KoTeMoRe wrote:Actually that doesn't make sense. If they wanted to "flood" Syria, the US has enough muscle, they rotate anywhere from 80 to 150 planes, adding 6 German Tornados and possibly about 12-18 UK fighters isn't going to help anyone, so far France and Europe aren't even near Russian Rolling Circus that presented about 70 aircraft at once dropping the hammer on whoever they needed to whack. So if this is flooding it's kinda weak.
Unified country? Actually there's one thing Syrians have understood from this. Russians might be on "Assad's" side but at least they do what they say. While the US says something does something else. If anything I'm expecting the future Syrian leadership, whatever orientation to evaluate its options in two columns, what we want and what we can have.
I'm sure that while Russia will be on both, the reality will soon emerge and show the people, that their country was destroyed by people who don't give a crap about them. This is also why Assad is holding so long even though the SAA is a shadow of its former self.
Then what is Russia doing in Syria? to hit some terrorists and go home, or to back up Assad, and if it is to back up Assad, then if NATO has a presence in eastern and northern Syria, and who is to say how many there will be in the future, then there will be a partition of Syria caused by NATO, or a war to stop this occuring. NATO can push as many troops into eastern Syria from Iraq as it wants if need be, and if this happens, what? more talk of "partners", sitting down for a cozy chat with the "partners" with a cup of tea. NATO forces are not in Syria for "self defence", for if that were true then UK aircraft should be bombing Belgium, Sweden, France and their own cities infested with British passport holders who are either active terrorists or terrorist supporters. This is clearly to destroy Syria, so while Russia is now in Syria and more and more NATO arrive, talk of any "war on terror" is nonsense, it is a serious confrontation between NATO and Russia and an issue of Muslims in Europe and the future of Europe, elements that nobody seems to want to acknowledge.
You say this "Unified country?", either Syria is a country with it's borders as they are, or it is something else, something that is the result of Washington, which do you want, a united Syria or a divided Syria, and who benefits from a division? This is not about a "unified people" in the sense all are one for that is hardly the case in many countries, but as a nation state.