[duxup]

I wonder what the relevance of a government is if they're internationally recognized, but don't actually control their own territory.

Who operates where and does what has always been more fluid than just 'well they're internationally recognized'.

[fuoqi]

The biggest reason why they do not control the territory is the US and Turkey military presence in the region (with some active interventions from time to time), effectively it's a military occupation, but with extra steps.

After Trump declared that US troops will be withdrawn and they will not defend Kurds against Turkish forces, the government has easily reclaimed control over the large area with a very limited fighting.

[duxup]

I would go a little farther back and say the biggest reason was the Civil War... after that things played out.

[fuoqi]

Yes, but let's not be naive. The forces which were opposing the Asad regime were actively supported by Gulf states with political backing from the US and Europe (and quite probably with some intelligence officers coordinating situation on the ground), which led to the hot civil war together with the failing of the Syrian government.

[duxup]

It's not like that same regime didn't make their own deals without folks from the outside...

I don't buy into the idea that the Syrian government can claim some level of legitimacy by default and everyone else is subject to criticism for gathering support from other places....

The local's weren't sitting around happy as a clam and just up and decided to start a civil war because someone told them to, it's not that simple.

[fuoqi]

There is a REALLY big difference between country-wide protests and a hot civil war. Without support from the Gulf state and the West, I think it's quite probable that this civil war wouldn't have started.

>I don't buy into the idea that the Syrian government can claim some level of legitimacy by default and everyone else is subject to criticism for gathering support from other places....

The fact that the government is recognized internationally (see my first comment) DOES automatically give it a legitimacy in the eyes of international community. Unilateral support of rebel forces opposing the recognized government without UN Security Council sanction is generally viewed as an act of aggression and usually condemned, but I guess the US is so "exceptional"[0] the usual rules do not apply to it.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxndIsku2W8

[duxup]

It's an interesting contrast, your concern about outsiders involvement, and the basis for support for a oppressive government ... recognition from the outside.

I believe government legitimacy has more to do with it's own people's feelings about the government's legitimacy and that government's own actions.