there have been many accusations made about your government and you personally, most recently by the UN investigation committee which accused you of genocide, which is a crime against humanity. Aren't you concerned that you will one day face an international court?

President Assad: First, you know that UN institutions express balance among the superpowers and the conflict among them. And these organisations are now basically controlled by Western powers. That's why most of their reports are politicised and serve a political agenda. The evidence is that these organisations haven't said anything about clear massacres perpetrated by terrorist groups against innocent civilians in Syria. What refutes the reports of these organisations is that, first, they do not provide any evidence, and this is the case in general. Second, there is a logic for things: if Western states and rich Gulf states are against an individual, and this individual is killing his people, how would he withstand for five years in these circumstances? That's why I'm not concerned about these threats or these allegations.

Question 23: But don't you believe that these reports are correct? There are eyewitnesses in this case.

President Assad: No, there is a difference between individual crimes having been committed and having a state policy of systematic killing. I said that innocent people die in the war. That is true, but war crimes are committed when orders are given to follow a policy of committing massacres for certain purposes. Had this been true, people would have fled from state-controlled areas to the areas controlled by armed groups. What is happening is the exact opposite -- everybody moves to the state-controlled areas.

Question 24: Mr. President, how do you think you will figure in history: as a man who saved Syria or a man who destroyed it?

President Assad: This depends on who will write the history. If it is the West, it will give me all the bad attributes. What's important is how I think. Certainly, and self-evidently, I will seek, and that is what I'm doing now, to protect Syria, not to protect the chair I'm sitting on.

Question 25: Mr. President, do you still really intend to negotiate?

President Assad: We have fully believed in negotiations and in political action since the beginning of the crisis; however, if we negotiate, it does not mean that we stop fighting terrorism. The two tracks are inevitable in Syria: first, through negotiations, and second through fighting terrorism. And the two tracks are separate from each other.

Question 26: What is your comment on the resignation of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius? Do you believe that this will change French policy?

President Assad: Changing personnel is not that significant. What's important is the change of policies. The French administration changed almost completely between Sarkozy and Hollande, but for us the policies have not changed. They have been destructive policies extending direct support to terrorism. That's why we should not assume that the foreign minister makes the policies. They are made by the whole state, headed by the president. As to what we can do in Syria, I don't think that Syria has to do anything towards France. It is France which should do something towards fighting terrorism. So far, it supports terrorists, albeit politically, and in some cases it supported them militarily. It is France's duty to reverse or change its policies in order to fight terrorism, particularly after hundreds of French citizens paid with their lives for their wrong policies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
NoDebt's picture

If this doesn't end in WWIII I will be shocked.

Goliath Slayer's picture

America's Syrian Nightmare made in Israel >> https://goo.gl/GjvUog

OregonGrown's picture

Personally, i cant WAIT for Assad to take back his country.....

 

.....Long overdue in my book!

Soul Glow's picture

If anyone is wondering, this is WW III.  Everyone is involved.  It doesn't matter if we have troops on the ground, we have drones in the sky.

CheapBastard's picture

One yuuuuuuge advantage Assad has is his troops are fighting for their homes and homeland whereas the invaders are simply paid mercenaries. It's the same reason Bush and Obama lost the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

chumbawamba's picture

Question 6:Can't you say precisely how many years you need to restore peace to Syria?

 

President Assad: The question is: for how many years will Turkey and Saudi Arabia continue to support terrorism? That is the question. And when will the West put pressure on these countries to stop supporting terrorism?

Feel the burn, niggas!

I am Chumbawamba.

COSMOS's picture

You sir are a CHAT TERRORIST !!!

Yuubokumin's picture

fighting in East Asia is yet to begin, but tensions are sure rising

and Latin America and the Caribbean couldn't give less of a fuck.... was I talking about the first stages of WWII or the seemly beggining of WWIII ? 

Skip's picture

You are right Goliath Slayer this all stems from Israel and American Jews.

Assad has protected Syrian Christians. He is as good a Middle East leader as there has ever been. He is a White man and his family are also White. A Syrian Christian woman told me a few years ago that he was a good and decent man and life was good there. Of course with the United Soviet States of America arming and training ISIS and doing their Bosses dirty work, the J-Tribe, it is, of course, quite different today.

