for example,
1) slow down NATO supplies in Afghanistan. Don't even have to cut it off completely, just enough to make it uncomfortable.
2) Provide Anti-aircraft systems to Syria right now. If training is an issue, Russians can unofficially operate them. They don't have to defeat an air attack. Just loosing some aircraft would be a big blow to NATO prestige.
3) since the actual intervening will be done by Turkey, I'm thinking Russia has some sort of leverage point they can use against them.
I agree Assad is not worth saving. But Syria is. And a NATO intervention could turn Syria into a Mega Lebanon of the 70's and 80's.
I'm suggesting that Russia has the means to prevent an intervention without risking a war. Failing that, they can make it hard for NATO to profit from its crimes.
Russia is not without interests here. Drawing the line against another war enhances Russia's international standing and it's influence. It will also force the west to take it more seriously....
That is most definitely an option, which has been threatened yesterday by Russia's envoy to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin (keep an eye on this guy, he is very much an insider, top player, and very smart; I definitely see him as a possible Minister of Defense, if not more, in the future). And yes, that would really hurt NATO. The issue is whether Russia should do that to influence the situation in Syria or not. I am confident to say that this "big stick" will only be used by Russia in case its own vital and strategic interests are directly threatened by the US/Israeli Empire.
Provide Anti-aircraft systems to Syria right now Very hard to do covertly and you can imagine the kind of hysterical anti-Russian propaganda such a move would trigger. The Syrians, by the way, are excellent soldiers and many have trained in Soviet and Russian military academies. I am confident that they could skillfully operate such systems as the Tor M1 9M330 or any other. And yes, NATO would loose aircraft to such a system, but the political costs to Russia would be huge. Why would Russia do that?
since the actual intervening will be done by Turkey, I'm thinking Russia has some sort of leverage point they can use against them
Yes, plenty. But so does Turkey against Russia (think Chechens here). Russia and Turkey have a complex, delicate, relationship. Both sides have some very real leverage on each other (tourism, construction business, security cooperation, commerce, etc.), and both sides know that they cannot afford a frontal conflict against each other and they will not do so unless something really important is at stake (Russia did - quietly but firmly - threaten Turkey during the war in Ossetia, and the Turks got the message and backed down).
As always, excellent points...., and possible measures Russia could take is a good one. But when said; I agree Assad is not worth saving. But Syria is.... you are assuming that a) either somehow the two can be de-coupled or b) that saving Assad is compatible with the idea of saving Syria. I am not so sure.
I think that we all agree that saving Syria - unlike saving Assad - would be highly desirable. But could it be that Assad himself is destroying Syria in the first place?
Also, Russia is not the USA, it is not the self-appointed worldwide "righter or wrongs". Morally, WHY should Russia get involved in the first place? Because we would like it?
See, Russia used to be a global empire, and so was the Soviet Union. But I strongly believe that Russia now strongly wants to be a *country*, not an empire, and that it does not want to meddle in every conflict out there. Would you not agree that this is fundamentally sound? Yes, the USSR used to be a global opponent of the USA, but Russia does not want to take on that burden any more. Sure, it wants the US empire to crumble and for the USA to also become a 'normal' country (which, I believe, is also in the USA's national interest!), but Russia will not pro-actively oppose the USA unless it is directly threatened.
Do you believe that it is in the Russian national interest to get involved in the Syrian conflict and to support the Assad regime under the heading of "saving Syria"?
b) Iran and Hezbollah could intervene in Syria, I think. Yet, and contrary to some propaganda put out by the anti-Assad forces, they have not done so (or, at least, there is no evidence of it having done so).
How do you explain the fact that neither Iran nor Hezbollah are intervening?
Why should Russia taken on a burden which even Iran and Hezbollah seem to have no inclination to take upon themselves even though they are DIRECTLY impacted by the events in Syria?
B) When I say intervene, I mean intervene against foreign invasion. They are not, and must not, intervene to stop Syrians from demonstrating or even armed resistance. Those are things Syrians have to solve for themselves.
But if Syria is actually invaded, I suspect both Iran and Hezbollah will do whatever they can to make the invasion as painful as possible for the invaders. I don't know if that will amount to much, but I don't think they will sit idly by.
Lastly, regarding Russian interests, neutrality is the best policy for almost any country almost all the time. But by now Russians should have figured out that NATO and the west do not have benevolent intent towards them. And so, in my view, it is in Russia's interests to keep the west as distracted as possible elsewhere and to do so with the least expense and risk to Russia. I still believe the suggestions I made in my first comment would accomplish those goals.....
by Raymond Ibrahim
What is the alternative to Bashar Assad's regime in Syria? A simple if indirect way to find out is to consider which groups in Syria are especially for or against Assad—and why.
