[Skybird]

The article you linked to, focusses, amongst others, on why Russia went into the Syrian match so determined, and lists the factors in the years before. That is what I mean by my earlier epxlanations: to see the current situation emerging form the olpast events (your hinting) and trying to influence the present and the imminent future for getting better chances to get an outcome in the distant future by taking influence with all determination on the curren situation - my hinting. Back then the West was clueless over what to do in the face of such a drastic Russian detmeirnaiton by which Putin made it clear that Russia engaged itself in sYria and meant to stay, many in the West had not expected that and thought it was almost irrational. In those early years I said that the West would be best advsied to stay out of Syria compoletely, and leave it to the Russians, sincer they had more solid and - at least in my opinion -obvious interests there. The article describes these quite well. I was against the Wetsen engagement, becasue as I saw it it would just help the rebels to extend the duraiton of the war tzhat envertheless they could not win once the Russia started to do what was needed to do in order to guarantee Assad surviving - and even victoriously so. But for the West, prjecting this outcome was thing never wans meant to be because it never should be, and so the Russian interests got ignored and almost ridiculed.



And now we are where we are. Well. I stick to it: game, set and match Putin. The Kurds, and politically also the EU, are the big loosers in all this. The EU's diplomatic "strategy" over this issue, is in ruins, and all mockery is at the EU's cost. And deservedly so. To say their way to play it was amateurish, would be an understatement. But look closer at their political top staff, and you hardly can be surprised.