"Equally, military victory by the fractious and feuding rebel groups is now a distant dream. Some of their regional backers may still want it, but the Western powers which pull many of the strings behind the scenes never did anyway." So the Western powers don't really want to support the rebels, I'd agree. That a flow of arms could not change things now when it could have before, I don't agree. That as the situation gets worse, it isn't possible that they will be forced to do the right thing, I don't agree. And to claim that Assad remaining is a feasible alternative I don't agree, because the impossibility of his ever ruling over most Syrians means every day he remains, he kills more Syrians and makes more flee the country, because that is the only war he can fight. "That crisis [Ukraine] has given the Russian President Vladimir Putin strong motivation to assert himself against the Americans over Syria rather than go along with them." Or the Russians don't need to fight on a second front. "But in the absence of those conditions [opposition unity but exclusion of Jabhat al-Nusra and the like], it is hard to imagine the Americans and others giving the green light for a serious infusion of the kind of quality weapons - such as MANPAD anti-aircraft missiles and much more - that the rebels need if they are to stand a chance of tilting the balance back in their favour." Maybe when Assad has massacred another few tens of thousands the calculation will change again. "Once the heat is off, there may be a reckoning from elements currently loyal to the leadership who have paid a high price for its brutal blunders." This is wishful thinking from Jim Muir. Such a palace coup would continue the régime of torture without Assad.
No comments:
Post a Comment