The Syrian War

[Johnny Bananas]

It was already a failed state, split amongst warring factions. Unfortunately no surprise, that once the world's eyes turned to the next global cluster**** (usually any time Trump opens his mouth), that'd be when 'payback' against Assad's power base would happen.

Not an ideal solution, but carving up the country into several smaller one's would be a reasonable solution. One for the Alawite's, one for the Kurds and one (largest) for the majority would be the least bad option. Keeping groups that hate each other together in boundaries randomly determined by Europe after WWI and WWII has been causing issues in the Middle East ever since. Separate countries won't make them all start liking each other (see Yugoslavia), but as that shows, if each major ethnic group gets their own country, it reduces (if unfortunately not outright eliminates) most of the death and destruction cycle of 'my turn on top, you suffer, now yours, I suffer, rinse and repeat'.

Turkey would never allow that, especially the Kurdish state. They may have reached a shaky peace agreement with the PKK but that's not going to extend to allowing the Kurds to have a state anywhere for fear of their own Kurds wanting to secede and join the new state.

I notice on X that the conservative types couldn't care less about the Alawites but are all horrified about the impact on Christians. Which is about the best one can expect from them, I thought they'd dismiss all Syrians as being Arabs and equally unworthy of their sympathy.

 

[RubyLovesTheDees]

Some videos are shocking. Shy are these folk so violent?

 

[barreness]

Some videos are shocking. Shy are these folk so violent?

It's re-branded al-nusra, Some more liberal states fawning over them was always going to look silly. Assad was pretty bloody horrrible, was somewhat secular and socialist though, particularly before the civil war

 

[barreness]

It was already a failed state, split amongst warring factions. Unfortunately no surprise, that once the world's eyes turned to the next global cluster**** (usually any time Trump opens his mouth), that'd be when 'payback' against Assad's power base would happen.

Not an ideal solution, but carving up the country into several smaller one's would be a reasonable solution. One for the Alawite's, one for the Kurds and one (largest) for the majority would be the least bad option. Keeping groups that hate each other together in boundaries randomly determined by Europe after WWI and WWII has been causing issues in the Middle East ever since. Separate countries won't make them all start liking each other (see Yugoslavia), but as that shows, if each major ethnic group gets their own country, it reduces (if unfortunately not outright eliminates) most of the death and destruction cycle of 'my turn on top, you suffer, now yours, I suffer, rinse and repeat'.

Ethno states aren't some great solution, they'll just try dominate each other when a fascist gets in charge

See Yugoslavia (as you state), very successful when strong secular leadership is in charge

 

[Zidane98]

It's about time the UN stepped in here to protect minorities. Otherwise we're going to see a Balkans war / Libya repeat.


Perhaps the Saudis & Turkey could come to an agreement long term to govern the country. There is no chance the US will help with Trump involved. Russia is on its knees trying to avoid collapsing entirely and it isn't welcome anyway after backing Assad's genocidal violence / chemical weapon attacks.

There are few other realistic options.

 

[Saint]

It's about time the UN stepped in here to protect minorities. Otherwise we're going to see a Balkans war / Libya repeat.


Perhaps the Saudis & Turkey could come to an agreement long term to govern the country. There is no chance the US will help with Trump involved. Russia is on its knees trying to avoid collapsing entirely and it isn't welcome anyway after backing Assad's genocidal violence / chemical weapon attacks.

There are few other realistic options.

The UN hasn't stepped in for Palestinians, why would it step in to protect the Alawites who just spent the last 50 years torturing and using chemical weapons against the broader population?

It's entirely consistent with the current tone of the UN of minimal interventions and completely risk averse.

The one difference with this conflict is that nobody on the Security Council is on the side of the current Syrian "Government".

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel expanded their invasion same with Turkey. There's a decent chance Syria gets carved up between Turkey, Israel and Iraq. Might be a race for Damascus between Israel and Turkey.

 

[CD Xbow]

This is a really important event, the Kurds are integrating their armed forces with the governments and appear to have agreements in place regarding their autonomous zone. Fingers crossed it works.

