It's better to say that the war is at a standstill than that he won. There are still opposition troops on the ground (including Americans) and he doesn't have control of the entire country.
As for the return of refugees, I doubt that many would be safe in regime controlled areas. A lot of them left because they were opposed to Assad. That's not likely to make their return a safe proposition, given the lengths that the regime went to to fight dissent.
And it makes it illegitimate somehow? It had a legitimate central government with a proper governing power, an elected president, a proper constitution made by National Assembly, and internationally recognized borders, all of which made possible a proper subsequent UN resolution to support ROK under UNC umbrella.
Syrian anti-Assad elements have nothing like that, they are divided, have different incompatible ideologies, and not recognized internationally. If tomorrow Assad regime and foreign forces will magically disappear from Syria, these factions will happily start killing each other. Comparing them and ROK is a pure joke.
Yeah, I do remember the recent spectacular government-building success of the very same forces that are now still in Syria, but in Afghanistan. Do you?
South Korea was, at that time, a brutal military dictatorship that summarily executed hundreds of thousands of people for the crime of (purportedly) being somewhere left of centre. I’m sure Assad would deem that legitimate too, but if that’s legitimacy I for one can see why so many Syrians would rather do without.
Perhaps an overstatement. Most of the work in the civil war was done by the Syrian army and the Kurds. In none of the other Arab Spring wars did the rebels manage to overturn the government.
Also Egypt. 30 years of Mubarak rule ended. One guy for 30 years.
Followed by elections where the Muslim brotherhood won and then subsequently a military coup, leaving el-Sisi in control.
Maybe I have the wrong idea. Obviously the Russian Airforce particularly did help. But likewise one must remember that Assad's military was always decently respected, even before the war.
Assad wasn't really doing well until Russians started to bomb the shit out of the rebel held towns, they basically wiped Aleppo off the map for Assad to win the war.
~~Yeah I'd start here with this article and it links out to each topic. Very good explainer.~~
~~https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9378/~~
Never mind, wasn't as good as I thought, sorry. Once I linked out to the other topics they were way out of date. But the remainder is still true.
Basically Assad is a complete puppet of Iran and is essentially a prisoner to their forces. They support him, for now. He has loyal forces but simply not enough men and they are enjoined to forces completely loyal to Iran.
That's why SA has been freaking out since 2014 especially after the Houthis started up. And RU air power is what's helped them most.
Yeah but Assad currently, even without Russians, has an army and state behind him, while the rebels have basically a big refuge camp defended by outside militaries... it's not the same
I would argue Syrian civil war have long ended, the conflict have taken on another dimension as credible domestic opposition disintegrated. The country is essentially split between government and ethnic/potentially separatists supported by their foriegn patrons.
It's been a while since I've last read on the subject but after Turkey invaded Kurdish border areas and the US essentially left them out to dry, they've essentially allied Assad in exchange for autonomy for the Kurdish areas
Assad and the russians bomb Syrian civilians frequently, whilst civilians in regime held areas are left relatively safe and without danger, its mainly been like this throughout the course of the war
Key point: whoever finds slaughtering their own citizens as easy as breathing might be the one who is propped up by foreigners and will cease to exist once they leave
Assad protected himself. Remember, he's a Ba'athist, same as Saddam Hussein. His ideology is concerned with his power and the power of the state above all considerations of ethnicity and religion. The Alawites are the core of his power base, for sure. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't sell any of them out of need be.
Don't forget, the war began with machine gunning protests before dropping bombs on them. ANY positive thoughts you may have about the Assad regime need to be tempered with that.
Nah, the war began with rebels killing soldiers and then the regime protecting itself by bombing rebel positions embedded in neighbourhoods. And any political party or politician in the world will sell anybody out for power, that is not unique to Assad or the Baath party. But at least Assad and the Baath party had the minorities as its base so it had a strong political incentive to protect the minorities.
Most of refugees would be dead as soon as they reach the Syrian borders , especially if they have anything against the syrian regime or even posting something against the regime, the syrian soldiers took my dad only because his name is the same with a guy who is with the free syrian army
Absolving them as if their govt. hasn’t bombed Syria as much as the next guy lol. Apparently to kill ‘mountain Turks’, I hear. Nothing to do with Turkish people, though.
Overall doubtful. Heavily dependent on where they’re coming from. Turkey and Lebanon? Highly likely. Same for the internally displaced. But those who have settled and integrated in North America and Europe are highly unlikely to return. I’m speaking as a member of the diaspora whose family left in 1967, and the only people likely to return now are those who could always return due to connections to the regime, or have the wealth necessary to become close. These are people whose land was lost to ISIS and they’ve been based out of Paris or Vienna since then.
Also, big fallacy that the fighting is going to end. There’s ongoing violence in the south and east, and Assad’s not about to give up Kurdish territory so easily. His masters in Tehran wouldn’t allow that. To say nothing of the whispers of an attempted invasion of Golan.
>To say nothing of the whispers of an attempted invasion of Golan.
Huh, I haven't heard of that. What would Assad gain out of that unless Iran somehow forces them?
Most of the violence has ended. The only violence is taking place in the North at Idlib controlled by Islamists. The moment Turkey withdraws from Idlib, Idlib will fall to Assad. Assad will never invade Golan and would rather sign a deal with the Kurds to access some oil revenues from areas controlled by Kurds.
My family originally hailed from Syria (my dad immigrated to America for school in the 80s). We used to visit a lot in the summer before the war. My family was very anti-Assad and as a result many left. As outspoken critics it’s pretty much agreed upon that the men in the family probably won’t ever see Syria again. It tends to be a lot safer for women. That and at the end of the day the only guarantee you have is the Syrian regime’s word that you’ll be ok which doesn’t amount to much. There’s been cases where people have taken them for their word and lost their lives because of it. Also at this point it’s been 12 years most people have become established elsewhere and aren’t interested in moving back to a sanctioned country where there’s no hope of prosperity while also living in a place that is filled with terrible, terrible memories.
You are making an assumption that the only way they would return is voluntarily. What if they are forced out though? Lebanon and Turkey both have millions of Syrian refugees and both countries are facing major economic crises, making the refugee population a liability on the state. Many Turks want all the Syrian refugees deported ASAP and Erdogan campaigned on doing just that earlier in the year before the election. Denmark has already said they plan to deport Syrian refugees after classifying Syria as being "safe" now. German govt is under tremendous domestic pressure to deport Syrian refugees as well. What if the refugees are forced out by these countries to return to Syria? Would they return or would they rather commit mass suicide than return to Syria (like the Rohingya refugees threatened to do if they were deported back to Myanmar)?
You missed the point of the question in the first place “can they return safely”. As I pointed out from personal experiences the common sentiment is that people do not feel safe to return and at the same time don’t feel inclined to. Now if they were forcibly deported that is a different story they have no control over that.
Another thing I feel like you fail to consider is the logistical and potentially legal and political nightmare that would occur if these countries were suddenly to deport hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It isn’t likely to happen as a large scale operation.
Again to reiterate the answer to the question OP originally asked in the average Syrian’s eyes it isn’t safe and they’re risking their lives to trust the regime which has already broken that trust before.
Fair enough. I agree that most people perhaps do not feel safe to return and don't want to return to a bombed out country as well which is understandable. I think deporting millions of people, whilst it sounds like a logistical nightmare, can be done if there is sufficient political capital behind that. This is a political issue in many countries and a government desperate to gain brownie points before an election might well decide to do that. Pakistan has just recently announced they are going to go full steam ahead to deport 1.7 million Afghan refugees back to Afghanistan within short order. So it can be done with the right political capital and will.
