Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
The only reason Assad is a more stable option is that Russia has been feeding him weapons and money, which he uses to destroy and destabilize the rest of the country. If during the Arab Spring, Assad hadn't been propped up by Russia and just stepped down, Syria wouldn't be in this situation.
Basically Russia is saying Assad is the best option, because he has the most military power. However, he only has military power, because Russia is giving it to him.
And if by not "pleasing everyone" you mean that re-installing a brutal dictator from a minority religion onto an 80% Sunni population, then yes you are correct. The ideal situation would have been for Russia to allow the UN to act 5 years ago when Assad was dropping barrel bombs and chemical weapons on civilian protesters.
Instead Russia creates pure chaos by propping up a dictator who was on the way out and had a loose grasp on the country. They then step in - with their own brutal brand of military force - when their dictator is on the ropes and running out of bombs to drop on people.
|
As I started by saying, there is no ideal situation.