In Idlib, the killing of 33 Turkish troops, by Syrian or possibly, though less likely, by Russian troops, has led to a situation of high tension that will certainly lead to much greater clashes between the Syrian army and the Turkish forces in Idlib, and might lead to a direct conflict between Turkish and Russian troops.
Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, who plays a senior role in foreign affairs, spoke about the situation to US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.
“We stand by our NATO ally Turkey and continue to call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia, and Iranian-backed forces,” the US State Department said in a statement.
As long as NATO confines itself to words in support of “our NATO ally Turkey” – a far-too forgiving description of Erdogan’s virulently anti-Western regime – that is okay. The worry is that Turkey will follow through on its pledge to attack 200 Syrian military sites, all over Syria, that the Syrians will not be able retaliate to the degree necessary to avoid total humiliation, , and that Russian troops might then become directly involved against Turkish troops.
What should NATO do in such circumstances? Nothing. Turkey should long ago have been expelled from NATO, given Erdogan’s hostile attitude toward the West, his annihilationist threats against Israel, his neo-Ottoman claims to lead the Muslim world in its conflict with non-Muslims (Erdogan’s “war between the crescent and the cross”). There is no reason for NATO to come to Turkey’s aid. The Turks are the ones who, without consulting NATO, invaded Syria in order to drive out or kill the Kurds in northern Syria. Turkey should be told by NATO that its members will not be drawn into a conflict that Turkey could have easily avoided by not sending troops to Syria, and that Turkey should now withdraw those troops unless it wishes to risk a clash with Russia, which Turkey cannot possibly win.
NATO members could offer to help alleviate the problem of more refugees fleeing Idlib. It could offer to help Turkey on guarding its side of the border with Syria, preventing refugees from entering. In return it would expect President Erdogan not to “open the floodgates” into Europe for the refugees now in Turkey. The NATO members could even help Turkey to repatriate some of the refugees it is already harboring. Save in Idlib, the civil war in Syria is over; the refugees may not like the result, but at least they can return to a country that is no longer convulsed by war. Some may even return to the very houses they left behind, a far better outcome than continuing to live in squalid camps in Turkey.
What if Turkey, angry at NATO’s failure to support it against the Russians, were to decide to leave NATO? That’s exactly what NATO members should welcome. For years Turkey has been the unhelpful and hostile odd man out in NATO. Under Erdogan, the country is out of place as a member of that alliance of Western, democratic, non-Muslim nations.
Turkey got itself into a mess of its own making in Syria. It began with an attack on Syrian Kurds, with Erdogan falsely claiming that the Kurdish forces, that had been America’s most trustworthy and effective allies against the Islamic State, were actually allies of the PKK, a Kurdish terrorist group inside Turkey; the Americans have flatly denied hat connection. Thousands of Turkish troops were sent into Idlib Province, in northwestern Syria. Erdogan’s commanders may have though the Syrian army would stay back, fearful of coming up against the Turkish military. It turned out quite otherwise. The Syrian regime has continued its steady march through Idlib, undeterred by the Turkish presence, and perfectly ready to take on the Turks, as they did on February 26, when they bombed Turkish positions and killed 33 Turkish soldiers and wounded 32 more. The Syrian army, far from being fearful of the Turks, has had no intention of pulling back, but have continued their offensive in Idlib. That is bad news for Turkey, which insists that it will not retreat one inch. But still worse for Turkey is the sneaking suspicion that their soldiers may have been bombed not by Syrian, but by Russian planes, though Moscow of course denies it. And Turkey may wish to accept that denial, even if it doesn’t believe it, in order to avoid a direct military conflict with Russia, and to keep open those “channels of communication” with Moscow that it knows are necessary.
For now the conflict remains one between Turkish and Syrian forces. The Turks have avoided hitting Russian forces, and the Russians have supported the Syrians but apparently have not attacked the Turks directly. The Syrians continue with their relentless offensive, and the Turks have said they will not budge from Idlib. This suggests there will be more violence unleashed between the two. If Syrian forces are mauled, and forced back, could Russia allow Assad, whom they have always supported during the nine years of civil war, to endure such a defeat, or would it feel compelled to bomb the Turks to underscore its value as a military ally?
