I don't think the Turkish government has any clear foreign policy goals at the moment except for being seen as a sunni power in the middle east. It explains his ad hoc handling of both the situations with Russia and Israel.
Military coup attempt in Turkey - Page 74
Forum Index > General Forum |
RvB
Netherlands6081 Posts
I don't think the Turkish government has any clear foreign policy goals at the moment except for being seen as a sunni power in the middle east. It explains his ad hoc handling of both the situations with Russia and Israel. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5258 Posts
EU failed mainly because Obama nailed them. he didn't allow them to make a single god damn move; even at UN summits on Syrian peace talks, US was verifying a approving everything the whole syrian opposition was negotiating. there was nothing the High Negotiations Committee (NHC) did that US didn't approve beforehand. + Show Spoiler + the turning point here, when US went all in and turned on Turkey and EU was after it found out that the Ghouta chemical attack was a false flag as per russian and british intelligence infos the refugee deal is a little foggy to me by i'm guessing that initially, no one expected the war to last this long, to produce that many refugees so they end up winging it. (note: by the end of the syrian ordeal, if it would've ended favorably(with Assad gone), Saudis(less), Qatar and UAE would've gotten some crumbs from the spoils). | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands20817 Posts
On August 02 2016 06:23 xM(Z wrote: as far as Syria goes, EU and Turkey had a deal: Turkey was supposed to be the brawn and EU the brains. EU was willing to turn a blind eye on Turkeys arming of syrian factions/ISIS and its oil/gas deals with Iraq Kurdistan/ISIS as long as they would've eventually gotten rid of Assad. Turkey went as far as fucking with the russians by starting a mini cold-war proving its commitment, but EU failed to deliver on all fronts: no safe zone(no fly-zone) between Turkey and Syria(allegedly for refugees), no favorable(anti-Assad) UN resolutions passed, no red-line, no back up on an eventual military escalation and so on and so forth. EU failed mainly because Obama nailed them. he didn't allow them to make a single god damn move; even at UN summits on Syrian peace talks, US was verifying a approving everything the whole syrian opposition was negotiating. there was nothing the High Negotiations Committee (NHC) did that US didn't approve beforehand. + Show Spoiler + the turning point here, when US went all in and turned on Turkey and EU was after it found out that the Ghouta chemical attack was a false flag as per russian and british intelligence infos the refugee deal is a little foggy to me by i'm guessing that initially, no one expected the war to last this long, to produce that many refugees so they end up winging it. (note: by the end of the syrian ordeal, if it would've ended favorably(with Assad gone), Saudis(less), Qatar and UAE would've gotten some crumbs from the spoils). Why would the EU deliver on anything (assuming you believe the tinfoil theory) when Erdogan was not attacking ISIS? He was to busy bombing the Kurdish rebels that the US was arming to fight Assad/ISIS. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
xM(Z
Romania5258 Posts
On August 02 2016 06:29 Gorsameth wrote: - bombs on kurds were to increase nationalism in Turkey(internal issue mostly).Why would the EU deliver on anything (assuming you believe the tinfoil theory) when Erdogan was not attacking ISIS? He was to busy bombing the Kurdish rebels that the US was arming to fight Assad/ISIS. - ISIS was allowed to move about and sometimes incentivized, because it helped get rid of Assad(but even here, i think no one believed ISIS would get that big both in territory and followers). all sides at one time or another used ISIS for their own gains; probably it's why it has gotten that big. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Surely, stuff like Northern Ireland, where the separatists don't even have majority and everything is insanely intertwined, is different and really can be solved only by smart cohesion, but independent Kurdistan is really a no-brainer best solution for everyone but powerhungry Turkish governments (and their western counterparts thinking that supporting separatism endangers their own useless internal unity). | ||
Archeon
3237 Posts
I mean Erdogan is clearly crossing the line with the Kurds, but I can understand why nobody gives a fuck, nobody wants this to happen on their turf and the last thing we need are more powerless 1.000.000 people states that want diplomatic representation everywhere. Besides I'm 100% sure that neither the government of Iraq nor Iran nor whatever remains from Syria's government sees Kurdistan as a good solution for anything. | ||
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
