Kerry Warns Of 'Plan B' In Syria If Cease-Fire Fails

[Purveyor]

Source: USA Today

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 5:17 p.m. EST February 23, 2016

Secretary of State John Kerry warned Tuesday of the prospect of a more violent Syria if a cease-fire agreed to with Russia fails to lead to a political transition for the war-torn country.

Facing skeptical lawmakers at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry referred multiple times to a “Plan B” alternative to diplomacy and said “this could get a lot uglier” for Russia if the agreed-to process fails.

Kerry said he agrees with Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of the U.S. European Command, who said last week that Russia is “weaponizing” migrants to put pressure on Europe and the West. Kerry said half of the more than 1 million migrants who flooded into Europe in 2015 are Syrian, and Europe cannot bear to take in another 1 million migrants if the Syria conflict does not end.

Kerry appeared before the committee he once chaired to seek approval to spend $50.1 billion on diplomacy and international assistance in 2017. It was his last budget request as the top U.S. diplomat before the end of President Obama’s presidency.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/23/kerry-warns-plan-b-syria-if-cease-fire-fails/80810158/

[Feeling the Bern]

1. That asshole Quarter-Ass Assad is worth a world war?

His dipshit daddy Half-Ass Assad wasn't, this turd Quarter-Ass isn't either.

Just like in Asia. . .Yoda Kim wasn't worth a world war and neither is his worthless offspring Jabba the Kim!

No more perpetual war!

[newthinking]

2. This is dissapointing. Breedlove has really been pushing for conflict with Russia

Hearing Kerry say he agrees with Breedlove is not confidence building.

[karynnj]

4. you conflate agreeing on something, with agreeing on everything

No one has worked harder on what is a very unlikely ceasefire than Kerry. How many other people in his position would have worked WITH RUSSIA and IRAN to get the Vienna agreement and this ceasefire. He was and is well aware of how unlikely this was, but he said the situation was so awful, they had to throw themselves
In full force. He took the risk of publicly failing over not trying.

Corker had argued that Obama had no plan B and everyone on the committee made clear they were not convinced that this very long shot effort to get a UN resolution, a ceasefire, and then a transition plan would work. Each of those things in more difficult than the thing before.

What would you have Kerry say? That the flow of refugees is an existential threat to Europe is pretty obvious and he said nothing of what plan B would be.


Given where we are, what would you have the Obama administration do?

[GreatGazoo]

3. so Plan B is more war? Isn't that what usually happens if a cease-fire fails?

And the writer refers to refugees as "migrants" which is a bit like saying people escaping a burning building are 'joggers.'

[Sunlei]

5. Saudis said recently they would put in ground troops & would be a lot uglier for Russia.

[leveymg]

6. Russia can be unbelievably ugly if you mess with them. They've been in Syria longer than Poland.

Don't mess with their access to their last Mediterranean/Mideast bases. It would be like trying to use rebels and threats of direct force to kick us off Gitmo. The Secretary and General do remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, don't they?

BTW: It's not Russia that's been weaponizing terrorists, that's Saudi Arabia's trick.

[happyslug]

7. No the Phase "Weaponizing" means using the refugees as a weapon, not giving them weapons

Reading the Article it is clear that they saw the refugees themselves as a "Weapon" being used on Europe to force Europe to agree to what Russia is doing in Syria. A million homeless and starving refugees heading for Europe has forced Europe to address the problems in Syria as oppose to ignoring it (Which Europe has mostly done, even while the US and NATO forces where bombing ISIS positions in Syria).

Side note: Since 2000 the Country that has taken in the most Refugees has been RUSSIA. Most of the Refugees in Russia are from the Eastern Ukraine, but Russia took them in (and most have indicated they do NOT want to go back to the Ukraine). Russia has also taken in a huge number of draft dodgers from the Ukraine, mostly from the WESTERN UKRAINE (These appear to be willing to go back to the Ukraine after the end of the present fighting, but they first choice to run to when threatened with being drafted was Russia not Poland for they feared the Poles would send them back). Just a comment on the Refugee crisis and why the UN is NOT asking Russia to take in most Refugees, when you are already Number one is accepting refugees and the Turks are directing the Refugees to Greece and then Europe the UN can not redirect them to Russia without pointing out that Russia has taken in more refugees then any other country in the world. Thus making Europe even more dependent on Russia,

In many ways the Refugee crisis of Europe is helping Russia in Europe. Germany and the rest can NOT Complain about Russia not taking its fair share of Refugees without implying the problem is the race of the Refugees not that they are Refugees. At present rejecting the refugees do to their race or religion is unacceptable to Germany given Germany's Nazi Past. The rest of Europe has a similar problems given the history of Nazism and fascism throughout Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.

