In Idlib, the killing of 33 Turkish troops, by Syrian or possibly, though less likely, by Russian troops, has led to a situation of high tension that will certainly lead to much greater clashes between the Syrian army and the Turkish forces in Idlib, and might lead to a direct conflict between Turkish and Russian troops.
Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, who plays a senior role in foreign affairs, spoke about the situation to US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien.
“We stand by our NATO ally Turkey and continue to call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia, and Iranian-backed forces,” the US State Department said in a statement.
As long as NATO confines itself to words in support of “our NATO ally Turkey” – a far-too forgiving description of Erdogan’s virulently anti-Western regime – that is okay. The worry is that Turkey will follow through on its pledge to attack 200 Syrian military sites, all over Syria, that the Syrians will not be able retaliate to the degree necessary to avoid total humiliation, , and that Russian troops might then become directly involved against Turkish troops.
What should NATO do in such circumstances? Nothing. Turkey should long ago have been expelled from NATO, given Erdogan’s hostile attitude toward the West, his annihilationist threats against Israel, his neo-Ottoman claims to lead the Muslim world in its conflict with non-Muslims (Erdogan’s “war between the crescent and the cross”). There is no reason for NATO to come to Turkey’s aid. The Turks are the ones who, without consulting NATO, invaded Syria in order to drive out or kill the Kurds in northern Syria. Turkey should be told by NATO that its members will not be drawn into a conflict that Turkey could have easily avoided by not sending troops to Syria, and that Turkey should now withdraw those troops unless it wishes to risk a clash with Russia, which Turkey cannot possibly win.
NATO members could offer to help alleviate the problem of more refugees fleeing Idlib. It could offer to help Turkey on guarding its side of the border with Syria, preventing refugees from entering. In return it would expect President Erdogan not to “open the floodgates” into Europe for the refugees now in Turkey. The NATO members could even help Turkey to repatriate some of the refugees it is already harboring. Save in Idlib, the civil war in Syria is over; the refugees may not like the result, but at least they can return to a country that is no longer convulsed by war. Some may even return to the very houses they left behind, a far better outcome than continuing to live in squalid camps in Turkey.
What if Turkey, angry at NATO’s failure to support it against the Russians, were to decide to leave NATO? That’s exactly what NATO members should welcome. For years Turkey has been the unhelpful and hostile odd man out in NATO. Under Erdogan, the country is out of place as a member of that alliance of Western, democratic, non-Muslim nations.
Turkey got itself into a mess of its own making in Syria. It began with an attack on Syrian Kurds, with Erdogan falsely claiming that the Kurdish forces, that had been America’s most trustworthy and effective allies against the Islamic State, were actually allies of the PKK, a Kurdish terrorist group inside Turkey; the Americans have flatly denied hat connection. Thousands of Turkish troops were sent into Idlib Province, in northwestern Syria. Erdogan’s commanders may have though the Syrian army would stay back, fearful of coming up against the Turkish military. It turned out quite otherwise. The Syrian regime has continued its steady march through Idlib, undeterred by the Turkish presence, and perfectly ready to take on the Turks, as they did on February 26, when they bombed Turkish positions and killed 33 Turkish soldiers and wounded 32 more. The Syrian army, far from being fearful of the Turks, has had no intention of pulling back, but have continued their offensive in Idlib. That is bad news for Turkey, which insists that it will not retreat one inch. But still worse for Turkey is the sneaking suspicion that their soldiers may have been bombed not by Syrian, but by Russian planes, though Moscow of course denies it. And Turkey may wish to accept that denial, even if it doesn’t believe it, in order to avoid a direct military conflict with Russia, and to keep open those “channels of communication” with Moscow that it knows are necessary.
For now the conflict remains one between Turkish and Syrian forces. The Turks have avoided hitting Russian forces, and the Russians have supported the Syrians but apparently have not attacked the Turks directly. The Syrians continue with their relentless offensive, and the Turks have said they will not budge from Idlib. This suggests there will be more violence unleashed between the two. If Syrian forces are mauled, and forced back, could Russia allow Assad, whom they have always supported during the nine years of civil war, to endure such a defeat, or would it feel compelled to bomb the Turks to underscore its value as a military ally?
And what happens if Erdogan makes good on his threat to let loose upon Europe many of the 3.5 million Syrian refugees who are currently in Turkey? Western European nations should not wait for that, but right now send troops to guard the land borders of Greece and Bulgaria with Turkey. Bulgaria has already sent 1,000 extra troops to guard its borders, but will need many more, and NATO members should step in to prevent an invasion of Arab Muslims into Bulgaria, and through Bulgaria, into Western Europe. Greece, too, will need to have its territory, including many islands, kept free of an invasion of still more Muslim migrants. Already on many Greek islands, where there once hung posters proclaiming “Solidarity with the refugees and migrants!”
there is now among the indigenouis Greeks fear, fury, and frustration. Those refugees have turned out to live off the state, engage in criminal activities, and do little or nothing to imp;rove their lot except keep their hands out for ever more aid. The islands of Lesbos and Samos seem particularly affected by the disorder and disruption these Muslim migrants have caused.
