Let's face it now that Rebel positions have been targeted again the cease fire agreement is all but finished. Where things go from here is anyone's guess. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's air campaign steps up dramatically now that they have been in the field for over a year with let's face it very little to show for it.
Suspicions confirmed. Syria announcing what we had feared:
Apparently the agreement on the ceasefire required the United States to provide a list of groups that are vetted as moderates, with contact information for each group's leader, and their exact location. It also required the rebels who wished to be part of the ceasefire to physically separate themselves from al-Nusra. Something that's basically impossible to begin with, meaning the entire deal was never real. Had the deal been held up and implemented, al-Nusra and a few other powerful jihadi groups would be left without some of their allies, and still be fighting, while forcing the US-backed groups to either stand-by and watch their extremist allies destroyed, or join in, and thus forfeit the ceasefire. Basically the message here is that no ceasefire will ever be provided by Russia or Syria if that ceasefire is merely a means for the rebels to regroup and reinforce. Any ceasefire is going to automatically exclude al-Nusra, Jaesh al-Islam, and Ashrar ash Sham, requiring either the FSA to exercise an extraordinary control over their sub-units in order to comply, or be mostly fictitious to begin with.
Little to show for it? They turned the tide around in a big way. The regime was crumbling... USA have been forced to push for ceasefires each time there is light at the end of the tunnel, it happened when the Azaz corridor was closed, remember? They try to throw a spanner in the works whenever the regime is being successful, so does Israel (which is apparently exempt by any international law or media scrutiny) and the Saudi Arabia and co who have filled Syria with US-made TOW weapons and paying for islamists' salaries.
Let's be a little careful about throwing allegations around and also be mindful of the rule regarding politics. I am very aware of the situation in Syria and all the major players in this tragedy have not covered themselves in glory. They all have the brown smelly stuff stuck to them and innocent blood on their hands. It's just the degree that is different. In the case of nation states I am meaning the political elite.
The conflict seems far more violent one year on. Aid convoys getting bombed, more and more examples of chemical attacks, and Turkey involved to a much greater degree in an increasingly unclear situation, with the possibility of the US taking a much bigger role due to conflicting objectives causing greater and greater animosity.
The same question can be asked of the West. What have they achieved after all the efforts made? The so called ''moderates'', which they placed all their hopes on have been sidelined by IS and their goal of replacing Assad seems more and more elusive. Are the 'moderates'' [some of whom were not as ''moderate'' as portrayed] any closer to defeating IS? After so long, is the West or the U.S. any closer to achieving its political objectives? There will be no political settlement without Russia's participation.
Russia may be frustrated but so are the backers of the FSA. The Russians can look back with satisfaction and say that Assad is still there and the Americans - who initially refused to deal with the Russians over Syria - have been forced to acknowledge that Russia is a player in the region and has a positive role to play.
What makes you think that Syria as Russia's ally is not easy to manipulate? The real difference isn't whether they're easy to manipulate but who gets to do the manipulating.Gazzzwp where do you get your information? Wherever it is, you are missing the big picture and are worrying about Russia's economy, the rise of violence in the conflict (lol) and saying that this is a quagmire
Find a map of the conflict from the start of the russian intervention (November 2015?) and compare it to a current map. Then you will understand which way this is going and why the forces that want a weak and easily manipulated Syria that is not a russian ally are crying about humanitarian situations every time the situation on the ground is contrary to their interests.
Also, the only proven chemical attacks (according to western organizations) have been perpetrated by terrorists, don't muddle the waters with stuff like that, the death toll is nothing compared to the indiscriminate bombing that the syrian airforce performs regularly. Dead dropping barrel bombs from high above. But I guess that doesn't shock the readers as much as chemical attacks...
They've demonstrated a lot more then that. They deployed and sustained fairly intense combat operations (look at initial NATO commentary about the Russian optempo in late '15 early '16). They've demonstrated combat use of a large number of new weapon systems, from the T-90 tanks, to the Su-30/34/35 fighter family, Mi-28NM, Mi-35M, and Ka-52 helos, Uran-9 mineclearing robots, Iskander missile systems, extensive combat use of multiple UAV types, new optical recon satellites... the list goes on. They've also gained valuable experience in deploying and employing a large variety of troops overseas. This sort of expeditionary deployment is new for Russia, and a major improvement over their ability to do similar things 5 years ago.
I would safely ignore RT. Even if they're right, it will be by accident.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN11Q1NRUN said:
There have been many chemical attacks already, going back years. Some are confirmed to have been perpetrated by islamist factions, no regime use is confirmed. According to the western official investigations that were published. You just read about the attacks when it concerns US troops (even if it was basically inert/useless) or when trying to pin it to the regime (even when they cannot prove it). And when the media decides to make you agitated about some supposed escalation in the conflict, heh.
It's pretty depressing when this is the best case scenario, the worst being that Russia was the one behind the strikes.