On August 02 2016 12:07 Blackfeather wrote: ...nobody wants this to happen on their turf and the last thing we need are more powerless 1.000.000 people states that want diplomatic representation everywhere. Numbers of Kurds: Turkey - estimates from 12 to 22.5 million Iran - estimates from 3.35 million to 8 million, Iraq - estimates from 4 to 6.5 million, Syria - estimates from 2 to 2.5 million, And secondly you got it the wrong way around! If your people do not have a nation, other nations do not care about you at all! If Kurds had gotten their own state like they arguably should have (thanks a lot England), they would not be in this mess. Precisely because they have no international voice they get fucked with by all the countries they are part of. Look at other very obvious examples like say East Ukraine, who would have cared for a local Russian minority if there had not been a powerful Russian state next to it? Or maybe recall the situation of Jewish people before the state of Israel was formed, they were literally killed in the millions in 'internal conflict within the German state'. Having a nation state is having a powerful lobby protecting your rights, lacking that is being a bargaining chip for someone other to play with... | ||
xM(Z
Romania5258 Posts
if there's anyone deserving a country there, it's them. Erdogan squashed the kurds because ... democracy and self determination. those were liabilities to his reign and he didn't want to take any chances. there's even a suit in Germany targeting Erdogan for war crimes(a fringe thing probably, but still) http://www.thelocal.de/20160627/german-mps-file-war-crimes-suit-against-erdogan A group of German politicians and public figures have filed a lawsuit against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, accusing him of committing war crimes against his country's Kurdish minority. The suit has been lodged with federal prosecutors in Karlsruhe, the legal team which devised it told state broadcaster ARD on Monday. Lawyers Britta Eder and Petra Dervishaj told ARD their clients saw it as “a moral duty to bring a suit here in Germany against the systematic war crimes taking place in Turkey.” The suit, which is 200 pages long, claims Turkey has committed war crimes in Kurdish majority regions of the country, particularly in the city of Cizre in the Sirnak province, where NGOs say some 178 civilians were killed in February while taking shelter in basements, and whose bodies were later found burned up - some perhaps burned alive. The civilians took cover from Turkish artillery fire in a cellar, according to the suit, but despite calls to emergency services, no doctors or journalists were allowed through to see them. The bodies of the civilians were later found burned and, according to eyewitnesses, military personnel were seen pouring gasoline into the cellar and setting it alight, the suit claims. Other eye witnesses cited in the suit say that the soldiers shot and killed civilians before burning the building. Among those represented in the suit are two people the lawyers say survived war crimes by Turkey, as well as a Turkish MP from the Kurdish party HDP. Also listed in bringing the suit are Die Linke (Left Party) MPs Ulla Jelpke and Andrej Hunko, several scientists from Germany and other European countries, the composer and actor Konstantin Wecker and refugee aid organizations. Erdogan is not the only Turkish official whom the suit targets. Ex-prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu and interior minister Efkan Ala, as well as senior members of the police and army. According to German interpretation of international criminal law, it is possible to file a suit for a crime alleged to have been committed outside the borders of the Bundesrepublik. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Although, perhaps, a more sane realignment of the territories of the Middle East might do everyone some good. The current national borders of the MidEast are arbitrary and terrible. | ||
cLutZ
United States19554 Posts
On August 02 2016 14:38 LegalLord wrote: If the Kurds want their own nation they're going to have to win it in a war. No sane nation would give up a scrap of its territory to another if it had any choice in the matter. Although, perhaps, a more sane realignment of the territories of the Middle East might do everyone some good. The current national borders of the MidEast are arbitrary and terrible. I'm going to disagree with the general idea that no sane country would give up parts of its territory. The US, England, France, etc have done it many times since 1900. Contiguous land is rarer, but many parts have been sacrificed in Eastern Europe, South/Central America, etc many times even more recently. IMO, the wrongheaded idea is sticking to one concept of one set of borders, which has, for instance, stalemated the Israel-Palestine situation with the "1967 borders" which are about as logical as putting Monterrey in Texas or Prague in Germany. | ||
RvB
Netherlands6081 Posts
