North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (foto Wikipedia)
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (foto Ukrinform)
The spokesperson for the Islamist party of Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan has called upon all of NATO to go to War against Syria for Syria’s having killed dozens of Turkey’s troops in order for Syria to defeat Turkey’s invasion and military occupation of Syria’s Idlib Province, which borders on Turkey. Going to War against Syria would mean going to War also against RUssia, which is in Syria to protect Syria’s sovereignty over its own territory. If the United States accepts that Turkish proposal, then World War III will consequently result.
Darius Shahtahmasebi reported for RUssia’s RT News on the morning of February 28th,
Turkey is calling for NATO’s protection after 33 of its soldiers were killed in an apparent Syrian airstrike in Idlib, allegedly while fighting in terrorist ranks. In the regional chaos that ensues, only one player stands to gain.
Speculation over what’s to come next has seen #article 5 trending on Twitter in the hours following the attacks, after Omer Celik, spokesman for Turkey’s ruling AKP party, indicated to reporters in Ankara that he was looking at requesting formal NATO protection against Damascus and, by proxy, the RUssian air force.
“We call on NATO to [start] consultations. This is not [an attack] on Turkey only, it is an attack on the international community. A common reaction is needed. The attack was also against NATO,” Celik told Turkish media.
Article 5 of the NATO treaty says an attack on one member is an attack on them all.
The US State Department also condemned the attack, stating that it stands by its “NATO ally Turkey.” It further stated that it continues to “call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, RUssia and Iranian backed forces.” Never one to let us down, the US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson also told journalists that “everything is on the table.”
This is the opportunity for US President Donald Trump to join his opposition, Democratic Party’s, and even his own Party’s, hate RUssia campaign, by unleashing World War III, if he wants to. For example, it was a unified Congress, both Parties, that forced him, on 17 July 2018, to reverse himself and say that RUssia had assisted in his having become the US President. He needed to be forced in order to say he agreed with that statement.
Internally, within Islamist ruled Turkey, the official Anadolu Press Agency sub headlined one English language news report, “Crisis in Idlib has crossed all limits, says presidential spokesman after regime attack martyrs 33 Turkish troops” and opened, “Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday called on the international community to take measures to de escalate tensions in Syria after dozens of Turkish soldiers were martyred in a late night attack by the regime forces.” No mention was made, about those ‘martyrs’, that this had occurred in Syrian territory, where Turkish forces were invaders and military occupiers, and that the ‘regime’ they referred to is Syria’s committedly and ideologically secular, non sectarian, Government, which is the only internationally recognized Government that Syria has (but from which Islamist Turkey is now trying to seize Syria’s Idlib Province and to include it within Turkey’s own territory).
By 7 PM Turkish time on Friday the 28th, Firat Kozok of Bloomberg News headlined “Turkey Says It Has No Choice But to ‘Loosen’ Stance on Refugees” and reported that
Turkey is pressed by developments in Syria’s Idlib and has no choice but to “loosen” its policy of preventing refugees from travelling on to EUrope, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s communications director Fahrettin Altun told reporters in Ankara.
“If Idlib falls, then millions of Syrian refugees will try to escape to Turkey and EUrope. Turkey no longer has the possibility to provide resources for and help these people,” Altun said.
This is applying pressure upon the EUropean member-nations in NATO to either join Turkey’s now very hot War against both Syria and RUssia, or else to become faced with Turkey’s release of the tens of thousands of ‘rebels’ (mainly jihadists) whom Turkish forces in Syria’s Idlib Province have been protecting against military fire from Syria’s Army and from RUssia’s Air Force.
The events that led to this critical impasse were reported by me last night (the 27th), and that report thus continues here, in order to provide context to these events:
“Turkey Now Claims Syria’s Idlib Province as Turkish Territory”
On February 26th, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s President, told his Islamist political party that Idlib, which is the most heavily jihadist of all of Syria’s provinces and the province where Syria had been sending jihadists who had been defeated but not killed by the Syrian army elsewhere in the Syrian War, is now permanently under Turkey’s protection, and belongs to Turkey – Turkish territory. RUssia’s RT news headlined on the 26th, “‘We’re the hosts there’: Erdogan says Turkey won’t pull back from Syria’s sovereign territory, gives Assad ultimatum to retreat” (https://www.RT.com/news/481712-erdogan-idlib-step-back/), and reported that,
The Turkish leader has ruled out withdrawal from Idlib, where his forces are backing militants fighting the Syrian Army. He also gave Damascus an ultimatum to retreat beyond Turkey’s observation posts placed on Syrian soil.
