Started By
Message

re: US Tells Russia That NATO May Continue Expansion East, Russia Says It May Use Force

Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:22 pm to
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
67223 posts
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:22 pm to
Yet, they still rattle sabers with Russia, occasionally shoot down their planes, and resist reincorporation of Turkish held portions of Syria back into Assad-led government control.

Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war. There's also a ton of shenanigans ongoing between the Turks, Greeks, and Israelis over disputed Maritime borders. Within those borders are both massive natural gas deposits and multiple planned pipelines to Europe. This has caused a recent re-escalation of the Greek/Turkish conflict, but the media has largely blacked out this issue, and finding any information about it on Youtube is almost impossible.
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
26775 posts
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:24 pm to
quote:

Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war

Their national pastime. The Turks simply cannot be trusted.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
36341 posts
Posted on 1/10/22 at 7:11 pm to
quote:

Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war. 


Why wouldn't they? They have every incentive to play both sides. They only bought Russian S-400 missile systems after asking the US, in the year 2000, for Patriot missile systems, with an agreement in place that the US would help build up the native Turkish defense industry. The US waffled on that stipulation for a decade, and the realities of the Syrian Civil War forced Turkey's hand, which is at least the Turkish viewpoint.

Erdogan was able to gain concessions by threatening to unleash Syrian refugees in Europe, but if I recall, it was only after European countries agreed to help, and then reneged on some agreements to help Turkey with its border issues with Syria.

Turkey's issues with Greece has to do with Greece wanting to redefine the maritime borders of several islands, which would severely limit Turkish access to the Mediterranean. Turkey is on opposite sides from Egypt in the Libyan conflict, and wants open access from Istanbul to Libya, while on the other side Greece, Israel, Cyprus and Egypt are trying to box Turkey out of any possible natural gas projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Turks are more aggressive in that theater, but we will see what happens there.

For a long time, it was very unclear what the Turks were going to do in Syria. Their stated reasons, which is to secure the border region to prevent any PKK or other Kurdish group from launching an attack on Turkish soil, fits in nicely with some of Erdogan's Neo-Ottoman rhetoric in the 2010s. The possible land grab was always going to be the end result of their stated security issues.

A more skilled diplomat than Erdogan may have been able to play both sides even more, but it seems obvious that Turkey is limited by its economic prospects, which Erdogan bungled. Those economic limitations might force the Turks to scale back some of their aims. They've gone from trying to be friendly with everyone in the region (their stated goal in 2010) to playing the same insane geopolitical game everyone in the MENA region has played for a long time. It's hilarious to look back at that rhetoric.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram