"Syrian Forces Launch All-Out Offensive To Retake ..." Topic

…Rebel Controlled Aleppo.

"Syrian and Russian warplanes launched a fresh blitz on Aleppo on Saturday as government troops pressed a major offensive to take back the city.

In the rebel-held eastern suburbs, residents said scores of civilians had been killed or injured, pushing doctors to work 24-hour shifts and treat patients on bloodied floors when beds ran out.

The attacks — ongoing since Monday — have shredded a cease-fire deal hailed by the United States and Russia as a rare chance to push the war toward peace talks and its eventual conclusion.

In its place are bombs, raining down with a ferocity unseen during five years of war…"
From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

There never was a chance to end this by political deal unless Assad was forced to step down – and I told John Kerry that. Assads view is that he can win a military victory which I find a mad idea, but its his choice. At the moment Assad has the advantage of total control of the air. To remove that the West would either have to impose a no-fly rule over Syria (which really should have been done at the beginning of this war) or allow medium range SAMs to be supplied to the rebels. Saudi is willing to provide the SAMs if they are allowed to.

the only realistic and honest chance of peace is before a military victory vs terrorists then peace talks..obviously the opposite is a nonsense

Yep but peace is not going to happen with Assad in power – as mentioned above. So you must either remove Assad (which gives a chance for peace) or press ahead to military victory.

Lots of people say that regime change is a bad idea but note that Saddam and Gaddafi were both removed quickly and with far less disruption than has happened in Syria. But of course you cannot go back and change the past. Hopefully this time someone has a plan for post-Assad Syria.

but , as you probably are aware of, in those kind of tribal countries..as the ones you mentioned.. and with those restlesse people…just to use a moderate therm..the post strong men future has inevitably resulted, as history tought us, in a never ending inferno..above all for innocent and defendless people…or you can point us a different but hopeful example that i fail to consider?

VVV got one thing right. The window for removing Assad closed long ago when Iran and later Russia backed him up. He is here to stay. Russia has learned from her mistakes in Libya and will veto any no fly zone vote in the UN.

The only way to remove him is to supply the rebel factions that are the strongest, but the US is reluctant to support any groups that are to perceived to be terrorists. Even if we do, the civil war will only drag on indefinitely as long as Assad has his patrons in Iran and Russia.

Assad only wants to control the population centers (like Aleppo) in Syria where his Alawite power base is the strongest. He knows he can't take and hold the entire country even with shia militias from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan plus Russian airpower.

VVV got one thing right. The window for removing Assad closed long ago when Iran and later Russia backed him up. He is here to stay

Nope. He can still be removed from power.

Want to fight it out, then you are right (in a way). Find an effective force and support it with weapons and money.

Assad believes that he can retake the whole of Syria but then he is a fool.

We would have to be willing to supply the Rebels with heavy weapons in huge numbers, which we will not in the face of Russian reinforcements.

Iran has gained away in Iraq now as well, so that ship has sailed.

There won't be peace there, even if he steps down, or is removed. Too many factions in play, with too many agendas and grudges to make good on.

Only Warlock, the Syrian army has provided a lot of rebels weaponry, including tanks

link

They seem only to lack medium range SAMs. Britian has about 25,000 MILAN AT missiles which could use a good home (and save us the storage costs)

Iraq was always a Shia country. In fact Saddam used Sunnis to oversee his regime as that meant the religious minority both benefited from serving him, as well as having little alternative. Just as Assad does with the Alawite minority in Syria. Divide and rule, is an old system.

I also found this, A Syrian tankers opinion of the T72 (its a great tank)

YouTube link

I have said, many times as long as Russia is supporting Assad he is will most likely be victorious in reclaiming Syria. And we must learn that removing him may not be the best option at this time … Remember what doing in both Iraq and Libya with their murderous tyrants removed. They appear to be the lessor of evils compared to Daesh …

Some may disagree … but it seems nothing has or can stop the bloodshed …

I have said, many times as long as Russia is supporting Assad he is will most likely be victorious in reclaiming Syria.

Yep, that I am afraid comes under the category of anyone can say the Moon is made of green cheese. For all the Russian support, it does not make much of a difference.

The real support that matters is Iranian boots on the ground. Those are the people who do the fighting for Assad. To understand the scale of Iranian support for Assad, see here
link

As for daesh being worse than either Saddam or Assad, nonsense. Both of those dictators had organisations to inflict torture and death. Daesh is retail, Assad is wholesale.

