Safe Zones in Aleppo City


"For that city, the U.S. is considering drawing up with the Russians a detailed map that would lay out “safe zones.” Civilians and members of moderate opposition groups covered by the truce could find shelter from persistent attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s military, which claims to be targeting terrorists.

One U.S. official said “hard lines” would delineate specific areas and neighborhoods. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

It was not immediately clear whether Russia would accept such a plan or if Moscow could persuade the Assad government to respect the prospective zones. Some U.S. officials are skeptical of the chances for success, but also note that it is worth a try to at least reduce the violence that has wracked Aleppo for the past week, with hundreds killed and thousands wounded."  Washington Post


If I were the R+6 alliance I would agree to this arrangement so long as the safe zones are within government lines and that all who take shelter there are disarmed before entering.  Once within the zones, food, shelter and protection to be provided.

That would clear operating space for what TTG called the "inevitable battle for Aleppo."  pl

This entry was posted in Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Safe Zones in Aleppo City

  1. BraveNewWorld says:

    It’s like the US has forgotten Iraq even exists. But back to the topic at hand.
    As soon as you have a safe zone then the US automatically claims it’s right handed down from god to protect it. That will mean a no fly zone, boots on the ground support from allies, then eventually regime change. I am sorry but we have only seen this played out 1000 times. Lavrov needs to give Kerry the finger and tell him to come back when he wants to get serious.

  2. turcopolier says:

    You don’t understand the game. What I am proposing is merely a ruse by which some people will be allowed to surrender to government forces. If the US does not agree to that, then, no safe areas. Voila! pl

  3. ToivoS says:

    AT this point for Russia to agree to any such “safe zone” would definitely have have to include the caveats pl suggested. Look what happened when they let the “no fly zone” UNSC resolution go through: it became permission for NATO air power to become the tactical air force to destroy the Libyan army. No way that will happen again.
    Isn’t Hillary on record calling for the US to declare a “no fly zone” over Northern Syria?

  4. turcopolier says:

    I am surprised that some of you are so unsophisticated as to think that the US would be allowed to impose a no-fly zone in Syria. Have you not been paying attention to the relative balance of power in Syria especially in regard to air defense systems? The Russians stood by and watched in Libya because they had no particular stake in a country that had repudiated its alliance with them in favor of an abject submission to neocon nonsense and at that point the depth of US hostility was not clear as it is now. As for HC she talks out of both sides of her mouth saying that there should be safe zones, but only if the Russians agree. Come on, folks! pl

  5. ambrit says:

    Sorry if this is somewhat off topic.
    Now what we need is a no artillery zone along the Turkish Syrian border. Then the Kurds could take up the burden of governance for the borderlands involved. “Specialists” from Iraqi Kurdistan could come in in an advisorial capacity. Coordination with Damascus will go far to fleshing out a ‘new’ federalism for Syria. If Iraq does indeed go full partition, a strong Kurdistan with ‘friendly’ relations with Syria and Iran would be an invaluable asset.

  6. Bill Herschel says:

    We have a Presidential candidate who questions the relevance of NATO and wants to engage Russia. That must not be. Hence we have a propaganda tsunami to drill into the heads of the intelligentsia that Russia is a murderous and amoral regime interested in conquest. That is the value of this proposal. Many people I know are convinced. In fact, most people I know.
    “It was not immediately clear whether Russia would accept such a plan or if Moscow could persuade the Assad government to respect the prospective zones. Some U.S. officials are skeptical of the chances for success, but also note that it is worth a try to at least reduce the violence that has wracked Aleppo for the past week, with hundreds killed and thousands wounded.”

  7. turcopolier says:

    Bill Herschel
    I have asked a number of people I have long thought sentient what the actual as opposed to memetic notional issues are between US and Russian interests. None can answer me. pl

  8. Castellio says:

    I like it.
    Your key conditions “so long as the safe zones are within government lines and that all who take shelter there are disarmed before entering” are reasonable and forthright. The safe zones have to be under the authority of someone, and no one else has any right to offer it, and there is no safe zone with armed militant insurgents.
    If the US administration wants unarmed opposition groups functioning within a civil society in Syria then they should agree to your suggestion. If they (still) prefer armed insurgency then they won’t agree.
    Time to get the answer.

  9. b says:

    Lavrov had already answered that Kerry proposal.
    #Lavrov: Splitting Syria into zones of influence is a simplistic idea; the main objective must be to route terrorism @mod_russia @RussiaUN
    #Lavrov: US has not fulfilled its promise made two months ago to move “good opposition forces” away from the terrorist front lines in Syria
    #Lavrov: The US State Dept. may shy away from cooperation with Russia, but there is no place for shyness in the fight against terrorism
    #Lavrov: The UNSC declared Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist group. Those who want to distance themselves from this group should do so physically
    Kerry is now in Geneva but Lavrov will not come.
    Kerry is negotiating(!) with the Saudis and Jordanians about separating their proxies from al-Nusra. He will fail.