And what happens if Erdogan makes good on his threat to let loose upon Europe many of the 3.5 million Syrian refugees who are currently in Turkey? Western European nations should not wait for that, but right now send troops to guard the land borders of Greece and Bulgaria with Turkey. Bulgaria has already sent 1,000 extra troops to guard its borders, but will need many more, and NATO members should step in to prevent an invasion of Arab Muslims into Bulgaria, and through Bulgaria, into Western Europe. Greece, too, will need to have its territory, including many islands, kept free of an invasion of still more Muslim migrants. Already on many Greek islands, where there once hung posters proclaiming “Solidarity with the refugees and migrants!”
there is now among the indigenouis Greeks fear, fury, and frustration. Those refugees have turned out to live off the state, engage in criminal activities, and do little or nothing to imp;rove their lot except keep their hands out for ever more aid. The islands of Lesbos and Samos seem particularly affected by the disorder and disruption these Muslim migrants have caused.
Naval vessels from the NATO members should be sent to patrol the eastern Mediterranean in order to prevent boatloads of Syrians, let loose from their confinement in Turkey, from landing on European shores. Their boats should be turned away, prevented from approaching land, in return-to-sender fashion. However, if those vessels are deemed unseaworthy, their human cargo should be transferred to Western ships and then delivered, on those ships, to Syrian ports. The tens of millions of Muslims the Western countries have already welcomed into their midst have not integrated into their host societies, and a much harder line has to be taken if the West is to survive. Those Muslim migrants, from many different Muslim lands, have become a colossal economic burden on their hosts, who have lavished every sort of benefit on them – free or heavily-subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits, family allowances – and at the same time, they threaten the wellbeing and physical safety of their hosts. The Europeans need to stand firm on keeping out more Muslims, by listening less to Angela Merkel and Pope Francis, and more closely to, such East European leaders as Viktor Orban in Hungary, who refuses to admit a single Muslim, much to the relief of the Hungarian people.
What if Turkey or Russia miscalculates, and they end up in a war? It would be complete madness for NATO to risk a conflict with Russia for the likes of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Besides, NATO’s interest is in deepening the enmity between Turkey and Russia, both of which are enemies of the liberal democracies of the West. Turkey would end up the sure loser to Russia, and without the support either of NATO or of fellow Muslims whom Erdogan has deceived himself into thinking he can count on. The Arab League – even though its own members hate Assad — has already furiously denounced Turkey for having invaded Syria, a “brother Arab country.” Erdogan appears not to have gotten the message: “We remember how the Ottomans lorded it over us. There is no love lost between us, the Arabs, and Turkey.” As for NATO, its members have demonstrated that they do not intend to go beyond some pro-forma verbal support for Turkey, a wise decision.
In Turkey itself, Erdogan’s gross miscalculations, first in sending Turkish troops into Syria, and then in stumbling into a conflict with Russia, will lower his appeal, already on a steep decline, as the last elections showed, with his AK Party being defeated in June 2019 in the three largest cities in Turkey, Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, all of which are now in opposition hands.. But worst of all for Erdogan’s future prospects are the humiliation he will be blamed for having brought upon the Turkish military, as it cannot possibly withstand a Russian assault. Even after the great purges by Erdogan of his perceived secularist enemies and “Gulenists” in the universities, the judiciary, the newspapers, and the military, there remained many in the army who are hostile to his project of undoing Kemalism. And Turkish generals, if their forces are defeated decisively by the Russians, and still smarting from such a humiliating defeat, they rightly blame Erdogan, might succeed with a coup to overthrow him. Ideally, they would revive the project of secularizing Turkey — Kemalism — that Erdogan had done so much to undo.
That is a result devoutly to be wished. Meanwhile, in Syria, the Assad regime will at long last finish the conquest of Idlib. Assad will finally have recovered the whole country, but much of that country has been physically devastated, and the Western estimates for its reconstruction to its antebellum state begin at $250 billion dollars.. Syria is broke; the Gulf Arabs will have nothing to do with Assad; the Americans and Europeans, too, will not be in any mood to help the Assad, who is correctly seen as a war criminal. Russia, too, though it was willing to help Assad’s military effort, would not be forthcoming with billions of dollars it needs for its own citizens. Assad does have one friend – Iran – that would help out financially if it could, but Iran, is strapped for cash because of the sanctions that the Americans have re-imposed. Tehran may come up with some billions, but not anything like what Assad needs. Even for those billions, the Iranians will want something in exchange. They will want Assad’s continued assent to Iran’s building bases on Syrian territory. Iran has been giving Assad money and arms during the civil war, and has during the last few years been building those bases. But unfortunately for Teheran, the Israelis have been spectacularly successful in locating, and then destroying, those bases. Building those bases runs into money, and their destruction by Israel is taking a heavy financial toll on the Iranians.
