Turkish troops launch offensive into northern Syria, says Erdogan

[caervek]

So, we already ended the tariffs that did literally fuckall?

Whatever happened to the threats to destroy the Turkish economy if they did what they literally just did and invaded northern Syria?

Maybe Trump looked back and actually noticed the connection between his treatment of Turkey and the breakdown of US-Turkish relations, so decided to stop treating them badly in the hope they might stop pushing him away...

Loool of course not he would never be that competent :P

[The Scourge of Azuremyst]

Don't have to EU would just stop trading with Turkey they would have no choice.

Never gonna happen. Turkey's economy is too tightly connected with that of the EU. And even if it wasn't, they'd still have a choice.

[Draco-Onis]

Never gonna happen. Turkey's economy is too tightly connected with that of the EU. And even if it wasn't, they'd still have a choice.

I am sorry there is no such thing just cost considerations unless Turkey makes something that doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet.

[Thekri]

Maybe Trump looked back and actually noticed the connection between his treatment of Turkey and the breakdown of US-Turkish relations, so decided to stop treating them badly in the hope they might stop pushing him away...

Loool of course not he would never be that competent :P

Well, we already know that Turkey bought Flynn and Giuliani, odds are they own someone else in Trump's orbit, somebody that is pushing him in this direction. My guess is either Mulvaney or Pompeo. For a long shot, it might be Pence.

I don't necessarily think it is Trump himself. For one thing, the US has not extradited Gulan (yet?), although both Flynn and Guliani pushed the idea on him multiple times, and Trump is apparently open to it. Someone keeps telling him no. Someone Trump listens too, and has survived through Sessions, Big Dick Toilet Guy, and Barr. Getting his paws on Gulan is probably the one thing that Erdogan wants most, so I doubt Trump would give him this over Gulan if it was Trump that was compromised.

2019 politics is so fun. Trying to figure out which foreign government has bought which member of our government...

[Skulltaker]

Well, we already know that Turkey bought Flynn and Giuliani, odds are they own someone else in Trump's orbit, somebody that is pushing him in this direction. My guess is either Mulvaney or Pompeo. For a long shot, it might be Pence.

I don't necessarily think it is Trump himself. For one thing, the US has not extradited Gulan (yet?), although both Flynn and Guliani pushed the idea on him multiple times, and Trump is apparently open to it. Someone keeps telling him no. Someone Trump listens too, and has survived through Sessions, Big Dick Toilet Guy, and Barr. Getting his paws on Gulan is probably the one thing that Erdogan wants most, so I doubt Trump would give him this over Gulan if it was Trump that was compromised.

2019 politics is so fun. Trying to figure out which foreign government has bought which member of our government...

I wondered if maybe Pence was behind all of it, to get the Presidency. On the other hand, he seems to be barely smarter than Trump.

[Shalcker]

Did they have to, though? I guess it must be nice to live in a world where everything is perfectly clear and one can say with absolute certainty what the right course of action was and is. Then again, I personally believe that the amount of death dealt here was unnecessary, but that's just my opinion. I think that way because Turkey decided to move its military before even trying to re-negotiate the deal after the situation had changed considerably. I am also aware of the fact that such would have had its dangers as well, potentially the US moving troops back there and closing the window. Sometimes, that is true. Sometimes, that line of thinking makes world wars unavoidable. Yet, I will always criticize people taking action to take lives when their own are not at stake. Even in the worst possible outcome I can think of, i.e. return to the stalemate, Turkish lives were not really endangered because of that. These people were sacrificed for Turkey's "National Security", one way or another. And unless said security was in a life-threatening state, I will always criticize it because to me, human lives are the most important variable. If Turkey, or you for that matter, think otherwise, sure, that's up to you and your own conscience. But I won't accept the "they had to do it!" excuse. They chose to. They valued the lives of Kurdish civilians against their own interests and made a choice. End of story.

As far as i see, entire thing started from Assad being too soft, and many people (and countries) exploiting that.
After initial protests he actually fulfilled protestor demands of releasing Muslim Brotherhood prisoners... which was immediately seen as sign of weakness and pretext for escalation to oust him, and for everyone around him (Turkey included, with US tacit or direct blessing) to fund and arm rebels. And things were really going downhill until Russian and Iranian intervention.

