i miss the old isolationist conservatives.

c'mon, guys. this has nothing to do with us. and there's absolutely no reason driven by any sort of discernible national interest why you'd want to make it have something to do with us. shouldn't you be arguing that we should be minding our own business?

i think the best we can do is get some of the chretien old guard in touch with some of the clinton old guard to try and ensure nobody's thinking about over-reacting.

otherwise?

the reality on the ground is that the russians are blowing up turkish bases, and those turkish bases are trying to oust an internationally recognized government with serious russian backing. i don't know how long they thought they could do that without some sort of retaliation, but there's not any good way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. you're looking at dramatic shifts in foreign policy by all of the powers involved, or this will keep happening. i consequently can't think of a reason in the world why we ought to involve ourselves in this, other than to avoid something like an article 5 invocation that would drag us into it.

the best solution is for the turks to pull out, for the international coalition to align with russia to take out isis and to then let the russians transition assad out when the borders are secure and the state is put back together again. and, that's actually the popular consensus in turkey, if you're curious. but, it's not the washington consensus. it's impossible until at least jan 20, 2017 - and probably for at least four more years after that.

assuming washington continues it's existing policy, the only way this ends is if some combination of diplomacy and force pulls the russians out and assad falls to the turkish-backed militants. but, what the russians are really trying to do is move the war out of their homeland (ukraine) and into their periphery, where the threat of conflict is less existential. there's consequently almost nothing nato could do that would force the russians to pull out, outside of a serious attack in russia proper. that is, to end the war in syria, washington must launch a war in russia. while that may actually be consistent with long term american strategic geopolitical objectives, it's tactically impossible in the short term. i mean, if you want the russians out of syria? like, tomorrow? nuke smolensk. you don't like that answer, though. you shouldn't, either. fat chance with any other tactic...

so, if the american position is not up for discussion and the russian position is an existential necessity, the only way to break the deadlock is for one side to win the fight. well, the russians aren't winning this fight any time soon. sure: they could probably beat the rebels, as they exist. but, they can't beat the tactic of raising more rebellion. the americans could probably drive the russians out through sheer use of force, but if they start doing that the gloves are off.

so, then could we get a ceasefire? a demarcation zone? a line of control? a korean peninsula? see, it's not a peninsula. and, the situation is too complex to enforce.

i'm all for alleviating tensions and everything, but one needs to pick their battles. this isn't going to end any time soon, and there's not anything we can do about it. so, considering that we don't truly care about anything besides the humanitarian aspect of the conflict - and should not, as we have no national interest tied into one side or the other - our reaction should reflect that: we should not care about anything besides preventing an article 5. our position should be less neutral, and more non-interventionist.

and, of course, we should do what we can to help the victims of pointless imperialist conflicts.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/24/prime-minister-trudeau-says-canada-will-help-de-escalate-tensions-between-russia-turkey_n_8642134.html