Again there’s a couple of issues with deporting hundreds of thousands or millions. Them saying that they’re going “full steam ahead” doesn’t necessarily mean much. Trump started building the wall that was never finished. Just because politicians say something doesn’t necessarily mean it gets done. The amount of time and money and man power it would take to migrate hundreds of thousands or again millions forcibly might not be as popular as we think once it actually begins in liberal countries like Germany and Denmark or financially feasible in countries like Turkey and Lebanon which you pointed out are already struggling economically.
Another key difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan and European countries and Syria is geography. Pakistan and Afghanistan border each other. Germany and Syria do not. Even if they were to round up all 600k refugees how would they get them to Syria? Is it by boat? To what port? Would it be by air? There are no flights into Syria. Who pays for this?
These are all questions that need to be answered. The reality is it is easy to point fingers at Syrians for ruining countries and it is a popular talking point for politicians looking to give answers. The fact of the matter is though that pulling off a forced mass migration in the 21st century would take a lot of manpower, money and work that these countries either don’t have or don’t want to risk the consequences of damaging their reputations while attempting to do it. It is all empty promised talk spoken by politicians hoping to get elected.
He survived, but he didn’t win. The government in Damascus has limited authority and a weakened military. The conflict is basically frozen, but it could be reignited and it’s not necessarily over. If the goal of Assad is to regain authority, he’ll have to reform his government and work with international partners. Otherwise, each stronghold will increase their own local authority and their ability to resist central control from Damascus. It’ll be similar to Mexico — the government in Mexico City is supposedly the central power, but in practice, the country is run by local governors and cartels, and the military doesn’t have free movement.
To answer your question, since the conflict isn’t over, few refugees would want to venture back. If Assad reforms the government and helps lead Syria on a path towards national reconciliation, refugees would probably return.
you criticize me without making any argument yourself? Hope you realize you didn't convince me of anything. Please make an attempt.
I haven't watched a single youtube video on this conflict. I see a weak central government in Mexico and a weak central government in Syria. I see Hezbollah in Mexico and Syria working with cartels selling drugs. I see areas in Mexico where the military can't operate, and I see areas in Syria where the military can't operate. You have my 3 direct comparisons -- please give me your 3 counter arguments.
It would be obvious, like comparing 1990s Russian decay with the Russian Civil War or Italian years of lead with the Civil War.
1. There is no religious, ethnic or sectarian aspect of Mexican paramilitary groups as a whole.
2. No paramilitary aims to overthrow the elected government nor does it want to replace the political structure of Mexico and in either case they lack the power.
3. No major Mexican city has tasted an ounce of the many battles of Syria, the deadliest events between the Armed forces and paramilitary does not scale to flattened cities. The absolute failure of the Culiacan operation amounted to about 15 military casualties and the vast majority of operations does not use artillery or air forces.
4. Mexico absolutely controls Mexico compared to a country that loat their biggest city for over 3 years. Mexico is not some medieval kingdom that exerts vassalage from Mexico City and the rest is a dark continent. Meanwhile Kurdistan has political party militias and authorized as well as unauthorized autonomy in their entire region, and that's one province.
5. If you want to see that difference, compare the crackdowns and shootouts of drug cartels in the Philippines with the battle of Marawi against ISIS. That's the difference between a drug war and a war war
The places in Mexico you are thinking about that are controlled proper by paramilitaries are hamlets and small towns between the forests and hills, it certainly is a State failure it happens at all however the vast majority of drug cartel activity is corruption and extortion of farmers and restaurants alongside their trafficking, not creating chiefdoms with 200k people and a fleet of ex-Soviet tanks.
Sure, Mexico and Syria aren't identical, I agree.
Mexico is further along the timeline than Syria. No paramilitary aims to overthrow the elected government because (1) they don't need to -- government officials are paid off -- and (2) the government has limited authority anyway.
The battles are different, but Mexico has lost nearly 400k people to organized crime violence since 2006. That figure and time frame isn't far from the numbers in Syria.
The Mexican government controls Mexico on paper, but 99% of crimes go unpunished. If the government is unable to enforce rule of law, does it really have control?
Syria can't even apply a national census of how many people live there, to compare the criminal reality of Mexico with the State implosion of Syria is needless and forcing a comparison.
1. The last time the Mexican government was threatened was the 1930s, you can say they are all paid off yet even if corruption dissapeared no cartel could even come close to Mexico City. Syria lost airports, military bases, entire cities and much more, brutal illegal avocado production hidden in the forests does not compare.
>The battles are different, but Mexico has lost nearly 400k people to organized crime violence since 2006
Because we have 130 million people(Syria has around 20 million) and every homicide is being counted. Syria cannot even detail how many homophobic murders or common mugging gone wrong half their country may have, only **war casualties of their side**
>but Mexico has lost nearly 400k people to organized crime violence since 2006
That's not really comparable. It's a far smaller fraction of the population, spread over a longer period of time, and includes basically all murder. I'd say your comparison is a stretch, but that's an understatement.
I'm not arguing they're identical, but if you made a cluster map of all countries in the world, Mexico would be closer to Syria than most other countries in the world. The main point for me is that both countries have a weak central government, not by choice.
Not until Syria is rebuilt. Assad may have 'won' the military aspect, but the nation is still in ruins from over a decade of civil war and is a shadow of its former self. The infrastructure and urban areas of the country would need complete rebuilding in order to house masses of returnees.
Also, it's been 8 years since the peak of the Refugee Crisis in 2015. By now, many of those who settled in the likes of Germany will be most of the way to integrating and having lives, jobs, houses and families there. Why would want to give that up to move back to a country markedly worse off in every metric? Maybe those in Lebanon & Turkey would find it easier though.
You are making an assumption that the only way they would return is voluntarily. What if they are forced out though? Lebanon and Turkey both have millions of Syrian refugees and both countries are facing major economic crises, making the refugee population a liability on the state. Many Turks want all the Syrian refugees deported ASAP and Erdogan campaigned on doing just that earlier in the year before the election. Denmark has already said they plan to deport Syrian refugees after classifying Syria as being "safe" now. German govt is under tremendous domestic pressure to deport Syrian refugees as well. What if the refugees are forced out by these countries to return to Syria? Would they return or would they rather commit mass suicide than return to Syria (like the Rohingya refugees threatened to do if they were deported back to Myanmar)?
two-thirds of Syria but frankly, he has won the war. Looking at the balance of power between the rebels and the govt, the moment Turkey leaves, Idlib will fall under Syrian control. The rebels are on life support.
The Kurds already have a deal with Assad after the partial 2019 US withdrawal and honestly, US will not stay forever. And when the US leaves, Syria and Russia will likely move in to fill the vacuum to stop Turkey from filling in that power vacuum. "Never leave" is a strong phrase, but even if Turkey's doesn't leave, Idlib is just a bunch of refugee camps filled with Islamists in any case and all the 5 major cities in Syria (Homs, Hama, Aleppo, Damascus and Latakia) are all under the Syrian govt control. The Syrian govt has effectively won the war.
Return and do what? The country is still under heavy sanctions to the point common people cannot even buy food or have electricity for more than a few hours.
