Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[erik]

It is even trickier than that

Russia and Iran support Syria's current leader al-Assad and they fight predominantly against rebels who tried to topple al-Assad. Russians and Iranians don't want to see any autonomous regions on the territory of Syria. Interestingly, Russians have been very passive with regard to |S|S.

Turks have trained and equipped some rebel factions (mostly ethnic Turkmens) with the aim of creating a buffer zone on Turkish-Syrian border. Turks don't want to see Kurds strengthening and setting up anything akin to a state on Syrian side of the border. Hence, Turks are at odds with the US.

The US, France, UK and few others have trained and equipped (1) Kurds to fight against |S|S, (2) Syrian rebels to press al-Assad to negotiate. The remnants of these rebels are now concentrated mostly in Idlib. The US and French presence remains strong in Kurdish areas and Kurds are a force to be reckoned with - as long as they get weapons and the US air cover keeps Russian air force at bay.

All in all, there is no unified effort to support any of the rebel or ethnic factions in the Syria. Turks and the US-led coalition have very different ideas about what needs to be done and particularly about Kurds.

At the same time, Russians and Iranians want to have in power a government that would support their aspirations that also differ. Russians would like to have a friendly state with Russian bases in it. Iranians want to have a pro-Shia state and a land bridge to Hezollah in Lebanon. The latter puts it in a direct confrontation with Israelis who have struck Iranian targets in Syria for over 200 times. Naturally, the US sides with Israel and has pressed Iran to leave Syria. This, in turn, has evoked strong Russian reactions.

Where do we stand now?

Idlib has become a home for all remaining rebel factions: Russians and Iranians battered them into submission in different enclaves and then offered an option to evacuate to Idlib. Rebels were happy to go and it effectively ended a spread-out insurgency that took enormous toll on Syrian armed forces. Now there's only one target area remaining for pro-government forces.

Kurds control a massive area in the north of Syria that they attempted to declare independent, but received no support or recognition. Syria's largest natural gas and oil reserves are in that area.

Turks are trying to expand areas at the border that are controlled by pro-Turkish rebels (Turkmens) and push Kurds eastward. This has brought them into confrontation with the US on several occasions. Simultaneously, Turks are posturing to keep Russians and Iranians away from the buffer areas they try to establish.

The most puzzling aspect of the situation are the US intentions. Kurds have served the US efforts to destroy |S|S extremely well and they bore the brunt of fighting and losses. Will the US simply leave Kurds to be torn to shreds by Turks and others? One must keep in mind that there are 40 million Kurds and if they try to establish their state, it would chop off territories from Turkey, Iraq and Iran. None of these states wants to see it. For Russians, it is a nice lever to turn these states against the US because of the US support for Kurds. Similarly, John Bolton, the new US NATSEC adviser to Trump has stated that Iran must be driven out of Syria. Is it serious?

So far, the only political support rebels in Idlib receive, is an outcry on the humanitarian grounds. It matters none to Russia, Iran and Syria. The US threatened to strike Syria if chemical weapons are used against rebels.

Turks are the only ones making forceful moves and putting their forces on the perimeter of Idlib, as well as supplying  rebels with arms and ammunition,  and it seems to hold Russians back. For now.

[Michael]

I don't get a few things. Are there Kurds in the Idlib province?
Why are the Turks defending Idlib? Is Idlib their buffer zone?

I suspect Assad and Russia are dead keen to take Idlib, Turks of not. How determined are the Turks? If they are determined they will need other international (Nato, UK, US) support to withstand Russians.

How likely is this to escalate beyond Syria?

[erik]

There are few if any Kurds in Idlib. Either way, they have no say about what Syrian/Arab/Turkmen rebels and Turks do there.
The northern part of Idlib is certainly considered a buffer zone by Turks. There are 3 million people in Idlib and they may rush for Turkish border in the case of Russian-Syrian attack. Turks already host close to 3 million Syrian refugees.

Turkish determination is to be seen. They do considerable military posturing with parallel political advances towards Russia and Iran. Turks have previously fired at Syrian aircraft and ground forces, and shot down one Russian aircraft. Turks would definitely like to see either US or NATO on their side.

Escalation beyond Syria seems possible, but not likely. The US and Russia have made considerable efforts to deconflict/avoid shooting at each other.

[Michael]

How does the disruption in the GCC play into the Syrian war, and is the rise of MBS an issue of concern for Western nations?
Is Qatar involved in Syria in any way, aside from befriending some of the main players?

[erik]

I don't think developments in the GCC or Saud could have and would try to have a serious effect on developments in Syria. GCC has been split since Muslim Bortherhood came to power in Egypt. Then Saudis went ballistic with regard to Qatar who supported MB in Egypt. Saudis have been angry at Qatar ever since. At the same time, Saudis realise that the US stands firmly behind Qatar where it has a massive air base. The ability of Saud to sustain proxy forces or challenge meaningful players such as Iran is very limited. They have tried to fund and arm rebels and discovered what a burden it is on their one sector economy.