On August 02 2016 14:38 LegalLord wrote: If the Kurds want their own nation they're going to have to win it in a war. No sane nation would give up a scrap of its territory to another if it had any choice in the matter. Although, perhaps, a more sane realignment of the territories of the Middle East might do everyone some good. The current national borders of the MidEast are arbitrary and terrible. Giving up on the Kurdish part of Turkey is hardly insane. It is poor, uneducated and there has been war on and off for decades now. It's really not an attractive piece of land. | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Although, hmmm, Prague in Germany, I think a lot of people in Prague would sign up for that | ||
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On August 02 2016 17:06 opisska wrote: We have let Slovakia go, England would have let Scotland go if they actually wanted ... I know that states aren't generally inclined to losing territory, I am just saying that this stance is medieval and stupid. In particular it is absurd within the EU - if you admit the new state immediately back, nothing really changes of practical significance. But this all goes hand in hand with all the antiquated love for symbols of power and statehood people still show. The current division into states and nations is brutally arbitrary, it isn't better just because it's the status quo. I am quite happy to see that Kurdish independence has some supporters in here. Although, hmmm, Prague in Germany, I think a lot of people in Prague would sign up for that Most of the USA would gladly give Washington, DC to anyone that would take it. On August 02 2016 14:38 LegalLord wrote: If the Kurds want their own nation they're going to have to win it in a war. No sane nation would give up a scrap of its territory to another if it had any choice in the matter. Although, perhaps, a more sane realignment of the territories of the Middle East might do everyone some good. The current national borders of the MidEast are arbitrary and terrible. That nearly happened after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but the problem is the Kurdish areas cover parts of 4 countries. Rather than there suddenly being a Kurdistan in formally northern Iraq, it would start civil wars in the other 3 to secure land, as while the Kurdish people are a "people group", they aren't as cohesive of a political force. (Then there would be the inevitable fight for power among the Kurds.) That's part of the reason separatist groups don't get much support. It only takes 1 side to start a war, and that war can get a lot of parts involved. See what's been going on with Syria. | ||
KwarK
United States40871 Posts
On August 02 2016 14:38 LegalLord wrote: If the Kurds want their own nation they're going to have to win it in a war. No sane nation would give up a scrap of its territory to another if it had any choice in the matter. Although, perhaps, a more sane realignment of the territories of the Middle East might do everyone some good. The current national borders of the MidEast are arbitrary and terrible. What about the Scottish independence vote? Is the United Kingdom insane? | ||
Wrath
3174 Posts
On August 02 2016 17:26 KwarK wrote: What about the Scottish independence vote? Is the United Kingdom insane? That is completely unrelated to the matter. | ||
Aegwynn
Italy460 Posts
Kurdish region isn't like Catalonia, they don't contribute anything to the country, their education level is worse than rest of the Turkey, they don't even have a potential leader with a brain. Even including Sryian & Iraqian kurds, an eventual Kurdistan would be a poor American vassal without any future. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5258 Posts
The reports reads that according to the latest OPEC report, Iraq has more than 150 billion barrels of proved reserves and more than 300 billion barrels of unproved reserves, which makes Iraq, the second largest oil country in the world after Saudi Arabia. if you don't like ekurd numbers you can read http://www.eurodialogue.eu/Oil-and-gas-riches-and-risks-of-Iraq-Kurdish-autonomy According to the report, Kurdistan Region, as part of Iraq has 50 billion barrels of proved reserves and 80 billion barrels of unproved reserves, in addition to 8-10 trillion cubic meters of natural gas reserves. These figures put Kurdistan in the 8th place in the world for oil and gas reserves. Proven oil reserves of Kurdish autonomy are 45 billion barrels, which is almost equal to reserves of Libya (47 billion barrels) and account for nearly one-third of the total oil reserves of Iraq. The main deposits are Atroush and Touke, which are located in the area of Sulaymaniyah. ...Along with oil, the area of Kurdish autonomy is rich in gas. Natural gas reserves are estimated at 2.83 trillion cubic meters, accounting for about 89 percent of all of Iraq. Natural gas from the territory of Kurdish autonomy was considered as a source for filling the Nabucco pipeline, designed to ensure diversification of supply and energy security of Europe. so yea, they could be very rich and the education will come with time. | ||
RvB
Netherlands6081 Posts
| ||
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
Yes, the South would have to subsidize East Anatolia just like Turkey does now, but such things are happening in every nation state. | ||
| ||