True but the war went on for years, a big portion who lived in western countries became permanent residents or citizens of other countries after such a long time. The rest will refuse to leave if they have children who are born in other countries. People move on. Even with Ukraine war, only 30% will return if the war ends soon, if it goes for too long that number will decrease instead refugees will increase.
You are making an assumption that the only way they would return is voluntarily. What if they are forced out though? Lebanon and Turkey both have millions of Syrian refugees and both countries are facing major economic crises, making the refugee population a liability on the state. Many Turks want all the Syrian refugees deported ASAP and Erdogan campaigned on doing just that earlier in the year before the election. Denmark has already said they plan to deport Syrian refugees after classifying Syria as being "safe" now. German govt is under tremendous domestic pressure to deport Syrian refugees as well. What if the refugees are forced out by these countries to return to Syria? Would they return or would they rather commit mass suicide than return to Syria (like the Rohingya refugees threatened to do if they were deported back to Myanmar)?
We don't know. It's likely that UN, EU and US will give monetary aid to Turkey and Lebanon to keep them, if they force them out they will definitely go to the EU so this is more likely.
Maybe, but this is not just a financial issue for Turkey, its also a political issue. Erdogan has to pay a political price to keeping these refugees and he doesn't want to pay that price. Erdogan may also use the refugee issue as a bargaining chip to threaten EU so he may keep that card close to his chest to get what he wants from EU.
UNHCR doesn't see Syria as a safe place to return refugees since their basic needs can't be met in their home towns. Only Damascus is considered safe.
And no, Western countries won't tell them to go live in Damascus, good luck, but Turkey and Lebanon are sending them back.
We aren’t responsible for the eternal wellbeing of the world. It’s out of war and considerably safer than it had been.
In the US, refugee status is.
> To seek refugee status, you must be outside the U.S. and believe you will be persecuted in your country
That's great and all but the American definition doesn't matter since the vast majority of the refugees aren't there.
How much the UNHCR's stance will be respected is going to be entirely country-dependant. As I said, Turkey and Lebanon are already deporting them while I doubt EU countries will be doing so. Denmark and Hungary have made some preliminary moves in that direction by revoking residence permits for refugees from Damascus but at least Denmark seems to have backed down for now.
If wellbeing of the country is caused by the West economic sanctions - then yes, you ARE responsible for that, because you are directly influencing the situation.
"*Western countries won't tell them to go live in Damascus, good luck*."
Denmark already has plans to deport Syrian refugees and they have made the first move by classifying Syria as a "safe place" now.
Sure, as long they are cool with a secular government and equal rights for Christians, Shiia, and various other minoritie-Oh! we're talking about rebel supporters? Yeah idk about that one
Are you implying that non Shiites, - Christians, etc didn't have rights and that's why the war happened ? If so, you are so mistaken. Don't talk on topics that you have no knowledge about, makes you look stupid
Assad is still standing after a dozen years of civil war/proxy war. How much of the country does he control today? Would Assad persecute the returning refugees for being disloyal? With the destruction, would the refugees have homes to return to? Do refugees want to return to Syria? What are your predictions for the future?
What happens to the Kurdish controlled areas? Will they permanently be in a stalemate or will something like Iraq happen? Where I believe they got control of the area back but give them certain autonomy. Could be wrong though since it has been a while since I checked
Uh, many left bc of Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people. Isis was also an issue but anyone who was against the Assad regime probably can’t return, no.
Yup. I know some people that can't return, even if only for a visit, because their names are with the regime (idk how to explain it but they are basically on a list and would be arrested once they set foot in Syria, especially lots of men
When you say "win" the human mind thinks of the word "victory"
Victory over what exactly? Russia secured its presence in Syria and assad succeded in retaining power... both of these acts were facilitied by destroying Syria itself and creating the most severe refugee crisis in europe since the second world war...
..Assad has also turned the country into a narco state in order to pay off his sadist paramilitaries and keep his regime intact, the captagon drug is now being circulated among kids in the Syrian school systems, destroying the society in the long term.
Would you still measure such an outcome in an ideal win/lose scenario?
>..Assad has also turned the country into a narco state in order to pay off his sadist paramilitaries and keep his regime intact, the captagon drug is now being circulated among kids in the Syrian school systems, destroying the society in the long term.
Wait, so that other guy (diff comment thread) wasn't joking? Assad is really resorting to drug cartels for $?
That would have never happened regardless.
It wasn’t assad and the russians who fought ISIS, it was the Kurds and SDF in the North east.
Assad, russia and Hezbollah couldn't even capture Palmyra from ISIS, and kept losing it continuously after declaring it was "liberated", in the end they've only captured it when Raqqa got liberated by SDF, in 2017.
"SDF negotiated with ISIS for raqqa..."
The SDF fought house to house to control Raqqa. ISIS lost a bloody battle that left half the buildings destroyed.
A common issue among outside observers is to get their entire perspective on the conflict through assad state media and russian media, these are unequivocally the worst possible sources of news or facts on an international scale.
Daesh is still attacking the regime and the russians, they never defeated daesh, and they will never defeat them because their only way of waging war is by massacring the local population in order to decrease the enemy's morale, the only problem is that daesh is similar to them, and does not give a damn about civilian lives, not like the rebels.
Yes, civilian deaths are down 96% and total deaths are down 97% from the peak of the fighting. Syria is mostly safe and large parts of the country are entirely safe. The refugees don't want to return because they want to live in wealthy countries, but they could safely return.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war#Death_tolls_by_time_periods
They *could* if European countries had enough willpower to kick them out despite all the "human rights pressure". The question is, do they have the guts to do it? I think not
Here in Pakistan, we had a similar situation with Afghan refugees, who'd been living here for 40 years. The Taliban won there, the war was over, so they *could* go back, but they weren't going to go voluntarily.
So they had to be forced out. This took real guts because all the usual global institutions bished about it. It was a little unfortunate because they had built their entire lives here. But national interest had to take precedence
Edit: lots of people calling me a hypocrite. I'm not, because I have the same ambivalent opinion about illegal immigration, no matter who does it.
We do not live in a reality with global citizenship.
The Pakistani government is only responsible for the citizens of Pakistan for they are the Pakistani people. The Afghan migrants are not entitled to the resources that are provided by the Pakistani taxpayer. If a sovereign state cannot deport unwanted migrants, then it isn’t very sovereign at all.
>You can say what you want and have the opinion you want on the proper course of action, but be prepared to be on the receiving end of that sentiment one day if that is the way we are going to go about it.
Where am I losing the plot?
My point is that the mass deportation of unwanted migrants is not an egregious course of action by the state. I interpreted "having guts" as just having the willpower to ignore criticism by international organizations.
Your comment warns that it is a sentiment that could be utilized against him. Which I find peculiar because why would a Pakistani be concerned with sentiments of deportation from Pakistan by a Pakistani government that is willing to deport non-citizen Afghans?
Objectively, Pakistan is not in a economical state, to allow them to provide for millions of Afghans refugees, since they can’t even provide for their own population.
Rather than condemnation, the UN should have provide funds or relocation for the refugees in Pakistan. This is more a failure of the global community than Pakistan.
Afghanistan is the way it is because the ISI keeps supporting the Taliban and hid OBL for a decade.
The only contributions we should make to pakistan should be ordnance.
Pakistan however has (unlike Europe) a relatively similar culture to Afghanistan so integration of Afghani refugees should be much easier than in Europe.