Syrian government strikes a deal with Kurdish-led forces

The agreement will integrate the Kurdish forces into the Syrian army, bringing most of the country under government control.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is a really important event, the Kurds are integrating their armed forces with the governments and appear to have agreements in place regarding their autonomous zone. Fingers crossed it works.

Syrian government strikes a deal with Kurdish-led forces

The agreement will integrate the Kurdish forces into the Syrian army, bringing most of the country under government control.

www.abc.net.au

So now the Kurds have made a deal in both Turkey and Syria. Maybe they figured things weren't going to get any better for them than they were right now, so they took whatever deal was available (if so, maybe they learned from the mistakes of the PLO). I also hope both deals result in peace, even if I'd like to see an independent Kurdistan one day.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel expanded their invasion same with Turkey. There's a decent chance Syria gets carved up between Turkey, Israel and Iraq. Might be a race for Damascus between Israel and Turkey.

I disagree, Turkey will want to control it all. Iran has no influence now that Assad is gone and his loyalists are being eliminated or cowed. Israel only seems to be interested in Mount Hermon and other strategic areas near the Golan Heights, and I can't imagine the IDF are keen on performing occupation duty in any heavily populated parts of Syria when they're busy oppressing Palestinians.

 

[Saint]

I disagree, Turkey will want to control it all. Iran has no influence now that Assad is gone and his loyalists are being eliminated or cowed. Israel only seems to be interested in Mount Hermon and other strategic areas near the Golan Heights, and I can't imagine the IDF are keen on performing occupation duty in any heavily populated parts of Syria when they're busy oppressing Palestinians.

Iran and Iraq will want to take over the eastern parts near the Iraqi border because it's full of Al Qaeda and similar who aren't in coalition with the current Syrian Govt.

Israel have already said they're going to invade further than that to "protect" the Druze community. Very similar to Russia invading Ukraine to "protect" Russians.

You're right that Turkey will want most of it, but there are parts it won't be interested in, such as any border with Israel, because Israel will be expelling the Arabs/Syrians as well as the parts in the east. The Kurds signing a deal with the Syrian Govt will be ringing alarm bells in Ankara.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Iran and Iraq will want to take over the eastern parts near the Iraqi border because it's full of Al Qaeda and similar who aren't in coalition with the current Syrian Govt.

Al Qaeda control very little, and the US have a base in this region.

Israel have already said they're going to invade further than that to "protect" the Druze community. Very similar to Russia invading Ukraine to "protect" Russians.

We'll see what happens. Perhaps the winding down of the Gaza massacre means they'll have a bigger presence in Syria but I see this ending in some peace agreement where Syria pulls troops out of its southernmost governates.

The Kurds signing a deal with the Syrian Govt will be ringing alarm bells in Ankara.

Why? Turkey just signed a deal with the PKK to disarm, the SDF deal is entirely in keeping with that.

 

[CD Xbow]

So now the Kurds have made a deal in both Turkey and Syria. Maybe they figured things weren't going to get any better for them than they were right now, so they took whatever deal was available (if so, maybe they learned from the mistakes of the PLO). I also hope both deals result in peace, even if I'd like to see an independent Kurdistan one day.

Yes, I think that's it, the Kurds were at risk of being left without a dance partner. They may believe forming a large block in a sovereign Syria is the best deal they can get, one in which they have a significant role. I'm still hopeful Syria will be governed 'reasonably', perhaps not exactly to Western tastes but vastly better than what exists now.

 

[Saint]

Syria is going to be a new proxy war. The Turks won't allow the Kurds to work in a coalition Government of a neighbour. Israel don't want the other coalition partner of Islamists in charge. Iran will want a way of retaliating against Israel from a new proxy.

 

[CD Xbow]

Syria is going to be a new proxy war. The Turks won't allow the Kurds to work in a coalition Government of a neighbour. Israel don't want the other coalition partner of Islamists in charge. Iran will want a way of retaliating against Israel from a new proxy.

I'm not sure the word new is correct. It has been a proxy war for just about everyone, so it's really continuing as a proxy war. I hope not.

