It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: DJW001
And Syria is rife with terrorism ,Russia, Iran and yes China involvement is not just a coincidence.
These member countries all have a vested interests to support each other and stay together
rather than your "analysis" ,more accurately your opinion/preference, to abandon Russia altogether with the delusion it will make them stronger.
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: DJW001
And Syria is rife with terrorism ,Russia, Iran and yes China involvement is not just a coincidence.
These member countries all have a vested interests to support each other and stay together
rather than your "analysis" ,more accurately your opinion/preference, to abandon Russia altogether with the delusion it will make them stronger.
I agree with you, there is also a Chinese ship that is watching the situation on the coast, they are evaluating the situation before they make thier move.
originally posted by: Elysarian
Anyone notice this whole situation may be a distraction?
According to the BBC the Ukrainian rebels just took delivery of some new MLRS platforms...
www.bbc.com...
originally posted by: order in chaos
There are multiple nations, with diverse or opposing interests, currently operating in Syria. The Saudi-Qatar-Turkey-NATO coalition backed rebels (FSA, Al-Nusra etc) intend to overthrow Assad and have been trying to do so for the past 4 years. IS, allegedly backed by the gulf sheikdoms, has already captured huge swathes of territories spanning Iraq and Syria. The Assad regime until recently was backed by Iranian advisers and Hezbollah in order to replenish the lost manpower of SAA in this high attrition conflict. Syria already presented a grim prospect of a regional middle east war. Now the scope of this conflict has expanded even further with the deployment of Russian air force and naval assets in Syria. China is apparently sending its naval vessel to the region and Iran will be most likely deploying a ground force for a possible major offensive against rebels.
One must remember that Syria has already suffered a WMD disaster in the form of a deadly chemical weapons attack on its civilians in 2013. Hence, this place has already crossed the Rubicon as far as the use of unconventional weapons or WMD on its territory is concerned.
You are correct on all counts China is on the outside looking in and may join the conflict sooner than later.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for a new peace conference on Syria, urging U.N. Security Council nations to “unite and seek the opportunity to politically solve the Syrian crisis as the parties are showing more willingness to do so.”
So why then is China not being pulled into Iraq and Syria? My view is that it is a strategic calculation, not an ideological one. The perceived threats don't justify the risk of significant involvement in Iraq and Syria.
Although China imports significant amounts of oil from Iraq, its supply is not yet affected by the country's turmoil. China's main oil assets are in the relatively stable south, and they are producing record amounts of oil. Perhaps future threats to oil assets would provide sufficient motivation for Chinese involvement (it did in Sudan), but the world is currently awash with oil.
The direct threat from ISIS is seen as more ideological than operational. ISIS and other global terrorist organisations have offered moral support for the Uyghur cause, but this hasn't translated into operational support. In fact, numerous Chinese observers indicated to me that ideological propaganda is the biggest security threat emanating from the Middle East (and Afghanistan/Pakistan too) – extremist propaganda from global organisations influencing dissatisfied Chinese Uyghurs in Xinjiang. It is unclear to these analysts that the degradation or defeat of ISIS would stop the ideological threat. The preferred method instead is to clamp down internally in China and stop the threat there.
Finally, Chinese questions remain over the efficacy of a military solution in Iraq and Syria. China has watched interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 15 years and the outcomes have not filled Chinese observers who I speak to with confidence. The risks of involvement do not currently match the perceived threats. So while the capture of a Chinese hostage will likely cause much hand-wringing in Beijing, it is not likely to change China's strategic calculus in Iraq and Syria. Non-interference is simply a good justification.
originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
And the push to have the USA set up a no fly zone over Syria continues.. . .
Clinton, Cotton, McCain & Fiorina Suggest No-Fly Zones Against Russia & Syria
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: Elysarian
Anyone notice this whole situation may be a distraction?
According to the BBC the Ukrainian rebels just took delivery of some new MLRS platforms...
www.bbc.com...
Yes, it is a distraction. Putin wants to look like a peacemaker instead of an aggressor for a change.
Yes, Ukraine is bad and it is also a different war and a different subject. Stop linking the two all the time.
America just bombed an MSF hospital in Afghanistan killing several MSF workers. But nobody is jumping up and down calling Obama a tyrant and a war monger are they?