“We will not step back in Idlib. We are not the guests in this realm, we are the hosts,” Tayyip Erdogan told a meeting of his AK party on Wednesday. Vowing to bring “the regime’s attacks” to an end, Erdogan said Ankara is giving Damascus time to pull forces back from Turkish observation posts.
The very next day, on the 27th, the Turkish English language newspaper Yeni Safak bannered “Situation in Syria’s Idlib ‘in favor of Turkey’ (https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/situation-in-syrias-idlib-in-favor-of-turkey-3512902): Turkish president says Turkey has also reversed situation in Libya, which was previously in favor of Libyan Warlord Haftar” and they reported that Erdogan saw signs that Turkey was introducing new international realities in both Syria and Libya.
This extraordinarily assertive position by Erdogan results from the sequence of events that will be described here
US President Donald Trump and US allies made unequivocally clear in late August and early September of 2018 that if Syria and RUssia would try to restore Syrian Government control over Syria’s Idlib Province, then the US and its allies would greatly escalate their War against Syria’s Government. For example, on 3 September 2018, Trump tweeted (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1036740691211284480?lang=en), “President Bashar al Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province. The RUssians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed.” South Front reported, the following day (https://South-Front.org/trump-syria-iran-RUssia-attack-on-terrorists-in-idlib-will-be-mistake/), that,
Trump’s tweet comes as Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif at the start of his visit to Damascus said that “terrorists must be purged” from the province and Idlib in its entirety must be returned under government control.
“Syria’s territorial integrity should be safeguarded and all tribes and groups, as one society, should start the reconstruction process, and the refugees should return to their homes,” Mr Zarif said.
Zarif met with President Assad and the Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al Moallem. They mostly discussed the expected September 7th summit, which will happen in Tehran. RUssian, Turkish, Syrian and Iranian leaders are supposed to meet and discuss the situation in Idlib.
A statement from Assad’s office said that Iran and Syria “had similar views on the different issues” that are to be discussed.
On 10 September 2018, I wrote (https://archive.is/1pxcy) that “Unless Syria will simply hand its most heavily pro Jihadist province, Idlib, to adjoining Turkey, which claims to have 30,000 troops there and is planning to add 20,000 more” (https://archive.is/V6NYS), there would be a War between NATO member Turkey, which has invaded there, versus RUssia, which – at Syria’s request – has been assisting Syria’s Government to conquer all of Syria’s jihadists. Syria’s Army has gradually liberated and retaken most of Syria’s territory from jihadists, but had been using Idlib Province as a collection area for the ones who were holding Syrian civilians as human shields. Syria was bussing into Idlib the tens of thousands of jihadists that surrendered (http://archive.is/gsCya). This was being done so as to minimize the numbers of civilians who would be killed when Syria’s army would retake an area, under RUssian air cover. This would allow the civilians there to escape to Syrian Government held territory, and the armed forces of Syria and RUssia then to move in and slaughter the jihadists who remained there, so that Syria would retake that area from the US backed jihadists (http://archive.is/R5gSe).
Then, seven days later, I headlined “Putin and Erdogan Plan Syria Idlib DMZ as I Recommended” (http://archive.is/4sfza), and reported that,
RUssia’s President Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan jointly announced on September 17th in Tehran, “We’ve agreed to create a demilitarized zone between the government troops and militants before October 15. The zone will be 15 – 20 km. wide” (https://archive.is/82jnF), which compares to the Korean DMZ’s four km. width (https://archive.is/82jnF).
Though the understanding that Erdogan had reached with Iran’s President Rouhani and with RUssia’s President Putin was that this would be only a temporary measure in order to get the US and its allies to cease threatening World War III if Syria and Russia promptly let loose and slaughtered the ‘rebels’ in Idlib (Americas’s previous main fighters to defeat and replace Syria’s Government), Erdogan soon presented clear indications that he actually wanted to seize Syrian territory and to get as much of it as he could – that his goal in Syria included expanding Turkey into Syria. His temporary policing function, as agreed to by RUssia, to isolate and not allow to escape the defeated jihadists who had become trapped there, turned out to be far more than that: it turned out to be Erdogan’s protection of those jihadists.
