U.S. suspends talks with Russia on Syria ceasefire
Source: Reuters
The United States said on Monday it was suspending talks with Russia on trying to end the violence in Syria and accused Moscow of not living up to its commitments under a ceasefire agreement.
"The United States is suspending its participation in bilateral channels with Russia that were established to sustain the cessation of hostilities," U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. "This is not a decision that was taken lightly."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-russia-idUSKCN1231X3?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)he'll pretend he's oh, so sad and 'disappointed'.
That fucker so desperately longs to be another Russian dictator while donning the mantle of a democratically elected president. He clearly wants all the benefits and credibility of a president while acting like a dictator. Clearly, he wants his cake and eat it, too.
From this day forward, U.$. Media has to stop referring to him as 'president'. He hasn't been one since he was first democratically elected in 2000. Since then, he's done everything in his power to become the dictator of Russia because he IS a DICTATOR.
We should call it like it is, and stop giving him any credibility.
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #5)
Name removed Message auto-removed
FSogol
(45,481 posts)Putin is bombing civilian targets in Syria. He is not destroying ISIS, he's helping prop up the corrupt Assad regime. You are too transparent.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)FSogol
(45,481 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I thought he'd given up on DU
Response to FSogol (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
This was a deal where the US moved considerably to try to end the bloodshed. The NYT released bits of Kerry speaking in private to the Syrian rebels. What was new in that, but got pretty little coverage was that the agreement allowed Assad to be on the ballot when they would eventually vote. In addition, Kerry in comments given from the State Department explicitly said that the rebels had to separate from Al Nusra -- even saying that allowing any support for Al Nusra was crazy. In fact, the neo cons and right wing attacked Kerry and Obama over those leaks - saying they conceded much too much.
In return, Syria had to allow unfettered access to humanitarian aid. They allowed NOTHING for the first 5 days. This was before the accidental US/Allies attack on the Syrian base. The US quickly acknowledged the mistake in their attack. Notably, they had deconflicted with Russia, but the Russians apparently did not realize that the target was the Syrian army as the information was not precise enough. The US/allies had been striking ISIS in that area .. contrary to some comments from Russian sources.
What broke the ceasefire beyond repair was the attack on the humanitarian convoy that was well marked and known to all. Early reports from Syrian sources said it was "pay back" - ignoring that it was in no way equivalent.
Now, it is clear - Russia and Syria are going for a military solution ... and the utter destruction of parts of Syria.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Syrian refugees all over the world being included in the process.
In fact Kerry advocated not for a use of force, but a NARRATIVE OF THREATENING of intervention to push Assad accept a transition.
He is still pursuing a diplomatic solution.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Importantly defined that all registered refugees could vote. That was important and through that, the US thinks Assad unlikely to win.
I do not get how people hearing or reading his words describing the present or future violence can not understand he thinks intervention likely to make thinks worse. However, they have stopped negotiations.
mallard
(569 posts)Simplistic though well thought out points made ... along the lines of designer truth however; that we best accept it was really a completely honest accident with attacking a Syrian army position during the cease fire period, that admitting to it was somehow noble or compensatory or that ISIS' win of that battle were both incidental and irrelevent, all for conveniently parking the blame for that aid convoy strike on Russia really does provide the perfect, dramatic, key, almost 'Hollywoodesque' moment ... to sever all direct communication with Russia, fully and immediately returning us to the manner of cold war after some 35 years break. No problem there, either, Seems we don't WANT to talk to them anymore.
They're just full of propaganda. Russia aggression must be checked. Look what became of Chechnya.
The nothing-to-regret part makes your chosen version what's happened in/to Syria and who's to blame is highly appealing and gives credibility to a 'loyalist' campaign to steer general thinking, in present case over why it's OK to sever all remnants of alliance with the Russians, important enough we make this sacrifice, nevermind 15 year record of drawing smaller countries onto paths toward permanent cultural annihilation in the name somehow coming o their assistance. This emerging weakened and veritably crippled Arab world is something the designer can certainly live with.
Whether or not US anger over moral implications after already saying sorry about those dead Syrian regulars guys could tarnish an rising imperial sense of purpose in Washington, or its image carrying on with the mission to ... achieve regime change all the way to Moscow as may need be, despite all brutality, death, displacement, destruction and social collapse to date. Don't change horses in mid stream either.
It has already developed into Biblical proportions. Syria and Russia can't just be pointed at with aspersions in this dirty kind of a dirty war campaign, Hate to think people here really buy the feed being offered, even it being a much nicer account than one looking with concern into body counts, etc.
