"US Secretary of State John Kerry has demanded Russia stop bombing the Syrian opposition, implicitly blaming Moscow for the collapse in peace talks……………..
………….Mr Kerry also said that both parties to the conflict — the rebels and the regime and its allies — must allow access to besieged areas for humanitarian aid.
Nearly 40,000 Syrian civilians have fled the latest regime offensive backed by Russian air strikes near Aleppo, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.
The exodus began on Monday after government forces began an operation that has severed the main rebel supply route into the city and broke an opposition siege on two regime-held towns………….."
Erdogan is also quoted in the article:
Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan said the peace talks in Geneva were "pointless" while Russia and the Assad regime continued attacks in the country.
"Russia continues to kill people in Syria. Could there be such a peace gathering? Could there be such peace talks?" Mr Erdogan said in a speech in Peru, in comments published on the presidency website…………...
……..In an environment where children are still being killed, such attempts do not have any function apart from making things easier for the tyrant," he said……."
+++++++++
It appears to me that Kerry and Erdogan now realise that the latest Syrian offensive signals the beginning of the end for their fictional moderate, democratic rebels who are not really jihadists, just misunderstood.
The Peace talks? They remind me of Napoleon III trying to "negotiate" with Moltke and Bismarck after the French were defeated at Sedan. What cards do the rebels have to play - "The gratitude of the Syrian people?".
What Kerry and Erdogan are now probably doing is contemplating what a reunified, jihadist free, Syria is going to look like along with a resurgent, sorry, I mean "emboldened", Russia, Hezbollah and Iran. My opinion is that they are going to remake the Middle East to the detriment of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The question then becomes whether Turkey and the U.S. are going to permit that. There are suggestions on another thread that Turkey may try to take military action in Syria under the "responsibility to protect" mantra. I do not see that as a winning military strategy unless the U.S. and NATO can be prevailed upon to support such a venture. Are we stupid enough to do that?
All
And as we watch the P + 6 continue to exterminate the Liver Eaters - Al Jezerra is just now reporting that KSA would like to join the US led coalition with Saudi troops on the ground in Syria to combat ISIS. If that is true does this mean we will have US led Saudi troops fighting only ISIS & with a real risk it would appear that there will be open clashes between the 'our ' coalition & Russia and the other 6 ?
... WTF over ??
Posted by: alba etie | 04 February 2016 at 03:46 PM
"Are we stupid enough to do that?"
If you mean the SST community, then the answer is Hell No.
As for the Civilian Leaders in the "West", I am truly concerned that their answer is yes.
Posted by: Thomas | 04 February 2016 at 03:52 PM
Doubt it. If we were stupid enough to do that, we would have done all sorts of other stupid things before now. In fact we have been trying to do as little as possible. Which sounds right give a range of options running from horrible to catastrophic.
Posted by: Fredw | 04 February 2016 at 04:01 PM
I don't know what Erdogan is capable of but I don't think Obama will sign off on a move that reckless. Whatever his faults, including his willingness to allow all of this sabre-rattling carry on under his administration, he has so far been resistant to overreach of this type. Pres Obama seems determined to avoid committing historic blunders and throwing in against Russia over a distant civil war of dubious strategic interest surely qualifies as one.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 04 February 2016 at 04:01 PM
Walrus:
Everyone knows that the Peace Talks are going Nowhere (but going there rather fast).
This is all diplomacy at its finest.
You cannot expect Kerry, Cameron, Fabius, Steinmeier to publicly show contrition and wear the proverbial sac cloth and ashes (although, I personally would greatly enjoy that sight.).
Nor can you expect them to publicly scream at Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Qatar - what for; they are very good customers who have gone off the reservation but will come back - as they have no place else to go.
Russians are hoping against hope for reaching an understanding with US and Iranian are there just to show the flag and indulge in a bit of showmanship.
The Arabs are losers - but then, that is not new either.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 04 February 2016 at 04:02 PM
I certainly hope we are not stupid enough to do that, but it's a good thing none of the Republican candidates is president now. I also that the Middle East would be better off with a diminished role for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Linda Lau | 04 February 2016 at 04:20 PM
While the jihadi supporters in the West and their fellow travelers among the Turks and Saudis will whine and attempt to win what they're losing on the battlefield through media manipulation, they're not gonna get into a shooting match with the Russians. That's a path of disaster. Especially after the Russians have demonstrated what they're capable of doing.
