US Once Again Forced To Turn To Russia For Help On Syria

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press
1 hour, 44 minutes ago

GENEVA (AP) — Scrambling to resuscitate a nearly dead truce in Syria, the Obama administration has again been forced to turn to Russia for help, with little hope for the desired U.S. outcome.

At stake are thousands of lives and the fate of a feeble peace process essential to the fight against the Islamic State group, and Secretary of State John Kerry has appealed once more to his Russian counterpart for assistance in containing and reducing the violence, particularly around city of Aleppo.

"We are talking directly to the Russians, even now," Kerry said on his arrival in Geneva as he began talks with Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh. "The hope is we can make some progress, but the UN Security Council Resolution calls for a full country, countrywide, cessation and also for all of the country to be accessible to humanitarian assistance. Obviously that hasn't happened and isn't happening."

"These are critical hours. We look for Russia's cooperation. We obviously look for the regime to listen to Russia and to respond to the international communities' powerful statement to the UN Security Council."

Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/2c04c6c6d7db441f9ed4a695906f8abf/us-once-again-forced-to-turn-to-russia-for-help-on-syria.html

[840high]

1. Nothing wrong with talking to Russia.

[forest444]

2. Hear, hear.

If they're one thing we need to work together on, it's precisely this - and to hell with some of these cold warniks trying to get in the way (even a couple here on DU).

[AgerolanAmerican]

3. Some people have an axe to grind against Russia for some reason

vestiges of Cold War attitudes perhaps... awfully unconstructive behavior

[forest444]

4. Ah, the power of brainwashing.

On this, just as in so many other counterproductive things.

[7962]

5. Because Russia certainly hasnt shown any "Cold War attitudes" have they?

Putin only respects one thing.

[ronnie624]

8. And I'll bet that "thing" is force.

The MIC was the prime mover behind the Cold War. The threat from Russia was exaggerated. They were always at a clear disadvantage, and almost always on the defensive. History strongly suggests that Russia has legitimate security concerns. They've never invaded the US, after all.

[7962]

10. They tried to continue expanding right after WW2; wanting all of Berlin

They wanted Berlin and tried to starve them to get it. They would have continued on had we not been there to prevent it. They backed N Koreas attempt to take over S Korea. The West didnt start that war. Not to mention the other countries they got involved with.
What were there legitimate security concerns? The US never showed any interest in attacking them, especially after Patton was gone, and certainly no other European nation did either

[IronLionZion]

6. It seemed like Libya, Iraq, and other conflicts were faster

with fewer refugees migrating. Syria seems to be dragging on for way too long and displacing way too many people.

So anything that leads towards some sort of resolution sooner should be better than continuing the civil war as it is.

[riderinthestorm]

7. A true expert on the ground, the great TE Lawrence, argued for Damascus as a Muslim capital

"Lawrence of Arabia" intimately knew the tribes, loyalties and ancient allegiances.

He lobbied hard for a Pan-Muslim world with Damascus as its center because of its sophistication, historic record of harmony between the different sects, and its tolerance for Jews and Christians.

He lost obviously and the British and French carved up the ME into senseless fiefdoms and kingdoms.

But to your point, Syria has enormous diversity and thus there are a lot more targets. Those many diverse tribes, groups, sects etc have had the ancient balance disrupted.

With ISIS running wild in the country obliterating ancient communities that have peacefully co-existed for millennium, these folks feel hopeless.

Don't forget Assad enjoyed/enjoys widespread support.in Syria. Don't be fooled by Western media. If it's obvious that he's certain to be ousted (cough*US intervention*cough*), there's an even bigger rationale to flee. Who's coming next? Our post war political interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt etc have been disastrous.

[pampango]

9. Russia is Assad's patron and protector. Nothing will happen without Russia's cooperation.

That's reality. Obama and Kerry obviously recognize that. (With US-backed dictators the only way the world can put pressure on them is by negotiating with the US.)

It is in Russia's national interest to maintain their only naval base in the Mediterranean. It is in Assad's national interest to have a generous arms suppler, an effective foreign air force to fight for him and a country on the Security Council to protect it from UN initiatives.

Tunisia, Libya and Egypt had no Russian military bases and it was not in Russia's national interest to get involved when their dictators were challenged. Ukraine did have a large Russian military base. When the government in Kiev was no longer friendly, the province the base is in was no longer part of Ukraine. Military bases mean a lot to Russia.

Assad is no dummy. He knows that the Russian naval base is his ace-in-the-hole. As long as Russia perceives that his continued rule is the best way to preserve their access to the base, they will do what they can to protect him. The US did the same in the Philippines with the Marcos dictatorship. Marcos portrayed himself as the guarantor of US access to its huge air base and naval base in the Philippines. The US supported him for many years and supplied arms to him in his fight with 'communist rebels' and Muslim insurgents.

Assad's main worry should be that one day Russia may perceive a negotiated settlement that includes guarantees about its access to the base as preferable to continuing to back him personally. I am sure he gets a little nervous when Russia engages in negotiations that affect his future.