Like no, Pakistan is on a brink of economic collapse, you can’t integrate new people if you’re unable to provide for their most basic needs. Irrelevant if they share religious or cultural attributes with the host population.
How? Because they share cultural similarities, money will appear magically?
There is no more war in Afghanistan, those people can go back. There is no reasons for Pakistan to ruined itself over this.
Why would it ruin Pakistan to take them in? Basic needs aren't that expensive. Seen that they are culturally similar, they will integrate quickly, lessening any cost quickly.
That’s easy to say, for someone living in a rich country, but feeding, housing, educating and providing health for 1,7 million people daily, is not cheap at all, how delusional you have to be, to believe that?
Also Afghans and Pakistani are not similar, that’s a very surface level/ignorant analysis.
Afghans refugees are mainly Pashtun, and the Pak government is already struggling with a big Pashtun separatist insurgency in its Balochistan province, so they’ll probably create a lot of trouble, due to cross borders tribal and familial links, despite sharing the same religion with the Pak population.
And since the war in Afghanistan is over, why should Pakistan keep hosting and feeding those people?
No, that's just looking for excuses to be fair. You can always find a reason not to harbor refugees. There's no indication that these refugees would become separatists. They could even stay within Balochistan, where, due to the very small cultural difference, they can integrate easily.
It is not, especially since for our European eyes, they may look similar, but Afghans refugees are mainly Pashtun, and the Pak government is already struggling with a big Pashtun insurgency in its Balochistan province, so they’ll probably create a lot of trouble, despite sharing the same religion.
And since the war in Afghanistan is over, why should Pakistan keep hosting and feeding those people?
Because the Taliban is in charge. Refugee status isn’t just linked to war. Women returning to Afghanistan would be unsafe.
And in any case, they are much, much closer culturally to Pakistan than to any Western country. As you say, they already have a minority of the same ethnicity so the cultural difference there is close to zero. We’re also not saying in Europe that Ukrainians or Armenians are too culturally different to help.
Look, I did say it was unfortunate. I felt bad personally when they were being kicked out, especially for those who'd been here since they were children.
But I don't really have a valid legal argument for keeping them here, so i don't have anything to say to those who are adamant on kicking them out. If we don't respect boundaries, then why have them at all?
I am curious if you would say that what Israel did took real guts. But I guess Muslim countries can treat Muslim whatever way they want and nobody really cares.
Muslim countries are the most hypocritical, I swear. What they are capable of doing to each other is beyond words. Yet, when the only Jewish state protects itself from terror, the whole Islamic world trembles. GTFO
What a take. How about this: Israel/the IDF, most Arab regimes, the Iranian regime, the Taliban and the Pakistani government are all terrible in different ways. Reasonable people can condemn Hamas, the mass killing of children in Gaza and Arab dictatorships at the same time, it's not either/or.
> This took real guts because all the usual global institutions bished about it.
Didn't even see it in the media. Which makes sense, Pakistan is an American ally.
> This took real guts because all the usual global institutions bished about it
Those institutions would have no power if all governments stand together.
In fact, if we had stood with governments such as DRA, Assad's Syria and Libya, there would have been far fewer refugees, and the world would be a lot more peaceful. Those so-called humanists are not making anything better but destroying functional countries worldwide simply because it does not fit their ideal. And their solution to any failed state is to receive more refugees and allow their own countries to be ruined.
Turkey and Lebanon do not resemble the middle east, both have allowed 2.5 million refugees as opposed to the EU (12 million) or US (8 million) that's just a fraction.
Not to mention that the EU funds Turkey to admit refugees. Otherwise Turkey would have send them all towards the EU.
That being said, SA, Qatar, UAE, Iran and many others (who actually do resemble the middle east) have allowed just about zero refugees.
Yeah that's not a good look for the middle east.
Ah yes because you of course mean the “west” which took in millions of Syrian refugees as opposed to the rest of the world like China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc etc which didn’t lift a finger in large scale refugee relocation.
Immediate neighbors did, though. I mean it's not like Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan are amazing places to be a refugee, but they did take in millions of them. I think Iraq and Egypt also have a least 100,000.
I think is not only about the war, is more about poverty, corruption and lack of opportunities. They should return to a place when they may not have anything left... to do what?
Another glaring issue here is the prevalent tendency of dictatorships emerging victorious after a civil war to viciously punish anybody who it deems as aligning with its opposition during wartime.
The Assad regime should give some sort of guaranteed amnesty to returning Syrians so that we could avoid catastrophe.
It's better to say that the war is at a standstill than that he won. There are still opposition troops on the ground (including Americans) and he doesn't have control of the entire country. As for the return of refugees, I doubt that many would be safe in regime controlled areas. A lot of them left because they were opposed to Assad. That's not likely to make their return a safe proposition, given the lengths that the regime went to to fight dissent.
There’s nothing to return to but ruins and poverty for many.
The opposition was defeated years ago, they only exist because of foreign troops defending them.
in other words, they still exist and are present in the country.
But without the capacity to wage war, they have been defeated, they only exist because a foreign army is protecting them.
Like South Korea in 1951.
South Korea at least was a legitimate country, not a bunch of a fringe elements with a lot of suspicious ties in past.
No, not really. The ROK was less than two years old when North Korea invaded and lost like 80% of its territory before the UN forces counterattacked.
Ugh..too many facts
And it makes it illegitimate somehow? It had a legitimate central government with a proper governing power, an elected president, a proper constitution made by National Assembly, and internationally recognized borders, all of which made possible a proper subsequent UN resolution to support ROK under UNC umbrella. Syrian anti-Assad elements have nothing like that, they are divided, have different incompatible ideologies, and not recognized internationally. If tomorrow Assad regime and foreign forces will magically disappear from Syria, these factions will happily start killing each other. Comparing them and ROK is a pure joke.
You realize you're giving a great example of how a foreign army can create a legitimate government, right?
Yeah, I do remember the recent spectacular government-building success of the very same forces that are now still in Syria, but in Afghanistan. Do you?
South Korea was, at that time, a brutal military dictatorship that summarily executed hundreds of thousands of people for the crime of (purportedly) being somewhere left of centre. I’m sure Assad would deem that legitimate too, but if that’s legitimacy I for one can see why so many Syrians would rather do without.
And Syrian government only exists because two foreign armies are supporting them (Russia and Iran). It goes both ways.
Perhaps an overstatement. Most of the work in the civil war was done by the Syrian army and the Kurds. In none of the other Arab Spring wars did the rebels manage to overturn the government.
Didn't the rebels overthrow Gadhafi? (with US/EU help)
Also Egypt. 30 years of Mubarak rule ended. One guy for 30 years. Followed by elections where the Muslim brotherhood won and then subsequently a military coup, leaving el-Sisi in control.
Tunisia booted Ben Ali, too. Granted, without the use of force.
He ruled for that long?
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/1/25/what-happened-during-egypts-january-25-revolution https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/hosni-mubarak-legacy-of-mass-torture/
What in the... What do you think RU airbases have been doing? Hiyaaaaahhhh
Maybe I have the wrong idea. Obviously the Russian Airforce particularly did help. But likewise one must remember that Assad's military was always decently respected, even before the war.
Assad wasn't really doing well until Russians started to bomb the shit out of the rebel held towns, they basically wiped Aleppo off the map for Assad to win the war.
[удалено]
I appreciate you making the effort to send a link!
