Do you support Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War?

[The Last Northerner]

Don't think I've seen this yet.

[Murica!]

No(I/O), I don't support anyone's intervention into the Middle East.

[Lumine]

If they were actually bothering to bomb ISIS instead of sucker punching the other rebels, it's possible that I would.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

 a good example of no matter how vile America gets in its foreign policy, the Russians are invariably worse.

[mencken]

Yeah, how dare the Russians target the overtly-US backed jihadists before they target the tacitly-US backed jihadists!

[mencken]

Yeah, how dare the Russians target the overtly-US backed jihadists before they target the tacitly-US backed jihadists!

Yeah... we aren't tacitly backing ISIS bro.

What else do you call it when the US's allies hinder the only groups capable of militarily defeating ISIS?

[tpfkaw]

Yeah, how dare the Russians target the overtly-US backed jihadists before they target the tacitly-US backed jihadists!

Yeah... we aren't tacitly backing ISIS bro.

What else do you call it when the US's allies hinder the only groups capable of militarily defeating ISIS?

Realism? It's far better to have Turkey as our NATO ally, even an unhelpful one, than it would be to make an enemy of Turkey, whose leaders would go full-throttle radical Islamist at home and align themselves with Russia abroad. This would be a permanent geopolitical catastrophe, the likes of which many people have died to prevent occurring. (Turkey as a radical Islamist Russian ally would be far worse than what Britain and France sought to prevent in the Crimean War, which was merely more Russian influence over the Ottoman Empire).

As it stands, the ability for the US coalition to use Turkish airbases means that the Turkish contribution to the anti-ISIS campaign is probably about neutral.

Also, plenty of groups are capable of militarily defeating ISIS. A US ground intervention could defeat ISIS. So could a Russian ground intervention, a larger-scale Iranian intervention, a Turkish intervention, a British or French intervention, a Chinese intervention, or an Israeli intervention. On balance, the Syrian and Iraqi governments would eventually defeat ISIS, if all outside aid were cut off to all sides.

It is, however, pretty dubious to assert that the Kurds are capable of defeating ISIS (certainly not without massive foreign intervention).

And just like all the above-mentioned groups are capable of but unwilling, by reason of political considerations or practicality, to do what would be necessary to defeat ISIS, so the same is with the Kurds. They're likely willing to liberate the Kurdish areas of Syria and Iraq, and maybe a small buffer zone, but probably not anything else. If ISIS offered to withdraw from Kurdish areas followed by a ceasefire, the Kurds would take the deal in a nanosecond.

The Syrian frontlines have largely been so static that they make the Western Front of WWI look like a war of maneuver. The reason is that fighters on all sides are willing to defend their village and maybe the surrounding area, but aren't motivated to advance further and leave their families defenseless. This is even more true for the Kurds than among the other groups involved in the conflict.

[SATW]

No, because I'm not a bratty libertarian (left or right).

[OSR stands with Israel]

No, because I'm not a bratty libertarian (left or right).

How is supporting Russia destroying ISIS libertarian.

[bagelman]

No, because I'm not a bratty libertarian (left or right).

What? Are you trying to equate libertarians with putinbots or something? That makes no sense.

As for me, no because they're just supporting their geopolitical interests instead of actually improving the situation.

[buritobr]

Yes

To be honest, I don't care if the "good" rebels are under attack too.

[mencken]

Yeah, how dare the Russians target the overtly-US backed jihadists before they target the tacitly-US backed jihadists!

Yeah... we aren't tacitly backing ISIS bro.

What else do you call it when the US's allies hinder the only groups capable of militarily defeating ISIS?

Realism? It's far better to have Turkey as our NATO ally, even an unhelpful one, than it would be to make an enemy of Turkey, whose leaders would go full-throttle radical Islamist at home and align themselves with Russia abroad. This would be a permanent geopolitical catastrophe, the likes of which many people have died to prevent occurring. (Turkey as a radical Islamist Russian ally would be far worse than what Britain and France sought to prevent in the Crimean War, which was merely more Russian influence over the Ottoman Empire).

So let me get this straight:
Turks use "fighting ISIS" as pretext to fight Kurdish separatists=ok, since they are our allies, and if we do anything about that, well...they might not be our allies anymore, and they will act more like Jihadists.

Russians use "fighting ISIS" as pretext to fight Jabhat al-Nursa (who are also Jihadists) = very bad, since after all, Russia is a potential ally of those Jihadist Turks.

This attempt to refight wars based on fluid 19th century coalitions is ridiculous. Russians did not fly planes into the World Trade Center. That was the Saudis, who are also our allies

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it is okay for Turks to target the forces on the ground currently fighting ISIS, since they are letting the Americans use their air bases to play whack-a-mole with them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last two times the US toppled a Sunni-led government in Anbar, it worked. So why is ISIS a problem then? You would think that the Sunnis are just not going to buckle under the rule of a Shia theocratic regime. If you want a permanent solution to the matter (i.e. one that does not involve ISIS or other groups of their ilk taking power as soon as we leave), you are left with: a) permanent American occupying presence (which can get pretty expensive) b) Saddam Hussein-esque tyrant in Baghdad not afraid to kill hundreds of thousands to stop Sunni uprisings (not particularly a good idea to have a pro-Iranian thug with this kind of power, plus it would be political suicide for America to install one. Russia, on the other hand), or c) friendly Sunni autocrat in Anbar, willing to fight Jihadists (good luck finding one).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The neocons would go ballistic, as we have already seen. See option b) above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They do not seem particularly interested, as mentioned earlier. They are more interested in defeating the Kurds and aiding their pet Jihadists, Jabhat al-Nusra.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Europeans are too cheap to pay for their own defense, much less offense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are the Chinese interested?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See Turkey

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But you said we can't tell our allies who are funding Jihadists what to do, or else they will become Jihadist and start being nice to Putin and stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well they are at least fighting them currently, unlike any of the other groups you mentioned earlier.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why is a partition a bad idea again? Seems to leave everyone happy, just let the rest of the world maintain a cordon sanitaire to keep them contained so they don't pose a problem? Destroy any weapons attempting to enter the area, seize any oil leaving the area?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course, Errdoan effectively holds Europe by the balks, as if he gives the word all of the refugees holed up in Turkey could be released and doom incumbent centrists. For now it will continue to view ISIS as some kind useful idiot group to advanced its own agenda (in fact all the regional powers have mainly used  the rise of ISIS to play half-baked Machiavellin games against traditional rivals, underestimating ISISnto their peril.