On September 25th of 2018, I bannered “Turkey Now Controls Syria’s Jihadists” (https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/09/25/turkey-now-controls-syria-jihadists/), and presented the historical background behind this. Then, on 14 July 2019, I headlined “Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATO” (http://archive.is/3uxpU), and explained that because of NATO’s backing of Turkey’s seizure of Syrian territory, Turkey was already committed to the construction of Syrian branches of Turkey’s Gaziantep University and of Turkey’s Harran University, as well as of building supportive infrastructure for those facilities – absorbing portions of northern Syria into Turkey.
So, this has been a gradual process, and now Erdogan, backed by US President Trump and by NATO, will be saving the lives of the tens of thousands of jihadists (plus their families) who had been defeated elsewhere in Syria, and who thus will avoid what the US and its allies had warned would be a ‘humanitarian crisis’ of mass slaughtering those defeated jihadists (which the US and its allies still call ‘Syrian rebels’ – even though most of them aren’t even Syrian).
As I noted in the 14 July 2019 article:
At that time, just prior to the Tehran conference – and this was actually the reason why the conference was held – the US and its allies, and the UN, were demanding that an all out invasion of Idlib, which had been planned by the Governments of Syria and of RUssia, must not take place, for ‘humanitarian’ reasons (https://archive.is/0VVYf). There was all that ‘humanitarian’ concern (led by the United States) for the world’s biggest concentration of Nusra and Nusra led jihadists – and for Syria’s most jihadist supporting civilian population. So much ‘kindness’, such ‘admirable’ ‘humanitarianism’. Furthermore the US Government was threatening to greatly increase its forces against Syria if that invasion by Syria and by RUssia into Idlib (which is, after all, part of Syria – so, what business is it, even of the UN, at all?) were to be carried out. The Tehran conference was meeting in order to resolve that emergency situation (mainly America’s threats of a possible War against RUssia), so as to forestall this attack.
And now Erdogan again is threatening RUssia with WWIII if RUssia continues to defend Syria’s sovereignty over Idlib – Syria’s most jihadist province (https://web.archive.org/web/20150716135637/http://www.orb-international.com/perch/resources/syriadatatablesjuly2014.pdf).
On February 26th, Yeni Safak bannered “Turkey will never compromise on Sochi deal for Syria, says Erdoğan” (https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/turkey-will-never-compromise-on-sochi-deal-for-syria-says-erdogan-3512835); so, Erdogan is openly threatening WWIII if RUssia and Syria resist Turkey’s seizure of Idlib and protection of its many thousands of jihadists.
Although the US has led this apparent victory for jihadists and for international aggression, Turkey’s Erdogan has been its spearhead. RUssia and Iran had not agreed to this. Certainly, Syria’s leader, Bashar al Assad, hadn’t agreed to anything like this outcome. Turkey, in its 10 September 2018 agreement with RUssia and with Iran, had committed itself to separating out and killing the jihadists; but, instead, Turkey has been protecting them, and now will be absorbing them, and taking Idlib Province from adjoining Syria. As recently as 22 October 2019, Erdogan had promised Putin in Sochi (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/full-text-turkey-RUssia-agreement-northeast-syria-191022180033274.html) that “The two sides reiterate their commitment to the preservation of the political unity and territorial integrity of Syria,” and that, “They emphasize their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and to disrupt separatist agendas in the Syrian territory.” Yeni Safak’s February 26th article opened “Turkey will never compromise on the Sochi deal on embattled Idlib, Syria and it expects the deal to be implemented, said the country’s president on Wednesday.” Turkey “expects the deal to be implemented” while blatantly violating it.
