URA!

Fucking tankidddies

Fuck off liberal.

Ideals don't matter. Clearly Assad isn't winning this. If we are to chose between the two, the logical choice is the Kurds.

...

Opposing american imperialism doesn't matter!

The opposite is true

Suuuuuuuure

The Americans are just hopping on the YPG train in the last 6 months. I guess that invalidates the years of fighting and progress they made without US support.

Were the Bolsheviks agents of imperialism for taking western support?

Not that guy but Assad and Russia are making a lot of gains in Syria.

The instability from it will be impossible to fix without resorting to means that would make the situation worse. In every conceivable way, shape, form, time, place, Assad is fucked. Not today, this week, this month, this year, but Assad is fucked.

And their mighty airforce?

GOOD LUCK BASED ASSAD

You obviously don't keep up to date with current affairs.

The tide has turned since Russia intervened.

Assad is clearly winning this though. What do you think thje Kurds want to take the whole of Syria? You think the 15 million Syrians who support Assad will let them?

Kek. Pretty sure I've heard that before.

Seriously, could you be more vague? Assad has an approval rate among the Syrian people that most western leaders would kill for.

The vast majority of terrorist fighters are wahabbists from overseas - when they are defeated they will simply leave to fight elsewhere.

The likely outcome is that the majority of Syria is returned to it's rightful government - while the US imperialists will carve out a small "Kurdish Israel" in the northern part of the country - to serve as a lackey to the interests of global finance.

I do. I'm just not naive enough to think carpet bombing enough stretches of Syria will accomplish anything.

No he's not. Do you think all this violence, say it ends tomorrow. Do you think the Syrian people will be happy with Assad all over again?

The answer is no.

It doesn't matter. Approval rating, does not matter.

Still waiting for you to make a coherent point.

WEW

Syria is unstable, it will continue to be unstable. There will be no stability achieved from carpet bombing territory back. The damage is currently irreversible, approval ratings matter shit for chaos.

The majority will yes. The vast majority of displaced people are displaced internally. That is are now living safely in Assad country. The sooner the west accepts this and just let Assad and Putin deal with the 'dissidents', including the White Helmets agitprop shits the better for all involved.

The 'rebellion' has never enjoyed more than 30% popular support. That figure is much lower today. Once ISIS and AQS (Al-N front) are wiped out victory will be swift.

kek. So who do you see as leading the country in 5 years time?

Once Aleppo and Raqqa are done the rebellion is kill.

Holy naivety, hallowed be thy gullibility.

When will you realize that won't stop radicals. At this level. Do you think they're going to say you win and wave a white flag? Or this won't spawn more radicalism against Russia for the very act of carpet bombing stretches of land?

This situation is hardly over and I can't believe you're this simple.

Again that doesn't matter.

"Victory for who?" will be on the minds of many in Syria.

Holy naivety, hallowed be thy gullibility.

You are repeatedly contradicting yourself here.

The point is that once pandora's geopolitical box is opened there's no closing it. Syria might become "stable", but it will never be stable as it was before this.

And where are these radicals going to come from? Iraq is making great progress against Islamist scummers and Turkey is pivoting towards Russia. With Syria's borders secured the endless line of lemmings will start to dry up. The rebellion is kill. These are its dying moments. Pretty damned comfy.

Out of interest, who do you see taking over in Syria assuming Assad stood down tomorrow? There is nobody else. The Syrians know this. Only the neo-cons and libtards refuse to acknowledge this.

Instability. Does,

this really need to be explained to you?

Of course there will be instability - that is what happens when imperialists wage war on your country for 5 years and millions of people flee.

To claim that it will "never be as stable" is ridiculous. I suppose no country has ever recovered from a war before?

No it isn't.

Oh right, good argument there.

Also - stop parroting "muh instability". A large majority support Assad, those who don't are broadly in favour of his reforms.

The only people who are entirely against this are the Islamists, who will undoubtedly be brutally oppressed once the war is over.

Is it any better than the idea that stability will magically occur to the same degree within the next 5, or possibly more, years?

Most Syrians support Assad. Most are tired of this shit. The ones that aren't are going to be starved out in Aleppo. Once the borders are secure it's just a matter of rounding the remaining rats up.

I ask again, who do you see leading the country if not Assad?

You literally said it would "never be as stable"

Again, this doesn't matter.

I have no idea. I make no predictions on this fact. Probably still Assad. I never suggested otherwise.

What did he mean by this?

Assad is fucked. But in the present future he is in power. This isn't contradictory.

