Assad Moscow visit: Syria leader in surprise visit

Assad has made his first international trip since the war in Syria erupted in 2011.

Mr Assad thanked Russia for "standing up for the unity of Syria and its independence", and said its intervention had "prevented the events in Syria from developing along a more tragic scenario".
Terrorism is a real obstacle to a political solution," said Mr Assad, "and of course the whole (Syrian) people want to take part in deciding the fate of their state, and not just the leadership."

So is Assad hinting that he is ready to go once the war is over?

. Having Mr Assad turn up in Moscow shows that there is little doubt that for now at least, President Putin is intent on shoring up Mr Assad's position.
But the trip may also mark a new stage in Russia's efforts to roll out a diplomatic plan alongside its military intervention in Syria; an illustration that Russia deals with Mr Assad, and that for now at least Mr Assad has to be part of any interim solution.

BBC link

It would seem that Russia's endgame is essentially the same as the US led allies - Assad needs to go. The key difference is that Russia wants to maintain the government, for all it's faults for now because it is the seat of power and order from which change can come.

If we look at Russia itself we might learn something actually. It was a nation who underwent MASSIVE power change when Gorbachev came to prominence. The old communist way of rule collapsed dramatically and the Soviet Union splintered. But for the most part, it was peaceful. Yes there were some wars among countries like the former Yugoslavia, but it could have been a heck of a lot worse.

Maybe Russia can actually help here and more importantly, maybe we should sit down and talk with them and Assad to see if a new strategy can be come up with.

a reply to: markosity1973

We need to be sitting down with everybody instead of continuing to do what we want.

We don't have to like everything other nations do... but they sure as hell need to be part of the discussion because our constant wars are getting real old.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Agreed. The USA and its allies can still play a key role in ending the war in Syria, but its time for putting Westernized pride to one side and embracing new thinking.

In 16 months Russia runs out of money. So unless oil goes back up (which I doubt will happen) which represents 45% of all money the government generates. The bear will be running on fumes by the end of next year. So let see what the do in the time they have remaining. Should be interesting.

a reply to: markosity1973

Are Assad backed suicide bombers standing up for the unity of Syria?

originally posted by: JBRiddle
In 16 months Russia runs out of money. So unless oil goes back up (which I doubt will happen) which represents 45% of all money the government generates. The bear will be running on fumes by the end of next year. So let see what the do in the time they have remaining. Should be interesting.

America is already out of money. It just prints more and more to fool the world.

I don't get your point.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: markosity1973

Are Assad backed suicide bombers standing up for the unity of Syria?

Show me proof that he is doing that.

He uses barrel bombs, yes, but the rebels have the `hell cannon' which basically shoots gas cylinders with explosives attached to them.

a reply to: markosity1973

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Barrel bombs are ok??

a reply to: Chadwickus

Barrel bombs are ok??

Defending his own country isn't 'okay'? After all, its the US arming terrorists inside Syria, whats he supposed to do, just let them?

Answer Markosity about Assad suicide bombers, if you would. Show proof of that or redact it.

a reply to: markosity1973

It would seem that Russia's endgame is essentially the same as the US led allies - Assad needs to go. The key difference is that Russia wants to maintain the government, for all it's faults for now because it is the seat of power and order from which change can come.

Nice spin. You generate that for western mass consumption? Why would Russia wait so long to bomb its own ally, Syria? At this point its only too obvious Russia is defending Assad, defending the Syrian military with direct air support so they can eradicate the terrorists, et al.

Russian wouldn't be destroying insurgents Syria and meeting with Assad if they wanted him gone, they'd be helping the US.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I never said they were OK and reports of them being dropped seem to be drying up.

The post I replied to was an accusation that Assad was using suicide bombs and I slipped in barrel bombs as acknowledgment that he is far from squeaky clean.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: markosity1973

It would seem that Russia's endgame is essentially the same as the US led allies - Assad needs to go. The key difference is that Russia wants to maintain the government, for all it's faults for now because it is the seat of power and order from which change can come.

Nice spin. You generate that for western mass consumption? Why would Russia wait so long to bomb its own ally, Syria? At this point its only too obvious Russia is defending Assad, defending the Syrian military with direct air support so they can eradicate the terrorists, et al.

Oh for sure. I would hope that readers can understand that point. Russia is of the belief that for now Assad is the only legitimate leader in Syria. On that point I unashamedly agree with them. If Assad were toppled right this very moment, who would replace him? There are about 1,000 different rebel groups so I only see the war being bloody and protracted and a total power vacuum in his downfall.

