Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yeah well, that's why this mission was so fraught right from the beginning and that's also why Putin would see this as the perfect opportunity to exploit holes in the NATO.
Absolutely sickening development. Turkey and Trump have a lot to answer for this murderous conflict.
Genius move by Trump. Piss off the Kurds, then turn right around and piss off the Turks. Lose-lose.
This is baffling even by usual US/Trump standards.
It's like a farmer opening up the barn door and letting all the cows run loose then yelling at them to get back inside
He’s lying as usual. If he intended doing anything he would have done it by now.
Finally we got the proof of Donald's collusion with Russians.
Well if Hamas say so 
Trump's answer to Turkey's incursion into Syria. "Not our problem".
That conference was a disaster for everyone but himself. He can't be embarrassed by what what he doesn't know should embarrass him.
The art of diplomacy right here. "don't be a tough guy"
The look on the translators face says it all.
Yes, but the people who have been arguing that we shouldn't be keeping animals in barns have just watched them all leave and be rounded up into Russian barns.
The NATO treaty is strictly defensive in nature. That means, if Turkey were attacked by Syria, for invading Syria, the treaty does not cover this, since, Turkey technically has attacked someone else, and a defensive treaty does not kick in, when a country defends itself.
Things MIGHT get fuzzy say, if Russia became involved in defending Syria, but, technically the defensive treaty should NOT activate then either. Defensive military treaties became popular, after WW1, because unlimited military alliances are what led to what should have been a localized war, turning into a full blown European conflict. Defensive treaties like NATO, in principle, are supposed to only be activated when your country is attacked without provocation.
Basically, if Countries A, B and C have a defensive treaty, and country A attacks country D, and country E comes to the aid of country D, countries B and C are not obligated by the treaty to aid country A. However, that's not necessarily how it would go down, since other geopolitical concerns could come into play, and countries B and C may find some other justification if they really don't like country E.
They are not our problem. We have our own problems. The kurds have only thier selves to blame. Syrian kurds problem belongs to Syria.
The thread has analysis of the current situation and the position of all of the actors.
I get the US will 'allow' Turkey to create it's buffer zone, but does that mean the Kurds, Assad, and Russia have no more say in the matter?
I’m interested...
What's interesting about that? It's the truth, they've gone too far, I'd be okay with it if they actually taken the part of Syria that is actually predominantly kurds.
I’m interested in what parts of Syria you’re referencing as there are oil fields in the parts of Syria that Kurds have been in since before the Crusades.
The northern eastern ones yes, but the one in the Der Ezzour area no, and those are of higher quality and quantity.
True, but see, that’s why I asked.
Didn’t the Kurdish SDF fight for control of Dier Ez-Zor with ISIS?
Yes, but they never left and staying in a foreign country, since they claim independence, after achieving your mission is invading, the land belongs to it's rightful owners.
What does that have to do with their ambitions to take what is not theirs? Saddam was a criminal and his actions does not justify the actions of their leaders to cause unrest and instability in Iraq/Syria. Not even that, but trying to take more land from the central government.
They’ve never claimed independence from Syria.
Why didn't they let the army back in then?
Because they’ve had no reason to do so until it becomes clear which way the spoils of the war are landing (especially while they had US backing), and the more land they control the more leverage they’d ultimately have when it comes to securing what they really want - a federal system with autonomy and recognized cultural rights for Kurds and other minorities. They don’t trust the government (why would they?). I actually agree they’ve gone too far in some areas in terms of imposing their vision on a population whose loyalties lie elsewhere, but at the same time I look at the alternative options they had and can understand.
And it’s no mystery why they’ve received sympathy from Western audiences in the specific context of the Syrian war. Assad is regarded as a monster, and the mainstream opposition rebel groups have been dominated by jihadis, attempts to arm and train them have been disastrous and they’ve descended into thuggery as the war has progressed. So who does that leave for the vaguely interested Westerner? The SDF built up a somewhat functioning statelet (though its image has been helped by propaganda), they’re explicitly not Islamist, they’ve primarily fought against ISIS, and they generally don’t parade around talking about conquering Rome and stuff like that. Add to that the general sympathy which the Kurds as a people have (primarily due to their predicament in Iraq and Turkey), and it’s easy to understand the romanticism that surrounds them.
Im not going to defend Assad, but what do expect of a country leader seeing his land torn apart being granded to religious extremists backed by the western countries?
He will fight back to protect his land. He is a war criminal, Yes. But what does this syrian war make western leaders? More criminal than Assad himself. They ruined a perfectly stable country, beautiful and self dependent in a try to replace a stable dictator with religious fanatics. There are always two part of the story and I am sure westerners know very little about ME politics.
About the Kurds, they have the right to live in the country just as every other ethnicity in equality. If they want federal government. Ok but, we all know federal government will lead to their next step, independence calls. Which can be discussed of course but tgey will always want to take part of the land that is not theirs just like in the case of the iraqi kurds and what happened in the past few years.
Well without getting into the debate over the level of Assad’s responsibility for what has happened, I’d say that even in your generous evaluation he still comes off looking worse than the SDF to the average Westerner.
As for Kurdish ambitions, it’s true they have over-stepped their boundaries in certain areas, but at the same time they are surrounded by hostile states and still without a state of their own. So what you and @syrian_scholes may see as land-grabs in Kirkuk or Deir Ezzor, they probably feel is, at a minimum, a guarantee of being taken seriously at any future negotiation table. In any case however, whatever irredentist ambitions they have had have been ruthlessly defeated time and again.
I’d also add that while you guys see the Syrian and Iraqi states as sacrosanct (correct me if I’m wrong, just the impression I’ve picked up here), they lack legitimacy in many Western eyes. Ironically this is primarily because we’ve had almost a century of Arab nationalists telling us that the borders were imposed by Western imperialists and that they’re therefore illegitimate and need to be corrected. So when the Kurds argue along the same lines they tend to have a ready audience in the West (although those same Arab nationalists generally tell them to get fecked).
Turkey has unsurprisingly violated the ceasefire and started shelling again.