Talk:Syria peace talks

Plot to arm rebels?
Why is John Kerry shaking hands with Putin and suddenly calling for peace talks?

I believe the peace talks push is yet another plot to "level the playing field" and help the rebels.

All other plans have failed to produce a no-fly-zone or bring arms to the rebels. The Houla Massacre hoax failed, the Aqrab Massacre hoax failed, the chemical weapons hoax failed. Something new must be tried this time.


 * 1) Talks cost nothing. Even if the rebels show up they have not given up anything. At best the talks may force the Syrian army to ease off on the anti-terror operations.
 * 2) The rebels will refuse to show up, unless they are given weapons by the West. In fact, this plan of action has been agreed on beforehand between the rebels and their Western masters. The plan is to use the prospect of the peace talks to push through the political decision to arm the rebels against an ever more critical European public.

This is the line that will be force-fed to the Western public. The rebels are now peace-loving, so we need to support them. The arms will not kill anyone, they are only needed to give the rebels "a better bargaining position."

Reading today's headlines shows that this narrative is already taking shape. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Mistura, "Freeze" Peace Plan

 * ''moved from Talk:Sectarianism in the Syrian Conflict

Lavrov and UN envoy Saffan de Mistura will meet in Moscow
 * Action Group for Syria Final Communiqué 30.06.2012 --Resup (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

White House web page on Syria, as it stands, now one year old... --Resup (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Damascus, Syria, 11 November 2014 by Staffan de Mistura, the UN Special Envoy for Syria "...UN came up with a proposal of a UN initiative which is a freeze, which in Arabic is “Tajmeed”. This is a new way to see and achieve what we hope to bring a de-escalation of violence. It is different from previous ceasefires. It is a new way for approaching the de-escalation of violence, in particular in one place to start with-Aleppo. That means stop fighting, stop fighting, no one moves from where they are, that means facilitating the implementation in that location of (Security Council) resolutions 2178, 2170 and the resolutions for humanitarian aid. Through that, a hope, to bring a sign of hope and bring some form of stability and therefore a process towards stability. This means, if that freeze works in one place, we can replicate it elsewhere. If that "freeze" works, and we hope it will, then this could be a building block for a political process and certainly this is not a substitute to what is a political solution but it certainly is an incentive in that direction. Meanwhile, we continue regionally, nationally and internationally to push for a political solution." (by Staffan de Mistura, UN envoy, Syria) --Resup (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * All good material, but what does any of that have to do with "sectarianism?" (that is, fighting between / abuse of / threats against different religious groups / different sects of Islam?) --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure where it belongs. This is not exactly "peace," sectarianism may be closest fit of an existing page with actual situation, but please feel free to move it wherever it belongs (if anywhere at all). --Resup (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No big rush. But on this "freeze" idea, sounded unrealistic to me. Now Edward Dark tweets "nothing "freezing" in Aleppo except maybe for the coming winter. sounds of explosions and gunfire all over the place tonight #Syria"