utdalltheway
Sexy Beast
Great thread title.
yes!
Great thread title.
Also, it's a forum, we're here to chat about stuff. I know! I just felt funny judging Erdogan on his work. As if I know better what to do if I were a head of state! But again, it's a forum, not a scientific journal.
I've never been to Turkey either actually. But having studied the ancient Middle East, and especially Turkey, back when I was a researcher, it's a region that really interests me.
Also, for all of the teeth gnashing from the likes of Egypt, UAE and weirdly France, the Tripoli government in Libya is the internationally recognised one. I feel like I'm missing something here when it comes to this analysis. Haftar is yet another in a long line of wannabe military dictators in the region, he's essentially a warlord. As for the Egyptian military, they're essentially a corrupt construction company at this point and face an existential threat about 1500km south.
Ah, I've been overestimating that, then. Come to think of it, I think the article I read was actually more about Turkish independence from others for their gas, not on them becoming a super provider.No chance. Those deposits will barely have ~0.5% effect on GDP and will be consumed domestically to reduce reliance on Iran and Russia.
Quora - Will gas discovery in the Blas Sea save the Turkish economy?
Yes, this is the real mess - also because a Kurdish state would require territory from Iran, Turkey, and Irak. At least in Irak the Kurds already have their autonomous region, but it's full of oil, so full independence probably isn't on the cards there either.yes no Turkish leader will accept a country for the Kurds but it is time that they are given a country of their own.
Haftar is a warlord and cnut. But people conveniently forget the UN-led political agreement was for a recognised government, the GNA (Government of National Accord) and an elected legislature, the HoR (House of Representatives). The GNA and the HoR fell out, the HoR members fled to Tabruk. Haftar was appointed by the HoR to lead the forces against the GNA. It's a civil war between Government and Parliament, both of which are UN recognised. If it wasn't Haftar, they'd likely appoint the next general with the highest approval in the military structure that is on their side.
You might be missing something.
First off, it's a civil war. By directly intervening militarily to prop one side up and save them, that side de facto becomes a Turkish puppet. That's not just my empty words. He wielded that influence to get the government to sign the Libya-Turkey maritime agreement which is in breach of the UN Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). A law that Turkey isn't signatory to, and therefore not bound by, but Libya is. In fact that was a Turkish requirement for intervention. That agreement causes problems for Libya itself and all its maritime neighbours but it's ok cause it suits Turkey I guess. Definitely not a puppet.
Haftar is a warlord and cnut. But people conveniently forget the UN-led political agreement was for a recognised government, the GNA (Government of National Accord) and an elected legislature, the HoR (House of Representatives). The GNA and the HoR fell out, the HoR members fled to Tabruk. Haftar was appointed by the HoR to lead the forces against the GNA. It's a civil war between Government and Parliament, both of which are UN recognised. If it wasn't Haftar, they'd likely appoint the next general with the highest approval in the military structure that is on their side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_(Libya)#Libyan_Political_Agreement
Hence the agreement by everyone else was to stay out of it, enforce a weapons embargo and let them sort it out between them. NATO (of which Turkey is a member) agreed on an operation named Sea Guardian, to guard the Libyan waters and enforce the embargo on deliveries of heavy weapons by inspecting vessels.
https://mc.nato.int/missions/operation-sea-guardian
France had assigned a Frigate, named Courbet, to the NATO command for that operation. When a Turkish cargo ship (presumably loaded with heavy weapons) made for the Libyan coast, the Courbet went for the routine inspection only for 3 Turkish frigates to turn up and force the Courbet away by fixing weapons on it. Thus prompting France to pull out of the NATO mission, since another NATO member was acting on their own accord and in disregard of Alliance agreements.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53262725
Anyhow, the assertion that a GNA backed by Turkey is better than HoR backed by the military needs more argumentation than "the GNA is UN recognised". That's not a qualifier. And the UN agreement wasn't for a government free off parliament, and one that is a foreign puppet. Both have lost their legitimacy with their actions. Things (as always) are complicated. The situation isn't black and white, it's more nuanced. If it appears black and white, you're probably not looking close enough.
But now his antics have his popularity coming down among most Muslims. Obviously he is extremely unpopular in the Gulf and in Egypt. He is not longer popular in Asia either.
As for Libya yes it is a mess but the House of Representatives is the only elected body so it should have the legality instead of the UN recognised government in Tripoli. The UN recognised on the basis of the agreement by both parties but the stipulations have never been implemented.
As for Hafktar, yes he is a military man who lived in the US for a long time after a fall out with Gazzafi so no one knows his current background of his supporters.
It is surely a mess in the middle east and the fact that every known Prophet was sent to the Middle East shows that this has always been the hot spot in the World.
I wonder how this is going to end? The Russians are going to have a major say in this for sure.
I can tell you exactly Haftar's background. He's a military dictatorial cnut who'll rob his people blind, just like the military men and various tinpot dictatorships of the Arab speaking countries have been doing for decades now.
As I said above, Erdogan's popularity in the ME Arabic countries tends to fall pretty neatly on what your own political beliefs are. It certainly isn't universal either way, though its certainly less than in the late 2000s or early 2010s when he was seen as relatively benign and a strong defender of Palestine and Muslim rights in general.