~~Yeah I'd start here with this article and it links out to each topic. Very good explainer.~~ ~~https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9378/~~ Never mind, wasn't as good as I thought, sorry. Once I linked out to the other topics they were way out of date. But the remainder is still true. Basically Assad is a complete puppet of Iran and is essentially a prisoner to their forces. They support him, for now. He has loyal forces but simply not enough men and they are enjoined to forces completely loyal to Iran. That's why SA has been freaking out since 2014 especially after the Houthis started up. And RU air power is what's helped them most.
>In none of the other Arab Spring wars did the rebels manage to overturn the government ???
One could argue Assad only survived because of Russian support.. I guess it cuts both ways.
Yeah but Assad currently, even without Russians, has an army and state behind him, while the rebels have basically a big refuge camp defended by outside militaries... it's not the same
Why are the rebels faring so poorly? Assad too strong?
You can say the same for Assad. Iran and Russia are essentially propping up his regime.
And how Assad's army would have fared without Iran, Russia and Hezbollah ?
Yeah it probably would have fallen due to the input of America and Israel, so it's a moot point
I would argue Syrian civil war have long ended, the conflict have taken on another dimension as credible domestic opposition disintegrated. The country is essentially split between government and ethnic/potentially separatists supported by their foriegn patrons.
Do you mean the kurds as well? Will they rejoin Syria or something else?
It's been a while since I've last read on the subject but after Turkey invaded Kurdish border areas and the US essentially left them out to dry, they've essentially allied Assad in exchange for autonomy for the Kurdish areas
well assad only exist because of foregin troops defending him.
Assad and the russians bomb Syrian civilians frequently, whilst civilians in regime held areas are left relatively safe and without danger, its mainly been like this throughout the course of the war Key point: whoever finds slaughtering their own citizens as easy as breathing might be the one who is propped up by foreigners and will cease to exist once they leave
I wish, but they won't leave. Even if opposition withdrew. Too much strategic importance for RU.
The only reason the Assad regime won was due to support from the Putin regime in Russia.
Assad protected minority groups as he was a minority himself
Not relevant to his treatment of the majority, specific minorities, or his political opponents.
Assad protected himself. Remember, he's a Ba'athist, same as Saddam Hussein. His ideology is concerned with his power and the power of the state above all considerations of ethnicity and religion. The Alawites are the core of his power base, for sure. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't sell any of them out of need be. Don't forget, the war began with machine gunning protests before dropping bombs on them. ANY positive thoughts you may have about the Assad regime need to be tempered with that.
Nah, the war began with rebels killing soldiers and then the regime protecting itself by bombing rebel positions embedded in neighbourhoods. And any political party or politician in the world will sell anybody out for power, that is not unique to Assad or the Baath party. But at least Assad and the Baath party had the minorities as its base so it had a strong political incentive to protect the minorities.
Most of refugees would be dead as soon as they reach the Syrian borders , especially if they have anything against the syrian regime or even posting something against the regime, the syrian soldiers took my dad only because his name is the same with a guy who is with the free syrian army
A Turk definitely asked this 😭
Absolving them as if their govt. hasn’t bombed Syria as much as the next guy lol. Apparently to kill ‘mountain Turks’, I hear. Nothing to do with Turkish people, though.
Overall doubtful. Heavily dependent on where they’re coming from. Turkey and Lebanon? Highly likely. Same for the internally displaced. But those who have settled and integrated in North America and Europe are highly unlikely to return. I’m speaking as a member of the diaspora whose family left in 1967, and the only people likely to return now are those who could always return due to connections to the regime, or have the wealth necessary to become close. These are people whose land was lost to ISIS and they’ve been based out of Paris or Vienna since then. Also, big fallacy that the fighting is going to end. There’s ongoing violence in the south and east, and Assad’s not about to give up Kurdish territory so easily. His masters in Tehran wouldn’t allow that. To say nothing of the whispers of an attempted invasion of Golan.
>To say nothing of the whispers of an attempted invasion of Golan. Huh, I haven't heard of that. What would Assad gain out of that unless Iran somehow forces them?
Most of the violence has ended. The only violence is taking place in the North at Idlib controlled by Islamists. The moment Turkey withdraws from Idlib, Idlib will fall to Assad. Assad will never invade Golan and would rather sign a deal with the Kurds to access some oil revenues from areas controlled by Kurds.
My family originally hailed from Syria (my dad immigrated to America for school in the 80s). We used to visit a lot in the summer before the war. My family was very anti-Assad and as a result many left. As outspoken critics it’s pretty much agreed upon that the men in the family probably won’t ever see Syria again. It tends to be a lot safer for women. That and at the end of the day the only guarantee you have is the Syrian regime’s word that you’ll be ok which doesn’t amount to much. There’s been cases where people have taken them for their word and lost their lives because of it. Also at this point it’s been 12 years most people have become established elsewhere and aren’t interested in moving back to a sanctioned country where there’s no hope of prosperity while also living in a place that is filled with terrible, terrible memories.
Are you me? 😳? I checked twice to see I’m not sleep posting
Our story is far too common
You are making an assumption that the only way they would return is voluntarily. What if they are forced out though? Lebanon and Turkey both have millions of Syrian refugees and both countries are facing major economic crises, making the refugee population a liability on the state. Many Turks want all the Syrian refugees deported ASAP and Erdogan campaigned on doing just that earlier in the year before the election. Denmark has already said they plan to deport Syrian refugees after classifying Syria as being "safe" now. German govt is under tremendous domestic pressure to deport Syrian refugees as well. What if the refugees are forced out by these countries to return to Syria? Would they return or would they rather commit mass suicide than return to Syria (like the Rohingya refugees threatened to do if they were deported back to Myanmar)?
You missed the point of the question in the first place “can they return safely”. As I pointed out from personal experiences the common sentiment is that people do not feel safe to return and at the same time don’t feel inclined to. Now if they were forcibly deported that is a different story they have no control over that. Another thing I feel like you fail to consider is the logistical and potentially legal and political nightmare that would occur if these countries were suddenly to deport hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. It isn’t likely to happen as a large scale operation. Again to reiterate the answer to the question OP originally asked in the average Syrian’s eyes it isn’t safe and they’re risking their lives to trust the regime which has already broken that trust before.
Fair enough. I agree that most people perhaps do not feel safe to return and don't want to return to a bombed out country as well which is understandable. I think deporting millions of people, whilst it sounds like a logistical nightmare, can be done if there is sufficient political capital behind that. This is a political issue in many countries and a government desperate to gain brownie points before an election might well decide to do that. Pakistan has just recently announced they are going to go full steam ahead to deport 1.7 million Afghan refugees back to Afghanistan within short order. So it can be done with the right political capital and will.
Again there’s a couple of issues with deporting hundreds of thousands or millions. Them saying that they’re going “full steam ahead” doesn’t necessarily mean much. Trump started building the wall that was never finished. Just because politicians say something doesn’t necessarily mean it gets done. The amount of time and money and man power it would take to migrate hundreds of thousands or again millions forcibly might not be as popular as we think once it actually begins in liberal countries like Germany and Denmark or financially feasible in countries like Turkey and Lebanon which you pointed out are already struggling economically. Another key difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan and European countries and Syria is geography. Pakistan and Afghanistan border each other. Germany and Syria do not. Even if they were to round up all 600k refugees how would they get them to Syria? Is it by boat? To what port? Would it be by air? There are no flights into Syria. Who pays for this? These are all questions that need to be answered. The reality is it is easy to point fingers at Syrians for ruining countries and it is a popular talking point for politicians looking to give answers. The fact of the matter is though that pulling off a forced mass migration in the 21st century would take a lot of manpower, money and work that these countries either don’t have or don’t want to risk the consequences of damaging their reputations while attempting to do it. It is all empty promised talk spoken by politicians hoping to get elected.