That’s the messy state of affairs in Idlib as of the beginning of March. But if the West keeps its powder dry, and NATO offers only words by way of support for the Turks, it should find that its frequent nemesis, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will lose his grip on the army, and then on Turkey, without NATO firing a shot. That’s a good outcome.
Boromir's Horn says
Just wait for the usual suspects to start whining and try to goad Trump into do “something”. Let ’em kill each other, let God sort them out.
Trick_or_Treat says
Well, at least when you see Isaiah 17:1 come to pass, you won’t be unsure anymore, and you also know exactly what is following very swiftly after that, because Almighty God has forewarned us quite clearly and more than adequately [who will dare say to God, “but nobody told us”, or “we were not given any warning” ?]
mortimer says
To call Erdogan’s Turkey ‘an ally’ is a slight exaggeration. The main reason for having Turkey in NATO is that it keeps Turkey from making an alliance with a bigger enemy like Russia, China or Iran.
As long as Turkey is intruding into another country, it is expected that the invaded country (Syria) will act in self-defense.
Infidel says
An exaggeration is something that is only false in magnitude, but otherwise essentially true. To call Turkey an ally is downright false, and has been since 1991. In the wars against Iraq, Turkey consistently refused to let the Americans use Incirlik. And more recently, they’ve been promoting their own interests that are down and out in contradiction to US interests.
There is no reason to have Turkey in NATO, and Turkey is not gonna be an ally of any of those countries. In the case of Russia, Turkey is already trying to increase its influence among the stans by emphasizing their ethnic commonality. In the case of Iran, Turkey is stealing Iran’s Sunni stooges in the region, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Islamic Jihad: Hizbullah is the only group that’s still in Iran’s pocket, and there too, not being paid by Teheran has taken its toll. In the case of China, Turkey is fuming at China’s treatment of Uyghurs, but can do nothing about it given that they’re one of the participants in the Belt/Road initiative.
The withdrawal of US troops from Syria is therefore good: it’s pretty much let Turkey and Russia go at each other. Which is a good thing for people who consider Russia an adversary
WithPurpleAbandon says
“The main reason for having Turkey in NATO is that it keeps Turkey from making an alliance with a bigger enemy like Russia, China or Iran.”
Turkey making any alliance with Russia or Iran seems as far-fetched as it can get, given the historical enmity between those countries in the past. I usually judge the current affairs of the ME through the lense of past wars and their causes.
1) Ottoman Empire vs. Safavid Persia
2) Czarist Russia vs. the Ottoman Empire
3) Czarist Russia also fought wars against the Persians multiple times.
History is a continuum : most regional enmities tend to spill over to this day and age. That’s what I learned from reading history.
NATO needs to get rid of this self-serving ‘ally’ asap. There are no good historical reasons for keeping them in.
gravenimage says
Actually, despite being in NATO, Turkey is buying weapons from Russia, so this is not working in any case.
WithPurpleAbandon says
I know. To me it seems that this is pretty much typical of Erdogan’s double-dealing. That is: up to now. I think Hugh Fitzgerald has given us some indications that this simply won’t last in the long run. Only time will tell, I suppose.
Russia has a stake in keeping its naval facility in Tartus going, which is a repair and replenishment spot, sparing Russia’s warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through the Turkish Straits.
Apparently, Russia and Syria signed an agreement in 2017, whereunder Russia would be allowed to expand and use the naval facility at Tartus for 49 years on a free-of-charge basis and enjoy sovereign jurisdiction over it.
Putin will have to do some serious thinking : how is he going to square this with supplying weapons to the Turks ?
Nearly every conflict Russia has had in the past was centred around keeping control over the Black Sea shores and finding outlets to the most nearby warm water ports and the seas surrounding them, including during The Great Game and Russia’s invasion of the Caucasus in the 19th century. (the revolt of Caucasian muslim ethnicities was aided by the Ottomans at the time, as well)
History has a knack of repeating itself. For one thing, there was also alleged involvement of Turkey in the Chechen Wars.
mortimer says
Turkey has a valid grievance as recipient of so many Syrian refugees. This problem must be resolved by Syria transitioning to a new constitution and a new government not under Assad who should now retire to live in exile. A healing process cannot occur with Assad in the government nor without a general amnesty that Assad would be unlikely to offer. Syria desperately needs a healing process to begin. Many Syrian refugees legitimately own land and buildings in Syria and it is certain that most of them will want to return and rebuild what they had before.