Fair enough. I guess there will be the odd bombing. But this doesn't mean that Assad hasn't won. Whoever takes charge in Syria will have the odd bombing to deal with.

I still don't get what you mean by this?

I mean in the long term the current instability will have consequences to Assad's government. Radicalism after turmoil this extreme just doesn't shut off like a switch. You can't bomb radicalism out of existence.

I suppose saying Assad is fucked is a bit of an over estimation, but Syria certainly isn't going to somehow heal to the way it was before this all happened either. There's going to be long term social and cultural consequences.

Not her/him/xhir but neither the US nor Russia will leave Assad in power onc the rebels collpase. I think in the talks both agreed on transitional govrment, which is hy the US swiched from the supporting the Islamic rebel groups to the Kurds.

Assad and Russia won the attrition game, but they will have to make sacrifices, because otherwise this war is going to last forever, and with Russia suffering under harsh economic sanctions, Europe overwhelmed with the refugee crisis and Turkey in complete disarray, that option isn't really in anyone's interest.

It's her. I have a cunt, no need to be rude.

Much under-reported in the west is the number of amnsesties Assad has offered and that have been taken up. The SDF is one of the most powerful non-state groups in the country and they support Assad. The 'moderates' have refused to meet at Geneva up until now, but once the most extreme elements are BTFO they'll come to the table. YOu are right that Syria will take a long time to recover, from being one of the more progressive nations in the region, it has been set back 40 years. They can rebuild though, and should be supported in doing so.

The US has very little power here as things stand. This may change under Clinton but the Russians and Syrians know this. If there is nothing that can be held up as credible moderate opposition come January then Clinton will just have to suck it up and accept Assad staying. I've not seen anything suggesting Russia want to see Assad gone. One of their major goals there is to protect their Med port at Tartus. Assad guarantees them this.

I think that there is some truth to this. Specifically that approval ratings that are polled now are polled during a crisis. The hypothetical Damascus household that has been asked if they support Assad practically needs him in the current day, that won't necessarily be the case after the civil war had died down. And then there is the matter of WHO exactly they're asking this question to, the opinion of Assad held by alawites and bureaucrats of relative wealth in Damascus is going to be starkly different from the opinions of those Sunnis in Homs or Aleppo.

They didn't say it directly, but it was more or less the reason why the ceasefire happened and why Al-Nusra was dropped by Saudi Arabia and the US.

And the US does have a say, one word from the US and all arms and funding for the rebels stop. Of course that is not in their interest as they want Assad as weak as possible when a truce is reached.

I'm not the biggest fan of Assad, but there's no denying this. I totally agree. Whats happened to Syria is a fucking nightmare scenario.

The link has since been memory holed but the CIA came out in the early days of this shit and said 'If an election were held tomorrow, Assad would take 85% of the vote'. There's also the issue of there being no credible alternative.

Got anything to back this up? And did you miss Al-N's 'rebranding', where they severed ties with Al-q? That was done so they could be supported again by the gulf monarchies and possibly the US.

Funfact, it was planned.

(long and informative Seymour Hersh article)

newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

tl;dr, the US sought to create a moderate Sunni non-state force in the region to challenge Iranian ambitions.

And evidence of NED meddeling in Syria in 2008.

thepassionateattachment.com/2012/07/21/quiet-planning-for-post-assad-syria-has-roots-in-2008-conference/

NED, like USAID and the IRI (chaired by John McCain) do today what the CIA did in the 80s.

There's almost certainly an element of truth to the opinion that this was about gas pipes too.

You clearly don't know jackshit about the SDF when you make those comments. They have never supported Assad.

Why should I be caring about yet another tribalistic war between Middle Easterners? Neither are leftist or interested in building communism, thanks to the Western powers aggravating and funding these wars to begin with.

My bad, it's the NDF that are pro-assad. SDF are Assad-neutral

syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/12-june-sdf-spokesmen-we-are-not-with-or-against-assad-regime/comments

The largely kurdish SDF are defacto allies of Assad against ISIS and Al-N.

absolutely. Instigating and assisting in an uprising to remove an enemy named as far back as 2007.

youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

This is your brain on contrarianism.

If the Russian Civil War had happened today, you'd probably support the Whites because they were "anti-imperialist" since the Bolsheviks had taken Western financial support and German arms.

Did they?

Except they didn't.

How about you go have a looksey here then tell us again how the uprising in Syria was organic.

The NED and co have form.

westminster.ac.uk/file/7561/download

Read a book sometime, nigger. The Bolsheviks had tons of Western support, starting with Germany, who essentially financed and armed the Bolshevik Revolution to get the Russian Empire off their backs in WW1. Read a book sometime.