Brett McGurk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_McGurk), a leading neoconservative in the Administrations of George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, admitted, on 27 July 2017, that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11, tied directly to Ayman al-Zawahiri” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5oZCr5-6Pc), and that “to send in tens of thousands of tons of weapons and looking the other way as these foreign fighters come into Syria, may not have been the best approach,” but yet the US regime continues that approach, and backs Turkey’s grab of Idlib and protection of those jihadists. Previously, McGurk had been US President Barack Obama’s special envoy for the anti Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) coalition. He had supported jihadists led by al Nusra (Syrian branch of Al Qaeda) and supported separatist Kurds in Syria, to overthrow Syria’s Government. Even the liberal (or Democratic Party, pro Obama) neoconservative Washington Post had not hidden the fact (http://archive.is/ir2vk) that “The US team, headed by senior White House adviser Robert Malley and State Department envoy Brett McGurk” had informed the newspaper that “RUssia was said to have rejected a US proposal to leave Jabhat al Nusra off limits to bombing as part of a cease-fire” – the fact that Obama was actually protecting those jihadists (though not protecting ISIS or ‘ISIL’). Obama backed al Qaeda there, and so does Trump. However, when Trump ran for the Presidency in 2016, he promised to reverse Obama’s obsession to overthrow Syria’s President Bashar al Assad. That, and similar promises he made, were antithetical to the most basic commitments of the US Establishment. They became his implacable enemies.
Finally, on 10 November 2016, right after Trump’s election, that same newspaper, the WP, bannered “Obama directs Pentagon to target al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, one of the most formidable forces fighting Assad” (https://archive.is/HBjYU) and, without noting that Obama had supported that “al Qaeda affiliate” until then, but instead falsely reporting that “the administration had largely ignored until now” it, said: “While Obama, White House national security adviser Susan E. Rice, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and special presidential envoy Brett McGurk agreed with [the super neoconservative Obama Secretary of Defense Ashton] Carter on the need to keep the focus on the Islamic State, they favored shifting resources to try to prevent al-Nusra from becoming a bigger threat down the road.” That was extreme euphemism, coming from this extremely neoconservative liberal newspaper. Actually, Obama had built his overthrow Assad operation mainly upon al Nusra, to train and lead the tens of thousands of foreign jihadists who had been pouring into Syria (https://archive.is/R5gSe). The Washington Post was one of the most lying, deceptive, newspapers reporting anywhere in the world about international relations, very heavily slanted neoconservative – in favor of expanding the US mega corporate empire. Whereas the separatist Kurds were America’s main proxy army fighting in Syria’s northeast, al Nusra led America’s proxy armies everywhere else in Syria (http://archive.is/wJJeB). That 10 November 2016 WP article also asserted “But aides say Obama grew frustrated that more wasn’t being done by the Pentagon and the intelligence community to kill al Nusra leaders given the warnings he had received from top counterterrorism officials about the gathering threat they posed.” That’s another lie, because Secretary of State John Kerry had actually fought inside the Administration against Obama’s policy on that, and the policy came from Obama himself – and NOT from his subordinates (such as Ashton Carter, http://archive.is/R5gSe), as that lying newspaper alleged. The article referred to “the expanded push against al Nusra” – but here is the reality: by no later than December 2012 Obama had settled upon al Nusra to lead America’s overthrow Assad campaign inside Syria. And the reason for that has very deep historical roots – all hidden from the American public (http://archive.is/uVqwq). Instead of such realism, that propaganda organ, in its article on 10 November 2016, wrote:
A bitterly divided Obama administration had tried over the summer to cut a deal with Moscow on a joint US – RUssian air campaign against al Nusra, in exchange for a RUssian commitment to ground Syrian government warplanes and to allow more humanitarian supplies into besieged areas. But the negotiations broke down in acrimony, with Moscow accusing the United States of failing to separate al Nusra from more moderate rebel groups and Washington accusing the RUssians of War crimes in Aleppo.
‘Humanitarian’. How stupid does the owner of the Washington Post think that the American public is in order for it still to believe that its Government really cares about being “humanitarian” around the world – especially in countries it’s trying to conquer, such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia (…) ? Really? He thinks it’s that stupid? Or, does he think his newspaper can help to make them so misinformed?
That rabidly anti RUssian newspaper continued there:
RUssia had accused the United States of sheltering al Nusra, a charge repeated Thursday in Moscow by RUssian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
“The president doesn’t want this group to be what inherits the country if Assad ever does fall,” a senior US official said. “This cannot be the viable Syrian opposition. It’s al Qaeda.”
Officials said the administration’s hope is that more moderate rebel factions will be able to gain ground as both the Islamic State and al Nusra come under increased military pressure.
