Posted on 10/29/2018 10:55:21 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
The leaders of Turkey, Russia, France, and Germany have reiterated calls for a UN-backed political process to end the war in Syria that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after a summit in Istanbul on October 27 that "the meeting demonstrated there is common determination to solve the problem.
"A joint solution can be achieved, not through military means, but only through political effort under the UN aegis," she added.
Along with Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and French President Emmanuel Macron gathered for the talks in search of an end to the seven-year civil war in the Middle East country.
Following the summit, the four leaders issued a statement calling for the convening of a committee by the end of the year to work on constitutional reform as a prelude to free and fair elections in Syria.
"We need transparent elections, that will be held under supervision of international observers. Refugees should take part in this process as well," Merkel said.
Macron said a “constitutional committee needs to be established and should hold its first meeting by the end of the year. This is what we all want."
"Creating it will become a part of the political settlement in Syria," Macron said.
The summit's final communique also supported efforts to facilitate the "safe and voluntary" return of refugees to their Syrian homes.
The final statement rejected "separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighboring countries."
Many obstacles to a peace agreement remain. They include divided opinions about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran.
Western countries, meanwhile, condemn Assad for what they call indiscriminate attacks on civilians and Turkey has been helping insurgents trying to remove him from power.
Putin told a news conference that a settlement in Syria cannot be reached without consultations that include Syria and "our Iranian partners," describing them as "a guarantor country of the peace process, the cease-fire, and the establishment of demilitarized zones."
Asked about the possibilities of a second summit of the four countries, Putin said the countries have "not negotiated this yet, but everything is possible."
No one will get everything they want. Assad or Russia included.
Assad is irrelevant, but will remain in power until one of the other players find it advantageous to kill him. He'll continue his nimble politics to stay alive, while trying to expel all foreign powers, knowing full well that the Iranians have occupied Lebanon via their proxies for over 30 years now, and during that interval got the Syrian occupation expelled.
Putin's best move so far was rapprochement with the Turks, but Putin can't just stay, and can't be seen to be forced out, so he's stuck there. If the Russians were the only allies, Assad would like that just fine, but that isn't likely now.
Not even the UN will deputize any of the Three Amigos, and it's ridiculously unlikely that any of the EU countries will want to participate in a peacekeeping force unless Iran's expelled and Turkey agrees to a withdrawal (those two conditions and the arrival of UN peacekeepers would give Putin the cover he needs to get his ass out).
The most likely outcome will be ongoing lowlevel conflict, and partition, everyone sitting tight, with very little change on the ground. This will continue for years, probably decades.
“Note, we are not consulted.”
But these are ‘allies’ of ours who are behooven to heed us.
I think the main point from this summit is that we are not going to pay for rebuilding Syrisa- for others’ benefit.
I think the Kurds east of the Euphrates will have our support though. We will and can demand a fair deal will be given them.
“Note, we are not consulted.”
But these are ‘allies’ of ours who are behooven to heed us.
I think the main point from this summit is that we are not going to pay for rebuilding Syrisa- for others’ benefit.
I think the Kurds east of the Euphrates will have our support though. We will and can demand a fair deal will be given them.
Very sensible but...
Do Russia and Iran heve the wherewithal to support Assad as they have?
I think not- that China has been their paymasters.
And China wants peace in the MidEast so China can sell it’s consumer goods there. (They also want a route to Europe for their goods but that posssibility may have passed thanks to Trump.)
I expect them to ‘settle’ things quickly. We’ll see.
Very sensible but... Do Russia and Iran heve the wherewithal to support Assad as they have?
Neither regime worries about budgets, inflation, etc -- the agenda is the priority.
I think not- that China has been their paymasters.
China hasn't paid a dime to either one in support of their wars and occupations.
And China wants peace in the MidEast so China can sell it’s consumer goods there. (They also want a route to Europe for their goods but that posssibility may have passed thanks to Trump.)
China has sold goods there, bypassing and ignoring the Iranian sanctions wherever they could. There's probably already a decent market for Chinese mobile phones, they're cheap and full-featured, and sold in Afghanistan, so it's likely they're found in every Middle Eastern country, and failed states like Syria and Lebanon.
I expect them to 'settle' things quickly. We'l see.
A settlement would have to satisfy all parties, and one condition of this new set of proposals is Assad out, and a constitutional gov't for Syria where all can freely participate. Assad will be against that, Russia will back him up.
Assad wants the Turks out, but Russia's already agreed to leave the Turks alone.
Assad doesn't dare gainsay anything the Iranians want or he'll be dead, leaving the Russians with no reason to be there but no way to leave without humiliation, so they'd have to bring in even more troops and equipment. So the Russians won't press the Iranians to get out -- the last time Putin's thugs said Iran would have to leave, the Iranians told them forget it, we're not leaving.
Assad likes the fact that Iran's proxies in Lebanon are pointing the missiles at Israel, because he's otherwise no longer a player in regional politics.
And the Russians back the Turks against the Iranians as needed, it's a sort of triumvirate arrangement. The Three Amigos cooperate in their occupation, with a 2:1 against anything that gives the 1 an advantage.
So, no.
The final statement rejected "separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as the national security of neighboring countries."
That's a nice bit of diplo-speak -- it can be interpreted as directed against Iran's and its proxies' war against Israel, but can also be inferred to mean, no independence for Kurdistan. The Turks, Syrians, and Iranians (and ultimately, the Russians in that 2:1 scheme) would support the latter interpretation.
