Russia. All that concerns Russia.Аnswers questions citizen of Russia. (country, people)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it sure does. "No other legitimate party" is pretty much the justification to rebel against the rulers.
They can rebel for any reason they want, however, Assad is the legitimate ruler of Syria as the SNC has about zero legitimacy, and even less control of Syrian territory. You are basically stating now any group of people any where in the world should feel the "represent" the official status of the country they are in.
Using your theory, you must agree with the Ukrainian separatists being official recognized and the legitimate regime of Donbas? Lol, of course you do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
The US has not invaded Syria.
The US has over 2000 troops in Syria; if Russia had 2000 troops in Finland, would you call that an invasion? Oh hell, you have rattled off Russia has invaded Ukraine dozens of times now.
Seems you have a double standard, you might want to check that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
You might want to look at a map.
What about looking at a map? Did you not read my post that you conveniently (on purpose of course) left out of your quote? Here it is again (bolded is your quote and the rest of the sentence);
"Russia is in Syria because it does not want the country to fall to the crazy radical Islamist, as other regime changes had occurred. The border between Russia and Syria is easy to cross as Turkey and Caucasus's do not have good border security, and the last thing Russia wants is a resurgence of radical Islam in the Chechen area. This was well explained in Robert Gates book about what Putin conveyed to him during their meeting in regards to Libya, and Russia warning the US about sponsoring regime changes and allowing radical Islamist to take over and grow in power."
SO I will repeat it again so you can understand; the border between Russia and Syria is easy to cross, because eastern Turkey and the Caucasus's have very porous borders that are easy to cross. Russia does not want to have a radical Islamic state near them that would feed into radical Islamic insurgencies in their Chechen region, thus fueling more conflict. This was clearly outlined in Robert Gates' book when he described his meeting with Putin.
George III is the recognized leader of the British Empire, and he leads the recognized government of the British Empire. There is no other legitimate party, no other party is recognized as being the British regime. Having some people in a country disagreeing with the regime does not add legitimacy to them, there are plenty of groups who disagree with George III, but he and the current gov are in fact the rulers of the Thirteen Colonies.
George II is dead, England ceded and recognized the US as did everyone else. However, hardly anyone, one country I think only, recognizes the SNC, everyone else understands Assad is the ruler. The basis of this little debate is a poster stated Russia is illegally in Syria because not all legitimate parties agreed for them to be there, when in fact there are no legitimate parties aside from Assad. Russia is there by invitation of the Syrian government, the US however is not and neither is Turkey. Turkey is now even threatening to invade Iraq.
George II is dead, England ceded and recognized the US as did everyone else. However, hardly anyone, one country I think only, recognizes the SNC, everyone else understands Assad is the ruler. The basis of this little debate is a poster stated Russia is illegally in Syria because not all legitimate parties agreed for them to be there, when in fact there are no legitimate parties aside from Assad. Russia is there by invitation of the Syrian government, the US however is not and neither is Turkey. Turkey is now even threatening to invade Iraq.
The problem with your statement and the reason I brought it up, is that legitimately is determined by outside parties and not the individual state actor. I used other examples to illustrate this point. It's not just about the practical situation. Here are some examples:
Northern Cyprus is not recognized by anyone other than Turkey. In other words, it is illegitimate in the eyes of most, yet it has it's own government and the city of Nicosia has a wall dividing the two parts.
Israel declared Jerusalem as it's capital, yet very few nations are willing to recognize it.
China adheres the the One China Policy, yet the state of Taiwan is very much separate from the mainland.
Kosovo is not recognized by a fairly significant number of nations as well, yet there is a border down there.
South Vietnam invited the US to help it fight communism. Did that in any way legalize it's presence to the North's government?
My point is that leadership can only be valued if it has international credibility. Your standing in society is determined by what others think about you.
Going back to Syria; Assad may be the ruler of the nation in practical terms, but his rule is contested by a number of major powers which puts a strain on it's validity. The US, UK, France, Turkey, SA, Israel have all cast their net against him for x,y,z reason because they do not accept his rule, which in turn makes Russia's involment on behalf of the current government questionable.
In today's world, to be truly validated, one needs to gain approval from the five permanent members of the UN security council and by that I mean all of them. If even one of them has an issue with you, you're in trouble. Assad is in hot waters with three of them.
