Syria and foreign relations

The system of international bias is strongest on Syria, the permanence of Assad is irrelevant and certain. The power is isolation and the threat to its allies made chemical weapons inevitable, how did the west react. The government of Britain exacerbated religious tensions and social upheaval, the US attack was also like chemical weapons, a kind of persuasion by political solution. I argue Syria was also not a necessary target for Russia and a part of military analysis. The effect is political stalemate and the division a east and west affair.

The implications are social for Russia, the leadership has got it wrong and the American President is sending a notice that it will persuade Russia to solve its international dilemma. Russia needs its international politics and Britain is no longer a partner. I suggest American politics will make convulsive reading. As in the campaign leadership of Trump is superior. Does this matter? Russia is politically dependent on foreign relations and Europe is not. The question is how do we solve this puzzle.

America is persuaded that foreign threats are best orchestrated and socially popular. The foreign impact needs to be light and the reception debatable. These cannot admit dialogue because this is a Russian problem. They can understand and attack those international pariahs. Syria is not in control and nor is an option of free will available, because togetherness is a negative response. The question is solutions are not a answer. Presidents cannot afford to undermine institutions and foreign relations are politically irregular, the answer is isolation.

The puzzle is independence and ideology is irregular, the wealth and potential of the Presidency is difficult to stop. Syria is in an impossible  position in foreign affairs. Russia is dependent on this kind of politics and must invoke the past. America must use money as. a solution. Britain is therefore isolated and a risk is Russian aggression. I argue Syria is a victim of foreign relations.