The status of the Syrian rebel forces has always become a serious source of concern ahead of peace talks, and that’s no different this time with Monday’s Astana peace talks looming. This time is a little different, however, with a significant rebel delegation agreeing to attend, but growing divisions among the various rebel factions, particularly along the lines of who their primary backer is.
The Astana talks are brokered by Russia and Turkey, and unsurprisingly, the rebel delegation is overwhelmingly made up of Turkey-backed rebel groups, while the US-backed and Saudi-backed groups are taking a back seat, if they’re sending anyone at all.
The rebels who aren’t in positions of leadership aren’t too happy, complaining that the talks in general are meant to split the rebel force, and accusing them of being a Russian plot. The exclusion of al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front also remains a major source of annoyance among some rebel groups that remain closely aligned to them.
The complaints about rebel divisions resulting from the peace talks are the focus now, but the bigger danger will be that the divisions are imperiling the talks, leaving open the question of how much the delegation can actually deliver on promises they make.
The fighting and killing will continue long past the peace talks but there’s little doubt Russia hasn’t lost Syria. Nor has the US lost Syria yet but it’s determined that it can’t win Syria.
And where do you see signs tha US is defermined “it can’t win” Syria? How will the WIN look like in US vision — the very one you see US determined to llose? Russia has a simple vision of how a win should look li
You asked: “And where do you see signs tha US is defermined “it can’t win” Syria?”
That has nothing to do with what I said. I said that the US can’t win Syria. And sorry for my careless grammar. Where I said ‘determined’, I meant ‘decided’ and not ‘insistent’. The eventual fate of Syria is not falling under US control.
(I would insert a detailed explanation here on how the WMD’s scam was attempted on Syria in the same way it was on Iraq and was successful. The evidence can be disputed but not the end result)
The rest of your post seems to be your rebuttal of the misunderstanding you had over the word, ‘determined’.
But it does show how you visualize many outcomes based on some known factors. I’m not interested in soothsaying that far ahead. The US goal, as clearly stated by Wesley Clark was complete control over the entire ME Arab countries. Or, the Arabian peninsula in the true meaning of that landspace.
My assertions are nothing more than saying that Syria is not the US’s in that respect, it is Russia’s with the Syrian people’s sympathies in line with Russia’s and Assad’s. Syria is lost to the US and likely for the long foreseeable future. LIkewise Iran is lost to the US and is firmly and safely aligned with Russia/China.
I will continue to argue that Obama has to be seen as responsible for those losses. You can choose to make that ‘beside the point’ if you like, even though it’s what I consider a truth that has to finally be accepted.
Yes, there are TWO layers of leadership problem. First — those emigree politicians with no ties lo locality. In that sense — militants are given advantage in Astana. Those that acgually control a piece of real estate. Saudi and Clinton established negotiating trams have lost here. But the problem of leadership runs deeper. Militants are all a version of Islamism and established control over local governsnce. Now, locals want their say ss well — and do not want militants to hijack political process.