Without an atrocity or two to blame on a contrived set of enemy's in a game with zero hope for gain, where would we be now? Let's not lose the tempo.
No change of regimen called for here, meanwhile. Assad, Putin evil; Hillary all the way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Mass civilian deaths is their goal, because those civilians are viewed as likely to always be resistant to Assad.
The Russians have one goal--keeping their vassal Assad in power. They don't value human life of any kind. Look at what they did to Chechnya. So, they're all in on slow motion genocide in Aleppo.
As we've seen with Ukraine, and every other instance since Putin started rekindling the Cold War, the Russians have concluded that malignant aggression--to the exclusion of soft power via diplomacy-- is their only path to respect.
Syria the nation state is already dead. Only a matter of whether anyone will be left alive there to populate the fractured territories.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)The US in fact did say that it was regrettable. As to it being intentional, it is clear that President Obama chose to back the ceasefire over the advice of many in both the military and the state and defense department. What you are suggesting is that either the military intentionally damaged the President's policy or that the President said one thing in public and something different in private. Yes, CT would love both, but the truth is more likely what was said - a mistake in identifying who was there was made.
Your post has far more propaganda than mine. I have read various sources including the Russian propaganda sites. In particular, I recommend you listen to the Kerry State Department press availability. This was before the Syrian soldiers or the aid convoy was attacked. He does not paint a simplistic picture, that incidentally matches what he says in the leaked tape.
I certainly do not think that all the blame goes to to Russia and Syria. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states deserve much blame as well. The US is not innocent, but the effort to end the violence by negotiating a diplomatic path out is genuine. I believe in it because it is very obvious that Kerry spend a huge amount of time and effort (his own and that of others) to get the UN resolution and the various ceasefires. Each one was accomplished against tremendous odds - and, if anything, the situation is even less promising now.
Kerry is a very accomplished diplomat and there are many many things he could invest his time and abilities on. Both the Iran deal and the Paris climate change accord, that is likely to come into effect this week after the EU ratifies fulfilling the 2nd requirement of the ratifying nations having over 55% of the carbon, are things that would very likely not have happened without him. The fact that he has doggedly worked on this is clearly done because he is genuinely motivated by the horror that exists.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Outrageous behavior on the part of Assad and the Russians.
Deliberately bombing a humanitarian convoy - the worst of the worst.
Heartbreaking for the Syrian people caught in this nightmare- and for all those, like the UN, and Kerry, trying to bring humanitarian aid and a diplomatic solution to at least easing the nightmare.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Option 1 is partition. Option 2 is genocide by one side against the other, the direction to be chosen later.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)Many tensions around the world are blamed on western drawn partitions.
Until their is a ceasefire and a political/diplomatic process, there is no venue where lines could be drawn. In this case, there are so many conflicting sides and issues, that drawing lines that most would accept might be tougher than a united Syria. (Not to mention, the Syrians in defining their constitution COULD consider any and all options -- but it is not clear that the Syrians (on either side) are really ready to accept that continued violence will not ultimately give them more than a political solution now.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There is no more Syria, there can never again be a Syria.
Kurds, Allawites, etc--negotiate the borders based on tribe and military capacity, the only accepted political currency there.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)From the maps I have seen showing who controls what, it is a crazy patchwork quilt rather than a few simple, easily definable areas that are internally homogeneous supporting one faction or another. In addition, Syria is the size of Washington state - which might easily be split into liberal western Washington state and more rural, more conservative eastern Washington state.
There were complaints that the US and Russia should not be negotiating a ceasefire, but that the Syrian regime and the rebels should - and what likely really destroyed the agreement is that Russia actually joined the regime in violating it and the US could not get the rebels to trust us enough to actually take what would have been very difficult steps to sever ties with Al Nusra. As long as they thought that Al Nusra was more helpful in defeating Assad than the US would be, many of them chose Al Nusra. As Kerry said, Al Nusra was AQ and it would be crazy to support it.
What this shows is that as horrendous as the situation is, both the rebels (including Al Nusra) and Assad both think that a military solution could give them more than a political solution would. Only when BOTH realize that they are destroying what they are fighting over and that they would be better off not dying in the hopes of being the winner who will take all will ANY diplomatic/political solution - which could include partitions - be possible.
The main thing Kerry worked so hard to create was a ceasefire that would create the political space to move forward.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)being a very small amount
Russia has one goal--keep Assad in control of at the very least a rump Allawite state that includes the naval base.