Gaddafi. Well thats a tough one. Certainly the arms he supplied to the IRA caused a fair amount of death and destruction. He had a couple of wars to his credit. Prisoners tortured and killed under Gaddafi, who knows, probably a few thousand. Would certainly have outdone daesh.

Yea, regime change has worked out so good in Iraq and Libya; are your kidding me. Iraq and Libya are a mess. Saddam and that fruit cake Gadaffi were contained. Iraq is now a puppet of Iran,and Libya is a hot bed of terrorism. What did we accomplish after spilling our blood and depleting our treasure? The arrogance of thinking we know best how to order foreign countries is just astounding. Stop this nonsense of regime change and nation building.

I love it when people say things like "But… if we remove the tyrant, democracy and human tolerance will flower surely and everyone will get along just fine."

Face it. The people in Syria have little say in its future. The ME is rife with sectarian conflict that used to only boil under the surface because of dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi.

Yep, that I am afraid comes under the category of anyone can say the Moon is made of green cheese. For all the Russian support, it does not make much of a difference.

Bull hockey … everyone knows it's Swiss.

The real support that matters is Iranian boots on the ground. Those are the people who do the fighting for Assad. To understand the scale of Iranian support for Assad, see here

And yet the masses of IRGC has not provided the expected victory that you allude to. The Russians are the 1st Team there. The Syrians, IRGC, and Hezbollah[if they are still there] has not shown any real tactical and technical expertise, etc., IMO … of course …

As for daesh being worse than either Saddam or Assad, nonsense. Both of those dictators had organisations to inflict torture and death. Daesh is retail, Assad is wholesale.

And they are all very bad …

Gaddafi. Well thats a tough one. Certainly the arms he supplied to the IRA caused a fair amount of death and destruction. He had a couple of wars to his credit. Prisoners tortured and killed under Gaddafi, who knows, probably a few thousand. Would certainly have outdone daesh.

And no one will ever know the true numbers of losses on all sides of the local belligerents. But I don't think it's a race ? And 2 of the 3 are dead … so they already have lost.

But… if we remove the tyrant, democracy and human tolerance will flower surely?

Only in Candyland … Many in the region don't understand "democracy", don't want it, and don't want anything that the infidels and crusaders espouse …

But they will surely take all the foreign aid that the infidels will provide and have been providing for decades. And will probably continue to provide regardless …

The people in Syria have little say in its future. The ME is rife with sectarian conflict that used to only boil under the surface because of dictators like Saddam and Gaddafi.

Can I have an Amen !?

I love it when people say things like "But… if we remove the tyrant, democracy and human tolerance will flower surely and everyone will get along just fine."

Absolutely. As the French revolution showed. As did the Russian revolution.

Luckily people here will know their history and would not say such stupid things.

Yea, regime change has worked out so good in Iraq and Libya; are your kidding me. Iraq and Libya are a mess. Saddam and that fruit cake Gadaffi were contained.

Indeed look at it. Iraq, Saddam defeated in 3 weeks. Gaddafi finished in 3 months (and remember that was done to stop him from killing his own people, just as Assad is doing). Assad, 5 years and still counting, half Syria's population refugees and 300,000+ dead. I will let you figure which is better.

And yet the masses of IRGC has not provided the expected victory that you allude to. The Russians are the 1st Team there. The Syrians, IRGC, and Hezbollah[if they are still there] has not shown any real tactical and technical expertise, etc., IMO … of course …

Indeed thats my point, no Assad victory and as we know airpower is not going to do it. Now if Iran was to put 200,000 troops into Syria, then Assad gets victory but thats the only way its going to happen. Forget Russia, thats just air support and pretty lousy air support at that. Missiles that hit the wrong country, don't you just love the Russian military.

And whilst daesh may be full of bad ideas, they just don't have the organisation to be as bad as Saddam and Assad (or indeed Kim Jung-un). Thats just maths.

Missiles that hit the wrong country, don't you just love the Russian military.

Well … no one is perfect …

Kim Jung-un

He is even crazier than his daddy and gamp'a …

Absolutely. As the French revolution showed. As did the Russian revolution.

