Turkey’s of the Euphrates should be under


Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US FallsInto Trap of Its Own Making                                     PeterKORZUN    Inthe heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warnsit will go farther to establish control over vastswathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to takeTurkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara calledon Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 kmfrom Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdishmilitias.

It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s actionby announcingthe decision to set up a new  border force in the areasunder Kurdish control.  So,nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its ownmaking. Having sown the wind, it reapsthe whirlwind.Apush to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces inconfrontation with US-led SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunityto avoid the worst.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

SomePro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pullingits peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a verymisleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions westof the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because thisterritory is Syria – territorially integralcountry with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrinto engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.

 The answer had been no. Moscow is still readyto act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, theinitiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as theirprotector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions impliesresponsibility.  TheUS military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does notregard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF) located farther east. It says the Kurds in Afrin werenot directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS).

Even so, they did protectAfrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defendthe Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces inManbij.  What will happen next? It isnext to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one canhave a look at possiblescenarios.TurkishHürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are intalks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmedthe fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’sannounced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will bevery humiliating for Washington.

If the US fails to protect the   Kurdishallies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria haveasked it to do.  Oneof the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds toencompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such adevelopment is not beyond the realms of possibility. Anotherconsequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey andthe US supporting the opposite sides.

If the situation continues to worsen, theUS will either blink or ask NATO to suspend, or even expel, Turkey from NATO,at least until President Erdogan is in power. It will inevitably push Ankara to Moscow and Beijing, shifting from NATOto the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan hasjust said he is tired of EU membership process.AUS political defeat is the most probable outcome.

Washington has to pay for thelack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand thesituation in the region.  Obviously,Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice.

If the US intendsto stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, isunprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,alongside the SDF.  If America sides withthe Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation buildingprocess being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leavesthe Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against thebackground of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over therecognition of Jerusalem.

     Ifthe US manages to achieve an agreement with Turkey, it will be farewell toSyrian Kurdistan with a special status making it an independent state inpractice or even an officially declared one. The Turkey’s offensive is likelyto make the Kurds more willing to negotiate with Damascus. An alliance with theSyrian government will become an alternative to make the Kurds part of peaceprocess. It will boost the chances for Syria to remain an undivided state.  Moscow can act as a mediator betweenDamascus, the Kurds and Ankara. After all, Moscow is one of few capitals theSyrian Kurds have a representative office in.

 Theefforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syriawas   fighting the IS. Today, thejihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission isaccomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on thebrink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, ifthe Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of reliefas refugee flows from Syria are reduced. The best thing the US could do underthe circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peacea chance.      Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US FallsInto Trap of Its Own Making                                     PeterKORZUN    Inthe heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warnsit will go farther to establish control over vastswathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to takeTurkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq.

On Jan.28, Ankara calledon Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 kmfrom Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdishmilitias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s actionby announcingthe decision to set up a new  border force in the areasunder Kurdish control.  So,nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its ownmaking. Having sown the wind, it reapsthe whirlwind.Apush to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces inconfrontation with US-led SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunityto avoid the worst. SomePro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pullingits peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched.

This is a verymisleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions westof the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because thisterritory is Syria – territorially integralcountry with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrinto engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.  The answer had been no. Moscow is still readyto act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, theinitiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as theirprotector.

Now they are on their own. Taking decisions impliesresponsibility.  TheUS military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does notregard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF) located farther east.

It says the Kurds in Afrin werenot directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS). Even so, they did protectAfrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defendthe Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces inManbij.

  What will happen next? It isnext to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one canhave a look at possiblescenarios.TurkishHürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are intalks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmedthe fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’sannounced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will bevery humiliating for Washington. If the US fails to protect the   Kurdishallies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria haveasked it to do.  Oneof the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds toencompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

It can reshape the map of the region. Such adevelopment is not beyond the realms of possibility. Anotherconsequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey andthe US supporting the opposite sides.

If the situation continues to worsen, theUS will either blink or ask NATO to suspend, or even expel, Turkey from NATO,at least until President Erdogan is in power. It will inevitably push Ankara to Moscow and Beijing, shifting from NATOto the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan hasjust said he is tired of EU membership process.AUS political defeat is the most probable outcome.

Washington has to pay for thelack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand thesituation in the region.  Obviously,Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice.

If the US intendsto stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, isunprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,alongside the SDF.  If America sides withthe Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation buildingprocess being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leavesthe Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against thebackground of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over therecognition of Jerusalem.     Ifthe US manages to achieve an agreement with Turkey, it will be farewell toSyrian Kurdistan with a special status making it an independent state inpractice or even an officially declared one.

The Turkey’s offensive is likelyto make the Kurds more willing to negotiate with Damascus. An alliance with theSyrian government will become an alternative to make the Kurds part of peaceprocess. It will boost the chances for Syria to remain an undivided state.  Moscow can act as a mediator betweenDamascus, the Kurds and Ankara.

After all, Moscow is one of few capitals theSyrian Kurds have a representative office in.  Theefforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syriawas   fighting the IS. Today, thejihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission isaccomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on thebrink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, ifthe Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of reliefas refugee flows from Syria are reduced.

