Sociopath Community

MissCommunication said: 

At the end of the day, Trump literally (and unilaterally) changed the potential dynamics in the region with a pen stroke. His sudden move to pull US special troops out of Northern Syria green lit the invasion by Turkey, has killed thousands of Kurds, allowed for the release of ISIS prisoners, enabled a land grab of lost territory for Assad, and opened the door for Russian and Iran involvement back in the region.

I really do wish it was that simple.

Trump pulling 50 special forces Soldiers out of the invasion area did not green light the invasion. 

And given the invasion began before Trump withdrew another 1000 from Northern Syria, that obviously didn't green light it either. 

This invasion has been threatened for close to a year and has been held back by the United States via overseeing negotiations between YPG and Turkey which fell apart do to non-cooperation on both sides. 

Turkey will attack Kurdish fighters in Syria regardless of US withdrawal, foreign minister says PUBLISHED THU, JAN 10 20194:24 PM EST

This isn't even the first time this has happened as Turkey launched an assault in Northern Syria against the YPG back in 2018. 

Syria: Turkey war planes launch strikes on Afrin 20 January 2018 

There are 14-18,000 ISIS fighters free in the region and with the prisoners escape there could be over 30,000 ISIS members, which constitutes a serious threat all over again. It’s a literal waste of all the efforts to defeat them.

This is an actual concern to some degree, but you are being extremely hyperbolic. 

Only a dozen have been actually reported as escaped, though in my opinion no one really knows this figure, and the majority of ISIS fighters are not being held in Siege areas. 

The main facility you should be worried about is in Hasakah and it holds over 5000 detainees. It for the moment is safe, has no reports of escapes, and is not in a planned invasion zone. 

This guy's out of touch with reality and has no grasp of the situation or what he’s unleashed in the region beyond Syria. 

• He has opened up a land bridge for Iran to bring weapons into the region and that could potentially lead to an attack on Israel -  a huge risk. He’s essentially empowered Iran – a country that the US is supposedly battling over their nuclear program.
  
  

Iran doesn't benefit from this, their activity in Syria has been isolated to Federal Syrian territory as they've played a very large role in Assads support and were formerly invited into the region. This doesn't open any new logistical opportunities because with that formal invitation they can just legitimately move supplies and troops(they have 7000 stationed in Syrian controlled territory) which poses far less risk than moving it through a war zone. 

In a lot of ways its bad for Iran because as this is happening Trump has been buffing up U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia. Syria, which only had 2000 troops init to began with is no longer the focus, Iran and China are hence we are seeing a movement of resources out of Syria and into regions the U.S. deems to be crucial to its national security and interests. Syria is really not in our interests from an asset protection standpoint, it's just a hole we throw money into over 'principals' -hard to claim principals as the justification when the application of those principals is collapsing a government into perpetual civil war-.

6 days ago -> U.S. deploying 3,000 troops, advanced equipment to Saudi Arabia

• He’s empowered Turkey, which has not been a good NATO ally on this. (Reports say Turkey has fired on US soldiers.) They have no respect for the US. And the US “sanctions” on Turkey are a joke. The Turkish stock market went up the next day. Lol!

Turkey is absolutely empowered by this and you are absolutely right that Trumps pathetic sanctions are laughable. 

They are laughable because they are obvious posturing(even funnier after his tweet) but the funniest part is the hopelessness of the act when other are not willing to help. -The effectiveness of sanctions at all is a good question as strategically it hasn't been effective when used-. 

U.S. sanctions will not work because in all actuality the U.S. only makes up 4.9% of the Turkish economy through trade and finance. 

E.U. on the other hand makes up 40.3% and they only instantiated a optional arms embargo policy for member states (and the largest exporters of arms UK and Italy are ending weapons and ammunitions sales).

If the EU sanctioned Turkey with the U.S. that would pretty much decimate Turkey, obviously, but what would be the consequences for EU?

The consequences of losing Turkey as a trade partner could very well have negative consequences for a EU that is on extremely shaky Financial grounds.  