Europe did not have the sectarianism between sunni and shia in the ME. Of all the countries that went through "Arab Spring," only Algeria can be called a success. Everywhere else it failed miserably and only made things worse. Iraq and Libya are not better today than they were before when dictators were in power. The Iraqi people did not ask for Saddam to be deposed by the US. Gaddafi and Assad only cracked down after "Arab Spring" threatened their hold onto power. Before Arab Spring, people were happy and thriving under secular dictators in stable countries. Now the power vacuums in these countries invite sectarianism, instability and Islamic extremism.

sectarianism between sunni and shia in the ME.

And that is the bottom line underlining reason for most if not all the problems in the region.

Iraq and Libya are not better today than they were before when dictators were in power.

Completely agree …

Exactly. When it comes to the ME one must be realistic and not give in to the naivete we see in some of these posts.

VVV – In your post above (25 Sep 2016 2:24 a.m. PST ) you say:

There never was a chance to end this by political deal unless Assad was forced to step down – and I told John Kerry that.

Are you an advisor to the Mr. Kerry, the USA Secretary of State? Would you care to elaborate on your relationship? Are we in the presence of a great man, an advisor to ministers and heads of state? If so, then your words here carry a very special weight.

let's see it a much simple way…if US and their Western waiters had'nt supported anti assad/ultra islamic terrorist and, just before, their Lybian colleagues..the war would have ended…yes certainly without respecting human rights and at the advantage of dictators…but if we count the civilian victims then and now..which situation is worst?

Begemot wrote:

If so, then your words here carry a very special weight.

Indeed. I reckon he also advised then-Secretary of State Clinton that, if only Gaddafi is removed from power, Libya would embrace democracy with open arms and Ambassador Chris Stevens had absolutely nothing to worry about concerning his personal safety among the grateful, peace-loving people.

Are you an advisor to the Mr. Kerry, the USA Secretary of State?

Ah … based on what is going on in the ME, I wouldn't admit to it …

Aleppo Battle: Syrian Troops Advance on City Center; Hospitals Overwhelmed

"The battle for the Syrian city of Aleppo appeared to be turning Tuesday after government forces reportedly wrested a central neighborhood away from one of the rebel groups that has been fighting the brutal regime.

Syrian state television reported that regime forces had taken over the Farafra neighborhood, a once thriving area near the city's famed citadel that has been reduced to ruins.

But the battle was far from over, and trapped rebels told NBC News they would fight to the end.

"We will stay here until we die or we win," activist Ali Abo Al-Jod said. "I lost my whole family, I have nothing else to lose. I will not leave. I will stay here until I die … this is my city."..,"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Gaddafi, who knows, probably a few thousand. Would certainly have outdone daesh.

Did you miss that period of Daesh's initial advances where they were wiping out whole villages of religious minorities, or executing military age males by the hundreds? Spend some time digging through Best Gore's videos from 2014-2015. Dozens of men shot in mass graves, etc. Daesh makes Gaddafi look like a saint.

I'm on my cell so typing and research is a pain, but here is just one example:

ISIS Massacre so bloody it could be seen from space
link

Hell, the number of Yazidis killed by ISIS is probably higher than the Gaddafi/Assad body counts during their Arab Spring/uprising periods. link

Europe did not have the sectarianism between sunni and shia in the ME.

Certainly did and does. Protestants and Catholics. Even today the British monarch cannot be a Catholic. Isn't history wonderful, so many lessons in the past.

Are you an advisor to the Mr. Kerry, the USA Secretary of State?

No just wrote and told him, when Mr Kerry was putting forward the idea that peace with Assad was possible. As you can see, I was right. President Obama used to send me emails when he was campaigning to be President (as he did I am sure with many others) but stopped doing that when he won.

Hell, the number of Yazidis killed by ISIS is probably higher than the Gaddafi/Assad body counts during their Arab Spring/uprising periods

Unlike daesh, Assad is not in the habit of videoing and putting up on YouTube what he is doing. But the evidence is out there
link

To coincide with the launch of a damning new report, which estimates that 17,723 people have died in custody in Syria since the crisis began in March 2011, Amnesty has collaborated with the Forensic Architecture agency at Goldsmiths, University of London, to reconstruct the site.

And remember the Assads have been torturing and killing people for the past 40 years. They are rather good at it.

And I will give you my military solution for Syria. A no-fly zone, that removes the need to supply the rebels with SAMs. Then supply; AT missiles (already done) and sniper rifles (to take out artillery crew at long range). They also need funds to keep the fighters out there fighting, medical facilities and supplies to feed the people in areas under their control (humanitarian assistance is one of the things that made Islamist groups popular in the areas under their control). And a simple thing, tell the world that Assad is going to be deposed. It may sound silly but the ME has learned that when the USA says a dictator is going to be removed, they are removed.