Christian minorities, who, at 10% of the Syrian population, have the most to gain from a secular government and the most to suffer from a Sharia-state, have no choice but to prefer Assad. They are already seeing aspects of the alternative. A recent Barnabas Fund report titled "Christians in Syria Targeted in Series of Kidnappings and Killings; 100 Dead," tells of how "children were being especially targeted by the kidnappers, who, if they do not receive the ransom demanded, kill the victim." In one instance, kidnappers videotaped a Christian boy as they murdered him in an attempt to frame the government; one man "was cut into pieces and thrown in a river" and another "was found hanged with numerous injuries."
Accordingly, it is understandable that, as an earlier report put it, "Christians have mostly stayed away from the protests in Syria, having been well treated and afforded a considerable amount of religious freedom under President Assad's regime." After all, "Should Assad fall, it is feared that Syria could go the way of Iraq post-Saddam Hussein. Saddam, like Assad, restrained the influence of militant Islamists, but after his fall they were free to wreak havoc on the Christian community; hundreds of thousands of Christians were consequently forced to flee the violence. Many of them went to Syria."
In short, should "rebels" get their way and topple the Assad regime, the same brutal pattern experienced by Iraq's Christian minorities—who have been liked to, and killed off like, dogs, to the point of nearing extinction—will come to Syria, where a preacher recently urged Muslims to "tear apart, chop up and feed" Christians who support Assad "to the dogs." From last week alone, some 70 additional Christian homes were invaded and pillaged, and "for the first time in the history of the conflict in Syria, an armed attack has been made on a Catholic monastery," partially in search of money.
And who are these "rebels" who see and treat Christians as sub-humans to be exploited and plundered to fund the "opposition" against Assad? In fact, many of them are Islamists, internal and external, and their "opposition" is really a jihad; moreover, they are acting on anti-Christian fatwas that justify the kidnapping, ransoming, and plundering of "infidel" Christians.
As in Libya, it is a fact that al-Qaeda is operating among the Syrian opposition; Ayman al-Zawahiri himself "urges the Syrian people to continue their revolution until the downfall of the Assad regime, and stresses that toppling this regime is a necessary step on the way to liberating Jerusalem." Even the influential Yusif al-Qaradawi and Hamas, the latter supported by Iran—Assad's ally—both back the "rebels." All these facts should place the "opposition"—who they are, what they want—in better context.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Obama, who was remarkably reticent when Iranians seeking Western-style freedom tried to revolt against the oppressive Islamist regime of Iran, made it a point to single out Assad by name as needing to go at his recent State of the Union Address (not that the Republican presidential candidates seem to know any better; see Andrew McCarthy's recent article where, drawing on America's other misadventures in Islamic nations, he shows how the U.S. has little to gain and possibly much to lose by supporting the anti-Assad opposition).
The lesson here is clear: while it is true that not all of Assad's opposition is Islamist—there are anti-Assad Muslims who do not want a Sharia-state—the Islamists are quite confident that the overthrow of Assad equates their empowerment. And why shouldn't they be confident? Wherever Arab tyrants have been overthrown—Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, etc.—it is Islamists filling the power-vacuums. Just ask Syria's Christian minorities, who prefer the dictator Assad remain in power—who prefer the devil they know to the ancient demon their forefathers knew....
نبيه البرجي-
اجل، لمن شاهد بالعين المجردة، اذا كان لا يزال هناك من ضمير مجرد، اشلاء التلامذة الذاهبين، بوجوه الياسمين، الى مدارسهم، واشلاء العمال، بالايدي المنهكة والازمنة المنهكة ايضاً، وهم في الطريق الى عملهم، واشلاء الامهات اللواتي قصدن السوق في الصباح الدمشقي الذي طالما كان صباح الدهر فإذا به صباح الدم...
هذا بعدما ضبطت مستندات ووثائق حول خطط مبرمجة، وممولة خارجياً، حول عمليات انتحارية في المساجد والمقامات الدينية لكي تكتمل، نهائياً، صورة الحرب الاهلية التي اذا ما مضت في الايقاع الحالي، فأين ستكون سوريا، واين سيكون العرب؟
ألم ينزع احد حراس مقام محيي الدين بن عربي الذي لطالما اغتسل بالله، شعاراً كتب على الحائط بتعليق رفات هذا الصوفي، والمفكر، العظيم، على حبل المشنقة لان الساطور الذي يستثيره شبق الدم لا تعنيه العظام بل يعنيه اضافة مقبرة الى المقبرة؟
اي ثورة؟ واي ربيع؟ واي اسلام؟ نقولها لأساقفة الثرثرة في اسطنبول (تحت عباءة الصدر الاعظم) وفي باريس(تحت قبعة القناصل)، وبينهم من يتصل بنا عاتباً، او لائماً، او مؤنباً، او مهدداً( بالساطور إياه)، فنحن لا يعنينا النظام، ولا اهل النظام، ونقول ذلك في عقر داره، بل تعنينا سوريا التي عندما تستضيف، في القلب، محيي الدين بن عربي فكيف لها ان تتحمل فتاوى ايمن الظواهري؟...
