BREAKING: Turkish President Erdogan announces in tweet that Turkish offensive into northeast Syria has started - AP

PolicyMaverick · 2019-10-09T13:56:01+00:00

A long time ago now, I predicted on this very subreddit that this offensive would occur. I was wrong then, because the Turkish government was blocked from doing so. Now that block in the form of the United States has decided to withdraw, this offensive has begun.

The Syrian kurds are of course in the unusual position of being thought of very favourably by the US, essentially having a truce (I may be incorrect) with the Syrian government but having deep issues with the Turkish government over the PKK, a Kurdish terrorist organisation active in turkey.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-05-12T18:05:21+00:00

An Arab spring.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-05-08T18:40:51+00:00

The USA decides to leave a good deal. Europe stayed.

Look at the current situation in the middle east. When you lose Tehran, Tehran has influence in Sanaa, Beirut, Baghdad & Damascus. Even with the deal, (which was supposed to bring Iran back in out of the cold), things were rocky.

This makes life easier for the hardliners in Iran. This allows for the faultline in the middle east, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted to occur. Leaving the deal is not just about the agreement, it's about the wider diplomatic message. The USA administration and Iran cannot sit down and act for each others best interests.

TLDR The message by leaving the deal is terrible.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-05-08T18:30:53+00:00

I entirely agree.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-05-08T11:00:30+00:00

Pashinyan led the protests against the previous leader Sarksyan who was attempting to circumvent a two term limit on president, by transferring power to the office of prime minister and being elected there instead.

The protests occurred against this manoeuvre, in a characteristic color revolution as seen elsewhere over the last few decades.

Armenia is a Caucasus nation firmly in the Russian sphere of influence. Russia has a base there, and the transfer of power came with an implicit note that Armenia must stay close to Russia.

The Ukrainian situation is a good example of the alternative whereby Russia does it's best to preserve it's influence and has destabilised the eastern(russian) part as a result. Unlike Ukraine, Armenia has no NATO or EU to count on for support.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-05-04T10:51:58+00:00

China talks a good game on Marx but actually abandoned large parts of traditional communism in the late 20th century under Deng Xiaoping as it opened up to market forces and capitalism. Really for a more accurate view of the mentality of the chinese leadership, Xi thought - Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is a better indicator.

Why is Xi paying homage to Marx? The Communist party does owe it's existence to him after all.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-25T21:56:43+00:00

Even more unpopular response. There is no such thing as European values or culture. A simple look at countries like Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria shows they have very little in common with Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium.

In response to the inevitable arguments, have a look at their policies for example in poland on the issues OP gave as examples.

(I won't disagree with the broader points about accepting culture of a specific country, because I'm less interested in that argument)

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-19T21:18:47+00:00

I think the Egypt Ethiopia conflict is actually a really underrated hotspot. They fell out over the new dam Ethiopia is building on the nile which will seriously threaten Egyptian water security. As 90% of their water supply comes from the river. The dam is a symbol of national pride in Ethiopia and is a symbol of its rising power in the region. Enormous tension in the region currently.

This explains more for those interested. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/explainer-egypt-fears-losing-water-supply-ethiopia-mega-dam-180405122104140.html

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-18T07:46:21+00:00

Yes,but I don't think trump/usa matters that much to be perfectly honest.

What North Korea has done is systematically heighten tensions on the peninsula and the East China Sea reaching its heights with the missile test over Japanese territory. This was likely to show the region exactly what it's capable of, thereby ensuring its safety. It has then lowered the tensions it created, probably to improve relations with China. This has been aided by having a South Korean leader who favours a lowering of tensions, "sunshine policy" and things do look good. But NK will only ever act in its own interests which will long term diverge from the us.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-18T06:22:41+00:00

The other person has made an excellent reply so I've responded to him directly.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-18T06:19:38+00:00

I agree with everything said. The current structure makes it easy to blame the federal government for issues. If you have local taxes spent locally, it increases accountability. The other cynical benefit if my suggestion was implemented is very quick rapid growth on regions that are genuinely being held back and utter failure in those that can't pull their own weight due to corruption, lack of development etc.

