It’s premature to say that the rapid collapse of Syria actually benefits the west. The status quo was that Russia and Iran had to devote significant resources to prop Syria up. Now they were able to pull out their assets while the west is stuck trying to manage the situation.
Incidentally, there is a RAND paper that warns against this exact scenario. It basically argues that putting Syria under stress is beneficial to the US, but there is a risk of over commitment.
- The United States should oppose any and all policies that seek to partition or divide Syria. A collapsed, divided, or fractured Syrian state would likely contribute to further instability and radicalization in Syria and the region.
- Syria’s relatively strong national identity and experience of centralized authority reinforce the prospects for a unified state.
- Lessons from recent conflicts, including U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, suggest that postconflict security, governance, and reconstruction in Syria will require viable, centralized state institutions.
Russia and Iran aren’t stupid, and they likely saw that the west was going to flare up the conflict in Syria again. One option was to pour resources into Syria to fight off the jihadists. This would be long and protracted quagmire just as it was last time around. The other options was simply to withdraw and let them take it. These groups all hate each other, and they’re not a cohesive fighting force. They’re already starting to fight each other just days after taking over, and it’s only going to get worse.
The west wants to have a compliant regime in Syria and that requires using coercive methods that will inevitably breed resentment from these groups. This is basically what happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents ultimately turned on their masters.
On top of all that, Israel is now invading Syria in a big way, and they’re unlikely to withdraw. It’s only a matter of time till they start getting attacked, and this will force the west to keep pouring resources to prop them up. In effect, this flips the script on Syria. Instead of Russia and Iran being on the hook propping it up while the west can keep destabilizing it relatively cheaply. It is now the west that’s stuck with a very volatile situation.
this is bigger news than people seem to be giving it attention for. this probably means the middle east is now fucked (again).
up until right now i felt they had a good chance of pushing out or at least severely weakening the empires influence over the region. i hope they can fight back.
This cuts off the supply lines from Iran to Lebanon. But it is too soon to call this a win for the US and Israel. We still don’t know what will happen next in Syria. It is a major blow to the axis of resistance though.
Her comment section attracts some strange characters. Get a load of this one:
Are you deliberately writing nonsense, focusing attention not on the true center of the empire, but on his right hand? Are you Jewish or just don’t want any trouble? The USA is one of the territories controlled by the Khazar Empire, whose political center is located in London City.
That’s just typical “antiglobalist” and “Jews are Asiatic Horde” someone so far right they can’t even imagine opposing the status quo from the left. They regularily pops up in many leftist spaces but the ones with active moderation purges them up immediately.
This dynamic gets redacted from the mainstream western worldview with the assistance of the western propaganda services known as the mass media, as well as the western indoctrination system known as schooling.
Kinda lame to project the US’ deficient systems on all Western nations.
I can’t think of many western nations that doesn’t apply to
Haha what if we apply more US bad to world events
No, seriously, that article manipulative AF.
Oh it’s this article that is manipulative AF, and not the propaganda that we’ve been fed day in & day out our entire lives[1].
Both can be true
the US media empire is manipulative AF all around the world, so it can continue their blood campaign unbothered. i don’t see libs batting an eye though.
matter of fact thats what they consider unbiased news for some reason.
The US abolished the claim of nonpartisan, unbiased media at least half a century ago.
is this generally understood by the general population? especially in the 3rd world countries they manipulate where the connections between local news and pupeteer empire don’t look as close and/or are deliberately obscured…
No, of course not. Never was, nowhere is.
The wish for “unbiased news” grew from the aftermath of WWI, but didn’t stick with the duopoly in the US.
that influence extends way past the us political system.
in a way that makes it look like the center unbiased position, when its in fact very manipulative.
Yeah, that’s why we even care that the US has a duopoly.
This particular thread is largely about “that’s what they consider unbiased news for some reason”
and i was talking about why it is.
and maybe why explicitly anti-imperialist and anti-us media might sound manipulative to people used to imperialism being the center and not the right. we do need the proper us bad that has been lacking.
That never existed
Claim
Not even the claim was on the books
So facilitating a genocide on top of all the wars, coups and meddling is the US being good?
Just one more coup bro I promise just one more coup and it’ll fix everything bro please bro just one more coup this is the one that will work out well bro please
Why do you believe the US Empire does what it does?
Because they are the good guys! The government and president and CIA and military and media and corpos said that! So what else can do a person from nominally anarchist community than just believe them and stand at the same side as, check notes… Al Qaeda, Netanyahu and Erdogan, true beacons of freedom.
It must be very easy to avoid grappling with real problems you benefit from if they paint Leftist thinking as “US bad.”
There are no beacons of freedom in Syria.
Amalgamating Al-Qaeda, IDF, TSK into a coherent side is wild. HTS and SNA may have occupied populated Syria, but given the IDF’s air strikes and the continued pressure of TSK directly and through SNA indirectly against SDF, this war seems far from over.
The fall of Assad does not endorse HTS. It simply is.
Opportunity.
My point is, Syria is not played by various US actors alone, there are at least five countries involved with very different goals and ways of doing things.
Sure, and US interests won out. Hooray for the US Empire continuing to get exactly what it wants.
Well, people like Assad are not exactly a good rallying cry for an opposition.
You’re so right, turning Syria into something like Libya with open slave markets is far better for the people living there.
Haha what if we apply more US bad to world events
Then you would have a more correct understanding of geopolitics.
No, seriously, that article is manipulative AF.
I have no idea what that means
taboo to call
We’re all meant to pretend
People get mad if you say this, but it’s true.
If my saying this makes you feel uncomfortable, that discomfort is called cognitive dissonance. It’s what being wrong feels like.
But real life doesn’t move in accordance with your preferences.
[communicative action] is the worst sin a person can possibly commit.
Information density and transmission is polluted by the fears of not being convincing enough and not sounding radical enough.
(IMO this can result from cynicism and sociopolitical isolation.)
[…] major world events do not occur independently of the actions of the major world powers who have a vested interest in their outcomes.
Sure, but this does not explain why Assad, North Korea or Putin are good enough for an opposition or even the seed of that.
Information density and transmission is polluted by the fears of not being convincing enough and not sounding radical enough.
It is just rhetoric on Johnstone’s website. It is a position piece. In what way are you being manipulated? This is actually more honest and direct than the faux-objectivity of typical articles.
[…] major world events do not occur independently of the actions of the major world powers who have a vested interest in their outcomes.
Sure, but this does not explain why Assad, North Korea or Putin are good enough for an opposition or even the seed of that.
It is unclear to me why you are quoting and arguing with that. Do you think I am Johnstone?