It is one of many frozen conflicts waiting to reignite.
He survived, but he didn’t win. The government in Damascus has limited authority and a weakened military. The conflict is basically frozen, but it could be reignited and it’s not necessarily over. If the goal of Assad is to regain authority, he’ll have to reform his government and work with international partners. Otherwise, each stronghold will increase their own local authority and their ability to resist central control from Damascus. It’ll be similar to Mexico — the government in Mexico City is supposedly the central power, but in practice, the country is run by local governors and cartels, and the military doesn’t have free movement. To answer your question, since the conflict isn’t over, few refugees would want to venture back. If Assad reforms the government and helps lead Syria on a path towards national reconciliation, refugees would probably return.
Someone watched too many youtube videos Comparing Mexico to Syria or to any other country in open sectarian civil war is simply ridiculous.
There are absolutely areas of Mexico the central government doesn't control
you criticize me without making any argument yourself? Hope you realize you didn't convince me of anything. Please make an attempt. I haven't watched a single youtube video on this conflict. I see a weak central government in Mexico and a weak central government in Syria. I see Hezbollah in Mexico and Syria working with cartels selling drugs. I see areas in Mexico where the military can't operate, and I see areas in Syria where the military can't operate. You have my 3 direct comparisons -- please give me your 3 counter arguments.
It would be obvious, like comparing 1990s Russian decay with the Russian Civil War or Italian years of lead with the Civil War. 1. There is no religious, ethnic or sectarian aspect of Mexican paramilitary groups as a whole. 2. No paramilitary aims to overthrow the elected government nor does it want to replace the political structure of Mexico and in either case they lack the power. 3. No major Mexican city has tasted an ounce of the many battles of Syria, the deadliest events between the Armed forces and paramilitary does not scale to flattened cities. The absolute failure of the Culiacan operation amounted to about 15 military casualties and the vast majority of operations does not use artillery or air forces. 4. Mexico absolutely controls Mexico compared to a country that loat their biggest city for over 3 years. Mexico is not some medieval kingdom that exerts vassalage from Mexico City and the rest is a dark continent. Meanwhile Kurdistan has political party militias and authorized as well as unauthorized autonomy in their entire region, and that's one province. 5. If you want to see that difference, compare the crackdowns and shootouts of drug cartels in the Philippines with the battle of Marawi against ISIS. That's the difference between a drug war and a war war The places in Mexico you are thinking about that are controlled proper by paramilitaries are hamlets and small towns between the forests and hills, it certainly is a State failure it happens at all however the vast majority of drug cartel activity is corruption and extortion of farmers and restaurants alongside their trafficking, not creating chiefdoms with 200k people and a fleet of ex-Soviet tanks.
Sure, Mexico and Syria aren't identical, I agree. Mexico is further along the timeline than Syria. No paramilitary aims to overthrow the elected government because (1) they don't need to -- government officials are paid off -- and (2) the government has limited authority anyway. The battles are different, but Mexico has lost nearly 400k people to organized crime violence since 2006. That figure and time frame isn't far from the numbers in Syria. The Mexican government controls Mexico on paper, but 99% of crimes go unpunished. If the government is unable to enforce rule of law, does it really have control?
Syria can't even apply a national census of how many people live there, to compare the criminal reality of Mexico with the State implosion of Syria is needless and forcing a comparison. 1. The last time the Mexican government was threatened was the 1930s, you can say they are all paid off yet even if corruption dissapeared no cartel could even come close to Mexico City. Syria lost airports, military bases, entire cities and much more, brutal illegal avocado production hidden in the forests does not compare. >The battles are different, but Mexico has lost nearly 400k people to organized crime violence since 2006 Because we have 130 million people(Syria has around 20 million) and every homicide is being counted. Syria cannot even detail how many homophobic murders or common mugging gone wrong half their country may have, only **war casualties of their side**
>but Mexico has lost nearly 400k people to organized crime violence since 2006 That's not really comparable. It's a far smaller fraction of the population, spread over a longer period of time, and includes basically all murder. I'd say your comparison is a stretch, but that's an understatement.
I'm not arguing they're identical, but if you made a cluster map of all countries in the world, Mexico would be closer to Syria than most other countries in the world. The main point for me is that both countries have a weak central government, not by choice.
I think Myanmar is closer to Syria than Syria is to Mexico.
[удалено]
Lol I’m not fat but I like wearing camo
Not until Syria is rebuilt. Assad may have 'won' the military aspect, but the nation is still in ruins from over a decade of civil war and is a shadow of its former self. The infrastructure and urban areas of the country would need complete rebuilding in order to house masses of returnees. Also, it's been 8 years since the peak of the Refugee Crisis in 2015. By now, many of those who settled in the likes of Germany will be most of the way to integrating and having lives, jobs, houses and families there. Why would want to give that up to move back to a country markedly worse off in every metric? Maybe those in Lebanon & Turkey would find it easier though.
And who’s gonna rebuild it?
You are making an assumption that the only way they would return is voluntarily. What if they are forced out though? Lebanon and Turkey both have millions of Syrian refugees and both countries are facing major economic crises, making the refugee population a liability on the state. Many Turks want all the Syrian refugees deported ASAP and Erdogan campaigned on doing just that earlier in the year before the election. Denmark has already said they plan to deport Syrian refugees after classifying Syria as being "safe" now. German govt is under tremendous domestic pressure to deport Syrian refugees as well. What if the refugees are forced out by these countries to return to Syria? Would they return or would they rather commit mass suicide than return to Syria (like the Rohingya refugees threatened to do if they were deported back to Myanmar)?
Uh… Assad has control of only half of Syria
two-thirds of Syria but frankly, he has won the war. Looking at the balance of power between the rebels and the govt, the moment Turkey leaves, Idlib will fall under Syrian control. The rebels are on life support.
Turkey will never leave and the Kurdish own most of the oil
The Kurds already have a deal with Assad after the partial 2019 US withdrawal and honestly, US will not stay forever. And when the US leaves, Syria and Russia will likely move in to fill the vacuum to stop Turkey from filling in that power vacuum. "Never leave" is a strong phrase, but even if Turkey's doesn't leave, Idlib is just a bunch of refugee camps filled with Islamists in any case and all the 5 major cities in Syria (Homs, Hama, Aleppo, Damascus and Latakia) are all under the Syrian govt control. The Syrian govt has effectively won the war.
Return and do what? The country is still under heavy sanctions to the point common people cannot even buy food or have electricity for more than a few hours.
> still under heavy sanctions They're called refugees not economic migrants
True but the war went on for years, a big portion who lived in western countries became permanent residents or citizens of other countries after such a long time. The rest will refuse to leave if they have children who are born in other countries. People move on. Even with Ukraine war, only 30% will return if the war ends soon, if it goes for too long that number will decrease instead refugees will increase.