ترد علينا احدى القنوات التلفزيونية، الناطقة باسم تورا بورا وكل من يمت اليها بصلة، وتوحي لنا بأن هذه ما هي الا البدايات. بدايات ماذا؟ أليس كل الذين سقطوا صبيحة الخميس الاسود من اهل الشام، اي من اهل بردى، وليسوا من طائفة اخرى، ولا من مذهب آخر، ولا من عرق آخر؟ « شوام اصليون»، فما الخطيئة التي ارتكبوها حتى تكون تحية الصباح، ومن استشهادي من اجل الاسلام، اشلاء اطفالهم في اكياس من البلاستيك؟
مرة اخرى، لا يعنينا النظام، ولا اهل النظام، ولكن متى يتخلى الناطقون باسم المجلس الوطني عن تلك العبارة الغبية، والعقيمة، بأن النظام هو من فعل ذلك، كما لو ان» الاستشهاديين» ليسوا «ماركة مسجلة»، وكما لو ان احداً لا يعلم ما هي توجهاتهم العقائدية والى اي جهة ينتمون، وكما لو ان النظام» فرّخ» استشهاديين يَقتلون من اجله، ويُقتلون من اجله، وكما لو انه من مصلحة النظام إياه ان يستيقظ اهل دمشق واهل حلب على دوي الانفجارات بل على دوي الاشلاء...
بدايات، والآتي اعظم. واذا كانت الولايات المتحدة قد وضعت كل ثقلها في العراق للقضاء على ابي مصعب الزرقاوي الذي قتل من السّنة اضعاف اضعاف ما قتل من الشيعة، فهل تستطيع السلطة في سوريا، بامكاناتها المحدودة، ان تواجه الذين يتسللون عبر كل الحدود، ودون استثناء، وعلى ظهورهم كل ليل الامم وكل ليل القبائل؟
هذا يعني ان سوريا مضت بعيداً، وبعيداً جداً، في المستنقع الدموي. قيل لنا ان على» باب كل زقاق سيكون هناك ابو مصعب الزرقاوي». ولنتصور ماذا يحدث في كل مدينة سورية، وفي كل قرية، اذا ما فتحت الابواب، وهي مفتوحة على مصراعيها مالاً وعتاداً، بعدما قرر من قرر عسكرة المعارضة. لصاحب القرار ان يتنبه، وقبل فوات الاوان، الى ان عرقنة سوريا، وقد تعرقنت، والى ان افغنة سوريا، وقد تأفغنت، تعني ان المنطقة دخلت، وكما كتب ديفيد هيرست، في الهزيع الاخير من النهاية...
هل يكفي ان يقول ضيوف الشرف على ضفاف الدردنيل ان هذا عمل من اعمال النظام كي يغسلوا ايديهم، وضمائرهم، من المسؤولية، وقد اصبحوا، بعدما باتت الارض بأيدي مصاصي الدماء لا بأيدي الذين يترنحون بين كؤوس الشامبانيا ونظريات الكسي دوتوكفيل حول الديموقراطية. زجاجات فارغة على الارصفة (والقول لمعارض محترم وليس لنا).
لم يعد هناك من مكان لضيوف الشرف هؤلاء، الا على الشاشات التي العديد منها يثير التقزز لكثرة الاجترار، ولكثرة النفاق، فيما الجنون يضرب سوريا، وسيضربها اكثر واكثر، ليكتشف جماعة المجلس الوطني، ما داموا لا يصرخون في وجه قتلة «الثورة» مثلما يصرخون في وجه قتلة النظام: «نحن لم ننتفض من اجل اسقاط سوريا، بل من اجل اسقاط النظام».
لكنهم يقتلون سوريا، ويكتفي معارضو الموائد الفاخرة والليالي الفاخرة بأن يرتدوا ثوب الببغاء، ولغة الببغاء، ولا يرتفعوا الى مستوى القضية، وهم المشتتون بين هذا الباب وذاك، ويعلنوا، ولكن بعد فوات الاوان، الحرب ضد القتلة اياً كانت هوية هؤلاء القتلة...
هذا عندما نمضي نحن اللبنانيين، والظواهري على حدودنا، في اللعبة إياها، اذ ليس المطلوب البتة مساندة النظام، او مهادنته، وقد فعل ما فعل، بل انها لحظة الضمير فينا، ان نقف في وجه مصاصي الدماء، وسواء كانوا على هذه الضفة او تلك، ولكننا نعلم، اذا ما تأملنا في خريطة المنطقة، ما اذا كان ذلك الوباء الايديولوجي، وهو الوباء الدموي، يتوقف في مكان...
انه شبق الدم حولنا، وقد يكون فينا. كان محمد الماغوط يقول» هذا الضمير العربي الذي بالكاد يعمل بالفحم الحجري»!