Ooh, a no-fly zone would be interesting. We might get to see how the latest Russian Sukhois fare in combat against American planes. Don't think it'll happen though.

You seem to have all the answers triple V, but you still haven't convinced us skeptical TMP readers how it will be different this time and why you think Syria will end up any better than other failed states which experienced western military intervention such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Do enlighten us.

Well Syrians get to run Syria. I think that has to be a good thing. As far as how it goes after Assad, that depends how it goes. Assad steps down, then you have the existing Syrian government working with the rebels, cleaning up Syrian (the proposed solution).

Assad dies in a bunker in Damascus, then the rebels start from scratch. Tougher but still do-able.

Iraq, an attempt by the US to impose a government, failed. Afghanistan, attempt by the UN to impose a government, failed. Libya, Libyans decided to decline outside help, failed. I think and hope that a plan for post-Assad Syria is already in place. The important thing is that the Syrians do the overthrowing of their dictator and they are prepared for what needs to be done to rebuild Syria and that literally is rebuilding the towns destroyed by Assad. But you can add to that provision of food and medical services and of course establishment of a fair system of law and order.

Does Russia want to fight USA? it would seem a strange idea. Perhaps Russia would join in a multi-nation no-fly zone. Then bombing of daesh could continue, with everyone agreeing what could and could not be bombed.

Iraq, an attempt by the US to impose a government, failed.

The provisional government was only temporary. Later, Iraq was free to hold its own elections without outside interference.

Libya, Libyans decided to decline outside help, failed.

In what way? And what good did such "outside help" in Iraq and Afghanistan do?

Wish I can share your optimism in Syria's prospects for peace, VVV. Even if Russia is willing to fold and ditch Assad, Iran likely won't. The conflict in Syria is no longer simply a rebellion engendered by Arab Spring but has widened into a sectarian war between sunni and shia Islam backed by regional powers. The original moderate rebels (FSA) are not even effective or major players anymore. The key participants and difference-makers are extremist groups like Hezbollah and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra), both of which are considered to be terrorist organizations. Not to mention that the Alawites comprising 40 percent of Syria's population consider the war an existential struggle and had, for better or worse, tied their fate to Assad's.

I agree with you on one thing though. ISIS is so weakened as a fighting force in Iraq and Syria that they are no longer a factor in the regional calculus. Which means that Russia has little to gain in agreeing to a no-fly zone unless they're writing Assad off.

Iran likely won't.

I would love to know whats holding Iran back. They send another 200,000 infantry to support Assad and he has won. So would they expect a backlash from Sunni states at such an obvious action?

And don't forget Russia has its problems at the moment. It is accused of bombing the UN aid convoy, taking out Syrian hospitals, using cluster and incendiary weapons in urban areas and shooting down MH17. Russia could be looking for a way out of the situation. And don't forget, someone has to pay for all the weaponry going to Assad. Russias arms firms are not state enterprises any more.

In what way? And what good did such "outside help" in Iraq and Afghanistan do?

Precisely, the Libyans looked at the examples of help from the West and decided they were better off managing it themselves. If you want to see how that worked out you can watch Lawrence of Arabia, the scene after the Arabs took over Damascus.

Indeed look at it. Iraq, Saddam defeated in 3 weeks. Gaddafi finished in 3 months (and remember that was done to stop him from killing his own people, just as Assad is doing). Assad, 5 years and still counting, half Syria's population refugees and 300,000+ dead. I will let you figure which is better.

Yes, the US military can defeat a third world dictator in a matter of weeks. That doesn't equate to peace. On the contrary, Iraq and Libya have been in a state of chaos ever since and are worse off then before.

Blaming Assad for 300,000+ dead is like blaming Abraham Lincoln for all deaths in the US Civil War. I think the death toll and refugee numbers would have increased if Assad had been taken out. ISIS would have killed many more; thankfully the Russians stepped in to put ISIS in check.

Precisely, the Libyans looked at the examples of help from the West and decided they were better off managing it themselves.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying Libya failed because they declined outside help, but then such outside help (US or UN) are precisely what made Iraq and Afghanistan failed states? You can't have it both ways, V.

