loss of aleppo reminds me of when iraq lost mosul a decade ago bus worse. Assad's problem is that his biggest allies are all pre-occupied elsewhere. if he can stabilize the situation now he may be looking at ceding central syria and keeping the west side from damascus to Latakia. worst case scenario he will lose damascus as well, but I think the allawite haven in latakia is still good.
Syrian Civil War
- Thread starter RedMetalSeadramon
- Start date
- Status
Why can't China choose to intervene in Syria? What are the drawbacks of getting involved in a potential backing of Bashar Al-Assad, considering that there have been Chinese investments and relationships being built in that already war-torn country? If Assad gets potentially toppled, then it'll likely become a safe haven for Uyghur separatists and a base camp for other extremists that could jeopardize China's economic goals and ambitions in the greater Middle East.
Is China just going to let its neighbors dictate the events around its area of interest as each of its pseudo-allies and partners fall by the wayside?
If the People's Liberation Army (PLA) was ever interested in honing and flexing its military muscle to hone and flex its military muscle, and to address its relative lack of combat experience, the possible intervention in Syria against terrorist elements with great power support would do just that. Plus, it would show the world that China can and will act in the interests that align with the will and call from global south countries. Not to mention that such action can have the added benefit of warning other powers that still underestimate China's military capabilities within its periphery (India, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan) to this day, akin to "kill the chicken to warn the monkey."
In my view, China should and must become that voice and not just keep spewing "peaceful rise" while its interests and the world are being turned asunder.
Last edited:
Yet you and I both know that China won't intervene; at least not in any kind of boots on the ground situation. China's not going to break its non-interventionist virginity over anything less than Taiwan armed reunification.
Doubt this has anything to do with it.
A much more simple explanation exists; China isn't stupid.
Helping Assad in Syria has to be weighted. What if Assad is unsalvageable? What if he is ungrateful despite assistance? What if it drags into a regional war that persist for another 10 years?
In comparison, Taiwan is sure. Reunify and be rewarded with the island and all the geopolitical rewards of reunification.
This is why Chinese appetite for any intervention is low before reunification.
China also officially doesn't help Russia, sometimes it's not always black and white.
It doesn't matter if airspace is surrounded by NATO nations, China can intervene just like Russia. The question will be about objectives and extent of support that can be given. The most risk free intervention could be through deploying a small number of air assets just like Russia, but again why do it?
So? I mean, NATO is already or have already tagged China and Asia as its added area of operation let China showcase that NATO's out of area ambition to CHINA's regional domain has no chance in hell. China's demonstrative use of effective military power against those terrorists scum will amply exercise that CHINA's military power is real and has actual f..ng teeth.
Such exercise of military power would boost CHINA's geopolitical prestige and standing not to mention enhance its economic developmental leverage against any and all countries (hedging their bets between the U.S.) that are still somewhat ambivalent of CHINA's capabilities of providing an alternative security guarantor/provider.
Like it or not, the world do need an equilibrium; a yin to U.S. yang.
China can't wish away the unfortunate and sad necessity of using force as part of its foreign policy toolkit. The world is still a jungle and all the rhetoric of liberal mumbo Jumbo's are just that, rhetoric.
- Status