What's new

Syria First: How Syria, Russia & Iran Agree They Won't Block Turkey Expansion in Syria (For Now)

TaiShang

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
27,848
Reaction score
70
Country
China
Location
Taiwan, Province Of China
Useful Syria First: How Syria, Russia and Iran Came to Agree They Won't Block Turkish Expansion in Northern Syria (For Now)

Reportedly Iran prevailed on the others to realize that for now they can't fight a 'two-front war' and have to concentrate on beating the rebels first

Adam Hill
Russia-Insider


Since it begun in August the Turkish invasion of northern Syria has wrestled control of nearly 2,000 square kilometers of sovereign Syrian territory originally held by ISIS.

There was a lot of speculation whether Erdogan originally crossed the border with Russian assurances that they would not stand in his way or not, but virtually every analyst I have read agrees that if he got a Russian greenlight in August it was at most to take a shallow border area, not to move deep into Syria and lay claim on al-Bab, Manbij and even Raqqa as he has.


32941b6800000578-3511221-image-a-7_1459101464563.jpg


The Turkish military and the Islamist rebels in their tow are currently encircling al-Bab in northern Syria from three sides and showing every intention of taking the city if they can. If they are successful al-Bab would become Syria's first major population center in Turkish hands.

This has had many Syria watchers wondering if Syrians and their Russian and Iranian backers will move militarily to block the Turks, but if one veteran reporter is right the answer for now is no.

Elijah Magnier, the chief international correspondent for the Kuwait-based al-Rai paper and a respected figure among Middle East observers reports that initially Syrians and Russians wanted to do just that, but that ultimately Iranians prevailed on them and got the point across that right now the pro-government camp is not able to fight a two-front war against rebels in Idlib and Turks and/or ISIS in Aleppo province at the same time:

From a well informed source in Damascus, Russia supported the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who wanted at all costs to stop his most hated opponent, the Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan from accessing al-Bab city and continuing towards Deyr Hafer, Assad lake and al-Tabqah to meet the US forces and their allies at the gates of Raqqah, the heart of ISIS. Assad was happy to close the road to Erdogan’s plan to annex al-Bab, especially after his bombing of Turkish forces last November which killed four Turkish men – despite Damascus’s denial of its involvement in the attack. The Russian-Syrian message to Erdogan was clear: you are not allowed into al-Bab.

But what has changed since?

Iran – according to the source – contested the Russian-Syrian plans by offering an approach different from the Russian-Syrian proposal. There is no interest in sending forces towards the northeast where the US is well established with Special Forces and military bases in the Kurdish controlled area. Moreover, there is no strategic interest in fighting ISIS at the moment because Raqqah is not supplied by outside support. It doesn’t represent a strategic priority”.

Iran expressed its willingness to dispatch more new troops to Syria if necessary for the battle of Tel El-Eis, to free the encircled cities of Fua and Kfariya, and Jisr el-Shughur and reach the most important target: the city of Idlib.

A constructive discussion took place between the allies leading to the conclusion that “useful Syria” is formed of the main cities where the majority of civilians live, even if the rural areas are not under government ‘control.

...

“The approval of Assad to accept the state of Raqqah as it is, for now, and preferentially direct forces toward Idlib – even if he will publicly deny any deal and attack Turkey – is due to his knowledge of the Syrian dynamic and the principle the state is based upon: the Allawites control the security apparatus and the Sunni control the Syrian economy.

If true this is a sensible strategy indeed. We only need to look at the recent loss of Palmyra to ISIS appreciate that the Syrian army is stil woefully overstretched and in no position to advance to advance on two separate fronts.


al-bab.jpg

Turks at al-Bab

The imminent victory in Aleppo city will free some troops but of the estimated 25,000 Syrian troops there the majority are locals who will be loathe to be moved to theaters far away from home. In all likelihood the conclusion of the three year Battle of Aleppo will merely free up the most elite units of the Syrian army and foreign volunteers.

Moreover if Syria is capable of offensive in one directed only it makes sense for it to go for Idlib and attempt to finish off the rebels who by the virtue of being the only remaining faction that seeks to topple the Syrian government wholesale rather than just chip away at parts of its territory are the most dangerous.

ISIS is internationally isolated and no threat long-term. The Kurdish-dominated SDF merely seeks autonomy and other concessions from Damascus. Erdogan would love to see Assad fall in principle but seeing how Turkey has ignored the fall of eastern Aleppo there is every reason to believe he has largely given up on that goal and is now content to frustrate Kurdish plans in Syria, and to elbow his way to the eventual negotiating table to win force limited concessions on behalf of the rebels in his tow.

All of this taken into account consolidation in the more densely populated "useful Syria" makes a lot more sense in the immediate than carving out exposed salients into eastern Syria which being sparsely populated is nowhere near as valuable and which may embroil the Syrian army in fighting the powerful Turkish military or the US-backed Kurds.

Instead it is a far better move for Damascus to wait and see what transpires between Turks and the Kurds. As they are arrayed against each other in Turkey itself and covet the same pieces of northern Syria the differences between them are basically irreconcilable. The Turkish attacks on the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia have already served to create some distance between Turkey and the US and to raise Kurdish skepticism of the US.