Thus the Refugees are a "Weapon" for Europe does NOT want to appear to be racist, but at the same time do NOT want these refugees. Russia can also point out it has taken in more refugees then the rest of Europe and if Europe points out most were Ukrainians the Russians can say "so what, we also took in refugees from some of the Islamic Former States of the Soviet Union and even from Afghanistan since the Americans moved into Afghanistan" (Thus killing the racist comment).

Thus the Refugee are a "Weapon" aimed at Europe and its relations with the US. Can Europe kick out these Refugees and still say they oppose Racism? Can Europe say what Russia is doing in the Ukraine is bad, when Russia is taking in most of the Refugee from that conflict, while Europe is supporting the US strikes in Syria without taking in the Refugee from that Crisis, a conflict that Europe supports? In simple terms, can Europe says what Russia is doing in the Ukraine is bad, while saying what the US and NATO is doing in Syria is Good when the result in both situation are refugees that Russia is taking in but Europe is NOT?

What will Europe do if Russia offers to withdraw from Syria and assist in the overthrow of Assad, on the condition Europe will NOT support any US action if and when Russia takes over all of the Ukraine? That would end the Refugee crisis and undermine US policy as to the Ukraine at the same time. In many ways that is what the US is worried about, a deal between Putin and Europe giving Putin complete freedom of action in the areas next to Russia in exchange for Russian assistance to overthrow Assad and ending the Refugee Crisis. Putin can even ask Germany to withdraw from NATO, Without Germany in NATO, NATO has no center and the countries to Germany's east can NOT be supported by the rest of NATO (Poland found this out in 1939, Poland had an alliance with Britain and France, neither of which could do anything to help Poland when Hitler attacked Poland in 1939, the Baltic States and Finland found that out in 1940 and 1941 when Russia moved into the Baltic states and Finland).

Sidenote: NATO worked when the Soviet Union held Eastern Germany, for US Naval power could support US Forces in Western Germany. That support disappears as you cross the Elbe for the Baltic Sea is a Russian Lake The Russians have enough capacity to deny any use of the Baltic Sea to anyone else (that is also true of most of the other countries that border the Baltic, but it is NATO and the US that needs freedom to use that sea NOT Russia). Thus NATO without Germany made sense in 1949 for there were not US forces east of the Elbe (except south of Denmark as the Elbe flows to Hamburg). NATO with Germany made sense if you want to contain Russia as it is today (Russia as a separate country from the Baltic States, Finland and the Ukraine) but without Germany you end up with two disjointed halfs of a wreaked alliance. This MAY be Putin's objective, forcing Germany to decide on ending the Refugee Crisis by withdrawing from NATO. That will destroy NATO in Eastern Europe for the alliance will then become meaningless (You could claim the US will still have a nuclear umbrella over Eastern Europe, but will Poland preferred to be "Free" a member a NATO and a Nuclear wasteland, or under Russian control but economically intact? My vote is n the later for that was Poland from 1945 till 1989 and Poland survived it). Thus without Germany the US has limited conventional options when it comes to Eastern Europe and that may be Putin's plan and why the US is calling these Refugees "Weapons".

[leveymg]

8. I am aware of the double-meaning. By the one used by the Gen., anything that can be

used to the political advantage of one side or the other can be "weaponized." That says more about his thinking than actual Russian doctrine, in my opinion.

[happyslug]

9. My comments was more of the view of the US as to Russian action then anything Russia is doing

Kissinger had it right, you do not spend millions of dollars on something like the Winter Olympics and then within six months blow all the good will created by the Olympics by invading the Ukraine, Putin has been REACTING to what happen in the Ukraine, he did NOT cause it. This included to takeover of the Crimea, Putin was perfectly contented with a Ukrainian Crimea as long as he retain use of the Sevastopol as a port for the Russian Navy. Once Sevastopol was threatened to be closed, Putin reacted quickly, that is a sign of his reacting to events NOT causing them.

Thus my comments relate more to how the US see Russia's actions as (and more to the US fear that much of WESTERN Europe is slowly seeing NATO as a US tool NOT something that protects THEIR country, i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal has large portions of their population willing to pull out of NATO This is the primary reason all of these countries have switched from a Draftee Army to a Volunteer Army since the fall of the Berlin wall. Draftees fight was well, and at times better, then all volunteer armies, if the draftees believe the war is necessary, but much poorer if the people back home do NOT believe the war is necessary The US Draftee army fought well in Vietnam till the American People turned against the war in 1968, as most American came to oppose the war, the Draftees fighting ability declined sharply, well Volunteer units kept on fighting).