What should the debacle in Syria tell Lebanon,Iran,China and Russia about the efficacy of ceasefires and negotiations with bad actors.Will someone please tell Mercouris etc.
Imo one would need to identify the bad actors and their motivation and the outcomes. Otherwise we are in the territory of hunt the squirrel which needs more words and arguments.
I don't have likes/dislikes, just logic. I look around before I listen to AM's arguments. For example, I was impressed with his findings here:
Ah,logic! Let me say I have a lot of respect for Alex Mercouris.I,m not aware of anyone who does a better job of evidence based analysis.Furthermore he always goes to great lengths to distinguish between that and his own speculations with which in the majority of cases I agree.In the case to which you refer he makes it clear he has no evidence for this other than vague rumours and conjecture to support it. (It may or not be the case but it,s hard to understand why Assad would have refused such an offer.) Nonetheless Alex,s view is that Assad,s failure to enter into dialogue with Erdogan did most to bring about this disaster and he points to this as an example. The suggestion that personal antipathy towards Erdogan would lead Assad to put his country at mortal risk requires more in the way of evidence. The unambiguous failure of Syrian,Iranian and Russian intelligence to recognise the poor state of the Syrian military and the build up of SNA and Takfiri strength in Idlib would be a better place to look for scapegoats.(I note that the Russians lost no time in dismissing the military commander in Syria)I think learning lessons is more important than seeking scapegoats. At the moment there is much talk of "negotiations" and "ceasefires"involving Hezbollah in Lebanon and Russia in Ukraine and promoting "dialogue" with China over Taiwan and Turkiye over Syria.
With Nato who promised no eastward extension? With Ukraine and its US/UK co-belligerents who so faithfully upheld its Minsk obligations. With USA who accepted and ratified One China? With genocidal apartheid Israel? With Erdogan who endorsed the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and Astana Process,claims no involvement with the Takfiris and whose only reason for occupying Syrian territory is to fight (US supported) Kurdish "terrorists"
These are the "bad actors" to whom I refer and whose "motivations and outcomes"hardly need identifying.
This is where my disagreement with Alex Mercouris lies.
Despite the egg on his face I suspect that Ritter may be right in that even the Turks didn,t anticipate such a collapse of the Syrian army and the whole thing has gone beyond their control.
At the moment there is much talk of "negotiations" and "ceasefires"involving Hezbollah in Lebanon and Russia in Ukraine and promoting "dialogue" with China over Taiwan and Turkiye over Syria.
Thanks for the comprehensive response. I think I was able to isolate the central bone of contention, so to speak, as per above.
One essential component in the diplomatic toolbox is that it is better to have jaw-jaw than war-war, as the ole adage goes. Take for an example the Minsk agreements. Once the agreement was made, in those early days, it suited both Russians and the other parties to go along with it. As the situation developed, I don't believe for a minute that Russians didn't know that they were being led up the primrose path. It suited them because they were still preparing for a possibility of an all out (proxy) war with NATO.
Israeli genociders are not diplomacy driven and are not as sophisticated as Russians are .. just crude force application. Nevertheless, they will use it to have a cessation of fighting because it suites them .. and then immediately break this agreement, again, because it suites them and claim whatever and keep the situation on simmer.
With sultan Erdogan the situation is much more complicated but in essence he has Ottoman Empire 2.0 ambitions and has always eyed Aleppo as Turkiye's rightful property. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture.
My main point being that relationships between power centres is regulated and oscillates between outright use of military force and diplomacy depending on the conflict.
I agree with your main point,in particular that it depends on the conflict.I would say though that it is not always the case that that jaw jaw is better than war war in the long run.
With Nato who promised no eastward extension? With Ukraine and its US/UK co-belligerents who so faithfully upheld its Minsk obligations. With USA who accepted and ratified One China? With genocidal apartheid Israel? With Erdogan who endorsed the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and Astana Process,claims no involvement with the Takfiris and whose only reason for occupying Syrian territory is to fight (US supported) Kurdish "terrorists"
Yes. The "Going back to the wifebeater in the hope of better behaviour is the best way to end up dead." scenario.
on December 8, 2024, 6:09 pm