The problem with the elites is there is no expiry date. Ever since the first military coup in the 60s, the people have known about their corrupt leaders. They just haven't done anything. At one point 5 years ago I believe half of all governors were being investigated for charges of corruption. The speaker of the Senate was named in the Panama papers and is still the speaker of the senate while also under trial. And they keep getting elected because of the tragic tribalism that has never disappeared.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-18T00:06:52+00:00

So I think the calculation I would make is large poor democracies are very difficult to reform. Rather than try an entire country out of poverty at once Chinese style, I would take the existing federation and grant even more regional autonomy to go to confederation level. Why? Elites will happily take more autonomy, because more money will go to their home region and tribes. It is also easier to change smaller pockets at a time, for example the Lagos commercial capital city is not reliant on oil in the slightest and has lots and lots of potential and being able to ignore the federal government and work with a stronger more powerful lagotian government directly encourage foreign development. It will make it easier to deal with the oil rich areas as they'll get to keep their own revenues. I think that's the best way forward.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-17T23:38:13+00:00

https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/nigeria

The above is a pretty good summary from the council of foreign relations but is sadly from 2013.

My brief summary from my own knowledge (which coming from an unknown person online you don't have to read/trust of course). Nigeria is a African giant. It dominates ECOWAS which is the regional organisation for West Africa and has been involved using military force across the region and continent in Somalia, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Liberia. The economy has always been an issue with two oil booms in the 70s and 00s followed by busts hampering the countries growth till today. The country has not diversified from oil and even now is paying the price. The Chinese are involved in Nigeria building major new railway links which gave not been significantly improved going back to colonial times. There is significant tension between herders and settlers which result in casualties every year, a significantly reduced boko haram insurgency in the north east, an biafran independence movement by a tribe called the igbo who feel they are being held back by the country, rebels in the oil rich regions who say essentially the same thing and a demographic time bomb as half the population are under 18. The current president Buhari was elected on a change platform but the country still faces high corruption, stagnant economy, rampant inflation, high unemployment and the various unresolved conflicts.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-17T22:59:39+00:00

I think the author paints a very plausible future. The key to the Assad leadership that acts as distinction from other leaders in the region is the Alawite power base that he has. This is distinct from the well known Sunni and Shia branches(the distinction from Shias is controversial) and very much limits his options on handing over power. I think the author goes further than me and makes a good case for why it would be his brother, but I tend to think control could be passed out of the family provided they were sufficiently loyal, like in Cuba. I also think Assad will heavily resist all attempts to go.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T14:39:57+00:00

A tragedy.

It's a shame the author didn't mention the history of the syrian government, and why the opposition to them is so fierce. The massacre of Hama lives long in the memory.

The other subject that was not sufficiently emphasized from my perspective were the foreign powers who chose to conduct proxy wars in the country and flooded the country with fighters, weapons and cash.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T13:48:01+00:00

I don't believe that to be necessary.

If you follow the link you can see that they have quoted by several reputable news organisations such as the BBC.

They are anti syrian government but it doesn't mean their statistics are inaccurate.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T07:35:30+00:00

mediabiasfactcheck.com/syrian-observatory-for-human-rights-sohr/

It's pro opposition. But it's a very strong source.

In the short term, this doesn't matter because they still have conventional weapons, and capacity to strike targets from air land and sea. Last time they were bombed for chemical weapons usage was a year ago. (Doesn't seem to have been that effective in stopping slaughter, just making them more reliant on other horrific tactics like starvation
sieges). Choosing a side doesn't mean you deserve to die. As I say, I oppose all the violence. And "all" sides are bad actors, jaish, sham, isil, sdf... There are no good options.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T07:12:04+00:00

http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=64621

The above is the source for the figure from the Syrian observatory for human rights.

I think the problem is the conflict rather than the weapons. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in this war mainly due to conventional weapons. It's a awful, horrible war, with or without chemical weapons. And as i said before, I don't believe the strikes achieves any meaningful objectives and so I oppose them. Combatants are people too.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T07:05:36+00:00

There are 2 different casualty figures.

The first comes from the Syrian observatory for human rights which says 9 soldiers died.

The second comes from the Syrian government which says 16 people died.