P.S. I'm not talking about right or wrong here, just laying down the framework for how international relations work.
Last edited by Milky Way Resident; 03-22-2018 at 01:26 AM..
The problem with your statement and the reason I brought it up, is that legitimately is determined by outside parties and not the individual state actor.
...
Going back to Syria; Assad may be the ruler of the nation in practical terms, but his rule is contested by a number of major powers which puts a strain on it's validity. The US, UK, France, Turkey, SA, Israel have all cast their net against him for x,y,z reason because they do not accept his rule, which in turn makes Russia's involment on behalf of the current government questionable.
Only UN can be determine it. Asad was elected in democratic elections, the elections were recognized by all. UN did not deprive him of the status of ruler of Syria. International laws are unambiguous - he is the legitimate ruler of Syria. The countries of the West may be unhappy with this. But they go against the international laws.
The Syrian government is not considered legitimate by all parties involved, therefore inviting Russia into the country is not acceptable to them. Recognition is everything in politics, regardless of whether it matches what's on the ground. The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, but go to Argentina and they will claim that it's known as "Las Islas Malvinas" and belongs to them.
I hope you realize that Russia and Iran have been backing terrorist groups as well. There are a number of fighters who came from Russia to fight for ISIS and the Chechen leader Kadyrov, who has close ties to Putin btw, has backed ISIS in the past.
Russia is in Syria for one reason and one reason alone, which is to help Assad maintain power and keep it's base in the region. Syria is one of it's clients, just like Iran is. Russia has been selling weapons to Iran, who supply them to Hezbollah, who end up using them to pummel Israel with rockets.
Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that NATO has a cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia and that's definitely one of the problems facing the region but hardly the only one.
The way I see it, all options are bad and the ME has become a clusterfu** where a number of nations with different geopolitical goals have entered into the fray and they all tend to flip-flop around on policy to the point that the lines have become blurred.
I don't see why that's so hard to grasp given that humans have a history of being douches. We are vile creatures who come up with different ways to screw around.
It doesn't matter what's acceptable or legitimate to them since those countries are waging a war that should be illegal under international law. They are obviously not going to be pleased with anything that stands in the way of their winning the war.
The fighters that came from Chechnya, Dagestan, etc. were previously fighting the Russians. They were supported by the CIA during the civil war between Georgia and S. Ossetia. That's why they come over as established fighting units at the start of the Syrian war. They had already had previous military training with the US and an established command and control structure in place. The same Caucasus Emirate fighters were also fighting in Ukraine for the government side. To counter the Chechen units in Syria, the Russians brought in the counterterrorism forces from Chechnya.
In all likelihood, Russia has probably drawn a red line where NATO military incursions are encroaching on its borders and the next war will be inside the country. The situation was viewed as an existential threat to Russia where it would lead to a nuclear war between the two sides. The conclusion becomes inevitable when the US military releases a study for public consumption that claims that a nuclear war with Russia might be acceptable to the US. There was a similar report on confronting China.
The US initiated a war of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East to break up the established countries and set up a base for further terrorist operations to target Iran from a new Kurdish state. There are up to 30,000 ISIS fighters in territories under US control where there is no military action by the US coalition. It is better for everyone to put a stop to it.
You lack basic knowledge on the conflict and the Middle East. The outside countries did not just enter into the Middle East. They have been there since the end of the Ottoman Empire through their relationships with the current and past governments.
Putin sent 2,000 Chechen fighters to assist Assad so they could fight against civilians protesting his rule. It worked until ISIS got too powerful. If it wasn't for the USA, Chechens would be still capturing Russians there and doing what they do best.
Putin sent 2,000 Chechen fighters to assist Assad so they could fight against civilians protesting his rule. It worked until ISIS got too powerful. If it wasn't for the USA, Chechens would be still capturing Russians there and doing what they do best.
Completely wrong and made up on your part. The Chechens were the most feared units within ISIS in 2013. They fought under the CIA in both Russia and Syria.
By then, ethnic cleansing by US-backed forces had driven half the population out of their homes and killed 450,000 Syrians. Most of the remaining population lived in the coastal area, while the foreign forces controlled 70 percent of the land area.
I thought it was pretty obvious with the Nemtsov murder that some or most murders were arranged by the CIA/MI6 as its close proximity to the Kremlin was meant to send a message to the Russian leadership.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