 

[barreness]

It's about time the UN stepped in here to protect minorities. Otherwise we're going to see a Balkans war / Libya repeat.


Perhaps the Saudis & Turkey could come to an agreement long term to govern the country. There is no chance the US will help with Trump involved. Russia is on its knees trying to avoid collapsing entirely and it isn't welcome anyway after backing Assad's genocidal violence / chemical weapon attacks.

There are few other realistic options.

I do agree tbh, this is a place for peacekeepers from wherever, Irish/Africa?

Hundreds of civilians have sought refuge at a Russian air base on Syria’s coast, satellite imagery reveals, as thousands have fled violent clashes and a crackdown by government-aligned fighters that has plunged the region into turmoil.
https://web.archive.org/web/2025031...civilians-shelter-russian-air-base-syria.html

The Russian base is a safe place, wouldn't read about it

 

[barreness]

The UN hasn't stepped in for Palestinians, why would it step in to protect the Alawites who just spent the last 50 years torturing and using chemical weapons against the broader population?

It's entirely consistent with the current tone of the UN of minimal interventions and completely risk averse.

The one difference with this conflict is that nobody on the Security Council is on the side of the current Syrian "Government".

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel expanded their invasion same with Turkey. There's a decent chance Syria gets carved up between Turkey, Israel and Iraq. Might be a race for Damascus between Israel and Turkey.

Yeh ok I'll pay this, ignoring my previous comment, another hypothetical future

Turkey and Israel aren't giving up their currently annexed territory; Lot of water for Israel, lots of people for Turkey.

What do the Kurds and the US occupied areas do? idk. PKK just made a deal with Turkey. Seems like Syria could well become an historical state

 

[barreness]

Syria is going to be a new proxy war. The Turks won't allow the Kurds to work in a coalition Government of a neighbour. Israel don't want the other coalition partner of Islamists in charge. Iran will want a way of retaliating against Israel from a new proxy.

As another poster mentioned, proxy war from a few months after the protests started

Yeh on the Turks and the Kurds.

Israel doesn't mind Islamists if they serve their purposes, they refused to bomb IS. This has been Israel's dream, cut the rat lines from Iran to Lebanon. Hezbollah is a neutered force now

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The Turks won't allow the Kurds to work in a coalition Government of a neighbour.

Except it already happens in Iraq and they haven't disputed that. The SDF are integrating into the regular army under the peace agreement, and the PKK has agreed to disarm so why would Turkey upset the apple cart here?

 

[Freomaniac]

Turkey would never allow that, especially the Kurdish state. They may have reached a shaky peace agreement with the PKK but that's not going to extend to allowing the Kurds to have a state anywhere for fear of their own Kurds wanting to secede and join the new state.

I notice on X that the conservative types couldn't care less about the Alawites but are all horrified about the impact on Christians. Which is about the best one can expect from them, I thought they'd dismiss all Syrians as being Arabs and equally unworthy of their sympathy.

The Kurds are an interesting lot. Always thought the got the raw end of the stick.

Because there are Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. I think there is 30-40 million Kurds all up spread in those 4 nations. They should of got their own nation after world war 1

 

[Freomaniac]

Christ, I remember the massive anti Iraq War rally in London.

How far ago is this?

 

[awaremind]

Early 2003

 

[Freomaniac]

Autonomy vs national sovereignty... The Yanks were fiercely defending a nation's national sovereignty in the face of a breakaway region quest for autonomy if not complete secession not too long ago. Meanwhile the Turks protect Kurds with one hand and slaughter them with the other. Different factions (Iraqi Kurdish National Congress/Peshmerga vs the Turkish Kurdistan Workers'Party/Syrian YPG), true, but supposedly bretheren all the same.

No matter which side you back, it's apparent that this war is most definitely no longer a 'civil war' at all, but a multi-national clusterf*ck.

I agree it's a multi national clusterf**k ..... The Kurds situation is interesting.

Again... There is 30 to 40 million spread around Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq.

The Turkish population is 80 to 85 million. 20 percent of Turkish population are Kurds. So that's a good 16 million Kurds in Turkey.