Sorry V, but you sound like one of those think-tankers from academia writing dry policy papers within the confines of your own comfortable home and the context of your own westernized beliefs without acknowledging that things usually don't conform to theory in real life and work out the way we would like them to despite our very best intentions.

I tend to agree …

Also

If you want to see how that worked out you can watch Lawrence of Arabia, the scene after the Arabs took over Damascus.

Absolutely agree … even if that was only add to the film for drama. It was very prophetic … and it appears to be an accurate portrayal of how many locals in the ME interact, etc., … As well as in A'stan I'd believe …

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying Libya failed because they declined outside help, but then such outside help (US or UN) are precisely what made Iraq and Afghanistan failed states? You can't have it both ways, V.

Certainly you can. Listen to what the locals tell you. In Iraq, they said thank you for getting rid of Saddam, now when are you going to leave. No one listened.

THe Libyans were correct to correct to refuse occupying foreign troops (learning the lessons of Iraq). But then they were hopeless at organising their country. Not surprising really, since one of the acts of a dictator is to literally kill anyone who opposes them, that does not leave much room for thinking opposition.

Sorry V, but you sound like one of those think-tankers from academia writing dry policy papers within the confines of your own comfortable home and the context of your own westernized beliefs without acknowledging that things usually don't conform to theory in real life and work out the way we would like them to despite our very best intentions.

Well thats a bit strange, since I have identified the problems and given solutions. You won't find me standing up for democracy and womens rights in the ME. They are not ready for them yet. And Lawrence had it right, you must deal with Arabs in a way that they feel comfortable with, not try to impose our values on them – which is both futile and they find annoying.

I also don't expect a country after a revolution to be full of sweetness and light – as I see some posters do. In fact I would expect some rough justice until things calm down a bit and people can see that there is some sort of justice system in place and they cannot just do as they want.

Make it uncomfortable enough for the Russians in Syria and they will be prepared to do a deal.That could even be the end for Putin, when it is seen that his policies have failed.

Certainly you can. Listen to what the locals tell you. In Iraq, they said thank you for getting rid of Saddam, now when are you going to leave. No one listened.

Wrong. It had nothing to do with the delay in American withdrawal. If anything, the US left too early before Iraq has stabilized. Not only was the new Iraqi government rife with corruption but the military was ill-prepared to stop ISIS in 2014. It still would be today without American air support.

The Libyans were correct to refuse occupying foreign troops (learning the lessons of Iraq). But then they were hopeless at organising their country.

Wrong again. The Libyans should have accepted outside help because they lack the abilities to form a new government. Not only that, they lack the critical political and social institutions for a democracy. You can't welcome an outsider to topple your dictator without letting the outsider help you set up your country and until stability is achieved, which requires a military presence – see Iraq above. Only then should you tell them to leave.

Well thats a bit strange, since I have identified the problems and given solutions.

Well, it's easy to come up with clinical solutions in our ivory towers without understanding the difficulties involved in implementing such "obvious" and "common sense" solutions in the real world. Later, when the outcome isn't what you're looking for and everything goes bottoms-up, just explain it away with simple, obvious reasons for the failures like you're doing.

I should also add that the Iraqis, except for maybe a small minority and the Kurds, never thanked us for ridding Saddam as you claimed. They were doing just fine under his regime. Iran would thank us for getting rid of their major rival, though they would never admit it.

I would suggest that you study the complex problems and the difficulties in the ME more assiduously before coming up with your "solutions."

I should also add that the Iraqis, except for maybe a small minority and the Kurds, never thanked us for ridding Saddam as you claimed.

Well that contrasts with the huge crowds celebrating the fall of Saddam. Hitting his statues with shoes, is a good example.

link

Another point to remember. Iraq is 60% Shia, 15% Sunni and the Kurds and others make up the rest … or did. As of late based on Daesh's genocide. Yazidis and Christians are very, very much of a tiny minority in Iraq. Most are dead or left Iraq …

Well that contrasts with the huge crowds celebrating the fall of Saddam. Hitting his statues with shoes, is a good example.

Don't read too much into it. It's easy for the masses to get caught up in the euphoria of the moment when a conqueror "liberates" them. Saddam was done for and it doesn't hurt to welcome and celebrate the "saviors" believing that there are better days ahead. Many of these selfsame citizens probably cursed the US when things deteriorated later.