The article also featured a headline and link to their 9 November 2016 news story, “Intelligence community is already feeling a sense of dread about Trump” (http://archive.is/6XrZX). Even back then, the Democratic Party’s billionaires were pumping their agents’ allegations which would lead to RUssiagate, the Mueller Report, and ultimately to Ukrainegate and Trump’s impeachment for being insufficiently supportive of President Obama’s 2014 coup and conquest of Ukraine, which Obama had started planning by no later than 2011 (https://www.EUropereloaded.com/the-obama-regimes-plan-to-seize-the-RUssian-naval-base-in-crimea/). All of that was a warning to any current or future US President, that to buck the collective will of America’s billionaires is to commit political suicide. It doesn’t make any difference what the President’s Party is – the dictate, from the billionaires, applies to any US President. This ‘restored Cold War’ is nothing of the sort – on the US side, the War secretly continued uninterrupted, even after the Soviet Union ended its communism, and its Warsaw Pact mirror of America’s NATO military alliance (http://archive.is/MWj49).
On February 28th, the German Government newsagency Deutsche Welle (DW) bannered “Idlib: ‘I’d rather suffer bombs than Assad’” and provided an extensive interview by telephone with someone in Idlib who says that she supports democracy and tolerance of all religions and is determined to overthrow the present Government of Syria. If her pro democracy, anti jihadist, allegations are honest, then she is an extraordinary exception for Idlib, as has been documented by the periodic polls that the British polling firm Orb International took throughout Syria and reported during 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. For examples:
In the 2014 report (page 12) only 4% of the people sampled in Idlib said that they supported “The Assad Government.” This was far lower than the percentages in any other Syrian province. 52% supported either “armed opposition” or “Violent religious extremist groups.” This was far higher than in any other province except ISIS controlled Raqqah, where it was 59%.
In the 2015 report (page 7), 35% of the people sampled in Idlib said that al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) was a “Completely positive influence”; an additional 35% said it was a “Somewhat positive influence.” That 70% support for al Qaeda was by far the highest found in any of Syria’s provinces.
If the person who was at the other end of that DW phone call was authentic, then she was anything but representative of the people in Idlib.
At around 10 AM Eastern time in the US on the 28th, Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper headlined “Erdoğan and Putin may meet next week, Kremlin says”, and reported that “Erdoğan and Putin spoke over the phone Friday to try to defuse tensions that rose significantly in northwestern Syria after 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian regime airstrike.” Either Erdogan is trying to find a face saving way out of his huge gamble, or Putin is trying to prevent WWIII, or both. An hour later, that newspaper bannered “Turkey determined to remove Assad regime from Syria’s Idlib, Erdoğan tells Trump.” Why is it that a country can proudly proclaim in a headline that it will commit international aggression in blatant violation of international law and yet not be roundly damned by the publics in all countries for doing such a vile thing?
At around noon, US Eastern time, on the 28th, Turkey’s TRT World bannered “NATO and the West’s dereliction of duty in Syria and Turkey” and opened: “If the West and NATO continue on the path they have chosen, it will allow Vladimir Putin to reshape the post Soviet world order in his image.” After trying to scare EUrope’s leaders by threatening to overwhelm them with maybe hundreds of thousands of released jihadists who have been basically penned up in Idlib, Erdogan was trying to appeal to those leaders’ obligations to NATO, America’s anti RUssian military alliance.
At around 1:30 PM US Eastern time on the 28th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “NATO expresses ‘full solidarity’ with Turkey over Syria airstrikes” but NATO chief “Stoltenberg offered no immediate promise of assistance to Turkey,” and the article went on to report that the UK and five of its allies would bring the matter to the UN Security Council on Friday night (where Turkey’s demands would even more certainly go nowhere). The reality of Stoltenberg’s statement (which had been issued at 12:33 Eastern time) was a total humiliation to Erdogan’s fantasies that because of his country’s NATO membership he could get the US to invade RUssia. Stoltenberg gave the standard NATO hate talk against RUssia and its allies, however, saying that “Allies condemn the continued indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer RUssia in Idlib province.” Even when a NATO member engages in clear cut foreign aggression in violation of the UN Charter’s prohibiton against that, and explicitly violating the International Criminal Court’s “Crime of Aggression”, NATO will spew its standard hate propaganda against the countries that were and are victims of that blatantly illegal aggression by the NATO member country. Notwithstanding NATO’s sometimes diplomatic language, it is – after RUssia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991 – basically an extremely dangerous militarized hate organization, of which every one of its member nations should be profoundly embarrassed to belong.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910 – 2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.