Kevin MacDonald on NeoConservatism: Bad News and Good News

How and Why America was changed
Prof. MacDonald

Rakshas's picture

Dear Assad - Kill all they send and they will stop coming......... sincerely Col Nguyen.......

Wahooo's picture

Not so much a war of crescendoing violence as in wars past, but rather a constant state of war surging up and down in various places around the world. They apply violence in one place and then move to the next. More like a World Gang Fight.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I am excited for Saudi Arabia to enter this war, and for Russia to bomb those sand niggers back to the stone age.

PeterLemonJello's picture

Swinging for the fences Buckaroo - I like you...

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You may say that I'm a dreamer, PeterLemonJello. But I'm not the only one.

PeterLemonJello's picture

Consider me a dreamer too then...

OregonGrown's picture

Now "the world can live as one"

Chuck Walla's picture

Buck, sending Saudis or the rest of them back to the Stone Age is a mighty short trip.

FORWARD SOVIET!

BarkingCat's picture

Have they really ever left the stone age??

 

Actually, they never got to stone age, they are permanently stuck in sand age due to lack of stones.

omniversling's picture

dupe...barking cat barked first..

logicalman's picture

If you subscribe to the concept of countries and supposedly elected 'governments' then Assad has as much right to use hired thugs to control those in the area he claims to govern as any other 'government'.

'Government' is the problem.

 

Rakshas's picture

I have to take exception to your use of the racial slur there sir......... I thought the appropriate descriptor was Camel Jockeys??? Saudis don't work as such ...... J/K rock on there are few more deserving.......

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Camel jockeys, towel heads, dune coons... take your pick.

I myself prefer "sand niggers" as it is so evocative, and just rolls off the tongue. But hey-- that's me. We can all hate those useless child-molesting muslim cunts, each in our own special way! It's a big tent.

BarkingCat's picture

careful, you will hurt their feelings and then they will need their safe space.

Safe spaces are not easy to find in the desert.

dogismycopilot's picture

Buckaroo: love your posts. but yes, the GCC countries are now using robots to replace the child slaves that used as camel jockies in the past. The Dept of State has documented it!

http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/tip/rls/fs/2005/50940.htm

Each year, children as young as 2 are trafficked from countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sudan for use as jockeys in the Persian Gulf States’ camel racing industry. Child camel jockeys are often sexually and physically abused; most are physically and mentally stunted, as they are deliberately starved to prevent weight gain.

alexcojones's picture

Assad sounds more presidential then anyone running here in Murica

peddling-fiction's picture

Rock solid words that actually make sense and are consistent with an objective and international law.

Wahooo's picture

Not such a bad guy if you don't try blowing shit up for joorabian pipelines. I doubt he spies on Syrians as much as the kenyan spies on us.

Blankone's picture

Assad and his army were getting their butts kicked until Hezbollah (with help from Iran) and Russia's jets showed up.  Without BOTH Assad and the Syrians will be quickly overrun by any invasion by the Saudis and Turks.  Simply look at the pictures of Syria's cities.

And why did Assad supply intelligence to Israel regarding the Hezbollah leader (figure head) for their strike on Damascus that killed him.  And why did Russia stand down and allow Israel to do this.  And neither Putin nor Assad complained a peep about Israel bombing the building and the dead civilians.

There are reports that a cease fire has been agreed to and starts in a week.  Waiting for more info and confirmation.  But it smells like another betrayal by Putin, just like Putin did to the EUke's TWICE.  Just when the advantage has been decidedly gained and the enemy is to be destroyed he forces a cease fire so the enemy (WUke's twice) can safely withdraw, regroup and attack again.  Why?  The advantage should be exploited to regain all of northern Syria and to eliminate as many of the enemy as possible.  Will those Putin lets escape simply kill more Hezbollah in future battles (as the EUke's about that)?

 

GhostOfDiogenes's picture

Boy the state departments goyim control jumped onto this one quickly.

Are you trying to get overtime or comp time?

Blankone's picture

One of the provisions being reported about the cease fire (maybe we will find there is no such agreement) is for both sides to allow supplies of food, water, medical, clothing and fuel to be delivered into the insurgent held areas.  From reports from the people living there we know the insurgents take want they need first and then sell the rest at extremely high prices to the citizens.  Why did Putin force an agreement that supplied the insurgents who are trying to hold cities?  Seems Putin wants continual war in the ME just like he does in Ukraine.  If Putin had not forced the cease fires twice in EUke a major portion of the WUke army would have been killed and gone.