Assad has concluded--correctly--that Russia won't let him lose. So, he has nothing to risk by continuing the war. He can't lose.
The jihadis can lose, but they have structural advantages and, well, they're nutbar jihadis.
Neither side has an incentive to stop fighting, and every incentive to keep fighting as far as they're concerned (largely because they lack basic human decency).
karynnj
(59,503 posts)I think the US position reflects an essential American view that we can "fix things". This is true even at a personal level - consider how often the conversation is how family members regret not having been able to save someone with major problems - with a basic assumption that if they had done the "right" thing, it may have worked, never admitting there may have been no right thing.
This, of course, is far more complicated. Given the fight against ISIS, had the US/Russia been able to put the Syrian conflict on a path to resolution or even just suspended it for a time, it would have allowed both some humanitarian aid and allowed everyone to genuinely cooperate in eliminating ISIS as a force holding land. So, though everyone knew from the beginning that it was a long shot, what would it have said had the US not even tried?
Beyond strategic interest, there is the difficult question of liberal values that mean standing against genocidal actions within another country. This has long been a question where neither side has the clear edge. Note that many express regret that the US did not intervene in Rwanda - even though it may well have been that by the time it was clear what the scope of the killing was that it would have been difficult to mount a timely response that would have prevented much of the slaughter.
There are various narratives to what got us to this point in Syria. Clearly, Assad has viciously attacked the rebels - even when early on they were not violent. Here, there is also the history of Assad's father slaughtering many in Homs during his day. It is also clear that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States, with at least some tacit and occasionally public US support, gave weapons to the rebels - including some who are jihadis. Russia, itself, has been complicit in bombings in support of Assad. I do not think any side has completely clean hands.
I do think - at this moment in time - the US was pushing harder to stop the fighting than any other player. Kerry said months ago he would rather be seen as failing on this, than as failing to have tried. Ending this was always a long shot, but the best of what the US stands for, means we should try. Not to mention, we gave up nothing to make this attempt. If anything, the terrible fighting by the Russians and Assad - in response to what was a deal with significant concessions - shows that no deal would have stopped the slaughter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and think we've done everything we can.
Russia didn't learn its lesson from Afghanistan. Their chickens will come home to roost in the motherland.
Response to MowCowWhoHow III (Original post)
Post removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)and your support for destroying Middle eastern and North African countries just because the American govt supports it is also duly noted. Isn't it weird how these so called genocidal govts just happened to be in the list that Gen. Wesley Clark talked about? Btw, what genocide did Assad commit? who is he targeting? would you consider what Lincoln did to the South and especially Atlanta for trying to leave voluntary union as genocide? or is genocide only things non whites do? Not really expecting an answer my questions but these questions would help you understand where I am coming from.
Look at comment sections on articles talking about the American supported wars, nobody is buying the silly narrative that the mostly white nations are using as an excuse to destroy and take over brown nations. Sorry but the days of "babies in incubator", "viagra fueled rape army" etc etc as an excuse for imperialistic wars are over. Racism will die in my lifetime.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)Russia and Syrian Arab army. I hope you are not going to come back with "they are bombing their own people" line. The local fighters have been given the chance to lay down their arms and return to normal society. The foreigners given the opportunity to return to their country. Four safe corridors have been set up but news is that the rebels are preventing civilians from leaving. And this is not a trick, the opposition have been removed from Homs, Hama and other cities in Syrian unharmed by the govt under this program. This unlike the rebels to just massacre Syrian soldiers after they are captured. These people should lay down their arms if they don't want to be bombed, its really that simple.
Just for anyone else following the conversion. Just take a look at the kind of people fighting with the opposition
Watched the video again from start to finish to make sure nothing graphic was shown. I would hate for someone to get my post censored because of some minor infraction. 
jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)In many instances, the rebels are allowed to leave with their weapons to other cities to continue fighting. The Syrian govt just want these war to end while the Americans just want to micromanage it until they reach their impossible goal of defeating the people of Syria and their Army. That or get their goal of dividing the country into small, weaker and more controllable states.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jamzrockz
(1,333 posts)I will be OK. The people I am worried about are those at facing the gun barrel of US sponsored jihadists in the Middle east. They did not ask for this but their society is getting slaughtered and leveled to the ground just because US with the help of the most undemocratic, sexists, religious intolerant regimes in the Middle east have decided that they need democracy.
Oh well, thanks for chatting. I still go to bed every night wish most liberals would show half the compassion they show to BLM on their foreign brothers and sisters.