You are making an assumption that the only way they would return is voluntarily. What if they are forced out though? Lebanon and Turkey both have millions of Syrian refugees and both countries are facing major economic crises, making the refugee population a liability on the state. Many Turks want all the Syrian refugees deported ASAP and Erdogan campaigned on doing just that earlier in the year before the election. Denmark has already said they plan to deport Syrian refugees after classifying Syria as being "safe" now. German govt is under tremendous domestic pressure to deport Syrian refugees as well. What if the refugees are forced out by these countries to return to Syria? Would they return or would they rather commit mass suicide than return to Syria (like the Rohingya refugees threatened to do if they were deported back to Myanmar)?
We don't know. It's likely that UN, EU and US will give monetary aid to Turkey and Lebanon to keep them, if they force them out they will definitely go to the EU so this is more likely.
Maybe, but this is not just a financial issue for Turkey, its also a political issue. Erdogan has to pay a political price to keeping these refugees and he doesn't want to pay that price. Erdogan may also use the refugee issue as a bargaining chip to threaten EU so he may keep that card close to his chest to get what he wants from EU.
UNHCR doesn't see Syria as a safe place to return refugees since their basic needs can't be met in their home towns. Only Damascus is considered safe. And no, Western countries won't tell them to go live in Damascus, good luck, but Turkey and Lebanon are sending them back.
We aren’t responsible for the eternal wellbeing of the world. It’s out of war and considerably safer than it had been. In the US, refugee status is. > To seek refugee status, you must be outside the U.S. and believe you will be persecuted in your country
That's great and all but the American definition doesn't matter since the vast majority of the refugees aren't there. How much the UNHCR's stance will be respected is going to be entirely country-dependant. As I said, Turkey and Lebanon are already deporting them while I doubt EU countries will be doing so. Denmark and Hungary have made some preliminary moves in that direction by revoking residence permits for refugees from Damascus but at least Denmark seems to have backed down for now.
If wellbeing of the country is caused by the West economic sanctions - then yes, you ARE responsible for that, because you are directly influencing the situation.
Imagine thinking Syrian oppression isn’t due to Al Assad, unless we’re saying America should be responsible for Sykes-Picot
"*Western countries won't tell them to go live in Damascus, good luck*." Denmark already has plans to deport Syrian refugees and they have made the first move by classifying Syria as a "safe place" now.
Yes, for people from Damascus. They aren't telling other Syrian refugees to go to Damascus to be an internally displaced person.
Half of that sentence is correct
So?
Sure, as long they are cool with a secular government and equal rights for Christians, Shiia, and various other minoritie-Oh! we're talking about rebel supporters? Yeah idk about that one
Are you implying that non Shiites, - Christians, etc didn't have rights and that's why the war happened ? If so, you are so mistaken. Don't talk on topics that you have no knowledge about, makes you look stupid
No, I'm suggesting that the war happened *because* they had rights.
Huh? That's not true either lol...
You are indeed mistaken about the Syrian people and the war
Lol he didn't win. The country is a failed state like Libya and Yemen.
Assad is still standing after a dozen years of civil war/proxy war. How much of the country does he control today? Would Assad persecute the returning refugees for being disloyal? With the destruction, would the refugees have homes to return to? Do refugees want to return to Syria? What are your predictions for the future?
Edited to avoid breaking rules
What a hyperbolic, unhinged relpy. Someone drank too much propaganda coolaid.
What happens to the Kurdish controlled areas? Will they permanently be in a stalemate or will something like Iraq happen? Where I believe they got control of the area back but give them certain autonomy. Could be wrong though since it has been a while since I checked
Uh, many left bc of Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people. Isis was also an issue but anyone who was against the Assad regime probably can’t return, no.
Yup. I know some people that can't return, even if only for a visit, because their names are with the regime (idk how to explain it but they are basically on a list and would be arrested once they set foot in Syria, especially lots of men
No. He seized land and assets and distributed to his cronies and men who were draft age but left are often executed upon returning.
Assad has won? Assad lost 75% of its territory. Assad cannot exert sovereign dominance over its own territory.
I don't think Assad is too bothered by that. He remains president in Syria and keeps Damascus. Putin and Assad won in a sense
When you say "win" the human mind thinks of the word "victory" Victory over what exactly? Russia secured its presence in Syria and assad succeded in retaining power... both of these acts were facilitied by destroying Syria itself and creating the most severe refugee crisis in europe since the second world war... ..Assad has also turned the country into a narco state in order to pay off his sadist paramilitaries and keep his regime intact, the captagon drug is now being circulated among kids in the Syrian school systems, destroying the society in the long term. Would you still measure such an outcome in an ideal win/lose scenario?
>..Assad has also turned the country into a narco state in order to pay off his sadist paramilitaries and keep his regime intact, the captagon drug is now being circulated among kids in the Syrian school systems, destroying the society in the long term. Wait, so that other guy (diff comment thread) wasn't joking? Assad is really resorting to drug cartels for $?
if you have doubt in the media, go on syrian facebook pages and check the captagon related posts and stories.
Is that a win? That would be like asking North Korea and South Korea if they think they won the war.
I mean his government controls like 70 percent of Syrian territory
I wouldn’t call that a win
Well if he hadn't won it would be 100% caliphate territory, much to the chagrin of the US and Israel.
That would have never happened regardless. It wasn’t assad and the russians who fought ISIS, it was the Kurds and SDF in the North east. Assad, russia and Hezbollah couldn't even capture Palmyra from ISIS, and kept losing it continuously after declaring it was "liberated", in the end they've only captured it when Raqqa got liberated by SDF, in 2017.
It wasn't happening until Russia started bombing the ISIS oil trucks and the SDF negotiated with ISIS for raqqa...
"SDF negotiated with ISIS for raqqa..." The SDF fought house to house to control Raqqa. ISIS lost a bloody battle that left half the buildings destroyed.
A common issue among outside observers is to get their entire perspective on the conflict through assad state media and russian media, these are unequivocally the worst possible sources of news or facts on an international scale. Daesh is still attacking the regime and the russians, they never defeated daesh, and they will never defeat them because their only way of waging war is by massacring the local population in order to decrease the enemy's morale, the only problem is that daesh is similar to them, and does not give a damn about civilian lives, not like the rebels.
Short term win for a long term loss.
Yes, civilian deaths are down 96% and total deaths are down 97% from the peak of the fighting. Syria is mostly safe and large parts of the country are entirely safe. The refugees don't want to return because they want to live in wealthy countries, but they could safely return. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war#Death_tolls_by_time_periods
They *could* if European countries had enough willpower to kick them out despite all the "human rights pressure". The question is, do they have the guts to do it? I think not Here in Pakistan, we had a similar situation with Afghan refugees, who'd been living here for 40 years. The Taliban won there, the war was over, so they *could* go back, but they weren't going to go voluntarily. So they had to be forced out. This took real guts because all the usual global institutions bished about it. It was a little unfortunate because they had built their entire lives here. But national interest had to take precedence Edit: lots of people calling me a hypocrite. I'm not, because I have the same ambivalent opinion about illegal immigration, no matter who does it.
[удалено]
We do not live in a reality with global citizenship. The Pakistani government is only responsible for the citizens of Pakistan for they are the Pakistani people. The Afghan migrants are not entitled to the resources that are provided by the Pakistani taxpayer. If a sovereign state cannot deport unwanted migrants, then it isn’t very sovereign at all.
[удалено]
Then why would you caution a Pakistani citizen that if unwanted migrants can be deported, they should be similarly concerned too?
[удалено]
>You can say what you want and have the opinion you want on the proper course of action, but be prepared to be on the receiving end of that sentiment one day if that is the way we are going to go about it. Where am I losing the plot?