You would be wrong though that "Turkish lives were not really endangered" - PKK/YPG has long history with them.

[Thekri]

I wondered if maybe Pence was behind all of it, to get the Presidency. On the other hand, he seems to be barely smarter than Trump.

I kind of doubt Pence, and if it is him then the motive is not the Presidency. For one thing, Pence went after Turkey with everything he had over that pastor they imprisoned, which at least means he wasn't in Turkey's pocket then.

As far as scheming to get the Presidency... just no. It would be so damaged by the time he got it there would be no point. He certainly couldn't hold it, a Pence-Jesus ticket would still lose in 2020.

[Omega10]

Well, we already know that Turkey bought Flynn and Giuliani, odds are they own someone else in Trump's orbit, somebody that is pushing him in this direction. My guess is either Mulvaney or Pompeo. For a long shot, it might be Pence.

I don't necessarily think it is Trump himself. For one thing, the US has not extradited Gulan (yet?), although both Flynn and Guliani pushed the idea on him multiple times, and Trump is apparently open to it. Someone keeps telling him no. Someone Trump listens too, and has survived through Sessions, Big Dick Toilet Guy, and Barr. Getting his paws on Gulan is probably the one thing that Erdogan wants most, so I doubt Trump would give him this over Gulan if it was Trump that was compromised.

2019 politics is so fun. Trying to figure out which foreign government has bought which member of our government...

Get used to the new norm. The purchases were likely made in the past, just that is was not so obvious and probably not so many of them.

[Kiri]

As far as i see, entire thing started from Assad being too soft, and many people (and countries) exploiting that.
After initial protests he actually fulfilled protestor demands of releasing Muslim Brotherhood prisoners... which was immediately seen as sign of weakness and pretext for escalation to oust him, and for everyone around him (Turkey included, with US tacit or direct blessing) to fund and arm rebels. And things were really going downhill until Russian and Iranian intervention.

You would be wrong though that "Turkish lives were not really endangered" - PKK/YPG has long history with them.

I am not sure what "who/what started it" is relevant in this matter at all. Similarly, your timeline implies that Turkey has been on the offensive for the past few years, instead of being actively threatened by the people in these cities. It just means that Turkey valued maybe preventing a potential attack in the future over definitely killing people now. But they still were not forced to do that.

[Shalcker]

I am not sure what "who/what started it" is relevant in this matter at all.

It is relevant in that "show of strength" seems to be, sadly, necessary part of local politics. And even appearing to be weak can be disastrous.

Similarly, your timeline implies that Turkey has been on the offensive for the past few years, instead of being actively threatened by the people in these cities.

There were bombings attributed to YPG, occasional shelling/mortars from Syria, crackdowns on YPG on Turkish territory and all that.

It didn't come out of the blue.

It just means that Turkey valued maybe preventing a potential attack in the future over definitely killing people now. But they still were not forced to do that.

Valued preventing strengthening of organization they consider terrorist and, supposedly, either protected or actively supported from Kurdish-Syrian side.

[Breccia]

And now, some Russian media.

Putin won the political lottery

Those who are convinced that Trump is useless for Russia should think again. The US President has just sharply strengthened Moscow’s already not so flimsy political positions in the Middle East. Naturally, a politician who openly declares his “incomparable wisdom” in no way wished for such an outcome. But in fact, as a result of Trump's completely uncounted, feverish and contradictory actions, we have just such an outcome.

On the one hand, America has quarreled with Turkey and even imposes sanctions against its formal NATO ally, though not the most biting ones. On the other hand, Trump rendered the Turkish leader Erdogan a full service: the Syrian Kurds, who were in close alliance with Washington and hated by Ankara, were actually abandoned by the Americans to their fate.

Soberly assessing the consequences of this betrayal, the Kurds made the only possible decision for them in this situation: they went under the wing of the official president of Syria and Russia's main political partner Bashar al-Assad.

What Washington won from this strange combination is completely unclear. What Moscow gained from this, on the contrary, lies on the surface. To say that Russia has replaced the United States as the dominant foreign player in the Middle East, of course, is not necessary, and I am sure it will not be necessary. We do not have the right resources for this, the wrong geopolitical and economic weight, the wrong baggage of historical political and economic ties.

But now in a key Middle East region for the whole world, a situation has developed that would have been unthinkable at the time of Henry Kissinger and his active game of “world geopolitical chess”. The overweight giant named America “got lost in three pines”: the Trump administration does not keep pace with the course of events, is trying to develop its own political line on the go and as a result becomes more and more confused. At the same time, Russian diplomacy acts as a "shot, which is everywhere ripe."

All of this benefits the Russian Federation. You know, I’ve been watching Trump’s behavior lately and get seditious thoughts: maybe he really is a Russian agent? He is laboring so hard to strengthen the international image of Russia in general—and Putin in particular...In this situation, Americans—to their chagrin and our enjoyment—are the only losers in this situation

It’s been a long time since America has been humiliated this way. They ran away in shame! I can’t recall such a scenario since Vietnam. For us, this is of great interest, because this is a key region where energy prices are being determined. That is a shining cherry on top.

This is sad for America. A smaller-scale version of what happened in Vietnam

America betrayed everyone...Trump also strengthened the anti-American mood in Turkey, when he promised to destroy the Turkish economy. Anti-Americanism in Turkey is off the charts. American politics are tangled in their own shoelaces... America is successfully self-eliminating from the region.

I look at Trump and think: ‘May God grant him good health—and another term. This is a great situation for Russia...We can practically sit back and reap the dividends from what others are doing...Meanwhile, Trump is yet to make a single good deal, which is why I wish him good health, may he flourish and get re-elected...Trump is a great candidate. I applaud him...For America, this isn’t a very good president.

The above is a mix of Russian sources collected by the Daily Beast. It's really easy to see why they'd have such undisguised glee about the situation.

[Shalcker]

And now, some Russian media.

Putin won the political lottery

The above is a mix of Russian sources collected by the Daily Beast. It's really easy to see why they'd have such undisguised glee about the situation.

Well, you cannot deny that Trump is right in his comment on Russia-Turkey deal in Syria that “This was an outcome created by us, the United States, and nobody else”

[Gaidax]

It is relevant in that "show of strength" seems to be, sadly, necessary part of local politics. And even appearing to be weak can be disastrous.

Welcome to the Middle East.

European minds can't comprehend this. We know this here all to well.

[Kiri]

It is relevant in that "show of strength" seems to be, sadly, necessary part of local politics. And even appearing to be weak can be disastrous.

There were bombings attributed to YPG, occasional shelling/mortars from Syria, crackdowns on YPG on Turkish territory and all that.

It didn't come out of the blue.

Valued preventing strengthening of organization they consider terrorist and, supposedly, either protected or actively supported from Kurdish-Syrian side.

"Showing strength" by killing instead of trying to negotiate can backfire just as well. I doubt the world is as cut and dry simple as you present it to be, where there is always exactly one right choice and thereby everything is justified. Revolts like the one against Assad for example do not just spring out of nowhere because the people decide they don't like his face. You could argue that he first showed strength by suppressing his own people, breeding resentment, which eventually led to what you describe. That's why the 'who started it' face is pointless. Anyone can pick their preferred place and time in a crisis, claim it started there and use that to reinforce the point. In reality, there were a myriad of aspects that all led to this outcome, and at some times, showing less strength would have averted crisis, in others more. I reject the blanket statement that it is absolutely necessary to show strength for everything in that area. You don't have to become a terrorist to combat terrorism.

[Shalcker]

"Showing strength" by killing instead of trying to negotiate can backfire just as well.

They tried to negotiate. It's not like they were using force non-stop since Afrin. But negotiations require receptive party on other side, not "We got Americans backing us, what you're gonna do?!"

I doubt the world is as cut and dry simple as you present it to be, where there is always exactly one right choice and thereby everything is justified.

There are many "right choices" there, all of which lead to potential loss of life. And the one that goes currently might be the one with lowest casualty rate.

It's battleground with multiple armed groups, "risk to life" is inherent to dealing with such territory.

Revolts like the one against Assad for example do not just spring out of nowhere because the people decide they don't like his face. You could argue that he first showed strength by suppressing his own people, breeding resentment, which eventually led to what you describe. That's why the 'who started it' face is pointless. Anyone can pick their preferred place and time in a crisis, claim it started there and use that to reinforce the point. In reality, there were a myriad of aspects that all led to this outcome, and at some times, showing less strength would have averted crisis, in others more. I reject the blanket statement that it is absolutely necessary to show strength for everything in that area. You don't have to become a terrorist to combat terrorism.

There is nothing inherently "terrorist" in military operation.

Did US became terrorist when they literally leveled Raqqa and Mosul in process of "liberating" them from ISIS?

[Kiri]

They tried to negotiate. It's not like they were using force non-stop since Afrin. But negotiations require receptive party on other side, not "We got Americans backing us, what you're gonna do?!"

There are many "right choices" there, all of which lead to potential loss of life. And the one that goes currently might be the one with lowest casualty rate.

It's battleground with multiple armed groups, "risk to life" is inherent to dealing with such territory.

There is nothing inherently "terrorist" in military operation.

Did US became terrorist when they literally leveled Raqqa and Mosul in process of "liberating" them from ISIS?

Or it might have been the one with the highest. And that is kind of the point - they did not try to negotiate when the US made it clear they were no longer backing the Kurds, meaning their stance could have changed. Turkey decided not to attempt that but went with the plan that would definitely kill civilians instead. It was their choice. No one stopped them from attempting another.

There is nothing inherently terrorist in military operation indeed. Terrorism is more the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. You argue that force of strength is necessary, i.e. violence and intimidation. You argue that hitting civilians for that is okay. And you agree that it is done for political goals. The only point of contention here is the unlawful part. Simply marching into a sovereign country with your military forces, without first declaring war, that tends to be unlawful. The definition would probably apply to the US as well, unless they got a go-ahead first. The only reason as to why there is a grey area is because they were trying to get rid of another faction that caused suffering to the civilian population, though I am don't know enough about that situation to pass any kind of judgment.

[Shalcker]

Or it might have been the one with the highest. And that is kind of the point - they did not try to negotiate when the US made it clear they were no longer backing the Kurds, meaning their stance could have changed. Turkey decided not to attempt that but went with the plan that would definitely kill civilians instead. It was their choice. No one stopped them from attempting another.

There is no "definitely kill civilians" in their plan. There was ample warning time for civilians to evacuate, and it's not like they blanketed cities with poison gas or shelled them indiscriminately.

And as far as i see they did negotiate pretty much instantly once situation actually changed. Kurdish stance only changed when Turkey was already going in, and as you've seen, despite Trump's supposedly withdrawing, US troops were still there too (until fighting actually reached them).

Once things changed they had negotiated with US, and then negotiated with Russia (and so, by proxy, with Assad/Kurds). Gathering what all sides want, what they find acceptable and what they don't takes time.

There is nothing inherently terrorist in military operation indeed. Terrorism is more the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. You argue that force of strength is necessary, i.e. violence and intimidation. You argue that hitting civilians for that is okay.

Where did i say that is okay?

It is just mostly inevitable in any large-scale conflict even if you take every measure to avoid them.

And you agree that it is done for political goals.

Security goals aren't always "political" per se, but that is minor detail.

The only point of contention here is the unlawful part. Simply marching into a sovereign country with your military forces, without first declaring war, that tends to be unlawful.

What Turkey did is 100% unlawful.

Just like what US did before that by occupying Syrian East.

The definition would probably apply to the US as well, unless they got a go-ahead first.

Go-ahead for what? They never were authorized by Assad, that much is certain.

The only reason as to why there is a grey area is because they were trying to get rid of another faction that caused suffering to the civilian population, though I am don't know enough about that situation to pass any kind of judgment.

Literal city districts leveled by multi-month artillery and air bombings.

At least 1600 civilian casualties. 11 thousand+ buildings destroyed.
UN human rights experts said in a report last year that the battle for Raqqa was "marked by violations committed by all sides and came at an extremely high cost to civilians"
A coalition spokesperson told the BBC: "Any unintentional loss of life during the defeat of [IS] is tragic. However it must be balanced against the risk of enabling [IS] to continue terrorist activities, causing pain and suffering to anyone they choose."

Exactly same logic works for Turkey.

[Kiri]

There is no "definitely kill civilians" in their plan. There was ample warning time for civilians to evacuate, and it's not like they blanketed cities with poison gas or shelled them indiscriminately.

And as far as i see they did negotiate pretty much instantly once situation actually changed. Kurdish stance only changed when Turkey was already going in, and as you've seen, despite Trump's supposedly withdrawing, US troops were still there too (until fighting actually reached them).

Once things changed they had negotiated with US, and then negotiated with Russia (and so, by proxy, with Assad/Kurds). Gathering what all sides want, what they find acceptable and what they don't takes time.

Where did i say that is okay?

It is just mostly inevitable in any large-scale conflict even if you take every measure to avoid them.

Security goals aren't always "political" per se, but that is minor detail.

What Turkey did is 100% unlawful.

Just like what US did before that by occupying Syrian East.

Go-ahead for what? They never were authorized by Assad, that much is certain.

Literal city districts leveled by multi-month artillery and air bombings.

At least 1600 civilian casualties. 11 thousand+ buildings destroyed.
UN human rights experts said in a report last year that the battle for Raqqa was "marked by violations committed by all sides and came at an extremely high cost to civilians"
A coalition spokesperson told the BBC: "Any unintentional loss of life during the defeat of [IS] is tragic. However it must be balanced against the risk of enabling [IS] to continue terrorist activities, causing pain and suffering to anyone they choose."

Exactly same logic works for Turkey.

This is the first I hear of ample warning being given to civilians, to be honest. Maybe you have better sources there, dunno. Though expecting cities to be evacuated in 2-3 days doesn't strike me as ample, even if they immediately told the people there. Starting air strikes and artillery fire that quickly is all but guaranteed to kill civilians. Heck, as you stated yourself, it was not even enough time for US forces to fully vacate the region. But yeah, if you shell a city with civilians inside it? That is shelling them indiscriminately, since an explosive shell does not have friendly fire disabled.

My point is that I do not believe that Turkey has taken every measure to prevent it. From giving more time to evacuate over approaching more slowly up to postponing operations and devoting more than two days - if that - to diplomatic solutions, there were options.

As for the okay statement, well, you keep saying how it was inevitable and explain why Turkey 'had' to do things. That does sound to me as if you don't have much of a problem with how Turkey approached the issue.

I am still not sure why you keep bringing up the US here, since it really makes no difference. I've been critical of armed interventionism before (though I am even more against intervening, then leaving things half-finished instead of seeing it through to cause more issues) and I don't hold a high opinion of what the US did there either. Two wrongs don't make it right, especially in a context like this.

[Breccia]

Trump's "permanent ceasefire" lasts 48 hours.

"But Breccia! You said it was Russia and Iran and ISIS and -- "

And, if Trump hadn't taken credit for it, you might have a point. But, he did, so here we are.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said the cease-fire would be permanent and announced the lifting of economic sanctions on Turkey.

But Gen. Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which controlled the area until Turkey's invasion Oct. 9, said on Twitter that attacks had restarted.

Turkish forces were launching "attacks on the eastern front of the Serêkaniyê," he said, using the Kurdish name for the border town of Ras al-Ayn, which has been at the center of this conflict.

Mustafa Bali, head of the SDF press office, said via Twitter that Turkish forces had been attacking the villages of Assadiya, Mishrafa and Manajer.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Mark Esper criticized Turkey's "unwarranted" excursion into Syria.

Speaking at the German Marshall Fund in Brussels on Thursday, he said “Turkey put us all in a very terrible situation,” The Associated Press reported.

I'll side with Esper. If only something could have been done to prevent this. Hmm. Let's think. Oh hey, how are those sactions going? Being removed, you say? Well, shit!

[Shadowferal]

Cornyn: Not a bad idea to get U.S. troops out of the way if Turkey planned to ‘ethnically cleanse the Kurds'

The Texas Republican isn’t happy about the abruptness of the U.S. withdrawal but defended Trump’s move, even if it left Kurdish allies unprotected.

“I did not put on the uniform to get out of the way of ethnic cleansing," said combat pilot M.J. Hegar, an Air Force veteran. Said State Sen. Royce West of Dallas, “We protect and work with allies.... Texans don’t run."

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

Cornyn joining Graham on being a piece of shit...