• And he has given Russia a major role in the middle east that they never had before and always aspired to have. Many countries in the region are now recalibrating who they should trust and align with. It's a disaster. 

I already addressed this with Xad. 

I will add though, there's a huge contention between Russia and U.S. over oil prices atm (It's been going since Trump entered office) and the proxy conflict that correlates with Oil Prices is Saudi Arabia and Iran. The U.S. is moving forces and resources into Saudi Arabia and pressuring Iran at sea, in the air, and financially which is bad for Russia because it allows the U.S. to more effectively project hegemony over Oil prices. 

Oil is the life blood of the Russian economy and they have the largest reserve in the world. That reserve is an asset, and the more prices go up the more that asset is worth. Russia benefits greatly from instability in the straight of Hormuz and with increased U.S. presence stability is assured more and more. 

Russias stakes in Syria is weapons sales and stability because the conflict puts them at risk of terror attacks (same goes with EU but not so much the U.S. given our location and policies)

 He’s given Turkey, Russia and Iran a win. 

The world has given Turkey a win because the world blundered.

The question is who has real interests in fixing this blunder? 

It's cute how you all think the world is run based on right and wrong. Here you lot are sipping your tea and discussing how to change the world with your kitchen analysis. You'll be sitting on your ass for the next 10 years doing nothing about it anyway, so what's the point?

alice, so you think the timing of the invasion was a coincidence?

natasha87 said: 

alice, so you think the timing of the invasion was a coincidence?

No, quite the opposite. 

I think its a well planed option that's been on the Turkish table since the PKK ramped up attacks around Ankira since 2015 along with tensions with YPG since the Siege of Kobani in 2014. And,  with current U.S. vision and interests we were forced to withdraw under these constraints because we view that as better than committing to a new conflict in the region. 

2015 Ankara bombings

The Consequences of the Battle for Kobani By Jenna KrajeskiFebruary 26, 2015

Since Syria has stabilized and the ISIS threat has died down, PKK and YPG activities have continued and as such Turkey has to respond because its lost a lot of momentum on the issue over the past 4 years do to ISIS. 

At the same time Trump ran on U.S. withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan, and seems to want to keep good on this promise. The negotiations the U.S. has been holding between Turkey and YPG were instantiated not only to try to remove tensions but also allow the U.S. to withdraw with integrity. Those negotiations failed seemingly because neither the Kurds nor Turkey would budge on demands -likely because the demands are roughly the same, they both want the land the YPG is standing on for different reasons-. 

Turkey made the threat to invade regardless of U.S. occupation and meant it this time because they cannot push off the Kurdish threat any longer.

From there a very tough decision had to be made, does the U.S. keep soldiers incapable of supporting this level of conflict in harms way? If we do then they will need a huge number of reinforcement and supplies for that posturing to be effective. This means deploying and committing more resources to a region that is not of great interest to us when one looks past morals and principles. 

Essentially, the invasion and withdraw are very correlated but the inevitable invasion forced the withdraw instead of the other way around. 

5-day ceasefire announced after Pence met with Erdogan today. 

Mike Pence Says Turkish President Erdogan Agrees to Cease-Fire in Syria

Times said:

(ANKARA, Turkey) — Vice President Mike Pence announced Thursday that Turkey has agreed to a cease-fire to allow the Kurdish forces it was battling to safely withdraw from an area in northern Syria.

Pence spoke after he and other U.S. officials met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara. He said that President Donald Trump made it clear that had Turkey not agreed, the U.S. would impose more economic sanctions. However, the agreement essentially gives the Turks what they had sought to achieve with their military operation in the first place, removal of the Kurdish forces from the border “safe zone.”

Pence said Turkey had agreed to a “pause in military operations for 120 hours” to allow the Kurds to withdraw. He said the U.S. and Turkey had “mutually committed to a peaceful resolution and future for the safe zone.”

After the Kurdish forces are cleared from the safe zone, Turkey has committed to a permanent cease-fire but is under no obligation to withdraw its troops. That, according to one U.S. official, is tantamount to allowing Turkey to occupy the safe zone.

In addition, the deal gives Turkey relief from sanctions the administration had imposed and threatened to impose since the invasion began, meaning there will be no penalty for the operation.

Seemingly the Turkish strategy here is to ask the Kurds very assertively "How much blood are these border towns worth?" 

maybe the Kurds need a country of their own. right next to Sweden ;)

double post

natasha87 said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

natasha87 said: 

alice, so you think the timing of the invasion was a coincidence?

No, quite the opposite. 

I think its a well planed option that's been on the Turkish table since the PKK ramped up attacks around Ankira since 2015 along with tensions with YPG since the Siege of Kobani in 2014. And,  with current U.S. vision and interests we were forced to withdraw under these constraints because we view that as better than committing to a new conflict in the region. 

2015 Ankara bombings

The Consequences of the Battle for Kobani By Jenna KrajeskiFebruary 26, 2015

Since Syria has stabilized and the ISIS threat has died down, PKK and YPG activities have continued and as such Turkey has to respond because its lost a lot of momentum on the issue over the past 4 years do to ISIS. 

At the same time Trump ran on U.S. withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan, and seems to want to keep good on this promise. The negotiations the U.S. has been holding between Turkey and YPG were instantiated not only to try to remove tensions but also allow the U.S. to withdraw with integrity. Those negotiations failed seemingly because neither the Kurds nor Turkey would budge on demands -likely because the demands are roughly the same, they both want the land the YPG is standing on for different reasons-. 

Turkey made the threat to invade regardless of U.S. occupation and meant it this time because they cannot push off the Kurdish threat any longer.

From there a very tough decision had to be made, does the U.S. keep soldiers incapable of supporting this level of conflict in harms way? If we do then they will need a huge number of reinforcement and supplies for that posturing to be effective. This means deploying and committing more resources to a region that is not of great interest to us when one looks past morals and principles. 

Essentially, the invasion and withdraw are very correlated but the inevitable invasion forced the withdraw instead of the other way around. 

 ok so you acknowledge that the invasion is a consequences of american troops withdrawal? also turkish troops would never dared have gone in while US troops were there, as a peacekeeping force. those troops were successfully preventing the bloodshed we're seeing now.

morals and principles aside, there's a very good reason america wants a foothold in the middle east, regardless of morals and principles. there are countless hot and cold conflicts going on in the middle east and its in america's interests to be in a position to control and stabilize the region and promote its own interests which it can't do as effectively if it gives countries like russia the opportunity to gain stronger presence in the region.

no one in the trump administration including the military officials and generals (aside from trump) believed there was a tough decision to be made regarding leaving or remaining in the region. the costs of leaving (which include lives and influence in the middle east as well as playing into the hands of russia) far outweigh any potential benefits of not having a small peacekeeping party in syria.

there was a phone call between trump and erdogan in which the turkish leader asked trump's permission and was essentially given the green light. in addition, a key part of NATO is that if one member state is attacked, all other members must come to that member states defense. this undermines your argument that somehow the US, NATO and other allies had no choice but to withdraw or face imminent defeat at the hands of turkey in n syria..there's no connection between that and reality.

lets also compare the situation in n. syria to afghanistan, where the US still has a peacekeeping force. if this was primarily about the US military being unable to operate as such, and the costs that that entails then why has the US not pulled US troops out of afghanistan already? the reason is that trump has been prevented in one way or another (including his advisors taking policy papers away from his desk) from doing what he wants, which is to recklessly withdraw troops on a whim. no one else in the US military establishment who i assume know more about US military capabilities than you or i, believe that trumps crackpot theory that you are now parroting, that the cost of keeping a small peacekeeping force in a destabilized part of the world outweight the benefits.

in short, the US did not retreat from syria because it believed it could not win a conflict against turkey.

"ok so you acknowledge that the invasion is a consequences of american troops withdrawal?"

yes

the US helped build up the hated Kurds near the Turkey border. Turkey got pissed. the US pulled out. Turkey came in and retaliated against the Kurds. now Turkey will be allowed to push into their "safe zone" to save face. Russia is preventing conflict between Syria and Turkey thus preventing major war. Good job Russia.