Americans understand the aftermath of civil war. Syrian reconstruction won’t stand a chance if the aftermath includes the Assad dictatorship. The recovery can start when a transitional government is in place to manage it.
Infidel says
Syria is fine. If Syria became what we in the West know as ‘democratic’, then one need look no further than next door in Iraq to see what would happen. It would be just like it has been for the last 10 years.
The reason the Baathist regime is in power is that if they let go, the Alawites, Christians and Druze would simply get massacred by the Sunnis. It’s not like the latter would let the rest of them live peacefully even if they are minority communities.
What you are advocating is a neocon solution of the type promoted by Max Boot and Bill Krystal, and which has actually been tried and led to all the bloodletting in Syria and the refugee crisis in Europe. Your ilk should be relegated to the dustbin of history
WithPurpleAbandon says
Quite right, Infidel. Nation-building under a new constitution is going to lead to nothing constructive, either way. Keeping the Baathist regime in the saddle is the best option for non-Sunni minorities living in Syria. They would be totally annihilated otherwise.
gravenimage says
Why would Assad want to give up power now?
Keys says
As others have pointed out NATO was, and still ought to be, a defensive alliance. Therefore, any offensive aggression taken by Turkey in to other countries ought not be supported by NATO.
On the other hand, Turkey’s releasing of thousands of “unvetted” Muslims, from who knows where, in to Europe is an aggressive move by a NATO member and ought to be considered an invasion requiring a defense.
Therefore, Hugh Fitzgerald’s article is in accord with NATO defensive action by sending NATO troops to the European borders and NATO ships to the Mediterranean.
In my opinion NATO troops at the borders ought to have ROEs that at some point include firing warning shoots after “bullhorn warnings” and lethal fire on any crossing in to Europe.
NATO ships need ROEs as well, and at some point ought to include returning refugees to their county of departure and then sinking the empty ship that attempted to transport them to Europe.
If the land invaders use women and children as shields when trying to enter capture them and immediately return them.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
NATO ought to send troops to help Bulgaria and Greece prevent Muslims attempting to enter from Greece. They should be permanently stationed there. And NATO should build a very long security fence, of the kind that the Israelis have put up on their border with Gaza. Those soldiers should be prepared to use tear gas, rubber bullets, and in the most extreme cases, live fire. Europe has already admitted into its midst tens of millions of Muslims, who are taught to despise their hosts as “the most vile of created beings.” The experiment failed. Now Europe must protect itself from further invaders, and figure out ways to reduce the numbers of Muslims already deep inside Europe. Possibly the way to begin is to deport back to their home countries all Muslims convicted of crimes. That’s a start.
Infidel says
Bulgaria and Greece need a WALL, just like we do on our Mexico border
gravenimage says
Agreed, Hugh.
SAFI says
Good suggestions. I would also propose the death penalty for the people smugglers who engage in the very lucrative smuggling of migrants into Greece, Italy and beyond. So far those arrested are treated with a slap on the wrist. The penal code of countries like Greece needs to get serious. I know how the “humanitarians” will react to such proposal but honestly F**K THEM. Desperate times require extreme measures and the lawmakers must learn to close their ears to the humanitarian sirens… if Europe is to survive this catastrophe…
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Erdogan has made good on his threat to open again the floodgates of Moslem “migrants” like a curse damning the Infidel nations of Europe for refusing to let the tail (him) wag the dog (them).
Moslems have a habit of making threats, and a penchant for making good on them. You want to give Tayipp some smart mouth lip, here’s a 100,000 Moslems for your uppity ways.
Infidel says
NATO needs to have a new meeting and decide whether its charter includes the resurrection of old empires of its members. Like that of the Ottoman empire. In particular, address this question: how is Turkey’s re-acquisition of Arab territory previously owned by their Ottoman forebears in the interests of the NATO alliance?
The real answer is that NATO itself needs to be ended. The US, for starters, should pull out of it and focus on new alliances, like an Indo-Pacific wide alliance to take on China. As far as the Middle East goes, get out of there and let Turkey and Russia battle over the spoils. The last thing we ought to do is what Britain and France did during the Crimean War and ally w/ Turkey against Russia.