Posted by: Jack | 04 February 2016 at 04:36 PM
Walrus
We are watching a replay of 1914 all over again only in very slow motion thanks to nuclear weapons and there are no mass armies to mobilize to rush to the borders. That said, today is much more dangerous. A nuclear war is an extinction event. Anger, pride, humiliation, religious fervor and greed still drive mankind. You can say whatever you want about Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev or Richard Nixon; but, they were rationale and saw the world as it is. That is not the case now.
If Philip Breedlove, Victoria Nuland and Pierre Omidyar are calling the shots, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will heed the call to rescue his fellow Sunnis from murder by demonic infidels. On the other hand, Barrack Obama, David Cameron and Angela Merkel could be counseling the Turkish government not to invade Syria. But, there is no indication of this from the corporate information operation. Rather, it looks like the West will take on the Islamic State in Libya next.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 04 February 2016 at 05:04 PM
"You cannot expect Kerry, Cameron, Fabius, Steinmeier to publicly show contrition and wear the proverbial sac cloth and ashes (although, I personally would greatly enjoy that sight.)."
You and me both, Babak.
I am somewhat surprised as to the spin that was put on Steinmeier's visit just now to Iran, however:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/besuch-im-iran-steinmeier-wuerde-praesident-ruhani-gern-in-deutschland-begruessen/12914514.html
"Visit to Iran: Steinmeier would like to greet President Ruhani [German spelling here] in Germany"
Mostly neutral-ish article, except for this tidy oversimplification of the conflict:
"Am Vormittag reiste der deutsche Außenminister nach Saudi-Arabien weiter. Ein Erfolg der Syrien-Friedensverhandlungen in Genf ohne die Mitwirkung des schiitischen Irans, der die syrische Regierung militärisch stützt, und des sunnitischen Saudi-Arabiens, das der weitgehend ebenfalls sunnitischen Opposition hilft, gilt als praktisch unmöglich."
"Next, the German Foreign Minister travelled to Saudi-Arabia in the morning. A success of the Syria Peace Talks in Geneva without participation by Shiite Iran, which is militarily supporting the Syrian government, and without that of the Sunni Saudi-Arabia, which is aiding the mostly also Sunni Opposition, is considered practically impossible."
Note the wording employed here. And why exactly downplay the very real military goods that al-Saud liberally threw at all comers, a common denominator of whom is their shared Salafiya ideology?
Posted by: Barish | 04 February 2016 at 05:07 PM
The Saker's report on Russian deployment in Syria with speculation on having seen something in Turkish behaviour justifying upgrades:
http://thesaker.is/technology-sitrep-russia-deploys-the-most-advanced-air-defense-systems-on-the-planet-in-syria/
Posted by: Cortes | 04 February 2016 at 05:23 PM
"Russians are hoping against hope for reaching an understanding with US..."
True. But a positive outcome would be highly detrimental for MIC. Peace dividends are not in vogue in the US nowadays.
Posted by: annamaria | 04 February 2016 at 05:34 PM
Not to be taken seriously as long as the Saudis are doing nothing about ISIS on their doorstep in Yemen and they are losing on the ground against the Yemenis. Maybe they thought it would encourage the US to consider boots on the ground in Syria.
Posted by: Thirdeye | 04 February 2016 at 06:29 PM
Lavrov recently stated, I believe, that Russia has accepted that Washington is not interested in an understanding with Russia so Russia will now act in the way that best helps Russia achieve its objectives.
I believe Russia is in Syria for the long haul to drive ISIS and the other jihadists either out of Syria or underground - just cutting out a mini-country for the non-jihadis in western Syria doesn't achieve Russia's objective of creating a cordon sanitaire to keep the head choppers, and heart and liver eaters out of the Caucasus.
Posted by: Ghost ship | 04 February 2016 at 07:04 PM
Personally, I think "to the detriment of Israel" is a very, very, very long time coming.