Know what happened to the EUke commander who called these actions by Putin a betrayal?  He was assisnated by a roadside bomb, by someone who knew where he would drive and when, behind EUke controlled lines and by skilled agents who felt safe to sit and wait for him to arrive in a vehicle they could recognize.

 

corsair's picture

Now you are simply lying.

Can you provide a link where Mozgovoy calls Putin a traitor?

Blankone's picture

I am trying to refind that.  It was not from the western media but from a eastern europe or russian media.

Something to help tie things together and bring in Putins motives with the ceasefire being reported to occur in a week.

Russia has announced they may be about to sign a free trade agreement with Israel.  Yep.  See how that all works together.

We all know the zonists have used the US/NATO/ISIS as their military and are ultimately behind the ME carnage.  So, Hezbollah fights and dies (Israels likes) and when success is close Putin pushes a ceasefire and includes free passage of supplies into insurgent held territory - WHILE - negotiating a free trade agreement with Israel.  Foolish Hezbollah may have been used for greater profits for Putin and the Russian elite.

If both agreements occur you know Putin manipulated the Syrian side for profit.

MSimon's picture

I have been posting similar stuff from open sources. Like Russia buying nat. gas from ISIS. I always get down voted because "Putin is the MAN who will correct the ills".

 

I don't trust ANY government.

 

======================

 

There are a million or so former Russians living in Israel. I have often wondered if that doesn't affect the politics.

BTW the Israeli military has been cooperating with the Russian military. And Erdogan says he needs Israel. I wonder what it all means.

corsair's picture

Sowing the seeds of doubt seems to be your favorite pastime.

Funny how Putin is making all these "mistakes" and still keeps on winning, eh?

Kaeako's picture

You raise a lot of interesting, valid points. Putin's trackrecord is disappointing not only in Ukraine, but throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Syria offers him a chance to finally stomp his feet on the ground, assuming he has the strength to do so. The coming months will surely be eventful.

stilletto's picture

Blankone - The ceasefires in Uke came when the East rebels were over-extended and exhausted. Remember their were no regular russian units there. The ceasefires allowed the rebels to secure their gains. Without the ceasefires they could well have been pushed back given there inferiority in manpower, weapons and supplies.

The ceasefire in Syria (if it happens) will secure the Govt encirclement of Alleppo and the cutting of routes back to turkey. From there The Govt can just wage a seige war against the terrorists in Aleppo. The Govt doesnt want to try to streetfight its way through aleppo but will simply starve the terrorists out. This will save the most lives. Stalingrad is a reminder of how costly it is to streetfight through cities. Given the smart tactics are a seige and the Govt (and their russian advisors) are now in position for this why not play diplomacy and stop counterattacks on your seige and route blocking positions? This will allow the overstretched Govt army to regroup and continue to fight ISIL while having the 'moderate' terrorists bottled up and under seige.

The ceasefire is a smart tactical move that is a win win for Govt and their Russian generals.

 

MSimon's picture

Remember their were no regular russian units there.

 

Funny. A LOT of the rebels were recently former Russian soldiers. Peculiar.

omniversling's picture

I believe they were 'volunteers' there from Russia on 'hollidays'..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12054164/Vladim...

Oh, no they weren't..

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/putin-i-will-say-this-clearly-there-ar...

Wait, that was April...

I'm confused..

No I'm not, Fuck the EU..

 

Blankone's picture

That is the opposite of what the EUke's said.  They had their enemy pinned so that they could not move.  The few times the WUke's tried to run their vehicles were taken out.

Look at the terms of th ceasefire.  There are articles and comments from the EUke's about how they had to give up too much of what they had fought to gain. 

The cease in Syria will give supplies such as food to the insurgents and will hender any cutting of routes out.  It will allow the insurgents to regroup and will allow and Blackwater type mercs to be evacuated.  And just what are these "moderate" terrorist, there are none.

AllBentOutOfShape's picture

But it smells like another betrayal by Putin, just like Putin did to the EUke's TWICE.  Just when the advantage has been decidedly gained and the enemy is to be destroyed he forces a cease fire so the enemy (WUke's twice) can safely withdraw, regroup and attack again.  Why?

