5 ms·
I am generally with you, the one exception being Syria. Time will tell if we were on the wrong side in Syria. If you understand Russian geopolitics, just taking
by jimmy1 8y ago
I am generally with you, the one exception being Syria. Time will tell if we were on the wrong side in Syria. If you understand Russian geopolitics, just taking Russian interests for account alone (not trying to wage some third party war with the US), it absolutely makes sense for them to have supported Assad. There were other ways to take him down, most of them were diplomatic. Instead, the US decided to fund Islamic Extremist mercenaries which don't necessarily have a great world wide reputation, either.
Generally, I am not a fan of the US's "regime change" strategies, at least in the middle east. They were unmitigated disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is still struggling with warring factions, Syria would have descended into chaos with 3 interested parties struggling for control (pretty safe to say the Saudi-backed fighters would have won, after another bloody conflict, of course), and of course, it will remain to be seen what happens in Yemen which curiously has very sparse media coverage here in the US.
Warning - my own opinion - I think historically, American regime change efforts were more likely to be accepted and succeed when the values of America roughly aligned with the values of the nation in conflict. This is clearly not the case anymore in the Middle East (maybe once was in the US, but not anymore) One thing Western Cultures just can't seem to be able to grasp is just how large the resistance of a country that takes their faith seriously to the liberal agendas that have taken root and are antithetical to Islam. It's the one thing governments fail to understand time and time again.
- sequence7 8y agoRussia supports the Syrian regime because it contains the only Russian overseas naval base [1]. This is the same reason Russia anexed Crimea, which is now conveniently a Russian naval base. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tart...
- jimmy1 8y agoRegardless of the reason, or reasons (there are many reasons Russia supported Assad, strategic military reasons being one of them as you mentioned), that was my point: That Russia had legitimate reasons to support Assad. The interests of Russia simply did not align with the interests of The United States. This happens sometime in the world, but taking that further and claiming it was somehow to hoist malicious intent on the United States is where the stretch was made and where you enter the dangerous rhetoric zone.
- sequence7 8y agoMy argument is that the only reason Russia supports the Assad regime is for the benefit of its only foreign naval base. I don't claim that there is any malicious intent on the United States as far as that action is concerned.
- jimmy1 8y agoRead into the intent too much, apologies. I don't agree that is the only reason, but certainly a reason among many.
- y-c-o-m-b 8y agoThe really sad part is those oppressive regimes can continuously blame outside interference (and have been doing so, see Iran) anytime there is a legitimate domestic uprising by using America's meddling as historical evidence. That's why this whole "Russian meddling" story is so dangerous and should be approached with caution here in America. If things ever get bad enough for an uprising, they'll point to outside meddling. One thing is for sure, these proxy wars constantly make people rich and powerful despite screwing over the masses, so I expect it to remain this way for many years to come.