Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    3216

  • Simon Tan

    1633

  • Stuart Galbraith

    1201

  • Josh

    877

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well he thinks its limited. I guess the Kurds, the Syrian's and the Russians have a vote on that.

 

Why just those parties? Is there some sort of force field displayed between Europe and Syria that is preventing the armies of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc., from putting their boots on the ground to help the Kurds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erdogan commanding the Turkish army to clear a 30km buffer zone between Turkey and Kurdish-held Syria is something that the United States might want to consider along its border with the failing narcostate otherwise known as Mexico.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erdogan commanding the Turkish army to clear a 30km buffer zone between Turkey and Kurdish-held Syria is something that the United States might want to consider along its border with the failing narcostate otherwise known as Mexico.

 

True and that is along the line Trump laid out right from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erdogan commanding the Turkish army to clear a 30km buffer zone between Turkey and Kurdish-held Syria is something that the United States might want to consider along its border with the failing narcostate otherwise known as Mexico.

It's not a buffer zone in the conventional sense, Erdogan wants to resettle 2 million Syrians there. And if it is "only" 30 km's it will still end up bordering YPG-lands (even though cities like Kobane would be taken and repopulated, the original inhabitants presumably displaced or killed), so there is no buffer. He is simply expanding the Ottoman califate, as a Belgian/Turkish member of his army proudly called it on social media.

 

Erdogan is also blowing hot and cold about Manbji and Kobane and other places where the SAA (and/or Russians) are present. At the one hand he says presence of the Syrian regime forces is good and no problem for Turkey (presumably because the Kurds are not in power anymore at those places), on the other hand he continues to insist that those places will be taken.

Edited by Wouter2
Link to post
Share on other sites

...He is simply expanding the Ottoman califate...

Told that years ago. It is a blatant aggression on the other country, yet none cared until now (and cynical me would say that deep down they only care because it can be used for a "Orange man bad" rhetoric), when it is basically too late.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...He is simply expanding the Ottoman califate...

Told that years ago. It is a blatant aggression on the other country, yet none cared until now (and cynical me would say that deep down they only care because it can be used for a "Orange man bad" rhetoric), when it is basically too late.

 

Note nobody cares about Turkey, NATO member and EU candidate, openly threatening Europe with weaponising refugees etc. I remember how loud were screams of "Putin weaponising refuges " here....

Photo by Rus war correspondent taken on abandoned US base in Syria

73294818_2355794751348648_36583442180672

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sultan is trying to claw back sonething after Idlib is lost. He is unwilling to fight SAA-Iran-Rus for it. The West is only angsting because the narrative is collapsing. Hilarious airlift of addorted SF out of Qamishli and MRAPS being thermited. McRaven freaking out as his paper kingdom collapses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sultan is trying to claw back sonething after Idlib is lost. He is unwilling to fight SAA-Iran-Rus for it. The West is only angsting because the narrative is collapsing. Hilarious airlift of addorted SF out of Qamishli and MRAPS being thermited. McRaven freaking out as his paper kingdom collapses.

 

The West = mebbe the US. Regime change as a low hanging fruit is ok, but to break down NATO to argue over a piece of Syria? nope. Less so after 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sultan is trying to claw back sonething after Idlib is lost. He is unwilling to fight SAA-Iran-Rus for it. The West is only angsting because the narrative is collapsing. Hilarious airlift of addorted SF out of Qamishli and MRAPS being thermited. McRaven freaking out as his paper kingdom collapses.

McRaven retired in 2014 but please, keep going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did that in 1848. :)

 

Effectively, I might add :D

 

Interestingly, I would agree that it is along the lines of what Trump's Mexico policy is based on. The Syrian example may not be a buffer zone, but Erdogan's suboptimal alternative would be fortifying his border and staying inside of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the CDU/CSU foreign policy spokesman in the German Bundestag, Roderich Kiesewetter, pointed out yesterday that if people really wanted to protect the Kurds, diplomatic maneuvers wouldn't help as much as a UN humanitarian security zone guarded by the EU with a mere 30-40,000 troops, including German. Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer followed that up with the announcement that she would seek talks with France, the UK and US at the upcoming meeting of her NATO colleagues for a solution in coordination with Turkey and Russia; though she was evasive on possible German military commitments, saying that would be a question for parliament (in fact the Bundestag can merely vote yes or no on deployments proposed by the government, without modification).

 

I'm not sure if those are serious intentions or merely trolling the coalition partner and most of the opposition, who have talked a good deal about how bad the Turkish intervention is and that Erdogan should not be let get away with it, complaining that Germany is acting impotently - but are typically reluctant when it comes to military action of its own. Most demands have been for various sanctions, and in fact Angela Merkel has announced that no arms will be delivered to Turkey under present conditions.

 

It would be fun to see how the Left Party in particular, which has always been the loudest champion of the Kurds, would try to handle the proposal of German soldiers protecting them when they are also pretty strictly anti-military deployment, and anti-military period. Though I don't doubt they would come up with a completely paradox position having it both ways, like when MP Christine Buchholz (Hezbollah, Offenbach) famously called for solidarity with resistance in besieged Kobane, and stopping US bombing in their support. That triggered no end of ridicule, of course.

 

10606063_736143033106622_891918182899417

 

30-40,000 troops per Kiesewetter is of course either playing it very safe, or deliberately raising the stakes very high; I can't see a Europe that's just reorienting towards the East again - or in fact any other actor - bringing up that kind of numbers. As the protection factor of the removed US troops was political rather than military anyway (that is, until Trump showed he'll readily yield to demands of a third-rate sorta-ally to get out of the way), a high four-digit number would probably be sufficient for this role. That might actually be doable, but I'm not holding my breath just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(...) though she was evasive on possible German military commitments, saying that would be a question for parliament (in fact the Bundestag can merely vote yes or no on deployments proposed by the government, without modification).

 

Classic German MoD/Bundeswehr line, "we don't formulate policy, we only act upon what the Bundestag tells us to do". :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the CDU/CSU foreign policy spokesman in the German Bundestag, Roderich Kiesewetter, pointed out yesterday that if people really wanted to protect the Kurds, diplomatic maneuvers wouldn't help as much as a UN humanitarian security zone guarded by the EU with a mere 30-40,000 troops, including German. Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer followed that up with the announcement that she would seek talks with France, the UK and US at the upcoming meeting of her NATO colleagues for a solution in coordination with Turkey and Russia; though she was evasive on possible German military commitments, saying that would be a question for parliament (in fact the Bundestag can merely vote yes or no on deployments proposed by the government, without modification).

 

 

 

From what I understand of Chinese policy, Germany could do business in the UN with them WRT Syria. Russian cooperation might require more horse trading but who knows. Overall, I think Germany could stand to move towards a more assertive leadership in the EU and NATO, which would include the revival of its armed forces more independent of the United States, but also in cooperation with the US, France, etc. It's probably not going to be effective with a European foreign policy requiring primarily or exclusively American troops.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see Washington actually vetoing a forceful UNSC peacekeeping response, but I could see it either delaying or watering it down to protect whatever remaining short-term arrangements it may have brokered.

 

The objective of the Turkish army is to gain as many facts on the ground, before the appearance of the Afrika Korps reincarnate or otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...