If the Turkish-YPG conflict intensifies this will only benefit Damascus which might then have the choice of whether to ally with the Turks to extinguish Kurdish hopes of autonomy in Syria (which would probably be the more dangerous and foolish option) or else ally the Kurdish-led SDF to force the withdrawal of foreign intruders and to extinguish the last remnants of the Islamist rebellion.

@Serpentine
 
.
An enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario. Turkey is against the Kurdish militants, Assad and Russia are also against the Kurdish militants (among others). So, it's a win-win scenario for both parties (except the Kurdish).
 
.
An enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario. Turkey is against the Kurdish militants, Assad and Russia are also against the Kurdish militants (among others). So, it's a win-win scenario for both parties (except the Kurdish).

Asshead and Kurds fight together against Rebels in Aleppo and closing Districts , and Russians will not target Kurds anytime soon .. Kurds are Opportunist , so whoever they seems to be dominating the Syrian Theater they will collide with them .. but Turks will not compromise with PKK at any cost as PKK has been involved in killing many Turks ..
 
.
An enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario. Turkey is against the Kurdish militants, Assad and Russia are also against the Kurdish militants (among others). So, it's a win-win scenario for both parties (except the Kurdish).
Assad is actually indirectly with the Kurds vis a vis Turkey, reason he never attacks them . Syrian civil war is a complex and Interesting one. :D
 
.
Big Media Unleashes a Torrent of Fake News as Rebel Aleppo Vanishes

When you have a war to sell every secondhand report, rumour and shrill tweet is news material

(Moon of Alabama)



Originally appeared at Moon of Alabama

I have not ever experienced a #fakenews onslaught as today. Every mainstream media and agency seems to have lost all inhibitions and is reporting any rumor claim regarding the liberation of east-Aleppo as fact.

Consider this BBC headline and opener:

Aleppo battle: UN says 82 civilians shot on the spot

Syrian pro-government forces have been entering homes in eastern Aleppo and killing those inside, including women and children, the UN says.

The UN's human rights office said it had reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight.

1. A UN human rights office does not exists. What the BBC means is the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). That commissioner is the Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, a Hashemite educated in the UK and U.S. and a relative of the Jordanian dictator king. That is relevant to note as Jordan is heavily involved in the supporting the "rebels" against the Syrian government.

2. The office has not "said" that "82 civilians were shot" or other such gruesome stuff. It said that there were "sources" that have "reports" that such happened. From its press statement today:

Multiple sources have reports that tens of civilians were shot dead yesterday in al-Ahrar Square in al-Kallaseh neighbourhood, and also in Bustan al-Qasr, by Government forces and their allies, including allegedly the Iraqi al-Nujabaa armed group.

The OHCHR claiming that "multiple sources have reports" of XYZ, without revealing neither the "sources" nor the provenance of the alleged "reports" of XYZ, certainly does not translate into "The UN said XYZ happened."

I find it irresponsible that the OHCHR even mentions such unverified stuff in its press conferences. But it is even more irresponsible that the BBC then uses a "UN says ..." headline and intro about such rumors especially without any further qualification in the rest of its "reporting".

There is also this recent report that cats were killed in Aleppo.

#BREAKING - Activists: All residents and guests of last cat shelter in Aleppo killed in Hezbollah gas attack.

deadcats.jpg

The spokesman of the OHCHR has been notified of the above report. We are now awaiting the BBC headline: "UN says Hezbollah gassed last cats in Aleppo".

The BBC is not the only #fakenews outlet in this. Indeed it seems that news agencies seek "safety in the pack" by all reporting the same nonsense through each and every channel.

Reuters - Aleppo could fall 'at any moment', U.N. reports civilians killed
AFP - Syria forces kill at least 82 Aleppo civilians in recent days: UN
AP - UN agency says dozens of children trapped in building under fire in Syria's Aleppo

Again - the UN only says that it knows of such reports. It does not verify or vouches for these. Still the usual "humanitarian" influence operations, like Amnesty International, then join in on the "UN Says ..." falsehoods. Thousands of news outlets and websites copy from the fake agency reports and "humanitarian" outlets and try to sensationalize their take even further. Its a total disinformation mess.

But there are also the wonders of Aleppo.

Real inhabitants and reporters in Aleppo say that any internet connection there is slow and unstable. But those "activists" under intense artillery fire in the east seem to have gigabits of reliable bandwidth available. It's a miracle. Pictures and videos in tweets like this one come "out of Aleppo" each and every minute.

girlvideotweet.jpg

Of course such gigabits could be put to better use than for grabbing screenshots of old music videos, but nobody is perfect, especially when under heavy artillery fire.

girlsvideotweet2.jpg
girlsvideotweet2.jpg


The news agencies and mainstream media take all the "activist" tweets, WhatsUp talks, video uploads and livestreaming by Periscope as the truth without even knowing where those come from. Those "activists" could sit anywhere in the world and there is no way for reporters to verify their location.

The security of all these information operations (pdf) have me concerned. When those "last activists in Aleppo" tweet that the Syrian army is moving in towards them do they mean that Assad's tanks rumble onto Vauxhall Cross?

But as long as everyone repeats the lying "reports from the ground" of said "activists" no one can be held responsible. "We all honestly erred," is the usual and well accepted apology.

We should try, wherever we can, to hold those news people to higher standards.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom