What's new

Turkish Peace Operations in Syria (Operation Olive Branch) Updates & Discussions

@Kuwaiti Girl we can only speculate about the future. We know that YPG and FSA fractions in SDF do not like Assad neither does FSA support separatism. A Kurdish Rojava is unrealistic because of the demographics. ES was successful in my eyes and everything else remains to be seen.
 
.
The Syrian war can't be fully predicted, since other key states could enter.
The problem in our TIme is that Bipolarity is over , RU and US allies/enemies are the same, you don't have one side vs another and that's the problem, ppl will fall in madness, since in the near future , no one will know who is an ally and who is not... . GCC are getting into Hands with RU and China, Iran don't like it while they are RU allies. UAE & Iran are getting friend with Turkey, therefore with Israel and the US and so and so on... In the End, someone will not be able to support the situation and will explode... the Q is who?




It has begun :) Let the party begin... want pop corn princess?
This is why I love geopolitics.

Anyway, don't forget that America is the number one player until now, although American power has declined globally over the last couple of years. Nonetheless, America remains the number one player in Eurasian politics.

America's primary objective in Eurasia is ensuring that no unified Eurasian polity or alliance takes shape. So America will do everything in its power to prevent China, Russia and the EU from getting closer to one another. America's other, equally important, objective in Eurasia is to keep the continental landmass as politically divided and unstable as possible. A unified polity or alliance in Eurasia will undoubtedly pose huge risks to America's shipping/trading routes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Geography is destiny, as they say, so don't expect America and Russia to be on good terms with each other. America's natural geopolitical interests will always come into collision with Russia's. Simply put, they belong to opposing worldviews.

In the Middle East, the US is very happy with the situation. It has the Turks and Kurds exactly where it wants both of them. Both the Turks and Kurds are dependent on American support. The Turks want America to assure them that the Kurds of Syria won't pose a threat to Turkey's territorial integrity, and the Syrian Kurds want assurances from Washington that the Turks won't steamroll Rojava.

From America's point of view, this is great. They can play the Turks and Kurds off against each other and, ironically, make both sides rush to the Americans for aid and security assurances.

America is the main player and it has largely accomplished its task of dividing up Eurasia. It has succeeded in weakening the European Union by encouraging Britain to leave the EU while pretending to be in favor of European unity in public. Washington is now trying to court the Russians in order to drive a wedge between the Russian and Chinese alliance. It's basically repeating what Nixon and Kissinger did many decades ago when they courted China in order to move the Chinese away from the Soviets. This time, America is trying to move the Russians away from the more powerful Chinese lol.

As for the Gulf states, they'll continue to be America's little playthings. The UAE is America's favorite Middle Eastern ally, even more liked by the Americans than Israel -- believe it or not.

In short, America is accomplishing what it always wanted. The Middle Eastern crisis will be managed, not solved. The Kurds will be weakened when the Americans feel they've become too strong, and strengthened when the Americans feel they've become too weak. The same goes for America's other partners in the region, including the Turks and Arabs. It'll be that way for a long time to come, or until a powerful Eurasian polity or alliance emerges that can finally push America's sphere of influence back towards its shores.
 
.
This is why I love geopolitics.

Anyway, don't forget that America is the number one player until now, although American power has declined globally over the last couple of years. Nonetheless, America remains the number one player in Eurasian politics.

America's primary objective in Eurasia is ensuring that no unified Eurasian polity or alliance takes shape. So America will do everything in its power to prevent China, Russia and the EU from getting closer to one another. America's other, equally important, objective in Eurasia is to keep the continental landmass as politically divided and unstable as possible. A unified polity or alliance in Eurasia will undoubtedly pose huge risks to America's shipping/trading routes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Geography is destiny, as they say, so don't expect America and Russia to be on good terms with each other. America's natural geopolitical interests will always come into collision with Russia's. Simply put, they belong to opposing worldviews.

In the Middle East, the US is very happy with the situation. It has the Turks and Kurds exactly where it wants both of them. Both the Turks and Kurds are dependent on American support. The Turks want America to assure them that the Kurds of Syria won't pose a threat to Turkey's territorial integrity, and the Syrian Kurds want assurances from Washington that the Turks won't steamroll Rojava.

From America's point of view, this is great. They can play the Turks and Kurds off against each other and, ironically, make both sides rush to the Americans for aid and security assurances.

America is the main player and it has largely accomplished its task of dividing up Eurasia. It has succeeded in weakening the European Union by encouraging Britain to leave the EU while pretending to be in favor of European unity in public. Washington is now trying to court the Russians in order to drive a wedge between the Russian and Chinese alliance. It's basically repeating what Nixon and Kissinger did many decades ago when they courted China in order to move the Chinese away from the Soviets. This time, America is trying to move the Russians away from the more powerful Chinese lol.

