Internationaler Militärbericht – Syrien, Mai 18, 2016


Übersetzung von Klausi452

Saudi-Arabien hat damit gedroht, dass es ihre militärischen Einheiten gegen Bashar al-Assad einsetzen wird, wenn es die derzeitigen Friedensgespräche keinen Frieden den verstrickten Nationen bringt.
Diese Ankündigung wurde nach einem Meeting der internationalen syrischen Unterstützungsgruppe (ISSG), dass in Wien am Donnerstag gehalten wurde.
Der saudische Außenminister Adel al-Jubeir sagte: „Wir glauben wir hätten zu Plan B schon seit einer langen Zeit wechseln sollen”
Der russische Außenminister Sergei Lavrov beschuldigte einige Mitglieder der ISSG, dass diese al-Nusra, die mit al Qaida verbündet sind, als nützliches Werkzeug sehen um die syrische Regierung unter Druck zu setzen.
Der russische Außenminister fügte hinzu, dass niemand „am Boden“ stärker ist als die syrische Armee und forderte, dass die Kurden an den Gesprächen teilnehmen dürfen.
Inoffiziell, haben alle Seiten in den Friedensgesprächen berichtet das es keine großen Erfolge in dieser Runde der Gespräche gab.
Die Seiten können sich nicht auf ein Datum einigen an dem die Friedensgespräche fortgesetzt werden und die sogenannte „Opposition“ sagt das diese nicht nach Genf zurückkommen werden, solang sich die Situation am Boden nicht verbessert hat.
In einem gemeinsamen Statement nach dem Meeting haben die Mächte zur Beendigung von Feindseligkeiten sowie Zugang für Medizin gewähren.
Am 18. Mai hat der russische Verteidigungsminister alle Gerüchte über eine Armeebasis in Palmyra, welches vor kurzem befreit worden ist, negiert.
Davor hatte die Nachrichtenagentur AP darüber berichtet das Russland eine eigene Militärbasis in Palmyra, in dem von der UNESCO als Kulturerbe gelisteten Zone errichtet.
Die Agentur nutzte Bilder und nutzen „Amerikanische Kulturorganisation” und einen „top syrischen Archelogen“ als ihre Quelle.
Nach dem russischen Verteidigungsminister zufolge handelt es sich hierbei um die temporäre Basis des Internationalen Entminungszentrums der russischen Streitmacht.



Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • hmmm ok. I just bought some more crossbow arrows, just in case. The reality is: there is no magic solution in a meta-debate, like: if we just took each other serious, it be allright soon. A nice dream, but you can’t debate with mass murderers. You catch them and put them on trial, and if they run in batallions and armies, it is time for open war. As you showed, you have to return to facts, but then the facts are contested. Who knows the best: the people living there. But do you know what happens in your city hall ? Of course not, often not even if you work there, so even that is severely limited. It seems that people in western Ukraine even deny that people in the east are being shelled, or even live there, or rather that they shouldn’t live there even if they always have, because it is now their State and they rule. Russians should go to Russia, and who is loyal to them can stay. At some point in the debate, it isn’t about lies anymore, there is a fundamental disagreement about what is right. If one side starts to underline the debate with tanks, you can either run or kill them. I suggest the latter, sorry.

    But, I think there is a glimmer of hope in that point: why don’t we just kill everyone (roughly speaking), who starts killing people for their opinion. Isn’t that a core police task: to neutralize a killer ? We could however take a defensive approach, not to kill who kills at first, but to defend those with a strong opinion against anyone who would like to kill them. You could then form armed groups, specifically not along party lines, only with a view of protecting anyone from violence for their opinion. Naturally the most targeted for murder are political activist type people, journalists, researchers sometimes, etc. I think such a group, which is comprized of all kinds of ideologies, who has as their actionable ideology “anyone with an opinion should live and we protect the likely targets whoever they are”, can then start to act as a third force between the partizans, and form a dampening effect against civil war. The problem with this, is that it only works before the civil war has broken out, or when the civil war is between roughly equal groups who both lack or have some basic morality. You need to win this war quick being that third dampening force, because you will get attacked yourselve soon by the ‘forces of evil’. They don’t want someone protecting their targets. That is what you want: you want the war to be drawn to you, and away from the political targets. However you then must win that war, and if you don’t then it becomes a civil war between them and you as the third force, which is what it has now become. You then cannot stop the war anymore that way, you just need to win it (Donbass just has to win it, and destroy the enemy at least in their own territory.)

    I think it is worth a thought at least: normally there is group A and B, the maidanites and the anti-maidan, and regardless of who is right, had there been a group C who doesn’t make having an opinion their business but they just look at violence in general and to stop it by defensive action and if need be their own directed violence, then that group C might be a weight of force that adds to ‘the good guys.’ Group C is likely to gravitate in their action to support the least violent of groups A and B. The question is: is there anyone willing to even do that, to shield their nation from civil war that way. This is doubtful, but if there are, it could work. If civil war threatens, it might be a plan to deploy quickly.

    This obviously leads to the next big question: who says that group C will stay loyal to its ideal ? Is it Government run ? Is it just a general background noise of people, disorganized ? I would think it is a good idea that they elect their own top officers, or rather they elect a board from between themselves, and the board appoints the top officers. Thus you can get rid of them quick, if they betray the cause. It is theoretically conceivable that a group C might have come to the aide of the State, under the idea “the Parliament or parliamentary security forces cannot be killed just for their opinions”, because that was happening. Armed groups where attacking the elected Government, which is violence against opinion. If that hadn’t happened, maybe group C or elements therein might have acted in favor of the anti-maidan after the coup, or join in Donbass, because the maidan is so violent.

    Unfortunately, even if all this seems to be a nice theory, the likelyness that people get off their politically lazy butts to do something is rather slim. Then again, look at these Nazi gangs, they’re always organizing and training, aren’t they. We need to set up forces against them, or at least be thinking of how to do it. They way forward in Ukraine seems to be to just wholesale join the war on the side of Novorossiya, and kill the enemy. In other nations, there may still be time before problems occur. Sometimes time for talking is over, and the question is: how to kill the enemy most efficiently. Another strong point of this strategy, is that after victory by group C, you don’t have any kind of extremists of whatever ideology having the military Sovereignty in the area. The group is more ideologically docile, and multi-facetted in its makeup. Thus there is more chance that democracy is restored by them. (Sorry to babble so much, it is a disease I know). bye.