Lenin didn't win the Russian Civil War with nothing but pure revolutionary fervor.

I'm fully aware the West had a hand in the rise of ISIS. That doesn't mean we should now support Assad.

Did they?

Will there be … you know … supporting evidence at some point?

Because it's been 99 years and we still have nothing, except a train which carried 200+ people, only a quarter of which were Bolsheviks.

Yes. He used Soviets. There were actual Russian soldiers that were fighting for him.

Precisely. Read it, nigga.

Read Antony Sutton

...

Debunked already. Falsified evidence. rumours, and so on.

Not to mention, most of his stuff is post-war. I.e. has nothing to do with actual pre-October events or Civil War.

Proofs?

Perhaps there is something to the horseshoe theory after all…

I don't support Sutton in any way, and a lot of things in the book are bullshit, but unless Stalinposter has information debunking it, it does go over the Bolshevik's financial ties decently enough.

publiceye.org/conspire/rough/sutton.htm

It's called revisionism.

German weapons for October? Or financial dealing before Civil War started?

Dealings with Germany/Wall Street after the state is established is nothing criminal, you know.

I'm not accusing them of anything criminal.

Taking German arms and financing is exactly what they should have done.

My point wasn't that the Bolsheviks did something "wrong", it's that you take everything you can get, this is simply how politics works.

=>>842630
The point is that they didn't.

Saying otherwise is perpetuating old anti-Bolshevik propaganda. Even if you think "that's okay", you are still spreading lies. That's a bad thing all by itself.

So, tell me, why did the Germans give Lenin a train ride back to Russia?

This website was already debunked as jewish propaganda.

Fucking Christ, Holla Forums.

"We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us" - probably Zinoviev

Makes sense tbh. Zizek agrees too.

>Because it's been 99 years and we still have nothing, except a train which carried 200+ people, only a quarter of which were Bolsheviks.

You can't claim that just because somebody subscribes to a retarded ideology, that anything and everything they say is bullshit. Just like there's lot's of posters here who subscribe wholeheartedly to socialist ideals, and yet are still wholeheartedly retarded.

Doesn't answer my question.

Why did Germany release Lenin back into Russia?

They didn't. They released everybody.

Why? For what purpose?

How would I know? They just did.

To mess-up political climate in Russia with radical politicians? Russia had this revolution thing going at the time, if you forgot.

The point is that Germans didn't single out Lenin, or Bolsheviks or anyone. And, in fact, the necessity to rely on Germans was a pure chance. If Lenin was in England when WWI begun, he would've gotten to Russia without any problems. If Trotsky was instead in Switzerland, it would be him, who was lauded as German Agent instead.

The whole idea of German involvement in October doesn't hold water. Provisional government needed a scapegoat for losing war and they've used Bolsheviks (who were their direct political enemy at home) as such. And then White's tried to demonize Bolsheviks as much as possible, and Entente tried - so they threw any shit at Bolsheviks, hoping that some might stick.

Apparently, German Agent bullshit stuck, if you are so desperate to defend this nonsense.

Yes, exactly.
I know the nature of realpolitik eludes most tankies when it isn't attacking other socialists, but this is exactly my point. I'm not saying Lenin or any of the Bolsheviks had any great love or loyalty for the German Empire, I'm saying that the German Empire had an interest in getting the Russian Empire out of the picture and helping revolutions in the country is a relatively easy and cheap way to do just that.

I'm not claiming that Lenin or Trotsky were "German agents", but they were more than likely helped along by the German Empire.

You presented no evidence for Germans helping along any revolution. Everything you posted is you tinfoil theories, tinfoil conjectures and tinfoil possibilities. It is you opinion.

Moreover, any suggestion of Germans attempting to start a revolution in Russia in March 1917 is absolutely preposterous on several levels for anyone familiar with the period. Stop watching BBC crap and

GO READ A GODDAMN BOOK

except - to get back to the initial point - that is NOT what is happening in Rojava in any way shape or form.

The situations are not comparable at all.

What is the alternative to Assad? There aren't enough moderate rebels to lead the country and reconstruction has to start somewhere. Not supporting Assad just gives islamism breeding ground. Besides, pre-2011 Assad wasn't fraction of the tyrant he is painted as. A state of emergency has existed since the last time Islamists led a revolution against secular Syria.

Secularism >>>> fundamentalism any time any place.

I guess the Viet Minh were counter revolutionaries too? They took American support while fighting the Japanese.

The YPG and PYD are literally establishing communes wherever they go, it's the basis of their entire economic and political structure.