  10. A. Pols says:

    I’m unclear as to whether your question relates specifically to the Syria situation or is broader. I’ll take a nibble on it being broader.
    I’d say the actual problem between the U.S. and Russia (and also China and Iran) is their refusal to be assimilated and their choice to pursue their own interests as they see them. We have been in the catbird seat for some time now and have enjoyed not only military hegemony, but, far more important and at the root of the former, economic hegemony with all it implies for control of the world’s financial cardio-vascular system. For Russia and others to slip those bonds represents to us an “existential threat”. If we lose reserve currency status, all kinds of perquisites will be lost forever and we could find ourselves for the first time “sucking hind tit”.
    The current propaganda about aggressive world dominating intentions of Russia or China has less to do with what they are doing now and much more to do with what they MIGHT DO later on. As always these things boil down to money and power and I do think that deep state interests feel that American control of world markets and economic clout stand in peril and they fear the future…

  11. Matthew says:

    All: Does anyone have any insight into the likely effect the Iraqi government crisis will have on US-Assad relations?

  12. turcopolier says:

    A. Pols
    “Deep state interests.” IMO the use of this term implies some sort of conspiratorial group. This does not exist in the US outside the arena of Zionist machinations and I do not think you mean that. pl

  13. Origin says:

    The BBC continues its hysterical coverage of the Alleppo bombings. From their coverage, one would think that the only humans in the rebel controlled areas of Alleppo are innocent school children and women without a single Islamic radical to be seen there. Never does their coverage even suggest that the battle to clear out Alleppo is really a battle to clear Al Nusra, the Al Queda vowed enemy of all things western, from the remaining sectors of the city.
    One must really wonder how BBC can be so pro Al Queda, a movement that would be most interested in totally destroying the western values that make BBC possible.

  14. A Pols says:

    Correct, I do not mean that.
    IMO, certain people (endowed with a bit of paranoia) misinterpret confluence of interests as conspiracy.

  15. Origin says:

    Perhaps another way to define “Deep state interests” rather than some sort of conspiracy would be to consider “Deep state interests” to me a meme of self-centered raw nationalism believed to be true by a significant decision makers, a sort of group-think of tacit beliefs and perceptions that results in instinctive fear and opposition of Russia and China honed by long habit and history of the Cold War and anti-communist fears that expresses itself in continuation of taunting and conflict between U.S and Russia and China.
    The “sentient” who should be able to discern the true common interests are mostly caught within the tacit belief system. To admit that the animosity is merely a meme of habit and hate would undo much of the fundamentals of American Foreign Policy and to expressly state the tacit would be career ending if expressed. The truly “sentient” are realists who are sufficiently sentient to keep their mouths shut.
    In my view, the “actual as opposed to memetic notional issues are between US and Russian interests” cannot be discovered or acted upon within our current state of the polity because the memetic habit of fear and hate is so ingrained and tacit that the real interests cannot be recognized. To put aside the memetic habit and deal with reality of common interests is deemed treasonous.
    Its the Met fans vs. the Yankee fans with a fully religious vengeance. The memetic is ingrained as a foundational premise of the American civil religion we call patriotism and American exceptionalism. Those who ignore the power of the meme nearly always are rejected and ostracized as un-American traitors.

  16. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Two oakies can share a blanket at night; two sovereign cannot share a Realm.
    I think US leaders are thinking of themselves as somehow being Sovereigns of the entire planet and are all the while plotting to destroy any competing existing or vestigial sovereignties.
    This is a very old story, likely thousands of years old.

  17. Babak Makkinejad says:

    “wondered what is going through the minds of western journalists when they write about Russia”
    I know the answer to that question:
    “Resistance is Futile.
    You will be assimilated.”
    And of course, we know from empirical evidence that people did not become assimilated into the Western Civilization; not East of the Diocletian Line, not in Africa, not in India, and not in the Far East.
    I wonder what the source of this semi-religion is?

  18. Matthew says:

    Origin: It’s only difficult to understand if you haven’t internalized the “right positions” championed by the Foreign Office and the US State Department.

  19. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    Which “kurds” are you talking about, and which “kurdistan”? This not the MSM; be more specific.
    Ishmael Zechariah

  20. Babak Makkinejad says:

    He means the Iraqi Kurdistan; you know, that tribal confederation of Barzani & Talibanis whose sole aspiration was to become like Kuwait.
    The League of the Iroquois had more cohesion and features of a state than Iraqi Kurdistan.
    But facts will never persuade these dreamers and fantasist who reside in the West.
    They could be more credible if the suggested the breaking up of their own countries first – say; California could become an independent country with friendly relations with US, Mexico and others.

Comments are closed.