Should We Support Russia Joining Up With Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad In Their Fight Against Isis, Rather Than Criticise Them?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-warns-russia-its-support-for-syrias-assad-could-extend-conflict-10503077.html

[-Talbot-]

Are you an American, AOG?

[ToraToraTora]

tricky one, one side is a bit less bad that the other.

[Svejk]

Yes. We can't bully them, can we?

[-Talbot-]

I'm not sure there is an answer. If the world teamed up got rid of both it would just make way for the next blood-thirsty tyrant.

[Jackdaw33]

I tend to agree. Once Saddam had been kicked out of Kuwait he should have been left to rule Iraq. He posed no threat to the West. The fact that we may not like what a regime does to their countrymen is no reason for intervention. Our prime concern must be the security of UK citizens, and to that extent Assad seems a better bet than Isis.

[Svejk]

At the very least, we should stop arming and training the 'good rebels'. imo.

[anotheoldgit]

I can't see matters changing America has a thing against Russia even after the cold war ended, and of course we have to side with America.

Russia is no more a threat to the UK or America than say China or North Korea.

In this instance we could benefit from Russia being prepared to put 'boots on the ground' at least it saves us from doing so.

[ichkeria]

"by removing the one person able to hold it together."

er, do you mean Bashar Al-Assad by any chance? The man who faced a peaceful rebellion in his own country and ... now look at it (!!)

The fact is that Russia is not "joining up" with Assad. It is merely bolstering its military and diplomatic support for his campaign of genocide. And all because he is their only friend left in the region.
The question is a bit of a no-brainer, because it isn't as if helping Assad would serve the interests of "the west". All it would do is make a terrible conflict much, much worse. Assad is not in control of his country, to put it mildly, and the amount of military effort that would be needed to put him in the ascendant, never mind put him back in power, would be so great that it would escalate the conflict dramatically, boosting the numbers of refugees fleeing towards Europe in the process.
Put it this way: a coalition of responsible nations came together to remove Gaddafi (effectively) but that didn't turn out very well did it?
So what are the chances of an alliance with another war criminal in a far worse conflict turning out for the best ...

[ichkeria]

"In this instance we could benefit from Russia being prepared to put 'boots on the ground' at least it saves us from doing so. "

Russia has had "boots on the ground" in Syria for years.

[Orderlimit]

Yes, the 'west' should support and work with Russia and take on Isil.

[ichkeria]

If Russia would work with and support the west in taking on IS/ISIS/ISIL or whatever they are called, it would be welcome.
Unfortunately Putin is not particularly interested in that: what he wants is to prop up the Syrian government, and is plainly hoping that by doing so the "west" will be tempted to join in, in the misguided belief that that would help defeat ISIS. Of course it would not.

[Orderlimit]

What does the West want then and why?.

[ichkeria]

The west wants to eliminate the threat from IS so I'm led to believe
Russia wants Assad still in power.
Assad still in power won't work: it didn't work before and so it plainly isn't going to work now, even if by some remote possibility he could get his country back. He's murdered 10s of thousands of his own people so I think it could be a tricky "comeback"
And finally, even if he did come back and by some remote possibility it DID work, it wouldn't necessarily stop IS, as they are active well beyond Syria now.

[Orderlimit]

"The west wants to eliminate the threat from IS so I'm led to believe
Russia wants Assad still in power. "

Sorry Jim, it sounds like you don't really know.

[Orderlimit]

Sorry Jim (whoever that is, i meant ichkeria).

[ichkeria]

"Sorry Jim, it sounds like you don't really know."

Does anyone really know anything.
Can I call you Peter, for example

[scowie]

It is Russia's protectionist agenda that is the root of all the trouble in the region. Protection of the price of it's gas exports to Europe, that is. Putin will do whatever he can to stop a gas pipeline being built from the Persian Gulf to Europe via Syria and Turkey which would compete with russian gas. That means having a regime in power in Syria that will do his every bidding. Only the Assad regime are willing to be Putin's lap dog. If the Assads go, whoever takes over will be happy to gain their share of the gas money from a pipeline through Syria. Russia will then be subject to market forces like the rest of the world and will be poorer as a result. Russia is the enemy of free trade.

Of course it would be better if the more moderate rebels took over rather than Isis but unfortunately Ed Miliband kiboshed the chances of that somewhat when he voted against action in Syria before Isis rose up.

[jno]

allegedly, the Russians offered to dump Assad but the west were so sure he was on the way out anyway that they refused the offer

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/15/west-ignored-russian-offer-in-2012-to-have-syrias-assad-step-aside

Dumb if true.

[Svejk]

Another way you could look at that, scowie, is that we wanted regime change (with all the inevitable bloodshed) so we could have cheap gas.
There are no 'good rebels' in Syria. Do you think those aid workers and journalists were stupid enough to present themselves to IS for execution. They bought the 'good rebel' crap that Cameron disseminates. And were then kidnapped and sold on to IS.