My criticism of Assad isn’t that he’s a “dictator” it’s that he’s politically incompetent. His use of force in multiple areas backfired heavily against him and ended up feeding the rebellion. A more surgical use of force would have done more to deal with the fundamentalist threat.
More importantly is his bafflingly stupid attempt to reproach with the Gulf States, snubbing his Iranian allies. The same states that were heavily responsible for the rebels in the first place.
His refusal to accept necessary reforms that Iran and Russua advised him of also come to mind. Along with with a liberalization of the economy that only led to more opposition against him.
I’m not going to say his situation was easy to deal with, especially with the US holding his oil and grain hostage inthe north. However the SDF and SAA had significantly more in common then in opposition, I find myself skeptical that nothing could be done to take advantage of the Kurt’s precarious relationship with the US, who is historically unreliable.
That’s why I say that these remnants would best be served by installing a true Syrian Basthist into power rather then the incompetent Bashar, so that they may weird the necessary force to stabilize the country after victory.
The UAE is in my opinion only surpassed by Israel and maybe Turkey in terms of which actors in the region are utterly horrific.
They’re essentially an Apartheid state with a chip on their shoulder, who are seeking any way they can to stay relavent compared to Saudi Arabia.
The only reason I believe the US is condemning the RSF is because the US believes they are way more likely to bring about a level of instability which might foster the growth of an anti-imperialist faction in Sudan, compared to the easily controlled SAF. The UAE is desperate for some kind of power projection and is willing to burn down Sudan in order to get it, even though it could lead to an even worse outcome for them.