I believe you have it backwards, Blankone.  Both ceasefires were initiated by Kiev and the US, NOT by Putin, and they did it for the exact reason you said which was they were getting their asses handed to them by the NAF.  Putin and the leaders of DPR/LPR simply agreed to the ceasefires in hopes the fighting would stop and political dialogue would begin towards some kind of independence or autonomy for Donbass.  Of course the Ukrops would never allow that and like you said, they just used the ceasefires to regroup and then restart the war again, just as they're planning to do again at any time now.  However, if the Ukrops do decide to invade Donbass, there'll be no more ceasefires agreed upon by the NAF.  Even though the Ukrops are violating the current ceasefire on a 'daily' basis, the NAF have been restraining themselves from breaching the contact line.  They've basically been taking it and only returning fire in self defense.  They've basically said it won't become all-out war again until the Ukrops launch a full-scale invasion into Donbass, which it looks like the Ukrops are about ready to do.  Some of the fighters from the NAF even hinted that they'll take it all the way to Kiev this time around if the Ukrops invade again.

As for the Syria ceasefire, I think the only reason Russia has initiated this is to hopefully prevent an all-out invasion of Syria because they don't want WW3 to begin anymore than all the other sane people in the world do.  They mostly just want to defeat the terrorists and help Assad legally and rightfully stay in power.  And if the ceasefire doesn't stop them from invading, at least no one in the world will be able to blame Russia for starting WW3.  In other words, with the Syria ceasefire, Russia basically put the ball in the US's court.  Without a ceasefire, the US can say they had no other choice but to invade.  With a ceasefire proposed or already in place, an invasion becomes much more difficult to justify.

Blankone's picture

Putin was the one who negotiated the cease fires not the EUke's.  Putin then forced the ceasefires onto the EUke's, and what were they to do, if they refused then Putin simply cuts off resupply of ammo and other such supplies.  If Putin had not stopped them they would have wiped out a large segment of the WUke military, and would not be fighting the same soldiers today who Putin allowed to safely retreat/remove themselves.  The crimes of the WUke's were ignored and Putin released them to rampage the countrysides.

Reread your paragraph about Syria.  You are saying Putin is afraid to win because of fear.  Look at how the cities are destroyed, and Putin now wants a cease fire just as the Syrian align soldiers are about to win out.  Just like he did to the EUke's.  And Putin wants to allow the insurgents to safely retreat to fight another day, just like he did to the EUke's.  You think the US/Zionists are worried about how to "justify" actions in the ME?  That doe not even enter the discussion.  Why fight and see some of you die when Putin will snatch you earned victory away - out of fear that the Saudis and Turks might attack.

AllBentOutOfShape's picture

Putin was the one who negotiated the cease fires not the EUke's.

Of course he was at the negotiating table, but that's not my point.  My point is he wasn't the one who "initiated" the ceasefires.  Minsk I was initiated by Kiev, and Minsk II was called on by Merkel and Hollande (not the US like I was originally thinking in my other post) and was referred to as the Franco-German plan.  Both ceasefires were negotiated with Putin, including the leaders of DPR/LPR, and ultimately signed by all those at the negotiating table.

Minsk I:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-idUKKBN0EW0EJ20140621

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/ukraine-ceasefire-east-mins...

Minsk II:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-idUSKBN0LB0RS20150207

http://www.unian.info/politics/1043394-minsk-agreement-full-text-in-engl...

As for the Syria ceasefire, I'm not trying to suggest Putin is scared of anything.  I believe he's just doing his due diligence just in case WW3 breaks out because of this.  Bottom line, he doesn't want to be blamed for starting WW3.  He's just trying to make it clear to the entire world that WW3 is being started by the West, and not by him, Assad, or any of their other allies.

JohninMK's picture

ABBOS can't vote you as your first line is not text.

Gregory Poonsores's picture

Fucking "moderates"

Fuck these media turds. There's an amazing synergy of MSM left and right when it comes reporting on USA's terror minions.

Divide inside and lie about the outside.

Yen Cross's picture

 You have to read | between the lines| with comments and statements like these.

 First of all, Assad is just a proxy for Putin.

   Assad would have been toast, if Russia hadn't saved his ass.

 What I see going on here, is the Turks and their other NATO minions are pressuring Putin, and he's responding vicariously, through Assad.

 

 P.S. go pound blown-up tanker trucks,  Ratface Erdogan.