Russia could make war on Turkey

Will never happen. Turkey is a member of NATO so unless Russia wants to start WW3/nuclear Holocaust, they won't attack.

There's always some general who can be found to spout something and the article is quoting an interview with Russia Today.

Turkey is a member of NATO and if Russia were to attack they would probably have done so after Turkey shot down a Russian plane in what was pretty obviously a show of strength.

Turkey is supporting ISIS as part of a regional strategy. Assad has an agreement with the kurds that as long as they don't fight him they can be autonomous (it was tacit, now it's pretty open). Turkey was supporting a wide variety of groups against Assad but is particularly keen on supporting ISIS against the kurds as they are afraid of the Kurdish controlled areas taking over the whole of their southern border. Turkey has repeatedly shelled Kurdish positions and has also allowed ISIS materials, supplies and recruits across the border while blocking the same for the kurds as well as alowing ISIS to sell goods in Turkey.

Agree with jef costello #4.

Gulai Polye #3
‘To let Russia attack Turkey without NATO doing anything about it could be a way to get Turkey out of NATO.’

The west may find Turkey a liberal embarrassment and the EU may resent being held over a barrel regarding Turkey’s stance on the refugees, however NATO is much more important than these two considerations. The central strategy of NATO is the containment of Russia. Knowing this allows Turkey to play its dangerous little adventures.

even without the rest of NATOs help Turkey could severely fuck up Russian

like just look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces

they have the second biggest military in nato, they have modern military equipment, they have access to nuclear weapons, they have the ability to completely shut of Russia's access to the Mediterranean from the black sea

Gulai Polye

there are sentiments inside NATO which are pushing to get Turkey out of NATO

That's a veterans' website so hardly the "voice of NATO". I think you'll find Turkey's military might and its strategic location at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Russia will impress governments more than a few disgruntled ex military types.

radicalgraffiti #6
‘… just look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces’

Yes, the Turks are no push over - which the allies discovered in WW1.
Curiously on the link you posted, Wikipedia omitted any mention of their role in WW1.

Famously one of Churchill’s greatest blunders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign

You have to look very hard to find any mention of Churchill in the link above – it omits that the operation was his idea and resulted in him being cast into the political wilderness for many years.
Always treat Wikipedia with some skepticism.

Edited to make clearer (?).

Erdoganist fascismo recently began moving towards an appeasement and reconciliation policy vis-a-vis Russia. In fact, Erdogan sent a letter to Putin congratulating the "Russia day" on June 12 and expressed a desire for the normalization of relations.

I think the motivation underneath is the Islamist-Erdogan regime wants to come to an understanding with Russia and even Esad to crush the PKK-PYD regime in northern Syria. It is a horror story, but more likely than an open Russia-Turkey war, which can easily turn into a third world war. I don't mean that it is impossible, but still neither of these governments are strong enough to convince their own working classes to such a mass suicide.

A tacit alliance against the PKK, on the other hand, can strengthen both Esad and Russia, if Turkey would be willing to make some concessions from its current stance in relation to islamists. Currently, in addition to the US, France and Germany as well have active troops in Southern Kurdistan, which may be bothering both Esad and Russia...

your a fuckin idiot

Radicalgraffiti, stop biting people's heads off all the time.

wojtek

Radicalgraffiti, stop biting people's heads off all the time.

but their being so ridiculously wrong about the whole thing

radicalgrattiti #14

The problem with being sure you’re correct is that it’s easy to assume the other person is being willfully errant. One of the paradoxes of education is that you forget you didn’t always know something and think it is so obvious that you always knew it. Even experienced educators fall into the trap of exclaiming stuff like, “For God’s sake, why don’t you just grow up!” (I honestly heard this in a primary school!)

The majority of the crimes committed in Syria, over the course of the civil war, have been committed by the Assad regime and its allies (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, militias). This includes the murder of 70–85 percent (depending on sources) of the 200,000+ dead. The Assad regime’s barrel bombs, more than IS, have driven people from their homes – for many Sunni Arabs, life in IS territory is probably safer than life in the daily-bombed cities of western Syria. Contrary to their perceived antagonism, the relationship between the Assad regime and IS is a predominantly symbiotic one. The regime, among others, continues to purchase IS oil. In 2011, the regime released terrorists from its prisons, and replaced them with protestors and human rights activists. The Assad regime, which is focused, primarily, on defeating the forces of the revolution, turned a blind-eye to the rise of IS. Both Assad and IS share an interest in undermining the existence of moderates, in order to strengthen their camps, which, in turn, allows Assad to appear as a bulwark against terrorism and IS to appear as the standard-bearer of Sunni Arab resistance, in Syria (and across the Middle East), against dictatorship and against imperialism. Both the portrayal of the Assad-controlled Syria as secular (in reality, clerics and nuns are wheeled out to legitimise the regime, the President must be a Muslim, Syrian law is based on Islamic Law, etc.) and the portrayal of all armed opposition groups as ‘fanatical terrorists’ are misleading.