Ray Jarman says
Mr. Fitzgerald,
As usual, your article is excellent and I pray that it will be read by Rick Grenell, the acting NHI director because as you said, Erdogan should know he has no chance against the Russians and to drag NATO into his quest to further his ego would be devastating not only for him but for NATO if Stoltenberg is not explicit about not engaging in any military action in Syria.
SAFI says
You’re forgeting who Stoltenberg was(is). Norwegian socialist, friend of Islam. Sided with the islamists during the “cartoon crisis”, blamed the cartoonist for the islamist attacks on Norwegian(as well as Danish) embassies. For proving his cowardice and affection for Islam throughout his career in norwegian politics he was subsequently rewarded with NATO’s leadership. I would not expect this guy to stand firm against turkey.
Adam says
Enemies should always be encouraged to war with one another. Overt or covert.
gravenimage says
Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, who plays a senior role in foreign affairs, spoke about the situation to US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.
“We stand by our NATO ally Turkey and continue to call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia, and Iranian-backed forces,” the US State Department said in a statement.
……………..
I’m just reading a boom on the Crimean War right now, where the West made many of the same mistakes.
Turkey does not belong in NATO, anyway–they are threatening Greece right now, another NATO member.
Infidel says
I remember hating Britain and France for aligning w/ Turkey against Russia in a war which was fought not in Anatolia, but rather, in the Crimea, which was Russian territory. For which reason, I also hated the ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ poem.
One of the worst sins of colonial Britain – both Victorian as well as the House of Windsor – was that in their ‘Great Game’ rivalry w/ Russia, they ended up supporting various Islamic entities in b/w. And we see the results of that today.
Consider the extended Central Asia – from Kazakhstan to Pakistan. For much of history, they were parts of the same empires – Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Timurides, Mughals. If there had been no European discovery of that region, they’d likely be a single country today, w/ little difference b/w someone from Tashkent vs someone from Karachi.
However, in the 19th century, the Romanovs, responding to Kazakh raids on their frontiers taking Russian civilians as slaves and engaging in a Russian slave trade as far down as Boqhara, invaded Turkistan and destroyed the khanates of Boqhara, Khiva and Qoqon. The Brits got alarmed, destroyed the Sikh kingdom, then invaded Afghanistan and had a Pyrrhic victory (since the bulk of casualties on their side were the Indians, not really much for them), but then Britain and Russia agreed to draw the lines there.
Since then, the Romanovs, and later, the Soviets, made it a point to curb Islamic tendencies and totally Russify that region. Cyrillic replaced Nashliq as the script in which their languages were written, Islam was curbed by the Soviets like all religion, and the people of that region forgot it and became fairly modern societies (as much as any communist society could hope to be)
Within the same time period, further south, Afghanistan remained a quiet place, while further south, the Brits did nothing to tame any of the tendencies of the Muslims, so that come 1947, Pakistan was founded on Islam, and became a pretty fanatical state.
Looking back at all that, had the Russians gotten their corridor to the Arabian Sea w/ Gwador and Karachi, yeah, India would have lost Western Panjab and Sind, but the people of that area would today have been as tame as those in Kazakhstan. British success just resulted in more islamization: that’s their legacy
WithPurpleAbandon says
One of my favorite history books btw, is Peter Hopkirk’s book “The Great Game” It’s quite even handed, also.
gravenimage says
Too often, Britain was intent on maintaining the status quo in the name of stability–even when the status quo–for instance in the case of the Ottoman Empire–was truly awful.
WithPurpleAbandon says
“Turkey should long ago have been expelled from NATO, given Erdogan’s hostile attitude toward the West, his annihilationist threats against Israel, his neo-Ottoman claims to lead the Muslim world in its conflict with non-Muslims (Erdogan’s “war between the crescent and the cross”). There is no reason for NATO to come to Turkey’s aid. The Turks are the ones who, without consulting NATO, invaded Syria in order to drive out or kill the Kurds in northern Syria. Turkey should be told by NATO that its members will not be drawn into a conflict that Turkey could have easily avoided by not sending troops to Syria, and that Turkey should now withdraw those troops unless it wishes to risk a clash with Russia, which Turkey cannot possibly win.”
My thoughts exactly.