Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVN
Well they say the same thing in that they all highlight the difficulty in identifying any 'moderate' forces who have a substantial presence in Syria. The last one by Robert Fisk is the most worth reading I'd say: he fiercely attacks the Russians while also pointing out the holes in the Western narrative. Yes there are hundreds of different armed groups and that is exactly the problem: the opposition is far too fractured that any elements that might be moderate long ago became lost in the quagmire. It used to be the Free Syrian Army that held the greatest hope but they have fallen to pieces. IS is clearly far larger and more powerful than any other opposition group to Assad in Syria and even beyond them its al-Nusra who are the strongest and most organised force and they too are extreme Islamists. A lot of the weapons that were supplied by Washington have now found themselves in the hands of extremists as those supposedly moderate groups melted away or were absorbed.
Yes Russia do want to protect Assad: he is their ally in the region and is important to Russia maintaining their influence there. The West might not like it but the only force that is able to defeat IS in Syria is the Syrian Army. To hope that there could be an alternative where both IS and Assad are removed from power is wishful thinking, and the West is now starting to wake up to that hence the UK and US both now accepting that Assad could play a 'transitional' role in a settlement.
|
The part I put in bold is relevant to my initial fear of what the Russians are doing. Its not so much 'why' they are doing it, but more about that uneasy feeling (once again) of East against West. Its almost got a cold war feel about it and that doesn't lay easy with me, or am I just being over alarmist?