If I'm not mistaken, the whole civil war thing in Syria began because there was a popular uprising against Assad.
Here is the timeline, according to NBC:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ar ... ct-n865961Dec. 18, 2010: Revolution in Tunisia sparks an "Arab Spring" of popular revolt against governments across the Middle East and North Africa. Syria's protests begin in March of the next year, when demonstrators, angry over the arrest of schoolchildren who had painted anti-government graffiti, take to the streets. They are ultimately quelled by the army of President Bashar al-Assad.
Assad took-over from his father, who ruled Syria from 1971-2000. The father-son duo has ruled Syria for a long, long, time. I don't know that Syria was anywhere near as terrible as a place like North Korea before the Arab Spring, but it's clear the Assad's have used many methods to maintain control. When the Arab Spring protests began to look like a real threat to his power, Assad reacted as dictators tend to do.
It has, and still is, a confusing situation. There are many groups, certainly some of them quite extreme (like ISIS) involved. Russia has used that to paint their actions of propping-up Assad as a fight against radical terrorism, rather than a play to develop influence (and put Assad in their pocket).
Had Assad been forcefully removed, it's unknowable what would have happened. It was leaning that way before Russia really stepped-in. It certainly could have ended-up a lot like Libya. The better outcome would have been for Assad to negotiate a transition, but he would have likely ended-up exiled, or worse, so I don't think that was ever a real option. It could have all still gone to shit after, but would have stood a better chance.
There isn't a lot the West can do. Economic sanctions against Russia need to continue. Diplomatic intervention also needs to continue, but unfortunately, the US State Department is a mess. Military options are limited since Russia forms a backstop.
Russia obviously has no problem with Assad using any means at his disposal to stay in power. This is all after Russia managed to keep the US from escalating intervention by pinky-swearing they'd like totally make sure Assad didn't have chemical and biological weapons. After Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the US had little appetite to expand intervention, and so the deal was struck.
While Russia wants to support Assad, they don't have money and military to wipe-out Assad's opponents, so they support Assad in doing whatever it takes. They also don't have a pesky press gallery criticizing their support of someone with Assad's methods. Indeed, their take on the chemical attacks is either they didn't happen, or someone else did it. Russia isn't shy about outright denial of what is plainly true (like a Russian who spied for the West being attacked with chemical weapons in the UK). As the saying goes, don't believe anything until the Kremlin denies it.
Here is an article about the investigations into chemical attacks in Syria:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ttack-siteIt's an interesting read.
While I don't believe everything that comes out of the US government (especially from the mouth of the guy in charge), my default position on the Russian government is if they are talking about something, they are probably lying. Whether it's a chemical attack in Syria or the UK (twice; good-old
Polonium-210), or passenger jets
falling from the sky above Ukraine, Putin's Russia has a habit of being less than truthful.
A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.