Syrian Transition Plan Reached by U.S., Russia in Vienna Talks

[Falcon29]

Syrian Transition Plan Reached by U.S., Russia in Vienna Talks - Bloomberg Business

Seventeen nations, spurred on by Friday’s deadly attacks in Paris, overcame their differences on how to end Syria’s civil war and adopted a timeline that will let opposition groups help draft a constitution and elect a new government by 2017.

As a first step, the United Nations agreed to convene Syria’s government with opposition representatives by Jan. 1, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Saturday at a joint press conference in Vienna. A cease-fire between the government in Damascus and recognized opposition groups should be in place within six months, according to their statement.

The terrorist attacks in Paris galvanized the diplomats, who at previous talks had been unable to resolve the discord within their ranks. While Russia and Iran had sided with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the U.S. and its regional allies had insisted upon his removal. With diplomats bogged down over the question of Assad, terrorist groups like Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, grew and become more powerful inside Syria.


“It is time to deprive the terrorists of any single kilometer in which to hide,” Kerry said. “There can be no doubt that this crisis is not Syria’s alone to bear.”

In a statement on Twitter, Islamic State said the Paris attacks that killed 129 people and injured 352 came in retribution for French involvement in the Syrian civil war. The conflict has so far cost about 250,000 lives, sent millions fleeing the region, and triggered Europe’s worst refugee crisis since World War II.

Terrorist List
Diplomats meeting in the Austrian capital also decided to place Islamic State, along with the al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front terrorist group, on a list of those subject to military strikes even when a cease-fire is in place. The list, managed by the Kingdom of Jordan, may later be expanded to include other groups in Syria, Kerry and Lavrov said.

The Paris attacks “show that it doesn’t matter if you’re for Assad or against him,” said Lavrov, “ISIS is your enemy.”

The 18-month plan to establish a new Syrian government was called “very challenging but possible” by UN special envoy Steffan de Mistura, who sat between Kerry and Lavrov at the news conference.

..........................

.........................

I have mixed feelings about this, six months is too much time. By then rebels could lose all their territory. Then the post cease fire stage talks about continuation of attacks on non-ISIS controlled areas. Then formation of new government with nothing changing, so why 5 years of war and destruction....

 

[Redheart]

At least they are making some progress in the right direction. But as you say six months is a really long time and if Assad with Russia's aid will be fighting the rebels until then I doubt that the survivors will be willing to "talk peace" with Assad. Though they promise peace unless the attacks stop now, the fighting won't end six months from now.

 

[Corzhens]

Even before the Paris attacks, I was already dreaming of this kind of according among nations who are against ISIS. Why don't Russia and the US come to terms so they can mount a unified attack that would surely demolish the ISIS forces. For all we know, the ISIS army may be so small and their augmentation comes from the civilians who are trapped in Syria and Iraq. I guess it's about time that this ISIS thing is to be snuffed.

 

[djordjem87]

It would be nice for people to unite even if the reason is so wrong. Although a potential war against ISIS would be for something 'good'. My personal opinion that no war ever brought anything good so i have to be sceptical about everything happening right now. As for the strength and numbers of followers in the ISIS army, the very thing we are in the dark about this is just a big advantage for ISIS. It will go well for anyone. For a smart person every war is lost.

 

[Falcon29]

It would be nice for people to unite even if the reason is so wrong. Although a potential war against ISIS would be for something 'good'. My personal opinion that no war ever brought anything good so i have to be sceptical about everything happening right now. As for the strength and numbers of followers in the ISIS army, the very thing we are in the dark about this is just a big advantage for ISIS. It will go well for anyone. For a smart person every war is lost.

They are not many, their group is designed around guerrilla warfare so they don't need many numbers. However if they want to sustain their selves for long period they do need more manpower. But think of it like this, let's say the battlefield requires 3,000 combatants in Syria. It always be 3,000, but if any of those 3,000 die they need people to replace them. Hence why manpower is important but I would still estimate not more than 20,000 in Syria. Because most of the land is desert they control that is unihabited, and in the cities they control, they don't need fighters to rule them. They create like a police or religious force of civilians to do this. Hence we shouldn't over estimate their numbers, in their combat footages they work in small groups, they can't function as army and I personally believe they are short on manpower. It's not easy to get people die for a very difficult cause which may see your life go to waste pretty quickly.

Now let me explain something to Westerners, I think people don't understand their or other Islamists cause. It is purely local, ISIS for example prime ojective is changing the local people to become more religious because they believe Muslims have become corrupt and that Islam is in danger of being corrupted. Hence why all their calls are directed at Muslims, they constantly call on Muslims to live by the Quran. The reason they attack West is because West interferes in the local conflict. I believe we in West should leave the people to there to decide their fate. Because we have to admit some of them do agree with ISIS in sense that Muslims are being corrupted and need to be 'cleansed' and the society needs to have change. And then majority don't, but we need to let the locals decide by their own actions. Rather than drag our selves into the local conflict. Trust me I'm Muslim and Arabic speaking, they are largely upset with how Muslims in the Arab world have become. Muslims are not as religious as some may think, they drink do drugs and sex like everyone else in the modern world. ISIS and other groups don't like that lifestlye and their 'struggle' or 'cause' is largely direccted at their own people. And I don't see reason why we need to get involved. But our interests get in the way, I don't think West cares how people live there but they don't want situation to get out of control or have their interests harmed.

@Gabriel92

Gabby I understand you're emotional lately, and you've known me for a while now. I don't dislike Westerners. I want you to understand though that the conflict there is largely local and is directed at locals. You'd be surprised how little of it is directed at the West, the armed Islamist groups are angry at their people because there is severe moral corruption in the Middle East and they want to reverse that. And they believe moral corruption will mean Islam will slowly dissappear from the society if they don't act, and they also obvisouly believe moral corruption means no one will help the people in Syria, Palestine , Iraq, etc....Hence why they are very religious based.