It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Russia's recent military buildup in Syria has perplexed the Obama administration and left it in a quandary as to how to respond, complicating Washington's efforts to both combat Islamic State extremists and assist moderate rebels trying to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.
Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.
Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.
But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.
“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview.
originally posted by: DJW001
So why don't the Russians repeat the offer now?
Because now Russia has America by the balls. They can do whatever they want now and we have to walk on egg shells to maintain the appearance that we are trying to destroy ISIS.
Why should they? America doesn't negotiate with terrorists... why should any nation be expected to negotiate with terrorists America is responsible for?
Because it is no longer a viable solution.
When the fight was between Assad and the FSA, it was much cleaner business. Both were secular, both were willing to negotiate, both had (surprisingly) similar ideals.
It wasn't until the foreign fundamentalists arrived that things really went south (relative to the conflict pre-fundamentalist). Now that one of those organizations is, arguably, the single most powerful group in Syria, there isn't really any solution that doesn't involve either:
A) A complete reunification of native Syrian forces, with external backing. Possible, but highly unlikely.
B) An external power willing to place a large number of their resources and manpower in Syria until the issues are resolved (think 20+ years). Extremely unlikely.
C) A combined global effort to bring some semblance of peace back to the region. Have you seen the effectiveness of the UN lately? Extremely unlikely.
Assad has gone on record numerous times stating he is not stepping down and will not step down. This during the so called info in the Russia insider article.
Oh yea and while their at it maybe help create a Minsk 3 .....Like the refugees flooding Europe ,some boats leave port and never return . But maybe that was part of the bigger plan for F the EU Nuland and the rest of the crazy neo-cons
(Translated via Google Translator)
Russia has information that the US know the specific location point of the "Islamic State" (extremist organization banned in Russia), but did not give an order to strike on the positions "of the IG," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
In the program "Sunday times" on the "First Channel" Lavrov said that the US government "was not originally a very carefully created a coalition, or conspired to it so that it is not the goals that have been declared."
According to the Foreign Minister, the coalition was created spontaneously, "just a few days it was announced that it includes a number of countries have begun any punches."
Lavrov said that the analysis of aviation operations in countries included in the coalition, "creates a strange impression," - as if in addition to fighting "the IG" "there is something else in the problems of the coalition."
The Minister said: "I hope not to disappoint anyone, saying that some of our colleagues from the incoming coalition of countries say they have is information on where exactly, on what positions are these or other subdivision" IG ", and the commander of the Coalition (the United States ) does not give consent to the striking. "