For the internationalist left, the emergence of a consensus on the need for a co-ordinated campaign of airstrikes among the imperialist states is immediate cause for concern. If we consider the achievements of the Russian bombing campaign: tens of thousands of civilians forced to flee, thousands killed, hospitals bombed, 4/5ths of airstrikes not even targeting IS (mostly focused on rebel territory in the west of Syria), then can we honestly assert that a combined bombing campaign, the emergence of a new international consensus, with the collusion of all the major powers, with the blessing of international law – in which each side is given carte-blanche to bomb (in order, no doubt, to further their own interests in Syria) – would benefit Syrian civilians? Relying on airstrikes, alone, to completely remove IS from places like Raqqa would require such a number of bombs, and cause civilian casualties on such a scale as to make any ‘victory’ a bloody one. Bombing has, hitherto, mostly been confined to the west of Syria, the air strikes against IS have simply extended the bombing campaign across the rest of Syria. David Cameron, contrary to the advice of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, rushed into bombing Syria (does anyone seriously believe that the involvement of the RAF would make anything but a marginal difference?), in order to preserve this image of Britain as a leading power and its role as the reliant servant of the State Department.

The emergence of the new grand consensus poses an immediate challenge to campists (those on the left who place their support firmly on the side of Assad/Russia for "anti-imperialist" reasons): if the likes of the US, France, Russia and the UK, collaborate in bombing Syria, and perhaps even aiding Syrian government forces, then what happens to their naïve distinction between good states and bad states? The current aim of the US and its allies is moderate change, similar to Egypt: dispose of the head, but keep the body mostly intact, preserve the old guard, the state apparatus, prevent the accession of forces that might threaten the stability of the region (Israel and the Gulf states) and/or capitalist interests; in essence, a contained revolution and the emergence of some reversible Muslim Brotherhood-style regime, perhaps a highly-devolved state, with neoliberal economic policies.

There is, among some sections of the left (particularly Antifa-inclined people), a rather simplistic narrative. This binary narrative is centred on the struggle of the ‘progressive’ (ignoring some authoritarian practices) of the Kurdish forces against IS "fascism" (The application of the term ‘fascism’, beyond any emotive/rhetorical use, to IS is meaningless) – conveniently ignoring all other forces. The role of the Assad government and its allies (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, militias) in this conflict is completely absent from the binary narrative; but, in some sense, the simplistic narrative of certain leftist groups is simply a reflection of reality. The upper echelon of the Kurdish forces have, hitherto, mostly ignored the struggle against Assad (a struggle supported by Kurds at a grassroots level), the murderous Russian bombing campaign was even welcomed by the leader of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), despite Assad’s symbiotic relationship with (and tacit support for) IS, the sole focus of Kurdish forces is IS. Currently, Kurdish forces are supported by all sides except the Turkish state. The Turkish state is arguably Assad’s most resolute opponent, but its aggressive persecution of Kurds threatens to shift the balance of forces, such that the Kurdish movement will be even less inclined to oppose the Assad regime. The danger of this happening is increased by the fact that relations between Turkey and Russia have soured; in light of that fact, it’s not inconceivable that Russia would provide support for an increased Kurdish insurgency against the Turkish state, increasing the probability of co-option of the Kurdish struggle onto the side of the regime, especially if given the promise of future autonomy. If the revolution fails, and Assad/Ba’athists remain, then it is likely that the price paid by [the mostly Sunni Arab] Syrians will be even greater – as the regime seeks, with vengeancea , to establish total control over the whole of Syria and remove any potential threat, including the Kurds.

However, the orientalism in reverse exhibited by some on the left, who believe that Islamic fundamentalist groups are the authentic voice of the Syrian Revolution, must also be criticised; these well-funded, well-armed authoritarians have come to stifle the opposition, contrary to the will of the majority of Syrians who are neither interested in the establishment of any kind of Islamic state, nor in the waging of endless sectarian wars. Demonstrations continue to be held across towns and cities in Syria, by democrats and socialists (e.g. in Al-Nusra Front territory).

The Assads, the ISs, the Putins, Obamas, Hollandes and Camerons (and their supporters) of this world are responsible for the death of civilians, on all sides. We must oppose the binary logic which insists that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. The governments of the world will use any terrorist events to promote national unity, and use wars abroad to distract from political failures at home; that this entire crisis has been used opportunistically used by European powers to promote European unity, at a time when their monstrous capitalist/imperialist project (the European Union) is falling apart, and reinforce the feeling that there exists a clash of civilisations, which is precisely why we must oppose imperialist war and the suspension of civil liberties at home (e.g. in Britain), and across Europe, oppose Assad, IS, authoritarian groups, the growing, paranoiac anti-Muslim sentiment (at home and across Europe), the xenophobic “Fortress Europe” policies on immigration and security, etc.