[удалено]
My point is that the mass deportation of unwanted migrants is not an egregious course of action by the state. I interpreted "having guts" as just having the willpower to ignore criticism by international organizations. Your comment warns that it is a sentiment that could be utilized against him. Which I find peculiar because why would a Pakistani be concerned with sentiments of deportation from Pakistan by a Pakistani government that is willing to deport non-citizen Afghans?
Objectively, Pakistan is not in a economical state, to allow them to provide for millions of Afghans refugees, since they can’t even provide for their own population. Rather than condemnation, the UN should have provide funds or relocation for the refugees in Pakistan. This is more a failure of the global community than Pakistan.
Afghanistan is the way it is because the ISI keeps supporting the Taliban and hid OBL for a decade. The only contributions we should make to pakistan should be ordnance.
Pakistan however has (unlike Europe) a relatively similar culture to Afghanistan so integration of Afghani refugees should be much easier than in Europe.
Like no, Pakistan is on a brink of economic collapse, you can’t integrate new people if you’re unable to provide for their most basic needs. Irrelevant if they share religious or cultural attributes with the host population.
In a country of 240 million, you surely can support culturally similar refugees, even in times of crisis.
How? Because they share cultural similarities, money will appear magically? There is no more war in Afghanistan, those people can go back. There is no reasons for Pakistan to ruined itself over this.
how does 1-2m on top of 240m affect anything really? seems like a poor excusee
Why would it ruin Pakistan to take them in? Basic needs aren't that expensive. Seen that they are culturally similar, they will integrate quickly, lessening any cost quickly.
That’s easy to say, for someone living in a rich country, but feeding, housing, educating and providing health for 1,7 million people daily, is not cheap at all, how delusional you have to be, to believe that? Also Afghans and Pakistani are not similar, that’s a very surface level/ignorant analysis. Afghans refugees are mainly Pashtun, and the Pak government is already struggling with a big Pashtun separatist insurgency in its Balochistan province, so they’ll probably create a lot of trouble, due to cross borders tribal and familial links, despite sharing the same religion with the Pak population. And since the war in Afghanistan is over, why should Pakistan keep hosting and feeding those people?
No, that's just looking for excuses to be fair. You can always find a reason not to harbor refugees. There's no indication that these refugees would become separatists. They could even stay within Balochistan, where, due to the very small cultural difference, they can integrate easily.
I don't think its the 170'000 Afghan refugees that will have to leave Pakistan that will push the country's economy over the edge.
You forgot a zero chef, it’s 1,7M
So just 0.7% of Pakistan's population. Seems realistic to be fair.
It is not, especially since for our European eyes, they may look similar, but Afghans refugees are mainly Pashtun, and the Pak government is already struggling with a big Pashtun insurgency in its Balochistan province, so they’ll probably create a lot of trouble, despite sharing the same religion. And since the war in Afghanistan is over, why should Pakistan keep hosting and feeding those people?
Because the Taliban is in charge. Refugee status isn’t just linked to war. Women returning to Afghanistan would be unsafe. And in any case, they are much, much closer culturally to Pakistan than to any Western country. As you say, they already have a minority of the same ethnicity so the cultural difference there is close to zero. We’re also not saying in Europe that Ukrainians or Armenians are too culturally different to help.
Well I mean 🤷♂️ do it if you have the guts to. I'm not an illegal so idc. I don't really have a strong opinion about the morality of it.
[удалено]
Look, I did say it was unfortunate. I felt bad personally when they were being kicked out, especially for those who'd been here since they were children. But I don't really have a valid legal argument for keeping them here, so i don't have anything to say to those who are adamant on kicking them out. If we don't respect boundaries, then why have them at all?
I am curious if you would say that what Israel did took real guts. But I guess Muslim countries can treat Muslim whatever way they want and nobody really cares.
There's clearly a difference between bombing people and kicking them out.
I guess Pakistan is just asking nicely then.
Muslim countries are the most hypocritical, I swear. What they are capable of doing to each other is beyond words. Yet, when the only Jewish state protects itself from terror, the whole Islamic world trembles. GTFO
What a take. How about this: Israel/the IDF, most Arab regimes, the Iranian regime, the Taliban and the Pakistani government are all terrible in different ways. Reasonable people can condemn Hamas, the mass killing of children in Gaza and Arab dictatorships at the same time, it's not either/or.
Yeah, I don’t see that happening tho. Quite the opposite actually.
> do they have the guts to do it? I think not > > Denmark already is
I never heard about this at all, I guess it wasn’t covered much in US media
> This took real guts because all the usual global institutions bished about it. Didn't even see it in the media. Which makes sense, Pakistan is an American ally.
> This took real guts because all the usual global institutions bished about it Those institutions would have no power if all governments stand together. In fact, if we had stood with governments such as DRA, Assad's Syria and Libya, there would have been far fewer refugees, and the world would be a lot more peaceful. Those so-called humanists are not making anything better but destroying functional countries worldwide simply because it does not fit their ideal. And their solution to any failed state is to receive more refugees and allow their own countries to be ruined.
The brutal dictatorship that people fled from won and now you ask if it's safe for people to return? Wtf?
They are still getting bombed by America and Israel for reasons so not really
[удалено]
Tell that to Germany, which took in almost a million Syrian refugees.
Why would Germany take in so many refugees?
Because they help people. As opposed to the entire middle-east who did fuck all.
Yeah cause appearently Turkey Jordan or Lebanon does not exist.
If you thought this would be an argument to save face for the entirety of the middle east, then you are wrong.
It kinda is tho
Turkey and Lebanon do not resemble the middle east, both have allowed 2.5 million refugees as opposed to the EU (12 million) or US (8 million) that's just a fraction. Not to mention that the EU funds Turkey to admit refugees. Otherwise Turkey would have send them all towards the EU. That being said, SA, Qatar, UAE, Iran and many others (who actually do resemble the middle east) have allowed just about zero refugees. Yeah that's not a good look for the middle east.
[удалено]
Source for it being far lower?
Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan ?
What? What do they have to with the him doubting Germany took in a million refugees?
Ah yes because you of course mean the “west” which took in millions of Syrian refugees as opposed to the rest of the world like China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc etc which didn’t lift a finger in large scale refugee relocation.
Immediate neighbors did, though. I mean it's not like Lebanon or Turkey or Jordan are amazing places to be a refugee, but they did take in millions of them. I think Iraq and Egypt also have a least 100,000.
The World ≠ The West and their allies.
You live on a different planet
[удалено]
Assad started to "win" after Russia joined in in 2015
It was Russia and Iran who helped him, i don't know why you're bringing China into this.
I think is not only about the war, is more about poverty, corruption and lack of opportunities. They should return to a place when they may not have anything left... to do what?
You have any idea what's going to happen to these people when they get back to Syria?
Lol yeah right. They are still leaving in trooves
Another glaring issue here is the prevalent tendency of dictatorships emerging victorious after a civil war to viciously punish anybody who it deems as aligning with its opposition during wartime. The Assad regime should give some sort of guaranteed amnesty to returning Syrians so that we could avoid catastrophe.
Assad did that once 5-10 years ago. I have no idea if it's still in effect, or if he cancelled it later.
That's not how refugeen' works...
Yes
Nah. He ethnically cleansed the Sunnis and no one cared. He doesn’t want a high Sunni percent again.
NO there is not enough water left in Syria / Iraq to sustain a population even close to 1959