Will things get better in Syria?
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2024 6:12 pm
We have seen plenty of cases of late where the downfall of an unpleasant bastard regime only made things worse. The next bastard was just as bad. Mnangagwa is no improvement on Mugabe. Or what followed was failed state without centralised control. The most recent example to overthrow a bastard and fall into terrible internal conflict was Sudan, which continues as the largest civil war currently being fought. That is, until the astonishing, completely unexpected, and fortunately very rapid, overthrow of Bashar al Assad in Syria.
With all sorts of factions controlling various corners of the country, such a large proportion of the population already displaced, the economy hugely damaged, and massive damage to physical structures in some places, it is hard to see things getting much worse in Syria. But at least death tolls, violence, bombings, etc have fallen a long way since the hottest part of the civil war in 2011-13. Lives were being lived again in many places without daily threats, enabling some measure of economic recovery and normalisation of life.
I now rather worry that the people who have overthrown Assad will prove just as unpleasant as any other bastard when they start ruling, if they start ruling. And those people will have difficulty asserting control, certainly over the full area that Assad controlled. So plenty of other nasty people will now see an opening and try to take advantage by initiating another nasty and prolonged fight for control, in various areas, or even in the areas just "liberated" from Assad. And the violence will increase again.
But I have little idea what will actually happen, as I had little idea that this would happen. Anyone else willing to put out any predictions?
A separate question, perhaps it should be a separate thread, but what happened? Was it because the Russians run out of ability or desire to support him? Nagorno Karabakh fell to Azerbaijan because the Russians stopped their practical support to the Armenians. It was generally said that was more because the Armenians were not kowtowing sufficiently to Putin, rather than because the Russians were overstretched and became unable to. I've not heard of any reason why the Russians didn't want to support Assad any more. But maybe the Russians are now overstretched now and couldn't give the practical support Assad needed to maintain his rule in that part of Syria he has recently ruled. Or did Syria no longer have the strategic status that caused the Russians to support him in the first place? Or maybe they abandoned him deliberately, because what they most want is conflict to inconvenience their western enemies? Or is it nothing to do with the Russians?
With all sorts of factions controlling various corners of the country, such a large proportion of the population already displaced, the economy hugely damaged, and massive damage to physical structures in some places, it is hard to see things getting much worse in Syria. But at least death tolls, violence, bombings, etc have fallen a long way since the hottest part of the civil war in 2011-13. Lives were being lived again in many places without daily threats, enabling some measure of economic recovery and normalisation of life.
I now rather worry that the people who have overthrown Assad will prove just as unpleasant as any other bastard when they start ruling, if they start ruling. And those people will have difficulty asserting control, certainly over the full area that Assad controlled. So plenty of other nasty people will now see an opening and try to take advantage by initiating another nasty and prolonged fight for control, in various areas, or even in the areas just "liberated" from Assad. And the violence will increase again.
But I have little idea what will actually happen, as I had little idea that this would happen. Anyone else willing to put out any predictions?
A separate question, perhaps it should be a separate thread, but what happened? Was it because the Russians run out of ability or desire to support him? Nagorno Karabakh fell to Azerbaijan because the Russians stopped their practical support to the Armenians. It was generally said that was more because the Armenians were not kowtowing sufficiently to Putin, rather than because the Russians were overstretched and became unable to. I've not heard of any reason why the Russians didn't want to support Assad any more. But maybe the Russians are now overstretched now and couldn't give the practical support Assad needed to maintain his rule in that part of Syria he has recently ruled. Or did Syria no longer have the strategic status that caused the Russians to support him in the first place? Or maybe they abandoned him deliberately, because what they most want is conflict to inconvenience their western enemies? Or is it nothing to do with the Russians?