I don't think we can say that. Money is fungible and there are many indirect ways to pay for something (buying a nation's treasury note's for but one example).
A peaceful ME would buy much more Chinese goods. It's very bad economics for a nation to buy from one it has nothing to sell in return (example: the Opium Wars).
Nothing against your assertions- they're all quite reasonable. I just don't think Russia and Iran could have 'gone it alone' with their limited resources.
If there's evidence for Chinese financing of Russia's pipeline projects, other than, well, even including, those that head to the Chinese market, show me.
The Chinese have experienced a problem similar to what Japan experienced -- as they have become a big exporter to the US market, they've found that their lower-wage workforce can't afford the very products they've been making. The path out of that taken by Japan decades ago was to build capacity in neighboring "tiger" states, like the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. That allowed them to ship Japanese-made goods to the US market, while having even lower-wage production to feed their home market. Eventually it made sense to ship the Korean-made stuff directly to the US market.
The Chinese don't have a neighbor capable of that kind of production capacity at lower wages, so they've tried Latin America (and failed), Africa (and failed, or currently in downward spiral), and this leaves them as a rat on a wheel -- they have to maintain the exchange rate of their Yuan vs the US$, and one major way they do that is to buy US gov't debt, basically financing gov't overspending and keeping our interest rates unnaturally low.
Low interest rates have meant lower capital formation, pushing the US even harder into a service economy (retail) and consumer-oriented rather than production-oriented.
President Trump's been sobering everyone up overseas. The Chinese have been acting tough, seizing offshore areas, building a navy, etc -- but the fact is, their one-child policy has temporarily given them a huge surplus of male adult citizens who will never marry, will have to care for both their geriatric parents without any help from other family, and will have no one to care for them when they are themselves geriatric. The major crunch will begin to hit around 2040-2050. About the only thing the Chinese might want to buy in the Middle East are wives.
Russia's head gangster has been financing his imperialist adventures via hydrocarbon sales and arms sales. As has been the practice going back into the last decade or so of the USSR, selling military aircraft to client states has been used to finance the development of those very same products. When Saddam got shaded by the outcome of his Kuwait invasion, a big source of that cash vanished.
just don't think Russia and Iran could have 'gone it alone' with their limited resources.
The Iranians have been going it alone in their decades-long takeover of worldwide jihad, even in the face of the sanctions -- but the Kerry-Obama surrender document shot $150 billion into the mullahacracy's waiting hands, incentivized Putin to send Russian troops to Syria, gave Iran the opening it needed to draw down its forces in Syria (a good many of Iran's thugs in Syria are not Iranians, they're either fanatical jihadists from the worldwide supply, or were Afghan refugees who have been moving into Iran and were press-ganged into service their Syrian adventure. The Iranian imperialism in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Africa, has led to economic consequences in Iran, unrest, destabilization, insurrection -- and it will get worse. Once the mullahcracy falls, the Syrian problem will become worse for the Russians, worse for Assad, and better for the Israelis. The Turks' main worry (as they state it) is the rise of independent Kurdistan, and once the Iranian regime falls, that will be one area where the Russians and US can agree, while the Iranians, Iraqi Arabs, and the Turks can go pound sand.
“show me”
Ah, very fair. I can’t and admit it. I can’t find authoritative info on such dealings.
Great reply, agree with you on many of your points.
Still... what has it cost Russia for it’s intervention?
I’d guess billions. Assad, no doubt, had millions he could pay and had billions in his country’s assets he could promise. But a promise pays no bills.
“About the only thing the Chinese might want to buy in the Middle East are wives.”
Well, they buy quite a bit of oil. And that’s a big problem for China. They need to sell something back to the people who sell them that oil.
“hydrocarbon sales and arms sales” Yeah, and who finances them?
A new gas pipeline from Russia to China- who peid for it?
Who bankrolls the credit for Russia’s arm sales?
IDK and admit it.
But Russia doen’t seem to have the wealth to back it’s actions and China does (or did).
Truly appreciate your remarks. Not a simple situation obviously.
Can’t do you justice.
But notice this all occured as Trump stood up to China.
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) economic group has been thoroughly bled out. You probably saw the blind panic China expressed about the new prez in Brazil? Trying to keep India and China on the same page is, uh, difficult at best. South Africa's contribution is raw materials, and their society is a shambles.
Russia's 45 percent share of the EU oil market has been steady for years, but they don't have the means to further recover, so their fields are in decline. The way they deal with it is to move a few miles and drill a new well.
OPEC has been de facto pricing in Euros for nearly 15 years -- still pricing in US$, but taking the $-Euro exchange rate into account. This keeps their product price-stable in the EU, and keeping the pressure on Russia. Russia wanted that new proposed pipeline up from the Gulf stopped, but they didn't really need to put troops in, the Syrian and Iraqi disintegration took care of it. The pipeline is so desirable that it may wind up going through Jordan and Israel instead, a strong incentive to, what else, force a peace settlement on the Arabs squatting in Israel and pulling life support from the PLO terrorist groups.
You can't make war in the Middle East without Egypt and you can't make peace without Syria. -- Henry Kissinger
IOW, without Syria, peace can be made.
“Trying to keep India and China on the same page is, uh, difficult at best. “
Yeah, there are problems...
Seriously, it’s too late here for me to do justice to your replies. Thanks and good night.
Thanks for the kind remarks!
Yes.
And hope it is not just limited to East of the Euphrates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.