so, to recall.

what were the actual alliances and proxies in the failed colonization of syria?

well, you initially had the saudis backing entities like isis, who were fighting against the fsa, which was backed by the turks & the qataris. that was the initial conflict: between the turks & the saudis.

you didn't know that because you didn't realize that you didn't know what was happening. the media made up some lies about kids throwing rocks, or something; there was nothing of the sort on the ground, but rather a battle between the turks and saudis for control of syria, in the post-assad space.

initially, assad was aligned with iran and hezbollah. while isis & the fsa fought each other, the americans were bombing the syrian regime, while the media projected the lie that they were fighting isis. in truth, they were aiding isis; isis were meant to be the ground troops for the invasion of syria, while america supplied the air power.

so, you had a three-sided conflict, with the following alliances:

1) saudis-isis-america & israel. this was the real alliance, and kept quiet.
2) turks-qataris-americans (but not really the americans, who interpreted this as half back-up plan and half divide and conquer). this was the fake alliance, which was in truth kept in the dark.
3) syria-iran-hezbollah

the kurds were still there, of course.

the american axis was meant to depose the syrian axis, and the turkish axis was just kind of being strung along. however, this failed horribly because the isis fighters were seen as a bunch of medieval hooligans trying to turn the clock back (to the annoyance of the saudis). the americans figured this out, that the syrians did not want a return to fundamentalism after all (see, you have to understand that the saudis thought that syrians did want a return to religious fundamentalism...) and tried to replace them with the kurds, who they figured would be more successful in actually holding syria, with the blessing of the syrian people. but, this led to a conflict between isis and the kurds that was entirely unresolved at the time that the...

.....russians stepped in, and focused on bombing isis. this was the first serious attack on isis. to an extent, the russians were supplying air power to the kurds and the syrians. this lead to the defeat of isis, and a kind of wide understanding that the saudi vision of the region was not going to manifest itself in the form of a popular revolution, after all.

that leaves the following axes:

1) america-israel-kurds + the now irrelevant remains of isis.
2) russia-syria-iran-hezbollah
3) turks-qataris

the qataris have been largely neutralized via saudi pressure, leaving the turks in the wilderness - they are aligned with the americans on paper, but they have in fact been fighting a proxy war against american interests for the better part of the last ten years, and now there are kurdish "terrorists" (if defined in terms of tactics, it's not entirely inaccurate, even if i have ideological sympathies with the rojava enclave, despite it not being somewhere i'd want to live) sitting all the way around the border, from the mediterranean to the black seas.

this has forced the turks to perform a careful dance, where they have to play along with the americans, despite holding to their positions. in a sense, the situation is being flipped: now, the turks are the ones stringing the americans along.

that leaves us with this:

1) america-israel + remnants of isis
2) russia-syria-iran-hezbollah-turkey
3) kurds

is this stable?

no.

the ultimate battle of this war will be a full out conflict between syria and saudi arabia.

and, the syrian generals will intend to win this fight, if they are allowed to wage it.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.