Agree about the Kurds, I'd give them a state tomorrow if I could. My point though wasn't that what Erdogan is doing to them is right, its that he's doing nothing different than what Turkish leaders of any political persuasion have been doing for decades. Which isn't to excuse him (or the Turks) but to say he isn't acting in a crazy, irrational way but, within the Turkish viewing glass, in the way probably most Turkish leaders would, even if their methods may be slightly different.
And again, never said that one side is better than the other. But even the way you've framed that falls into what I was talking about and the framing of this particular debate. The GNA backed by Turkey...and the HoR backed by the army. Except of course, they're not just backed by the army. They're back by Egypt, UAE, Russia and seemingly France, though they all have different levels of what they're willing to admit they do.
My intention was not to make the situation black and white at all but instead to do the total opposite. It isn't quite as easy as Turkey bad, France, UAE and Egypt (if you're in bed with the latter 2 when it comes to ME politics, you might start to think there's something not 100% pure about your actions), good.
I do think, as you indicate, that this polarization about Erdogan is largely of his own making. He could be much more nuanced (for example by not pushing the islamization of Turkey they way he does), and have wider appeal. I think that's one of his blind spots that @2cents talked about - although obviously, for Erdogan this is a core issue of his work.As I said above, Erdogan's popularity in the ME Arabic countries tends to fall pretty neatly on what your own political beliefs are. It certainly isn't universal either way, though its certainly less than in the late 2000s or early 2010s when he was seen as relatively benign and a strong defender of Palestine and Muslim rights in general.
Agree on this as well. The situation has never been much different for the Kurds in the past decades. Actually, it could be considered that they were on the up a little earlier during Erdogan's leadership over Turkey, when their national political party was polling well. But that's now largely been crushed back to where things were before, as part of the repercussions following the coup. (If I'm not conflating things too much here.)Agree about the Kurds, I'd give them a state tomorrow if I could. My point though wasn't that what Erdogan is doing to them is right, its that he's doing nothing different than what Turkish leaders of any political persuasion have been doing for decades. Which isn't to excuse him (or the Turks) but to say he isn't acting in a crazy, irrational way but, within the Turkish viewing glass, in the way probably most Turkish leaders would, even if their methods may be slightly different.
This isn’t particularly relevant to the discussion, but Kurds comprise the largest ethnic minority in Armenia today. I’d be interested to understand where they tend to stand in the midst of all this.
It’s hard to say, as Russia has close relationships (and some issues) with both. Opposing Turkey in another proxy-war wouldn’t be something too surprising, but I still think that Putin will try to be seen as a peacemaker instead of supporting either side openly. Funnily enough, Russia supplies weapons for both countries.Are the Turks and the Russians involved in this? The Turks for sure from the Azerbaijan side. Not sure yet about the Russian involvement from the Armenian side.
Yeah, they're great (and sad). I have always been fascinated by the geology of areas, as they shape their history in important ways (and inform my previous work on the ancient history of the area). That wasn't really your point I suppose, but it comes out very well as well.
2cents, Thanks for the pictures. Are the pictures of the destroyed mosques in Armenia? Is there such a religious divide there? The Iranians seems to be on the side of Armenia so it doesn't look as this would become a religious war though the Turks are trying to make it so.
yes!
I guess it is why maybe Turkey is playing the religious card as there seems to be no Muslims in Armenia while Azerbaijan is Muslim. So sad about these conflicts.
If they are it's mostly for the foreign audience. Azeris are Turkmen and a brotherly state to Turkey. The Turkish domestic audience doesn't need any convincing to unequivocally side with Azerbaijan.
There are reports - I don’t know how credible - that things aren’t going too well for the Armenians, and there is a real prospect of significant territorial conquest for Azerbaijan if things continue.
In Karabakh or in Armenia itself? Sorry, haven't seen any of this.There are reports - I don’t know how credible - that things aren’t going too well for the Armenians, and there is a real prospect of significant territorial conquest for Azerbaijan if things continue.
In Karabakh or in Armenia itself? Sorry, haven't seen any of this.
Yeah, it's what I assumed. Invading Armenia itself would take the situation to a whole new level, I'd think.Karabakh and/or surrounding occupied territory I’d assume.
Yeah, it's what I assumed. Invading Armenia itself would take the situation to a whole new level, I'd think.
Yep, totally agree. So I guess my question was unnecessary, but figured I'd ask anyway.Doubt we’d see that even if the occupying Armenian forces completely collapse. There’s no Azeri claim or population in Armenia to justify it, no reason why Baku would push it.
@Sir Matt - shouldn’t it be “Ruckus in the Caucasus” .... raucous is loud or something?
Yep, totally agree. So I guess my question was unnecessary, but figured I'd ask anyway.
From what I understand, he's mostly trying to stop the fighting. He has interests in both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and would not want to get into a conflict with Turkey, which is actively supporting Azerbaijan. So for Putin, everything to go back to the status quo would probably be ideal. (Or a peaceful long-term resolution - but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.)I wonder what Putin's role is in this whole mess?
From what I understand, he's mostly trying to stop the fighting. He has interests in both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and would not want to get into a conflict with Turkey, which is actively supporting Azerbaijan. So for Putin, everything to go back to the status quo would probably be ideal. (Or a peaceful long-term resolution - but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.)