Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:Apparently the rebels are backed in part by Turkey. This is all straight out of Peter Zeihan. Turkey is very quietly positioning itself to be the economic leader of the region, and the US is glad to support.

Is Turkey just better at regime change than the DC blob?

tragabigzanda wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Apparently the rebels are backed in part by Turkey. This is all straight out of Peter Zeihan. Turkey is very quietly positioning itself to be the economic leader of the region, and the US is glad to support.

Is Turkey just better at regime change than the DC blob?

I could be wrong, I need to do some research, but my sense is that their agenda is purely economic and not cultural. Makes things less frictionless.

Feel free to push back on that, but that’s my assessment so far.

I think you are largely correct:

Turkey would have had no problem with Assad, if they could work with him. However, his disregarding Turkish interests, and gradually stronger Russian and Iranian ties, made it difficult for them to work with him, and they eventually gave up.

They do have a personal interest in there not being unlimited amounts of immigrants coming into their nation, but there is one other issue, that is far more important to Turkey. The Kurds. While The Kurds in Syria have been allies of the US, and fought against Assad, they are enemies of Turkey and the Turkish allies in the border region. While those that captured Homs and Damascus are a third group, Turkey believes that with new leadership in Syria, that they can now curtail Kurdish strength, nationalism in eastern Syria, northern Iraq and in eastern Turkey, and that they can stop any terrorist activites from Kurds aimed at Turkey.

Anders wrote:Turkey would have had no problem with Assad, if they could work with him. However, his disregarding Turkish interests, and gradually stronger Russian and Iranian ties, made it difficult for them to work with him, and they eventually gave up.

They do have a personal interest in there not being unlimited amounts of immigrants coming into their nation, but there is one other issue, that is far more important to Turkey. The Kurds. While The Kurds in Syria have been allies of the US, and fought against Assad, they are enemies of Turkey and the Turkish allies in the border region. While those that captured Homs and Damascus are a third group, Turkey believes that with new leadership in Syria, that they can now curtail Kurdish strength, nationalism in eastern Syria, northern Iraq and in eastern Turkey, and that they can stop any terrorist activites from Kurds aimed at Turkey.

So the US keeps its presence in Syria just to prevent Turkey from fulfilling its goals regarding the Kurds?

simple schoolboy wrote:

Anders wrote:Turkey would have had no problem with Assad, if they could work with him. However, his disregarding Turkish interests, and gradually stronger Russian and Iranian ties, made it difficult for them to work with him, and they eventually gave up.

They do have a personal interest in there not being unlimited amounts of immigrants coming into their nation, but there is one other issue, that is far more important to Turkey. The Kurds. While The Kurds in Syria have been allies of the US, and fought against Assad, they are enemies of Turkey and the Turkish allies in the border region. While those that captured Homs and Damascus are a third group, Turkey believes that with new leadership in Syria, that they can now curtail Kurdish strength, nationalism in eastern Syria, northern Iraq and in eastern Turkey, and that they can stop any terrorist activites from Kurds aimed at Turkey.

So the US keeps its presence in Syria just to prevent Turkey from fulfilling its goals regarding the Kurds?

The Kurds are long time allies of the US, and helped take out IS more than anyone. But the US half treat them poorly anyway. Wouldn't trust the US if I were the Kurds, but they are surrounded by people who want their land, and for them not to get their own country, so they will take the help they can get.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/some-250- ... d-reports/

"Syrian security sources say IAF bombed at least 3 major army air bases that housed dozens of helicopters, jets; SOHR reports over 100 strikes since morning; no comment from IDFThe number of strikes carried out by Israel on Syrian military infrastructure since Sunday is believed to lie at around 250.

Western intelligence sources believe that around 300 strikes have been carried out against Syrian military targets, the Ynet news site reported, adding that if the strikes continue at their current pace, officials believe the Syrian Air Force will be all but destroyed in a matter of days, ensuring that the rebel groups, and any future government, will not be able to threaten Israel from the air.

A Britain-based war monitor told AFP that Israel had conducted more than 100 airstrikes on military targets in Syria on Monday, including a research center Western countries suspected of having links to chemical weapons production in Damascus."

This is all still fresh, but I haven't seen any well thought out takes on what this means for regional stability. We don't need another ISIS rising in Syria.

I don't think anyone fully knows what this will end up as, which is probably why Israel are bombing the way they are. Most likely the Turkish backed groups will continue to rule in the western region across the Turkish border, and the Kurds will continue to rule in the east, unless Turkey goes full war against them. But the largest uncertainty remains with those who captured the big cites (Aleppo, Homs, Damascus and the coast) over the last couple of weeks. Most likely they will be the rulers of Syria as a nation going forward, so let's see what they can unite under.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abu- ... rcna183402

"Syrian rebel leader's extremist past raises questions about his future
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has sought to rebrand his and his group’s position while distancing himself from their Al Qaeda connections."

This is the newest one I could find:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:This is all still fresh, but I haven't seen any well thought out takes on what this means for regional stability. We don't need another ISIS rising in Syria.

Anders wrote:I don't think anyone fully knows what this will end up as, which is probably why Israel are bombing the way they are. Most likely the Turkish backed groups will continue to rule in the western region across the Turkish border, and the Kurds will continue to rule in the east, unless Turkey goes full war against them. But the largest uncertainty remains with those who captured the big cites (Aleppo, Homs, Damascus and the coast) over the last couple of weeks. Most likely they will be the rulers of Syria as a nation going forward, so let's see what they can unite under.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abu- ... rcna183402

"Syrian rebel leader's extremist past raises questions about his future
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has sought to rebrand his and his group’s position while distancing himself from their Al Qaeda connections."

While I wouldn't suggest there isn't a lot of cultural nuance to all this, I think the broad strategy is pretty clear: US gets to use Israel as a proxy for further economic rule; Israel gets to expand and solidify their economy. The whole reason you bomb a place to shit is so you can generate dollars on the rebuild.

I think Israel did it to prevent attacks against them, from a more erratic/militant Islamic Syria.

Not that Israel loved Assad, but they knew where they had him. Mostly they have bombed military equipment.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Anders wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:This is all still fresh, but I haven't seen any well thought out takes on what this means for regional stability. We don't need another ISIS rising in Syria.

Anders wrote:I don't think anyone fully knows what this will end up as, which is probably why Israel are bombing the way they are. Most likely the Turkish backed groups will continue to rule in the western region across the Turkish border, and the Kurds will continue to rule in the east, unless Turkey goes full war against them. But the largest uncertainty remains with those who captured the big cites (Aleppo, Homs, Damascus and the coast) over the last couple of weeks. Most likely they will be the rulers of Syria as a nation going forward, so let's see what they can unite under.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abu- ... rcna183402

"Syrian rebel leader's extremist past raises questions about his future
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has sought to rebrand his and his group’s position while distancing himself from their Al Qaeda connections."

While I wouldn't suggest there isn't a lot of cultural nuance to all this, I think the broad strategy is pretty clear: US gets to use Israel as a proxy for further economic rule; Israel gets to expand and solidify their economy. The whole reason you bomb a place to shit is so you can generate dollars on the rebuild.

I think Israel did it to prevent attacks against them, from a more erratic/militant Islamic Syria.

Not that Israel loved Assad, but they knew where they had him. Mostly they have bombed military equipment.

Ah, that's helpful info. I think the spirit is the same though: A stable Syria protects their economic interests. And military bases are probably nice steady portfolio payers.

Will be interestlng to see who the new Syria pays for military equipment in the future, but probably not the US or Israel for a while.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Anders wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Anders wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:This is all still fresh, but I haven't seen any well thought out takes on what this means for regional stability. We don't need another ISIS rising in Syria.

Anders wrote:I don't think anyone fully knows what this will end up as, which is probably why Israel are bombing the way they are. Most likely the Turkish backed groups will continue to rule in the western region across the Turkish border, and the Kurds will continue to rule in the east, unless Turkey goes full war against them. But the largest uncertainty remains with those who captured the big cites (Aleppo, Homs, Damascus and the coast) over the last couple of weeks. Most likely they will be the rulers of Syria as a nation going forward, so let's see what they can unite under.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abu- ... rcna183402

"Syrian rebel leader's extremist past raises questions about his future
Abu Mohammad al-Jolani has sought to rebrand his and his group’s position while distancing himself from their Al Qaeda connections."

While I wouldn't suggest there isn't a lot of cultural nuance to all this, I think the broad strategy is pretty clear: US gets to use Israel as a proxy for further economic rule; Israel gets to expand and solidify their economy. The whole reason you bomb a place to shit is so you can generate dollars on the rebuild.

I think Israel did it to prevent attacks against them, from a more erratic/militant Islamic Syria.

Not that Israel loved Assad, but they knew where they had him. Mostly they have bombed military equipment.

Ah, that's helpful info. I think the spirit is the same though: A stable Syria protects their economic interests. And military bases are probably nice steady portfolio payers.

Will be interestlng to see who the new Syria pays for military equipment in the future, but probably not the US or Israel for a while.

Probably a combination of after-market outdated weapons and supplies to shore up their boots on the ground, and select choices of next-gen US tech to protect their most critical assets.

Could be that the bombing will drive them back into the arms of Iran/Russia, same as Assad.

Turkey is a potential ally, but that also has a large backside.

Maybe it will be as you have said.

Other Arab nations seem like their best choice.