Syria in 2017 (April-December)

[Azor]

Ankara was - for years - negotiating with the PKK

And vice versa. It takes two to tango, no?

…while at the same time calling for the USA and others of its Western allies to help it solve the situation in Syria. For years. In 2011, in 2012, in 2013, in 2014 etc.

And? If the narcotics-related conflict in Mexico destroyed the Mexican state and the violence sent millions fleeing into the United States, would Turkey lend a helping hand?

The United States is also being called upon to resolve the Russo-Ukrainian War, the ongoing wars in the D.R. Congo and Burundi, the transnational wars involving Boko Haram, the civil war in Myanmar, the unresolved Korean conflict, etc.

The West refused, and - and against any logic - continued to ignore the situation in Syria even when millions of Syrians poured over the border into Turkey, an then continued pushing further west and north, putting the Turkish economy under immense strain.

They poured into Lebanon and Jordan as well. Turkey has been the single largest provider of aid (at 47% of total), but Turkey’s allies have pitched in, with the United States being the second-largest donor at 27%.

And when this was not enough, the West ignored the Russians exporting at least 25.000 of their Wahhabists to Syria, where these joined the Daesh and Nusra - both of which came into being foremost thanks to the Assad regime.

You inflated the number of Russian citizens fighting for rebel groups in Syria by an order of magnitude, and did they all cross through Iran and Iraq, or take the direct route through Turkey? Yes, Assad sparked the war and yes, neither Daesh nor Nusra would have been possible without the lawless vacuum that the war created. However, Ankara allowed its southern border to be a sieve for foreign volunteers to join the FSA, Daesh and Nusra, because these were clashing with the YPG.

And when that was not enough, the West - but the USA in particular - started acting as if Assad regime is entirely irrelevant, as if there is no popular uprising nor 'civil war' in Syria, as if there is no Iranian military intervention in Syria, and as if Turkey should neither have its own national interests inside Turkey, nor for its neighbourhood.

No, the West simply had no appetite for regime change and a major ground war. Prior to the 2013 arrangement with Russia, Assad’s deterrent complicated the situation as it was suggested that some 75,000 ground troops would be required to secure his chemical weapons.

As for Iran’s intervention, Washington couldn’t make war on Iran in Syria on the one hand, and arrive at a deal on Iran’s nuclear weapons program on the other. Obama clearly traded involvement in Ukraine and Syria for the JCPOA.

And when that was not enough, the US military - violating US laws - entered cooperation with the PKK, while using bases inside Turkey.

No, the cooperation began with the PYD. Despite the PKK-PYD ties, the YPG is not fighting in Turkey, and I have seen no evidence of a major flow of Turkish Kurdish volunteers to the YPG or conversely, flows of Syrian Kurdish volunteers to the PKK.

And when that was not enough, the Turks were told to shut up and tolerate the PKK, to shut up and tolerate 4 millions of Syrian refugees inside Turkey - and then also accused of cooperation with Nusra and Daesh, and this despite perfect clarity that Erdogan and his AKP are on the list of enemies of these two (visible also through the fact that the elements of Turkish society that do cooperate with the HTS, for example, stand in opposition to the AKP).

When were the Turks told to tolerate the PKK? I saw Turkish armor roll into southeastern cities weapons free and kill at least as many Kurdish civilians as PKK fighters, with little to no pressure from the West. If the Sultan and his Muslim Brotherhood are so high on the list of Daesh’s and Nusra’s target lists, then why did the Sultan place them below the YPG on his own list? Ankara was accused of collaboration with Daesh by Russia, a claim that was cried shrilly after the Su-24 was barbequed.

Of course, the West could have responded by highlighting Assad’s reliance upon commodities from Daesh-controlled parts of Syria, as the “Syrian Express” cannot keep the lights on in Damascus on its own, but then the Western publics would bay for intervention and how could the West then avoid regime change and conflict with Iran?

Supporting the YPG is dangerous for Moscow and Teheran as well, as Moscow wants to prize Turkey from NATO and has its own ethnic problems, and Iran has a chunk of “Kurdistan” as well. Few seem to be thinking this thing through.

No, it is not. The blame for genocide of Armenians is on Turkey and Turks, no doubt about this. And, sooner or later, they'll accept their responsibility.

Yeah right. I cannot claim to know many Turks, but I have yet to meet one that believes that there was a genocide.

It's just a piss-poor excuse, misused for demonizing Turkey and completely ignoring Turkish interests. An act that's ruining relations between the West and that country for decades in advance. Now tell me, please: in whose interest is that?

Should I care? As far as I am concerned, both Russia and Turkey should be walled off.

sigh... Do I really have to waste even more time with discussing that topic further in-depth, too...? Get yourself at least 'Arabs and Israelis for Dummies', and read: everything is nicely based on documentation.

Well, when you can prove a Jewish genocide of Arabs, perhaps I’ll entertain this more. I went through my pro-Palestinian phase years ago.

'Aborigines' - in the USA...? Well, thanks for a reminder, but I didn't even try to add them to the equation.

I used aboriginal in lieu of “Indian” or “American Indian”, which are inaccurate terms. Would you prefer “native” or “indigenous”? “Aborigine” is something else entirely. Again, no genocide happened. Everyone wants to have their own Holocaust it seems whilst denying the real one that took place.

And you were wrong with thinking that way. My soft spot is humanity and freedom, and opposition to any kind of oppression. It just so happens that some of Sunni Arabs are between plenty of other people who are oppressed. But then, that's something you don't think about, and thus can't understand me.

Alright. So if the United States has one bullet for humanitarian intervention, where does it use it? D.R. Congo and Burundi or Iraq and Syria?

Wrong. Their governments have such problems, because both of them need chauvinists to keep themselves in power.

In my experience, the Turks are more indoctrinated by their government than the Russians, and this includes the Turks that are secular nationalists as well. If there is one thing that Turks agree on, it is that there were no genocides and that there is an anti-Turkish conspiracy.

...What's wrong with that?

Because the West wants to specifically defeat Daesh and otherwise stay out of the war. I see leaving Assad in place and defeating Sunni Arab supremacism as mutually exclusive objectives. But I’m not on the NSC.

Are you really that poor at 'connecting dots' as to fail to understand that the Daesh could've been easily prevented by supporting the FSyA and removing Assad on time?

The problem is far too complex to make that assumption. Again, a nuclear-armed Iran was considered a worse threat than Daesh and still is.

...which wold change absolutely nothing. But then, it's meanwhile typical for you - yes, this time: 'for you' - to be unable to think beyond, 'replacing one dictator of the minority through another dictator from the same minority'.

I said “rump state”. An Alawi can never rule over the Sunni Arab majority in Syria again. However, neither will the Alawis accept possible tyranny of the majority. Another Alawi leader could enact a realarmistice so that the FSA can concentrate on Daesh and consolidate its control over Sunni Arab Syria. Of course, Russia may be content with that but Iran won’t be.

A weak and federalized state along the lines of Lebanon seems to be the answer for both Iraq and Syria, but are the Alawis and Shias disabused of the notion that they can win it all?

To paraphrase Gen. Sherman, the Iranians need to be made absolutely sick of war.