Russia Open to Syria Transition in Shift Away From Assad

Originally posted by neo96
It would be best if Assad transferred power, and i do believe everyone wants to see the killing stopped in Syria.

The problems are EGO's just like every problem the world faces. Assad needs to put the need of the people above his own and it will end.

Everyone will be happy.

edit on 8-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Everyone would be happy sure, but Assad's father ran this country before him, so he is standing his ground because he feels the country belongs to him.

I think Assad is just that stubburn though. There my two cents.

-SAP-

Freakin Russian meeting between Iran, and the Saudis is a non starter id bet, or it wil take a lot of face making before it goes off...(Who will sit where etc...)
The Ruskis know the game as well as our idiots in power....they will play for as long as they can to keep Assad in power regardless.....Then after much stalling to help assad win if possible they will agree to the shift....
Meantime only more massacres will move the forces of either side to do anything real....
And ill bet dollars to doughnuts that there WILL be more......

Russia is only open to any ideas that will save their relationship with Syria, and their naval base. It does not matter whom is in power Assad or the rebels. Putin is a clever politician. My guess is this statement is to appease the international community. However, in private his government is probably having back channel negotiations with the Assad regime. Just the art of playing both sides of the equation and balancing options. Russia knows that if it does not appeal publicly to aims of the rebels and they succeed? They lose Syria if Assad is deposed. If Assad should succeed and they did not pander to him throughout this? They may be thrown out of Syria for their inaction.

So, I look at this latest development with mixed signals. Furthermore, they are not going to commit military manpower and resources to any peacekeeping efforts, and are more than willing to sit on the sideline and watch the West do the heavy lifting as they play both sides of the conflict. By playing both sides of the conflict it is a win win for them because they will have ample footing with whomever succeeds. They risk nothing and gain everything. While the West is trudging along smack dab in the middle of another insurgency or civil war losing people and equipment. That is how I see it.

reply to post by sonnny1


It is more like a foriegn backed coup under the guise of civil war.

The west and certain Arab states are funding the rebel terrorists and perpetrating these atrocities.

The syrian government is merely defending itself from the terrorists. If you took up arms against your government I would expect the same response.

David Koresh tried it, look what happened to him.

----

Syria on Brink of Civil Conflict - Russian Foreign Minister
20:15 09/06/2012
MOSCOW, June 9 (RIA Novosti)

en.rian.ru/world/20120609/173939021.html

(...)

Lavrov said disruptions in the implementation of Annan’s peace plan are to be blamed on the uncoordinated measures taken by outside forces. “Not only the Syrian government is responsible for what’s going on now, the crisis is also to be blamed on the actions of those people who have not stopped giving money to illegal armed groups, hire mercenaries, help transfer them abroad and flirt with extremists to reach their own goals.”

(...)

Lavrov said Moscow has enough information proving that outside forces are in control of the actions of the Syrian opposition. “We have enough data that they supply arms and other vital items to the opposition.”

Russian Arms for Syria No Threat to Protesters - Lavrov
18:55 09/06/2012
MOSCOW, June 9 (RIA Novosti)

en.rian.ru/world/20120609/173941569.html

Russia is completing deliveries of air defense weapons to Syria under contracts concluded earlier and is not supplying any arms that can be used against protesters, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday.

Representatives of Human Rights First, a U.S.-based advocacy group, announced in late May that a Russian ship allegedly carrying weapons had docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, which hosts a Russian naval base.

“We are not supplying the Syrian government with arms that even an overwrought imagination could suppose are being used against peaceful protesters,” Lavrov said.

Syria is one of Russia’s major weapons clients, and Moscow has opposed proposals for an arms embargo on Damascus.

“We are completing the implementation of contracts signed and pre-paid long ago on deliveries of air defense weapons that could be used only if Syria is subjected to military intervention from abroad. We are not delivering anything else,” Lavrov said.

Russia has supplied Syria with Bastion coastal missile systems with Yakhont cruise missiles and Buk surface-to-air missile systems under a contract signed in 2007.

The top Russian diplomat said that in contrast to Moscow “our U.S. colleagues are supplying countries of the Persian Gulf region with the very type of arms that could be used against peaceful demonstrators."

Lavrov’s words echo last week’s statement of President Vladimir Putin, who during the meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel opposed information that Russian arms supplied to Syria might be used against protesters.

According to UN estimates, about 10,000 people have been killed in Syria since the beginning of a popular uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in March 2011, which started with peaceful protests but have since grown increasingly militarized.

© 2012 RIA Novosti

reply to post by SLAYER69


Those cold Kravaatnitsa Movskoys blow with the wind.
Considering their recent inconsistent behavior,
I would recommend a few glasses of Stolis at the Bridge table
before making any serious assessments.

Originally posted by Wildmanimal
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

snip
Considering their recent inconsistent behavior,
snip

What type of inconsistent behaviour? Curious only, not taking this as your position.

Are you alluding to [Russia and China]'s abstention of vetoing UNSC Resolutions on Libya but having a harder approach with Syria?