Naval vessels from the NATO members should be sent to patrol the eastern Mediterranean in order to prevent boatloads of Syrians, let loose from their confinement in Turkey, from landing on European shores. Their boats should be turned away, prevented from approaching land, in return-to-sender fashion. However, if those vessels are deemed unseaworthy, their human cargo should be transferred to Western ships and then delivered, on those ships, to Syrian ports. The tens of millions of Muslims the Western countries have already welcomed into their midst have not integrated into their host societies, and a much harder line has to be taken if the West is to survive. Those Muslim migrants, from many different Muslim lands, have become a colossal economic burden on their hosts, who have lavished every sort of benefit on them – free or heavily-subsidized housing, free medical care, free education, unemployment benefits, family allowances – and at the same time, they threaten the wellbeing and physical safety of their hosts. The Europeans need to stand firm on keeping out more Muslims, by listening less to Angela Merkel and Pope Francis, and more closely to, such East European leaders as Viktor Orban in Hungary, who refuses to admit a single Muslim, much to the relief of the Hungarian people.
What if Turkey or Russia miscalculates, and they end up in a war? It would be complete madness for NATO to risk a conflict with Russia for the likes of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Besides, NATO’s interest is in deepening the enmity between Turkey and Russia, both of which are enemies of the liberal democracies of the West. Turkey would end up the sure loser to Russia, and without the support either of NATO or of fellow Muslims whom Erdogan has deceived himself into thinking he can count on. The Arab League – even though its own members hate Assad — has already furiously denounced Turkey for having invaded Syria, a “brother Arab country.” Erdogan appears not to have gotten the message: “We remember how the Ottomans lorded it over us. There is no love lost between us, the Arabs, and Turkey.” As for NATO, its members have demonstrated that they do not intend to go beyond some pro-forma verbal support for Turkey, a wise decision.
In Turkey itself, Erdogan’s gross miscalculations, first in sending Turkish troops into Syria, and then in stumbling into a conflict with Russia, will lower his appeal, already on a steep decline, as the last elections showed, with his AK Party being defeated in June 2019 in the three largest cities in Turkey, Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir, all of which are now in opposition hands.. But worst of all for Erdogan’s future prospects are the humiliation he will be blamed for having brought upon the Turkish military, as it cannot possibly withstand a Russian assault. Even after the great purges by Erdogan of his perceived secularist enemies and “Gulenists” in the universities, the judiciary, the newspapers, and the military, there remained many in the army who are hostile to his project of undoing Kemalism. And Turkish generals, if their forces are defeated decisively by the Russians, and still smarting from such a humiliating defeat, they rightly blame Erdogan, might succeed with a coup to overthrow him. Ideally, they would revive the project of secularizing Turkey — Kemalism — that Erdogan had done so much to undo.
That is a result devoutly to be wished. Meanwhile, in Syria, the Assad regime will at long last finish the conquest of Idlib. Assad will finally have recovered the whole country, but much of that country has been physically devastated, and the Western estimates for its reconstruction to its antebellum state begin at $250 billion dollars.. Syria is broke; the Gulf Arabs will have nothing to do with Assad; the Americans and Europeans, too, will not be in any mood to help the Assad, who is correctly seen as a war criminal. Russia, too, though it was willing to help Assad’s military effort, would not be forthcoming with billions of dollars it needs for its own citizens. Assad does have one friend – Iran – that would help out financially if it could, but Iran, is strapped for cash because of the sanctions that the Americans have re-imposed. Tehran may come up with some billions, but not anything like what Assad needs. Even for those billions, the Iranians will want something in exchange. They will want Assad’s continued assent to Iran’s building bases on Syrian territory. Iran has been giving Assad money and arms during the civil war, and has during the last few years been building those bases. But unfortunately for Teheran, the Israelis have been spectacularly successful in locating, and then destroying, those bases. Building those bases runs into money, and their destruction by Israel is taking a heavy financial toll on the Iranians.
That’s the messy state of affairs in Idlib as of the beginning of March. But if the West keeps its powder dry, and NATO offers only words by way of support for the Turks, it should find that its frequent nemesis, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will lose his grip on the army, and then on Turkey, without NATO firing a shot. That’s a good outcome.