At the same time both Qatar and Saudis, as well as UAE have acted in Syria on behalf of the US. Saudi and UAE air forces flew weapons and ammunition to rebels (the daily expenditure of ammunition by rebels reached as high as 600 tons).

Btw, Truks deployed artillery and tanks to Syria and Russians halted their bombing campaign. The news says that the Sultan Erdogan and Czar Putin have agreed to set up a demilitarized zone around Idlib. It may be that Turks have persuaded Russia to leave Idlib alone.

[Michael]

Thanks Juhani - it is getting complicated, and many of my news sources have given up on Syria.

[Michael]

And humans, as a general rule, don't care.

[erik]

Sometimes I get the feeling as if the mankind tried - adopted various laws and regulations to slow down the destruction of nature, to find alternatives - but found it too taxing, too difficult, to unfamiliar and strange (imagine a totally different world and economy!), and now there is nothing but giving up the attempts to do the right thing.

Rightist populists are elected into office in various countries and they just reverse earlier attempts of change.

I feel such a powerful flow of resignation blowing across the world.

[Michael]

The rise of populism is understandable, given the pressures of mass movements of people, economic disadvantage, and changing climate. I have often postulated the fork in the road between a cooperative and competitive reaction by humanity. I do see there is a backlash against the far right's claims for the competitive option, but I am so far unable to discern if that backlash by the saner members of our species is anywhere near enough to counter the instinct for self and group survival on the narrowest and basic of interpretation. If you ask my bet, I'd say at present, without leadership, the cooperative and rational option is losing.

[erik]

It seems to be the case.

[Doubting Thomas]

The Dalai Lama has come under fire after a video showing him kissing a young child and asking him to 'suck' his tongue went viral, forcing him to issue an apology.
...
The group expressed their disgust on Monday following the emergence of the disturbing footage, which showed the young Indian boy kissing the Dalai Lama on the lips as he came forward to pay his respects during a charity event at a temple.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11960177/The-Dalai-Lamas-biggest-controversies-disturbing-tongue-suck-video.html

Weird stuff.

[Michael]

It is weird. And unfortunate. Not sure what excuse is appropriate, and I've not seen too much that can dismiss this on cultural grounds. But it is what it is.... perhaps its senility

[Doubting Thomas]

My conspiracy theory relates to the life cycle of institutions.  It all starts beautifully and very spiritually, but over time, cognition and aspiration are replaced by ritual and formality. At a certain point, the institution simply becomes overly concerned with the continuity of its existence, and this leads to its downfall. From that moment on, figures move to the head of the institution who have fulfilled all the requirements, but who, in their innermost...

...His disciples were astonished. The great Confucius, who remained calm in the presence of the greatest emperors, became anxious in the presence of an unknown old man. They wondered what had Lao Tzu done to their teacher.

“When you met Lao Tzu, what advice did you give him?” They enquired.

“I have seen great animals, such as elephants. I know how they move, how they live. I have heard of the great hidden animals of the seas. I know how they swim and how they feed. I know of the great birds of the earth who fly thousands of miles in a single flight. I know how they fly. But finally, I have met a dragon. A dragon that rides on expansive clouds and feeds on the purest Yin and Yang. Nobody knows how he lives, how he feeds or how he flies. My mouth fell open in his presence. I was astonished. How could I ever offer advice to a Dragon? I had to leave.”

[Bornamber]

This article has offered other views  https://www.vice.com/en/article/jg5854/tibetans-explain-what-suck-my-tongue-means-dalai-lama-viral-video

It is really hard to believe that IF he has been harboring the suggested perversions he would have let such a thing slip so publicly…unless he’s totally lost his mind. 

Im not sure what to believe and I suspect there is really no way to figure out the “truth”….but I have my suspicions that this all plays very well into China interfering with the choosing of the next Dalai Lama. 

[Doubting Thomas]

Agree. We will probably never know the truth. There are always explanations, especially when it comes to religious leaders, clerics and beliefs.
Some friends of the Dalai Lama, however, seem to be confused:

Crews, regarded as one of Australia's 'national living treasures' for his Rev Bill Crews Foundation's work caring for the homeless and the poor, has known the Dalai Lama for decades. Crews has visited the Tibetan Buddhist leader's temple in Dharamsala, Tibet and hosted him on a national Australian tour. 

On radio, Crews responded to Craig's question, saying: 'Well Craig, I don’t know. I gotta say I watched it - I watched it really closely because he is a close friend of mine and I really can’t explain it at all.
'I can’t explain it. And what I will do is when I see him I’ll ask him. I can tell you that.
'I will ask him and we’ll see. I have no idea. It’s not a great look, that’s what I’ve got to say. It’s not a great look at all.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11979927/Lifelong-friend-Dalai-Lama-reveals-thoughts-suck-tongue-video.html

In the end, it doesn't really matter. If one is to believe Tibetan Buddhism, then there are periods in human history when Buddhism reigns supreme, and then there come times when the doctrine partially or completely fades away.

Everything changes, nothing remains without change.
Buddha