As for the Gulf states, they'll continue to be America's little playthings. The UAE is America's favorite Middle Eastern ally, even more liked by the Americans than Israel -- believe it or not.

In short, America is accomplishing what it always wanted. The Middle Eastern crisis will be managed, not solved. The Kurds will be weakened when the Americans feel they've become too strong, and strengthened when the Americans feel they've become too weak. The same goes for America's other partners in the region, including the Turks and Arabs. It'll be that way for a long time to come, or until a powerful Eurasian polity or alliance emerges that can finally push America's sphere of influence back towards its shores.

Your American view could have been right... if Hillary had win the election... :)
Trump is a puppet, who can be easily manipulated by those around him. So US position in Middle East will still be there, but not entirely, meaning a gap should be filled, could be filled by "more " Russia or ? , and that "?" will be the key player in the region... who gonna get it first...
 
.
Your American view could have been right... if Hillary had win the election... :)
Trump is a puppet, who can be easily manipulated by those around him. So US position in Middle East will still be there, but not entirely, meaning a gap should be filled, could be filled by Russia or ? , and that "?" will be the key player in the region... who gonna get it first...
America's foreign policy was always the same, regardless of who's president.

Geography is destiny. Geographical determinism decides/influences the foreign policy objectives of nations/polities. The individual is powerless in the grand scheme of things.

Trump's administration will gradually become more hostile towards Russia in the coming months/years, which is exactly what the Bush and Obama administrations went through.

America's goals have been accomplished so far in Eurasia. The Eurasian continent is extremely divided today and mired in conflict.

Washington will continue to play the Kurds, Turks and other Middle Eastern groups off against one another while it, ironically, pulls all these groups closer into America's orbit.
 
. .
America's foreign policy was always the same, regardless of who's president.

Geography is destiny. Geographical determinism decides/influences the foreign policy objectives of nations/polities. The individual is powerless in the grand scheme of things.

Trump's administration will gradually become more hostile towards Russia in the coming months/years, which is exactly what the Bush and Obama administrations went through.

America's goals have been accomplished so far in Eurasia. The Eurasian continent is extremely divided today and mired in conflict.

Washington will continue to play the Kurds, Turks and other Middle Eastern groups off against one another while it, ironically, pulls all these groups closer into America's orbit.

America foreign policy may be the same, but it's not working as before,

GCC are stepping out of US milk and begin to embrace MADE in "my country" and other biz and ToT partners , like China and RU.

Turkey is securing his future too, by localy producing is defence, like Tanks/Helis/Aircraft/UAV and so on...

Same goes to Iran, embargo is nearly over, the country will jump on the modernization train and self-made...

China is taking more and more place in the world chess... with her new islands and territory expension. It seems nothing but not for the US, their attention is shiffting to East Asia now, while letting ME allies doing the after sales service.

Egypt want to have a better role around the region too. he wants to play...

Pakistan is getting importance with his GCC allies.. after the yemen fiasco...

Things are getting ugly around there... if no alliance is made among themselfs...
 
.
It's over and not over at the same time, if you know what I mean lol.

The conflict might not be over, but the war and actual fighting is drawing to an end.

People are exhausted. All sides are weak and exhausted right now. Nobody has the upper hand. All sides are dependent on world powers, such as Russia and America, for political and military support. Even the regional powers, such as Iran and Turkey, are dependent on Russia and America for any moves they make on the ground.

So it's both over and not over at the same time. Tensions will continue, no doubt, but don't expect the fighting to intensify. Peak fighting is over. It'll be just like the situation in Somalia, Cyprus and Nagorno-Karabakh.

What you're describing is basically the fragmentation of Iraq and Syria. It may not be an official fragmentation, but it'll be de facto.

Iraqi Kurdistan will declare independence, which nobody will recognize, and then unofficially annex northeastern Syria via the Rojava Peshmerga.

The Shias of Iraq will be too exhausted to go to war with the Kurds, especially if they see that there aren't enough Kurds who are willing to side with the PKK instead of the Peshmerga. Baghdad will continue to act like it has power over Iraqi Kurdistan, but in reality it won't.

Iraqis in general are sick of the Kurdish issue and couldn't care less anyway.

The Turks will also unofficially carve a Turkmen region out of northwestern Syria, which Damascus will lay claim to but won't be able to enter.

The Druze area in southern Syria will increasingly fall into Jordan's economic and political orbit, but it'll still officially be aligned with Damascus.

The Russians will increase their cultural influence and presence in the Alawite coastal region, which is what they primarily cared about since day one.

Israel will be the biggest winner of course. Israel will continue to keep the Golan Heights and then focus on fighting ISIS militants in the Sinai Peninsula via their drones. They'll care less and less about respecting Egypt's sovereignty in that area.

