again: i love that vice is doing this, because it provides some hard evidence to back up the reports coming out of the region and this just isn't coming from elsewhere in the western media. yet, i feel this video requires some context. the basic explanation is that what you're seeing here is turkish-backed militias fighting with saudi-backed militias for control over a post-assad syria. but, let me explain further.
whatever the causes of the initial uprising, the situation was taken advantage of by outside forces looking to advance their geostrategic interests, as also occurred in libya and, at a higher level, in egypt. this led to an influx of saudi-backed fighters looking to expand saudi influence in the region. something that's very interesting is that, before all of this happened, assad was actually on the path to relinquish power to a civilian government. i believe that the overriding interest of the saudi monarchy is to prevent this transfer of power, and install a saudi-style theocratic government instead.
unlike his father, the assad that is in power now did not seize control through a military coup. he inherited power in a way that is more or less monarchistic. but, something that the western media has completely ignored is the reality that he hasn't ever seemed to actually be interested in ruling. if a prince is interested in ruling, does he move to britain to study optometry? how does that help him in learning how to rule a nation? rather, it's been clear for years that the younger assad is more or less an empty figurehead in a state that is run by a junta of military generals, and that he basically wants to step down and focus on his life outside of government. western media rarely reflects anything approximating truth, but it's treatment of assad the individual (rather than the regime that uses him as a figurehead) is a really extreme example of outlandish messaging.
if you've been following syrian politics behind the mess, what you actually see is a state this is trying to democratize by modifying it's constitution to allow for strengthened democratic institutions. one could suggest they're following the "turkish model" in a slow democratization that could take many years. but, ignoring hillary clinton's scoffing reaction, that seemed to be the path the syrian state was heading down.
now, if you think it through, elections in syria might not be what the west really wants. for example, it could allow hezbollah into power, or it could lead to a strongly anti-zionist government. certainly, it would lead to instability. the west always prefers a strong dictatorship that it understands over the uncertainty of popular opinion. so, it initially backed the saudis in their attempt to take control of the region before a democracy could be established.
however, over time it became clear that such a theocratic state would not have popular support in syria, which has been a secular (if not particularly free) society for many decades now. when given the opportunity to support assad or support the saudi rebels, the syrian people chose to support assad. so, the entire thing backfired.
realizing this, a coalition of american allies that includes turkey and qatar have broken with the saudis. there has been a wide realization that the tactics the saudis want to use will not be successful in taking stable control of syria, but will merely lead to decades of war. in order for western interests to take control of syria with popular backing, they need to present themselves as a more moderate force.
so, this is what you're seeing, here: it's all about putting a softer image on the rebels, to make them seem more moderate, in order to generate support for them. but, the interests driving the conflict have not at all diverged.
there's potential for a wider conflict developing amongst nato-aligned nations, which threatens to severely damage american influence over the region. the americans have long been following a british-inherited policy of divide and conquer, where they simultaneously build up each of the major players in the region (turkey, egypt, israel, saudis, iran) and play them off against each other. this asserts their own hegemony while eliminating any local hegemony. should one country threaten to become too powerful (as the saudis have threatened to recently), you can expect the americans to throw their weight behind their competitor (which would be iran). but, the most important strategic ally always has been and remains turkey.
so, the key thing to understand is that the saudis are not only advancing western interests, they also have their own interests, which also includes toppling the shia ("heretic") government in iraq. isis is operating over a wide swath of territory. the boundary between iraq and syria does not truly exist at the moment. and, this is both the cause and the effect of obama's attempt to soften his approach towards the heretics in tehran, too.
it's not widely understood in the west that there remains a great deal of animosity between turks and arabs over control of the levant, where arabs are still bitter over a millenium of turkish imperialism and the turks remain leery about allowing saudi-backed fundamentalists to set up bases too close to their borders.
so, while the general conflict between nato and russia is driving the big picture, and the saudi-iran conflict is driving the civil war, what is driving the actual fighting on the ground is a turkish-arab conflict over the post-assad space.
and, we should hope that doesn't get out of hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cb3OURdl3g
and i just want to add that the purpose of this message control is to facilitate an upcoming nato bombing campaign, which is now possible due to the russians being distracted in ukraine.
Bman Chu
You make some pretty outrageous, sweeping claims about the west without providing a shred of evidence in support. The west is not one single entity united in conspiracy against the middle east and russia. The west has many different faces and desires as well as many free and informed voices.
deathtokoalas
kinda, but not really. if i was unclear, i was really referring to the nato alliance, which is (excluding minor squabbles) under the unitary command of the united states.
SilverRadiant
oh boy that was the longest explaination I've evr seen :O
deathtokoalas
are books really that far out of the public consciousness at this point?
that wouldn't meet the length requirements of most undergraduate essays, and some high school essays.
===
Doğan Kutbay
So ISIS is Russian backed up?
The Global Excursion
Chechen
Höri
No. The Assad gov is Russian backed. ISIS are a band off opportunistic islamist brigands trying to take advantage and accumulate wealth amid the chaos.
The Russian speakers are the remnants of the Chechen rebels, that fought and lost against Russia and now looking for a new home.
Adam Nohcho
Iranian
deathtokoalas
as is stated in the video, isis is saudi-backed. the russian speaking aspect of this is curious, but if it's true they would likely be chechens.
in the larger scheme of things, isis and russia are not on the same side of the conflict.
Che DESIGNER
Lost against russians? You are talking bullshit here. This is not a game it is a war, no one wins when people die. Don't talk about the things that you know nothing about.
James seeker
No Russia supports Assad
deathtokoalas
that's a half-truth. the russians are supporting the existing government, but support a peaceful transition of power and have been putting pressure on assad to put the process of that transition in motion (and, in truth, he has been). what the russians really support is a russian geo-strategic presence in syria. they're not tied to any specific incarnation of that.
TheGiantKiller8
The 'existing' government is a minoritarian mafia regime that was installed by the French COlonial powers today allied with Russia ie BASHAR. These skum bags were going to be overthrown inevitably like all the British/French./Russian puppets in the region from sadam, Mubarak, ghadhafi and so on.
No matter how much people hate the rebels they are the popular movement in region
deathtokoalas
the baath party wasn't put in place by the french, the whole "arab socialism" thing was mostly an indigenous movement, but received a lot of support from the soviets. syria spent most of the cold war aligned with the soviets, no different than eastern europe really, which is what this is really all about - cleaning up the post-soviet satellite states (libya and syria) and aligning them with nato. the russians, of course, have other ideas.
there's no evidence that the rebels, whether the "moderate" ones under the former fsa or the saudi-backed loonies, represent anybody except their handlers. syria had some problems with freedom of expression, but people were hardly starving on the streets. despite the propaganda, revolutions are rarely about political rights and usually about basic economics. the circumstances for a mass uprising in syria simply weren't in place. there wasn't one. at best, it was a fringe movement of the usual leftists, and at worst it was essentially a foreign invasion.
Amine
Actually there is a point of view that says that they are a creation of the Iranian secret service to create disorder in the region
deathtokoalas
that's hilarious.
because iran wants to create disorder.
the propaganda is thick though, people will believe that.
the evidence isn't debatable. that isis is a saudi front carrying out american geostrategic aims is a factual statement.
