Kurds abandomed by Trump

sculptor said:
If you would blame Trump for Turkish land grab and killings, then you are blaming the USA for the Turkish land grab and killings.
Click to expand...
I don't blame Trump for Turkish land grabs and killings. I blame him for running away from our allies in order to enrich himself and please Putin.
 
As a result of Trump's decision, Assad and Russians are taking over defense of Kurdish area (with agreement of Kurds).
 
billvon said:
No, US military bases. I am sure you understand the concept of US military bases in foreign countries.
Click to expand...

Without the invitation of the country in which the base is formed?
Isn't that in violation of international law?

If you build something on someone else's property without their permission, who owns it?
 
sculptor said:
Without the invitation of the country in which the base is formed?
Isn't that in violation of international law?

If you build something on someone else's property without their permission, who owns it?
Click to expand...

What makes you think Assad and Putin legitimately own Syria?
 
CptBork said:
What makes you think Assad and Putin legitimately own Syria?
Click to expand...

You seem to have a curious way of phrasing that.
Does Queen Elizabeth II own canada?
Does Justin Trudeau own canada?
Does Emmanuel Macron own France?
etc...etc...
 
Billvon: I am sure you understand the concept of US military bases in foreign countries.
sculptor said:
Without the invitation of the country in which the base is formed?
Click to expand...
The setting up of military bases happens in two ways: by conquest and occupation, or by treaty agreement. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.
United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities.
Isn't that in violation of international law?
Click to expand...
In the middle east, the term "country" is both problematic and fluid. International law can't be applied to arbitrary borders drawn on a map by foreign powers without consultation or consent of the residents.
 
How fortunate that we have provided Russia a golden opportunity to expand their influence and control! Putin definitely got his money's worth.
=====================
Russia Savors U.S. Missteps in Syria, and Seizes Opportunity
President Trump’s erratic moves are letting Russia seize the role of peacemaker — and deal-maker — in Syria.

By Anton Troianovski NYT

  • Published Oct. 14, 2019Updated Oct. 15, 2019
MOSCOW — These have been disastrous weeks for American foreign policy, a popular presenter on Russia’s state television told viewers on Sunday night with an I-told-you-so smirk.

The United States essentially turned its back on Ukraine amid the impeachment inquiry, the TV host Dmitri Kiselyov said in his marquee weekly show. Then, Washington abandoned the Syrian Kurds.

“The Kurds themselves again picked the wrong patron,” Mr. Kiselyov said. “The United States, of course, is an unreliable partner.”

As the Middle East reels from President Trump’s erratic foreign policy, Russia is savoring a fresh chance to build its status as a resurgent world power and cast itself as a force for stability. The withdrawal of United States troops from northeastern Syria, coupled with Turkey’s incursion, is allowing Russia to play the part of responsible peacemaker and to present a contrast to what many in the region see as unstable leadership from Washington.
====================
 
exchemist said:
And the USA might be in a good position to broker some kind of standoff between the Kurds and Turkey in some way. Demilitarised zone or something? After all, this is entirely an aggressive initiative by Erdogan, supposedly to eliminate the threat of Kurdish terrorism. Turkey is a NATO member. There would seem to be levers, for an administration to use, if they are keen to avoid further destabilisation of the area - and the return of Daesh.
Click to expand...
First of all, the US has tried hard to broker something. And this has effectively stopped the Turkish attack for quite a long time. Initial plans were to start it immediately after the Afrin operation.

The Turks several times felt being tricked by the US, in particular, because the US continued to support the Kurds with weapons. The typical scenario - in the negotiations the US is promising something but does not do what is promised. I would not wonder that behind this are not even lies but power games between the various parts of the US forces involved - the State Department wants X, the Pentagon Y, and the CIA Z. And everybody does what he wants to do without caring about the others so that what the State Department signs in some contracts with foreign powers will be simply ignored by Pentagon/CIA.

What the US has done now has, in fact, stabilized the situation. Because it was clear that the actual front lines are not forever. It was a question of time when the Syrians would start to get rid of the US occupation. And they certainly would have had possibilities, once even the Afghans have them. In particular, because the Kurds themselves are on most of the East of Euphrates occupants of Arab territories too, and war between the Kurds and the Arab parts of SDF was a question of time, not if it will start.

Now, we have an agreement between the Kurds and the Syrian government which the US has prevented before. And the Syrian army will take all the Arab parts - there will not appear big problems, the Arabs are happy to get rid of Kurdish rule, and recognize that Assad is the winner of the civil war, and if there are no US bases behind him, they cannot be cheated to try to fight without a real chance to win. The Syrian army will care about the IS, and if the US leaves Al Tanf, this will become much easier, because this is actually the main IS base. All this reached without a war. The Kurds will be reduced to their own regions. The Turks control some areas in Syria where they can send the Syrian refugees to. What is the problem?
 
sculptor said:
OK
What then?
Click to expand...
Nothing. The Europeans squawk and protest; Canada maybe stops selling arms to Turkey; the UN importunes, and the American Empire goes right on doing whatever the hell it wants to. Which of its invasions and interventions has ever been hampered by International law? It's a pathetic joke, a lusterless chimera.
Under a Trump administration, whatever America does is wholly unpredictable; it's not even certain at any given moment who is pushing his buttons or which of his cronies is bribing what official and vice versa, and it goes back to day #1.
 
CptBork said:
Either Trump told the Kurds that he would eventually abandon them once he had what he wanted from them, or he promised to protect them in exchange for their allegiance. Which seems more plausible to you?
Click to expand...
Neither. The promises have been made during Obama's time, what the local CIA guys told the Kurds after this does not really matter, Trump was simply unable to control this.

That Trump does not care about the Kurds at all was clear to everybody (except some completely stupid Syrian Kurds, possibly) after the US has done nothing against the liberation of Kirkuk in Oct. 2017 from the Kurds by Iraq forces. In this case, it became known that local CIA guys have promised the Kurds a lot of things to provoke them, without any base. The Kurds who believed in some US support after this are simply stupid.
CptBork said:
Did you promise to stop the bleeding in exchange for them risking their lives for you?
Click to expand...
Initially, the Kurds simply defended themselves, that's all. Later, they fought to gain control over the Syrian oil fields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top