Russian wouldn't be destroying insurgents Syria and meeting with Assad if they wanted him gone, they'd be helping the US.

Or would they? The point I made in the OP after that is that Russia fairly recently in the scheme of things went through it's own change of regime from a closed, cold war communist and Atheist state to what we have today. It managed to do so with minimal war. Maybe it knows of a better way to transit Assad from power.

I see Russia as having the same endgame as the USA. The key difference in ideology I personally see is that the USA sees war as the way to change a regime - which always results in total government collapse followed by a power vacuum and protracted misery for the populace..

Russia on the other hand backs a peaceful resolution - an orderly transition from power through democratic means ie referendum. It wants to maintain the Assad government for now in order to be able to maintain a functioning government and when the war is won it will be time to talk regime change.

As I said in the OP, everyone, including China supports change in Syria. The disagreement has always been about how this takes place. Russia and China have from day one vetoed military intervention there because they wanted a diplomatic solution. Russia has realised that things are so out of control now that for the moment at least a diplomatic solution is out of the question until peace is restored. It has entered the game to ensure that the Syrian government survives so that it's vision of a diplomatic transition can occur.

Oh and yeah, Russia also has that base in Latakia so naturally it has skin in the game here - it will want to be seen as the 'good guys' by any future Syrian leader in order to keep it there.

a reply to: intrptr

Click the link..

Im interpreting this as not so much that Russia is indicating that Assad must go but more like when the dust settles that the people will decide through elections whether Assad will stay or go. The way it should be aye "democratic" NATO.

If he does survive the election process then everyone should accept that..Time will tell if he does or not.

For now Assad needs to stay, or a power vacuum will exist and that would be a lot worse as most here would agree.

As for Russia running out of finances, I think that BRICs could be one possible solution to this problem. But that is a future issue.

Russia's focus now is and should be on stabilizing the current regime, and ridding the country of all terrorists, one area at a time. Whether "moderate rebels" or ISIS get hit first, second, last or whenever, whomever is in the way of this outcome will get trampled on and fair enough.

The quicker this happens the better for everybody, then we might see refugees heading back home where they belong..Im sure the EU would appreciate that.

But I feel this is not what US led NATO desires, but have little choice in the matter... Russian , checkmate.

Rangima'arie, Nohopuku, Rongo (Peace)

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: intrptr

Click the link..

I did. You started that thread…

heres a reply in it to you from another member:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: markosity1973

If Assad were toppled right this very moment, who would replace him? There are about 1,000 different rebel groups so I only see the war being bloody and protracted and a total power vacuum in his downfall.

Like libya. Imo, the desired result. The reason Russia vetoed the US mandate to Libya-ise Syria in the UN Security council, the reason Russia armed Syria, the reason Russia is now defending Syria directly.

Assad must go is the wests mantra, not the Russians.

Again, if Assad was so bad in the beginning why did Russia support him before the US began the insurgency?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: markosity1973

If Assad were toppled right this very moment, who would replace him? There are about 1,000 different rebel groups so I only see the war being bloody and protracted and a total power vacuum in his downfall.

Like libya. Imo, the desired result. The reason Russia vetoed the US mandate to Libya-ise Syria in the UN Security council, the reason Russia armed Syria, the reason Russia is now defending Syria directly.

Assad must go is the wests mantra, not the Russians.

Again, if Assad was so bad in the beginning why did Russia support him before the US began the insurgency?

Facts on the Assad regime do seem a bit thin on the ground. It seems that he enjoyed popular support from a part of the population while another part opposed him. There are reports here and there that suggest that his style of governing was a bit problematic in that he does tend to use an iron fist to quash opposition to him.

At the end of the day, Russia sees postwar Syria as a nation of several autonomous zones representing the various ethnic groups that live there. I don't see what the issue is with that myself. The end solution has to be about what is good for the Syrian people, not what the USA or any other nation for that matter wants to impose.

a reply to: markosity1973

Facts on the Assad regime do seem a bit thin on the ground. It seems that he enjoyed popular support from a part of the population while another part opposed him.

Well if you listen to news reports that is. Every government is somewhat suppressive to certain elements. But overall they were a peaceful long time nation, ruled differently than the west, they aren't the west.

You've seen this one about how Libya was before the Humanitarian Western Intervention to rid the Libyan people of their oppressive leader Qaddafi? You just compare what we were told to what is revealed in here. Then consider what we are being told about Assad as well.

Obama and Hillary made a mistake and to proud to admit it, even though it is costing human lives.