Another point to remember. Iraq is 60% Shia, 15% Sunni and the Kurds and others make up the rest … or did. As of late based on Daesh's genocide. Yazidis and Christians are very, very much of a tiny minority in Iraq. Most are dead or left Iraq

Now lets see when those Christians left Iraq

In Iraq, Christians numbered about 1,500,000 in 2003, representing just over 6% of the population of the country down from 12% on 1947 in a population of 4.7 million.[citation needed] They numbered over 1.4 million in 1987 or 8% of the population. After the Iraq War, it was estimated that the number of Christians in Iraq had dropped to as low as 450,000 by 2013 — with estimates as low as 200,000.

So the effect of daesh is minor compared to the previous decades.

In 1987, the last Iraqi census counted 1.4 million Christians. They were tolerated under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, who even made one of them, Tariq Aziz, his deputy. However, persecution by Saddam Hussein continued against the Christians on an ethnic, cultural and racial level, as the vast majority are Mesopotamian Aramaic speaking. The Neo-Aramaic language and writing was repressed, the giving of Syriac Christian names or Akkadian/Assyro-Babylonian names forbidden (Tariq Aziz's given name is Mikhail Yuhanna, for example), and Saddam exploited religious differences between Iraqi Christians' denominations such as the Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East. Over 2,000 Iraqi Christians were ethnically cleansed from their towns and villages under the al Anfal Campaign of 1988.

Dictatorships are so much more effective at oppression than a few amateurs. A point I have made before.

So the effect of daesh is minor compared to the previous decades.

I have yet to find any accurate figures for Christians and Yazidis that were killed by Daesh. I'm sure in is in the thousands. I don't consider that "minor".

To compare previous numbers before Daesh's genocide does not have the impact, I think you were looking for. As those figures you stated does not tell why those numbers fluctuated. It is clear that Daesh has murdered thousands of Christian and Yazidis, and many Christians outside of Iraq as well.

But I remember your POV that Daesh is not the threat that I and others have stated. Comparing Daesh to the IRA … I don't know if that is valid comparison.

But I know this, no matter what the numbers of non-moslem deaths at Daesh's hands is much too high … And we all know that 97% of people killed by islamist terror are moslems … But based on all the media reports, etc., Christians and Yazidis numbers in Iraq and some other locations has been significantly reduced due to islamists like Daesh, etc., …

And of course too many moslems have been killed by other moslems. And this has little to do with anything the West has done at this point. And again, I'm sure some will disagree …

I had never heard of the Sednaya Prison before, so reading up on it was enlightening. While the place is definitely a horrific charnel house, consider this:

( link ) The prisoners, a majority of whom are Islamists…

Note the article's date: 2008. I wonder how some of those Islamists got there? Probably with help from the CIA:

( link ) In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Huh, no one was chanting "Assad Must Go!" when the West needed someone to "get s--- done" for us….

also read through this really riveting biography of a Syrian ISIS commander: ( link )

Key points:
-this guy was a Sunni lowlife who joined Al Qaeda in Iraq, where he first learned how to be an insurgent
-some of his friends and immediate relatives ended up in Sednaya. All were fairly conservative Sunnis of questionable repute
-he leveraged his AQI experience to set up an effective rebel force, but he's largely just a brutal, sadistic, opportunist

Seems to me that Sednaya is Assad's attempt to keep a lid on the problem of Islamofascism in his country. Ya know, the same ideology that we are building up to an existential conflict with? His brutality is more organized than ISIS only due to the advantage of a pre-existing state bureaucracy. And it is still a far cry from gunning down women and children of religious minorities just on general principle (ISIS's modus operandi).

Perhaps Russia would join in a multi-nation no-fly zone.

That doesn't benefit Russia's interests. At all.

Make it uncomfortable enough for the Russians in Syria and they will be prepared to do a deal.That could even be the end for Putin, when it is seen that his policies have failed.

There is no way the Russians will compromise in Syria. A big part of the Syrian conflict is the Saudi-Qatari alliance trying to route natural gas pipelines through Syria into Europe. This would seriously undermine Russian energy exports. Assad stood by his patrons and told the Saudis to get stuffed. So Russia has reciprocated that loyalty. They won't risk having a government in Syrian territory that could have even a low probability of catering to Saudi interests.

I also think you seriously underestimate the level of support and, more importantly, fairly robust CONTROL that Putin has over the Russian state.

Not to mention Syria is the only country in the ME Russia has any influence on and the site of her only naval base in the region. Losing Syria will likely hurt Putin's standing at home with his own populace.