Posted by: David | 04 February 2016 at 07:09 PM
Walrus:
See:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-serious-grounds-suspect-turkey-preparing-invade-144435326.html;_ylt=AwrXoCGG6bNWdQ0AWZOTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNzdqbzZjBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
I will suggest the real question is are we (Obama) smart enough to read Turkey the riot act now. Its not at all clear that that is the case.
Posted by: ISL | 04 February 2016 at 07:17 PM
"US demands Russia stop bombing Syria's opposition." Sounds like a plea to let ISIS be. The kingdoms and sultanate, the main suppliers and supporters of ISIS, are producing certain noises and actions indicating that the Princes and Sultan are prepared to fight for ISIS' survival up to the last mercenary in their disposal. The USA are currently in a position that brings to mind a famous fairy-tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
What kind of "great minds" in the US government have managed to reduce the US to this unenviable state?
There is also a steady unraveling of another US project, this one on the Russian borders: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/economic-minister-resignation-ukraine-crisis-aivaras-abromavicius
Those western "deciders" that have designed and initiated the ongoing projects in the Middle East and Ukraine are squarely the psychopaths.
Posted by: annamaria | 04 February 2016 at 07:53 PM
"Are we stupid enough to do that?"
That's a rhetorical question, right? I mean ... we're talking about US meddling in the Middle East. Most anything the US does there is guarenteed to be stupid.
Posted by: D | 04 February 2016 at 08:16 PM
I very much doubt that any incursion into northwestern Syria will occur. Doing so would mean full-blown war between Turkey and Syria and, by extension, NATO and Russia+Iran.
Clearly, after the rebels are defeated, R+6 will move on to ISIS.
The 'Assad must go!' Coalition have a short opportunity to secure ISIS territory in Iraq and/or Syria as per UNSC 2249. Turkey, USA, and KSA have now all made statements supporting a military action against ISIS. And British Foreign Secretary Hammond has all but done so as well.
In that light, Turkish build-up along the border with Syria is mostly a defensive precaution.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | 04 February 2016 at 08:30 PM
"Peace Talks are going Nowhere"
Yes, they were suspended yesterday.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | 04 February 2016 at 09:12 PM
To complete the thought: a "defensive precaution" made prior to a move against ISIS. I'd guess that ISIS puts up limited resistance to their Turkish and Saudi friends.
R+6 will not attack an international Coalition holding what was formerly ISIS territory. Negotiations over the return of that territory and/or establishment of a Sunni state to rule over the territory could take years. Meanwhile, ISIS and rebel harassment and terr0r!sm against Syria from Turkey and former ISIS territory would continue.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | 04 February 2016 at 09:22 PM
"R+6 will not attack an international Coalition holding what was formerly ISIS territory."
They have to "take" that territory first. Trucking in SOF into jihadi areas won't do, as R+6 will just keep bombing and the S-400 ensures an absence of air support.
A "International" Coelition will need more authorization than UNSC 2249, China and Russia will veto, and Germany will abstain.
With Obama's term measured in days, the US is neither going to lead, or follow.
Posted by: Brunswick | 04 February 2016 at 09:46 PM
Basically White ISIS/DAESH will be "fighting" Black ISIS/DAESH": how sincere do you think this fight would be and who will be stuck in the crossfire?
Posted by: Amir | 04 February 2016 at 09:51 PM
That is how I think of it as well; a Cordone Sanitaire that would follow the Southern boundary of the former Seljuk Empire through Persian Gulf and Northern portion of Afghanistan - insulating the coming decay in Central Asia from the rest of Muslim World.
This suits China as well - neither in Kazakhstan nor in in Chinese Turkestan there is a natural boundary to prevent Jihadi inclusion.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 04 February 2016 at 09:51 PM
John Batcheror interviews Prof. Stephen Cohen: sobering.
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-obama-administration-has-just-recklessly-escalated-its-military-confrontation-with-russia/
Posted by: LJ | 04 February 2016 at 10:27 PM
Sorry for being off topic , but it's an election year, people should know.
FYI - Democratic presidential candidate HRW was paid 675000 dollars by wall street mega firm Goldman Sachs for three speeches she made to them.
Does anybody know the length of these speeches, so one can calculate how much each word coming out of her mouth costs? Perhaps if we knew her words are this expensive, we would have listened more carefully.
Posted by: kooshy | 04 February 2016 at 11:29 PM