There 25 million people in Syria and 10 percent of them are Kurds. So that's another 2.5 million there.

So there is 45 million people in Iraq. 15-20 percent of them are Kurds. So that's another 6 to 9 million.

There's 85 million in Iran . 10 percent or 8.5 million are Kurds.

Crazy to think for a large amount of them, Kurds don't have their own nation.

Kurdistan is spread among Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq

 

[Freomaniac]

Yeah, Second Chechen War, where Vlad may or may not have blown up a few apartment blocks in 99 to help with elections.

Yeah that was brutal

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Ethno states aren't some great solution, they'll just try dominate each other when a fascist gets in charge

Ethnostates may not feel like the nicest thing, but in many cases they have worked at avoiding conflict and societal unrest. The most successful country in Africa over the past 50 years is probably Botswana, one of very few ethnostates in the entire continent.

Most states need something in common to tie them together, whether that's ethnicity, language, religion, culture, a monarch or an ideology. The only exception I can think of that is entirely successful is Switzerland. I don't know enough about Swiss history to understand why they've all managed to stay together this long. India is also an exception, though one with a majority religion, and the harmony has periodically fallen apart or never existed in areas with a dominant religion different to the national majority.

Disparate groups also usually need federalism in order to stay together, because then they at least feel control over their own domestic affairs. This is very much the case in Switzerland and India, and even with the Kurds in Iraq to some degree.

Al-Sharaa is not going to embrace federalism, so he'll take the alternative approach of ruling with an iron fist and crushing any dissent, at least in the areas where Israel and Turkey let him govern.

See Yugoslavia (as you state), very successful when strong secular leadership is in charge

Yugoslavia only succeeded because Tito was a charismatic leader, and also ran an authoritarian state and came down like a tonne of bricks on any nationalist movement. At least in theory, they had a common ideology keeping them together and some measure of federalism, but still it all went to shit when Tito died.

I'd argue that Yugoslavia not being divided into separate countries based on ethnicity just enabled a fascist like Milosevic to get the Serbs to dominate the rest, whereas that hasn't happened since being divided into smaller states. It doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it's less likely, unless we're talking about a powerful state like Russia or a state with powerful friends like Israel seeking to dominate others.

Syria is going to be a new proxy war. The Turks won't allow the Kurds to work in a coalition Government of a neighbour. Israel don't want the other coalition partner of Islamists in charge. Iran will want a way of retaliating against Israel from a new proxy.

I am yet to see this proxy war emerge.

 

[Saint]

Ethnostates may not feel like the nicest thing, but in many cases they have worked at avoiding conflict and societal unrest. The most successful country in Africa over the past 50 years is probably Botswana, one of very few ethnostates in the entire continent.

Most states need something in common to tie them together, whether that's ethnicity, language, religion, culture, a monarch or an ideology. The only exception I can think of that is entirely successful is Switzerland. I don't know enough about Swiss history to understand why they've all managed to stay together this long. India is also an exception, though one with a majority religion, and the harmony has periodically fallen apart or never existed in areas with a dominant religion different to the national majority.

Disparate groups also usually need federalism in order to stay together, because then they at least feel control over their own domestic affairs. This is very much the case in Switzerland and India, and even with the Kurds in Iraq to some degree.

Al-Sharaa is not going to embrace federalism, so he'll take the alternative approach of ruling with an iron fist and crushing any dissent, at least in the areas where Israel and Turkey let him govern.


Yugoslavia only succeeded because Tito was a charismatic leader, and also ran an authoritarian state and came down like a tonne of bricks on any nationalist movement. At least in theory, they had a common ideology keeping them together and some measure of federalism, but still it all went to shit when Tito died.

I'd argue that Yugoslavia not being divided into separate countries based on ethnicity just enabled a fascist like Milosevic to get the Serbs to dominate the rest, whereas that hasn't happened since being divided into smaller states. It doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it's less likely, unless we're talking about a powerful state like Russia or a state with powerful friends like Israel seeking to dominate others.


I am yet to see this proxy war emerge.

Botswana don't have laws against non-Tswana people, even though they have about the same number of minorities as a place like Israel.