So you'll end up with the same kinds of maps that the RAND Corporation and Wilson Center think tanks drew:

how-5-countries-could-become-14-1380334777804-superJumbo.jpg


Screen%2BShot%2B2017-02-26%2Bat%2B9.05.48%2BAM.png
Where did you find that map?
 
.
America foreign policy may be the same, but it's not working as before,

GCC are stepping out of US milk and begin to embrace MADE in "my country" and other biz and ToT partners , like China and RU.

Turkey is securing his future too, by localy producing is defence, like Tanks/Helis/Aircraft/UAV and so on...

Same goes to Iran, embargo is nearly over, the country will jump on the modernization train and self-made...

China is taking more and more place in the world chess... with her new islands and territory expension. It seems nothing but not for the US, their attention is shiffting to East Asia now, while letting ME allies doing the after sales service.

Egypt want to have a better role around the region too. he wants to play...

Pakistan is getting importance with his GCC allies.. after the yemen fiasco...

Things are getting ugly around there... if no alliance is made among themselfs...
You're right, America's plans aren't working as effectively as they used to, and that's naturally due to the rise of other world powers, especially powers that are based in Eurasia. Russia's no longer as weak as it was during the Yeltsin years, and China is rising.

I think the region could see the emergence of a Turko-Persian Islamic alliance in the coming decade or so. The Turks and Iranians share similar regional security concerns. They're both wary of Kurdish separatist groups, and they're both becoming increasingly dependent on each other from an economic point of view. Also, Turkey's religious estabishment is largely influenced by Sufism, which has close historical connections to Shia Islam. So, in my opinion, a Turko-Persian alliance in the Middle East is very possible. The Turks and Iranians simply have to come to an arrangement in which they formally decide how to divide the region among themselves. They could come to an arrangement where Iran would be allowed to spread its influence into the Shia-majority areas while Turkey would be allowed to spread its influence into the Sunni-majority areas. Of course, if this happens, then you can rest assured that both Persian and Turkish will become increasingly important languages in the region. Perhaps Turkish will become a second official language in some of the Levantine countries, while Persian might get an official status in Iraq.

This is all very possible and not as far-fetched as some people may like to think. The Arab World is not in the position to assert itself anymore, therefore it's very possible that both Iran and Turkey will lead the region in the coming decades under the framework of a strategic alliance.

Really, this is the only way for the Middle Eastern powers to stop playing second fiddle to the United States and other foreign powers in the wider region.

But bringing about this new regional order is easier said than done. For the time being, it appears that America is going nowhere. On the contrary, it has successfully destabilized the Middle East and other parts of Eurasia for the purpose of preserving American hegemony in the continent. It is to this day very successful in playing different groups off against one another, which is exactly what it's currently doing with the Turks and YPG Kurds. So, in the meantime, America is still achieving its goals and there's absolutely no indication that American dominance in the Middle East is ending anytime soon. On the contrary, America now has so many groups in the Middle East that it can choose to align with (or toy with) in order to preserve its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland.

Where did you find that map?
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/opinion/sunday/imagining-a-remapped-middle-east.html

2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...w-5-countries-could-become-14.html?ref=sunday

3. http://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE233.html
 
.
You're right, America's plans aren't working as effectively as they used to, and that's naturally due to the rise of other world powers, especially powers that are based in Eurasia. Russia's no longer as weak as it was during the Yeltsin years, and China is rising.

I think the region could see the emergence of a Turko-Persian Islamic alliance in the coming decade or so. The Turks and Iranians share similar regional security concerns. They're both wary of Kurdish separatist groups, and they're both becoming increasingly dependent on each other from an economic point of view. Also, Turkey's religious estabishment is largely influenced by Sufism, which has close historical connections to Shia Islam. So, in my opinion, a Turko-Persian alliance in the Middle East is very possible. The Turks and Iranians simply have to come to an arrangement in which they formally decide how to divide the region among themselves. They could come to an arrangement where Iran would be allowed to spread its influence into the Shia-majority areas while Turkey would be allowed to spread its influence into the Sunni-majority areas. Of course, if this happens, then you can rest assured that both Persian and Turkish will become increasingly important languages in the region. Perhaps Turkish will become a second official language in some of the Levantine countries, while Persian might get an official status in Iraq.

This is all very possible and not as far-fetched as some people may like to think. The Arab World is not in the position to assert itself anymore, therefore it's very possible that both Iran and Turkey will lead the region in the coming decades under the framework of a strategic alliance.

Really, this is the only way for the Middle Eastern powers to stop playing second fiddle to the United States and other foreign powers in the wider region.

But bringing about this new regional order is easier said than done. For the time being, it appears that America is going nowhere. On the contrary, it has successfully destabilized the Middle East and other parts of Eurasia for the purpose of preserving American hegemony in the continent. It is to this day very successful in playing different groups off against one another, which is exactly what it's currently doing with the Turks and YPG Kurds. So, in the meantime, America is still achieving its goals and there's absolutely no indication that American dominance in the Middle East is ending anytime soon. On the contrary, America now has so many groups in the Middle East that it can choose to align with (or toy with) in order to preserve its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland.

Turkey may have better ties with Iran, but they will not let spread Iranian chiite ideology ... Turks are sunnis, they fought against it in the ottoman empire, they will continue, even more with their incoming stronger ties with GCC ( ToT and JV with SAudi and UAE and Qatar). So Turkey -Iran alliance not happening, better ties, maybe.

As for America little play in the Region, it was only possible bc those "allies" needed her for defence equipment and biz ties. They still need her, but even less day after day, and the US knows it, that's why she's finding "new" allies... who has oil and gas.. like the Kurds.

AS for Iran influence, it will grow in the region, but don't forget that Iraqis chiite cleric are not all Iranian friendly... An Iraq/IRan conflict on ideology could rise in the near future when Iraq gonna need new power. Iraq will be in search of support to counter Iranian influence by siding with "unlikely" allies... :)
 
. . .
Turkey may have better ties with Iran, but they will not let spread Iranian chiite ideology ... Turks are sunnis, they fought against it in the ottoman empire, they will continue, even more with their incoming stronger ties with GCC ( ToT and JV with SAudi and UAE and Qatar). So Turkey -Iran alliance not happening, better ties, maybe.

As for America little play in the Region, it was only possible bc those "allies" needed her for defence equipment and biz ties. They still need her, but even less day after day, and the US knows it, that's why she's finding "new" allies... who has oil and gas.. like the Kurds.

AS for Iran influence, it will grow in the region, but don't forget that Iraqis chiite cleric are not all Iranian friendly... An Iraq/IRan conflict on ideology could rise in the near future when Iraq gonna need new power. Iraq will be in search of support to counter Iranian influence by siding with "unlikely" allies... :)
A Turko-Persian Islamic alliance is very possible given the fact that Iran is ruled by Turkish-speaking Azerbaijani religious elites who have very strong cultural, business and (especially) ideological ties with the Anatolian Turks.

But, of course, both Iran and Turkey must come to an agreement in which both countries respect each other's spheres of influence. If Iran and Turkey can't come to this arrangement, then the United States will continue to dominate Middle Eastern politics by playing the Sunni and Shia blocs off against each other and alternately supporting one bloc against the other bloc in order to make sure neither the Shias nor Sunnis have the upper hand and in order to ensure that the Americans are always present and needed in the region.

So, in other words, we're back to square one and the Americans will continue to exploit the differences between various Middle Eastern groups for the purpose of maintaining/preserving their hegemony and sphere of influence in the Eurasian heartland.

So you basically shot down your own argument.

Like I said, the only way America can stop dominating Middle Eastern politics is if a proper Middle Eastern alliance emerges that can push American influence/hegemony out of the wider region. This can only happen if or when Iran and Turkey form an alliance in which both countries respect each other's spheres of influence and work together to shape a new regional order that excludes American and other foreign presence.

But, as I told you, this is much easier said than done because the Middle Easterners are, generally speaking, self-destructive people who can easily be manipulated by outside powers.

As for the GCC, trust me the Gulf states would not want to be part of either an Iranian-led or Turkish-led alliance. The Gulf states fear Turkey as much as, if not more than, they fear Iran. The Gulf Arabs, especially the people of Dubai, don't mind doing business with the Iranians and Turks, but when it comes to politics they fear both countries.

----------------------------------------------------

So, the SDF has just confirmed what I've been saying all along. According to the Russian-brokered deal, the SDF will only hand the demarcation line over to the SAA and Russian special forces units. So the boundary between the SDF and Euphrates Shield in Manbij will be controlled by Syrian government troops. Nothing else will be handed over to the Syrian government. Both the city of Manbij and the countryside will remain under SDF control.




 
. . .
If Iran and Turkey can't come to this arrangement, then the United States will continue to dominate Middle Eastern politics by playing the Sunni and Shia blocs off against each other and alternately supporting one bloc against the other bloc in order to make sure neither the Shias nor Sunnis have the upper hand and in order to ensure that the Americans are always present and needed in the region.
We don't have such problems in Turkey.

Here people don't even know what Sunni or shia actually mean. I for one still don't know the differences, if there is any. And I don't know anything about sunnism apart from the fact that that is what is written on my citizenship card, the newer versions of which dont even include such things in them and they are already in effect.

This situation is also applicable for everyone I have ever known, not only me or my family.

Even my "too muslim" friend just prays one time a week and that is in fridays.




This situation of secularism provides our country the ability to be able to cooperate with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the West all in the same time.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom