Turkey’s in northern Syria. The offensive is supposed


Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US Falls
Into Trap of Its Own Making

                                     Peter
KORZUN  

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


order now

 

In
the heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warns
it will go farther to establish control over vast
swathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to take
Turkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara called
on Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 km
from Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdish
militias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s action
by announcing
the decision to set up a new  border force in the areas
under Kurdish control.  So,
nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its own
making. Having sown the wind, it reaps
the whirlwind.

A
push to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces in
confrontation with US-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunity
to avoid the worst.

Some
Pro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pulling
its peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a very
misleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions west
of the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because this
territory is Syria – territorially integral
country with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrin
to engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.  The answer had been no. Moscow is still ready
to act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, the
initiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as their
protector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions implies
responsibility. 

The
US military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does not
regard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) located farther east. It says the Kurds in Afrin were
not directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS). Even so, they did protect
Afrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defend
the Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces in
Manbij.  What will happen next? It is
next to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one can
have a look at possible
scenarios.

Turkish
Hürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are in
talks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmed
the fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’s
announced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will be
very humiliating for Washington. If the US fails to protect the   Kurdish
allies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria have
asked it to do. 

One
of the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds to
encompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such a
development is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Another
consequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey and
the US supporting the opposite sides. If the situation continues to worsen, the
US 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 NATO
to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan has
just said he is tired of EU membership process.

A
US political defeat is the most probable outcome. Washington has to pay for the
lack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand the
situation in the region.  Obviously,
Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice. If the US intends
to stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, is
unprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,
alongside the SDF.  If America sides with
the Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation building
process being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,
Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leaves
the Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against the
background of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over the
recognition of Jerusalem.    

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

 

The
efforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,
Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syria
was   fighting the IS. Today, the
jihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission is
accomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on the
brink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, if
the Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of relief
as refugee flows from Syria are reduced. The best thing the US could do under
the circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peace
a chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US Falls
Into Trap of Its Own Making

                                     Peter
KORZUN  

 

In
the heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warns
it will go farther to establish control over vast
swathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to take
Turkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara called
on Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 km
from Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdish
militias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s action
by announcing
the decision to set up a new  border force in the areas
under Kurdish control.  So,
nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its own
making. Having sown the wind, it reaps
the whirlwind.

A
push to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces in
confrontation with US-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunity
to avoid the worst.

Some
Pro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pulling
its peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a very
misleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions west
of the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because this
territory is Syria – territorially integral
country with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrin
to engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.  The answer had been no. Moscow is still ready
to act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, the
initiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as their
protector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions implies
responsibility. 

The
US military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does not
regard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) located farther east. It says the Kurds in Afrin were
not directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS). Even so, they did protect
Afrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defend
the Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces in
Manbij.  What will happen next? It is
next to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one can
have a look at possible
scenarios.

Turkish
Hürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are in
talks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmed
the fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’s
announced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will be
very humiliating for Washington. If the US fails to protect the   Kurdish
allies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria have
asked it to do. 

One
of the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds to
encompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such a
development is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Another
consequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey and
the US supporting the opposite sides. If the situation continues to worsen, the
US 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 NATO
to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan has
just said he is tired of EU membership process.

A
US political defeat is the most probable outcome. Washington has to pay for the
lack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand the
situation in the region.  Obviously,
Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice. If the US intends
to stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, is
unprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,
alongside the SDF.  If America sides with
the Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation building
process being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,
Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leaves
the Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against the
background of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over the
recognition of Jerusalem.    

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

 

The
efforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,
Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syria
was   fighting the IS. Today, the
jihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission is
accomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on the
brink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, if
the Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of relief
as refugee flows from Syria are reduced. The best thing the US could do under
the circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peace
a chance.

 

 

 

Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US Falls
Into Trap of Its Own Making

                                     Peter
KORZUN  

 

In
the heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warns
it will go farther to establish control over vast
swathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to take
Turkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara called
on Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 km
from Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdish
militias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s action
by announcing
the decision to set up a new  border force in the areas
under Kurdish control.  So,
nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its own
making. Having sown the wind, it reaps
the whirlwind.

A
push to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces in
confrontation with US-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunity
to avoid the worst.

Some
Pro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pulling
its peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a very
misleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions west
of the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because this
territory is Syria – territorially integral
country with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrin
to engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.  The answer had been no. Moscow is still ready
to act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, the
initiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as their
protector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions implies
responsibility. 

The
US military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does not
regard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) located farther east. It says the Kurds in Afrin were
not directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS). Even so, they did protect
Afrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defend
the Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces in
Manbij.  What will happen next? It is
next to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one can
have a look at possible
scenarios.

Turkish
Hürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are in
talks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmed
the fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’s
announced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will be
very humiliating for Washington. If the US fails to protect the   Kurdish
allies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria have
asked it to do. 

One
of the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds to
encompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such a
development is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Another
consequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey and
the US supporting the opposite sides. If the situation continues to worsen, the
US 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 NATO
to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan has
just said he is tired of EU membership process.