The best thing the US could do underthe circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peacea chance.   Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US FallsInto Trap of Its Own Making                                     PeterKORZUN    Inthe heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warnsit will go farther to establish control over vastswathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to takeTurkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara calledon Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 kmfrom Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdishmilitias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s actionby announcingthe decision to set up a new  border force in the areasunder Kurdish control.  So,nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its ownmaking. Having sown the wind, it reapsthe whirlwind.

Apush to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces inconfrontation with US-led SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunityto avoid the worst. SomePro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pullingits peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a verymisleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions westof the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because thisterritory is Syria – territorially integralcountry with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrinto engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.

 The answer had been no. Moscow is still readyto act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, theinitiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as theirprotector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions impliesresponsibility.  TheUS military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does notregard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF) located farther east. It says the Kurds in Afrin werenot directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS).

Even so, they did protectAfrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defendthe Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces inManbij.  What will happen next? It isnext to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one canhave a look at possiblescenarios.TurkishHürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are intalks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmedthe fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’sannounced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.

  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will bevery humiliating for Washington. If the US fails to protect the   Kurdishallies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria haveasked it to do.  Oneof the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds toencompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such adevelopment is not beyond the realms of possibility. Anotherconsequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey andthe US supporting the opposite sides.

If the situation continues to worsen, theUS will either blink or ask NATO to suspend, or even expel, Turkey from NATO,at least until President Erdogan is in power. It will inevitably push Ankara to Moscow and Beijing, shifting from NATOto the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan hasjust said he is tired of EU membership process.AUS political defeat is the most probable outcome. Washington has to pay for thelack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand thesituation in the region.  Obviously,Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice. If the US intendsto stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.

  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, isunprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,alongside the SDF.  If America sides withthe Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation buildingprocess being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,Russia, Iran and Turkey.

   If it leavesthe Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against thebackground of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over therecognition of Jerusalem.     Ifthe US manages to achieve an agreement with Turkey, it will be farewell toSyrian Kurdistan with a special status making it an independent state inpractice or even an officially declared one. The Turkey’s offensive is likelyto make the Kurds more willing to negotiate with Damascus. An alliance with theSyrian government will become an alternative to make the Kurds part of peaceprocess. It will boost the chances for Syria to remain an undivided state.  Moscow can act as a mediator betweenDamascus, the Kurds and Ankara. After all, Moscow is one of few capitals theSyrian Kurds have a representative office in.  Theefforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,Ankara and Tehran.

Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syriawas   fighting the IS. Today, thejihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission isaccomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on thebrink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, ifthe Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of reliefas refugee flows from Syria are reduced. The best thing the US could do underthe circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peacea chance.

   Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US FallsInto Trap of Its Own Making                                     PeterKORZUN    Inthe heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warnsit will go farther to establish control over vastswathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to takeTurkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara calledon Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 kmfrom Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdishmilitias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s actionby announcingthe decision to set up a new  border force in the areasunder Kurdish control.  So,nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its ownmaking.

Having sown the wind, it reapsthe whirlwind.Apush to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces inconfrontation with US-led SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunityto avoid the worst. SomePro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pullingits peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a verymisleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions westof the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because thisterritory is Syria – territorially integralcountry with a legitimate government.

Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrinto engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.  The answer had been no. Moscow is still readyto act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria.

Until now, theinitiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as theirprotector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions impliesresponsibility.  TheUS military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does notregard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the SyrianDemocratic Forces (SDF) located farther east.

It says the Kurds in Afrin werenot directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS). Even so, they did protectAfrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defendthe Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces inManbij.  What will happen next? It isnext to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one canhave a look at possiblescenarios.TurkishHürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are intalks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmedthe fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’sannounced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will bevery humiliating for Washington.

If the US fails to protect the   Kurdishallies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria haveasked it to do.  Oneof the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds toencompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such adevelopment is not beyond the realms of possibility. Anotherconsequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey andthe US supporting the opposite sides.

If the situation continues to worsen, theUS will either blink or ask NATO to suspend, or even expel, Turkey from NATO,at least until President Erdogan is in power. It will inevitably push Ankara to Moscow and Beijing, shifting from NATOto the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan hasjust said he is tired of EU membership process.AUS political defeat is the most probable outcome. Washington has to pay for thelack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand thesituation in the region.  Obviously,Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice.

If the US intendsto stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, isunprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,alongside the SDF.

  If America sides withthe Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation buildingprocess being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leavesthe Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against thebackground of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over therecognition of Jerusalem.     Ifthe US manages to achieve an agreement with Turkey, it will be farewell toSyrian Kurdistan with a special status making it an independent state inpractice or even an officially declared one. The Turkey’s offensive is likelyto make the Kurds more willing to negotiate with Damascus.

An alliance with theSyrian government will become an alternative to make the Kurds part of peaceprocess. It will boost the chances for Syria to remain an undivided state.  Moscow can act as a mediator betweenDamascus, the Kurds and Ankara. After all, Moscow is one of few capitals theSyrian Kurds have a representative office in.  Theefforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syriawas   fighting the IS.

Today, thejihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission isaccomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on thebrink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, ifthe Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of reliefas refugee flows from Syria are reduced.

The best thing the US could do underthe circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peacea chance.            

x

Hi!
I'm William!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out