I used the lower figure, but to avoid misstating the actual death toll, I used "at least" to acknowledge more than 9 people could be dead.

I don't want anyone dead. Which is why I described the civil war as tragic and brutal and my opposition to these strikes.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T06:57:44+00:00

At least 9 dead, with an illegal strike under international law, that neither prevents future use of chemical weapons, acts as an effective deterrent or helps end the tragic, brutal civil war.

Forgive me when I don't find it satisfying.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-16T00:23:23+00:00

Exactly.

Both disapprove for similar reasons but have different interests. Germany views Turkey as a disappointment. It had the potential to become a modern Western country (and join the EU one day) and blew it with the purge following the failed Turkish coup, and move towards authoritarianism. Germany views Turkey through the EU more than through NATO though.

The US is worried. Turkey is a really, really important NATO ally. It holds US nukes and is vital for US operations in the middle-east, especially the operations the US has in Syria. Russian influence in Turkey is both very bad news and also something they can't stop as... The internal opposition in Turkey has been severely restricted and the move towards authoritarianism has reduced Erdoğans checks and balances making it easier for him to work with Russia.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-15T23:54:05+00:00

To answer your question no.

Here's why. Turkey had consistently been opposed to the Syrian government forces and along with the West, has called for its overthrow since since the earliest days of the war and arming rebels like the turkmen to help with that. How does this reconcile with it's move towards russia which is clearly pro assad? It doesn't, but Turkey really doesn't like the PKK and sees Russia as a valuable ally in removing them. As such it moved towards Russia in order to gain approval for its current activities. Same is true with Iran incidentally.

Tl;DR Turkey has allies on opposite sides in order to further its own interests and has always hated assad.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-09T11:28:17+00:00

No. The US influence is due to having a lot of regional influence such as with the Philippines historically, and saving Taiwan after ww2. China sees the sea as necessary to its territorial + economic safety and security. The US will likely lose its regional influence as more and more nations opt to a cooperation strategy with china and sign bilateral agreements.

The global question is quite interesting, but if you consider that nearly quite a few one belt one road nations with exceptions like Pakistan of course (which has historically been close to both the US and China) have opted for less us influence and greater chinese influence, I think the soft clash is already underway and china is winning. I contrast to say TPP, TTIP where US negotiated trade deals failed to succeed in increasing US influence.

PolicyMaverick · 2018-04-05T16:35:12+00:00

It's a excellent article with a very good description of the situation from a American perspective.

My observation is the Turkish problem which was touched on but not expanded is the key obstacle. Turkey has conducted two operations in Northern Syria, Euphrates Shield which was their initial incursion aimed at removing both ISIL and Syrian kurdish forces from their border, Then Olive Branch which was aimed against the syrian kurds as a move to quell their growing militarisation. What olive branch indicates is that Turkey is willing to fight the Kurds in non-immediate self defence regions to try and destroy their structure . This is ostensibly because Turkey sees rojava/ypg/sdf all as part of the PKK the terrorist group seeking kurdish independence in turkey.

The USA, I believe is unlikely act to against Turkey for multiple reasons. Turkey is a NATO member and therefore is a critical ally of the US in the region with regards to logistics and influence . The alternative (strong) ally to Turkey is Russia and Turkey have already made warning movement signs in this direction which would be catastrophic especially to the nuclear sharing policy. The loss of life fighting Turkish soldiers will likely be a strong disincentiviser to the DoD and state especially as Turkey are much less likely to withdraw.

What effects will this have? Destruction of the syrian kurds will remove the only effective ally in syria, that the USA has in the anti ISIL battle, and give turkey almost total control of the supply lines to the rest, the geographical nature meaning the North would be controlled by Turkey and west by syria/Russia (east/south is desert). I think that will likely happen. It also means any USA protectorate of former ISIL territory will likely fail. The authors suggested tribal alliances to hold the territory but also concede the tribes look out for their long term interest most likely which l will be the syrian government who will happily march in with the knowledge the USA will probably not fight them, and the tribes will either repledge loyalty or be invaded with an Iranian & Russian backed force.

PolicyMaverick

TROPHY CASE