A
US political defeat is the most probable outcome. Washington has to pay for the
lack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand the
situation in the region.  Obviously,
Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice. If the US intends
to stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, is
unprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,
alongside the SDF.  If America sides with
the Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation building
process being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,
Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leaves
the Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against the
background of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over the
recognition of Jerusalem.    

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

 

The
efforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,
Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syria
was   fighting the IS. Today, the
jihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission is
accomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on the
brink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, if
the Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of relief
as refugee flows from Syria are reduced. The best thing the US could do under
the circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peace
a chance.

 

 

 

Turkey’s Offensive in Syria: US Falls
Into Trap of Its Own Making

                                     Peter
KORZUN  

 

In
the heat of the battle for Afrin, Turkey warns
it will go farther to establish control over vast
swathes of land in northern Syria. The offensive  is supposed to take
Turkish forces as far as the Syria’s border with Iraq. On Jan.28, Ankara called
on Washington to withdraw its forces from Manbij (100 km
from Afrin) before it launches an operation to clear the area from Kurdish
militias. It’s important to note that the US had provoked the Turkey’s action
by announcing
the decision to set up a new  border force in the areas
under Kurdish control.  So,
nobody else but Washington itself   has created this situation – a trap of its own
making. Having sown the wind, it reaps
the whirlwind.

A
push to the east towards Manbij will potentially put Turkish forces in
confrontation with US-led Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF).  The Kurdish forces defending Afrin missed an opportunity
to avoid the worst.

Some
Pro-Kurdish sources say  Russia had betrayed the Afrin Kurds by pulling
its peacekeepers out before the Turkish offensive was launched. This is a very
misleading affirmation. Let’s look at the facts. Moscow believes all regions west
of the Euphrates should be under Syrian regular army’s control because this
territory is Syria – territorially integral
country with a legitimate government. Russia had asked the Kurds in Afrin
to engage with Damascus and allow its regular army in.  The answer had been no. Moscow is still ready
to act as a mediator to arrange talks on autonomy within Syria. Until now, the
initiative has been rejected. The Kurds have preferred the US as their
protector. Now they are on their own. Taking decisions implies
responsibility. 

The
US military has not come to the aid of the Kurds in Afrin, saying it does not
regard them as allies on par with the Kurds, which are part of the Syrian
Democratic Forces (SDF) located farther east. It says the Kurds in Afrin were
not directly involved in fighting the Islamic State (IS). Even so, they did protect
Afrin and prevented this land from being invaded by jihadi militants.  Perhaps, the US has no commitment to defend
the Afrin Kurds but it has an obligation to protect the SDF forces in
Manbij.  What will happen next? It is
next to impossible to make predictions with any degree of precision but one can
have a look at possible
scenarios.

Turkish
Hürriyet Daily News   reported that the US and Turkey are in
talks on de-confliction. NATO Deputy Secretary-General Rose Gottemoeller confirmed
the fact but it’s not clear how it jibes with the Ankara’s
announced offensive to capture the land held by the SDF.  Anyway, bowing to the Turkey’s demand will be
very humiliating for Washington. If the US fails to protect the   Kurdish
allies, it will have no reason to maintain its military presence in Syria.  It’ll have to leave as Russia and Syria have
asked it to do. 

One
of the scenarios includes the creation of a broader uprising of Kurds to
encompass Turkey, Iran and Iraq. It can reshape the map of the region. Such a
development is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Another
consequence – the cohesion of NATO has already been undermined with Turkey and
the US supporting the opposite sides. If the situation continues to worsen, the
US 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 NATO
to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. President Erdogan has
just said he is tired of EU membership process.

A
US political defeat is the most probable outcome. Washington has to pay for the
lack of clear plan of action in Syria and the inability to understand the
situation in the region.  Obviously,
Washington is in predicament. It is   facing a very hard choice. If the US intends
to stay in northern Syria, it certainly needs the Kurds.  Confronting Turkey, a NATO ally, is
unprecedented, the consequences are unpredictable. The US has 2,000 troops,
alongside the SDF.  If America sides with
the Kurds, it would lose Turkey. It may be excluded form nation building
process being hostile towards all the leading actors: the Syria’s government,
Russia, Iran and Turkey.   If it leaves
the Kurds, its credibility in the Middle East will be shaken against the
background of the recent break up with the Palestine Autonomy over the
recognition of Jerusalem.    

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

 

The
efforts should be applied within the framework of Astana process led by Moscow,
Ankara and Tehran. Washington has always stressed that its goal in Syria
was   fighting the IS. Today, the
jihadist group is reduced to insignificance in Syria. The mission is
accomplished. Why should Washington spend time and effort, balancing on the
brink of armed conflict with Ankara or any other actor in Syria? After all, if
the Astana peace process succeeds, US European allies will heave a sign of relief
as refugee flows from Syria are reduced. The best thing the US could do under
the circumstances is pull out from Syria and concentrate on diplomacy to give peace
a chance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x

Hi!
I'm William!

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

Check it out