[Cid_Yama]

Syria's Kurds are on a roll. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a loose coalition consisting primarily of the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), and an assortment of Sunni Arab, Turkmen, Yazidi and Assyrian ethnic militias are steadily expanding west of the Euphrates River. In the last several weeks the SDF has taken control of the Menagh Air Base and several key villages to the north and west of Aleppo. More importantly, it is closing in on its long sought goal of uniting the Kurdish majority canton of Afrin in the west with the rest of the Kurdish controlled areas of northern Syria.

The village of Tal Rifaat (Arpad), 24 miles north of Aleppo, is now held by the SDF. Tal Rifaat is only 28 miles from the town of Afrin. That town is on the border of the Kurdish controlled canton of the same name. The two villages are less than an hour's distant on Highway 62, which connects them. As the crow flies, they are only 15 miles apart. On Feb 15, the town of Kafr Naya, five miles southwest of Tal Rifaat, also fell to the SDF.

In the meantime the SDF has cutoff Islamic State (IS) forces in Raqqa from the M 4 highway to the Turkish border; their primary supply line for smuggling and bringing in new jihadist recruits. They are closing in on the outskirts of the ISIS held towns of Manbij and Al Bab. The former has been a key logistical center for ISIS and was the center of its antiquities smuggling operation. Control of Manbij would also cut off IS forces in Raqqa from Islamic State territory in the northwest.

Russia's support of Syria's Kurds has opened up yet another fault line in the Byzantine politics of the Syrian Civil War. While that fault line is not a particularly new one, the advance of the Kurdish led SDF along the Syrian-Turkish border, and the possibility of a Turkish ground invasion in response, has intensified it, threatening to spill the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in Syria into Turkey itself and risks reigniting the long simmering civil war in Turkey between the Turkish government and its ethnic Kurdish citizens. It has also raised the prospect of a direct military clash between Turkish troops and Russian air power.

Syrian and Turkish Kurds have already demanded that the international community recognize this region as the autonomous state of Rojava, or Western Kurdistan in the Kurdish language. The designation "western" differentiates it from the semi-autonomous Kurdish self-governing region in northern Iraq.

For Turkey an autonomous Kurdish state along its southern border is anathema.

They are also closing in on the town of Azaz even further to the northwest of Aleppo. That town was a key transit route for Turkish aid to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Aleppo until it was taken over by Syrian military forces earlier in February. In total, the SDF has seized control of a broad swath of territory from the Iraqi frontier to the zone immediately to the west of the Euphrates River. This region includes the cantons of Kobani and Jazeera. The SDF may be on the verge of taking control of the northern tier of Syria from Iraq almost to the Mediterranean. Kurdish/SDF militias claim they already control an area three times the size of Lebanon.

The success of the SDF has prompted the Turkish Government to launch attacks against SDF forces in Syria; principally using T-155 long-range artillery along the Syrian-Turkish border to shell SDF positions near the Syrian town of Azaz. Turkey has also begun preparations to launch a ground invasion with the dual objectives of seizing the remaining territory between Afrin canton and the SDF forces advancing from the east, as well as coming to the aid of the besieged Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Aleppo.

In the meantime, Russia has firmly aligned itself with the Kurdish YPG and the SDF. In recent weeks the Kremlin has hinted that it would support Kurdish plans to organize the autonomous state of Rojava (Western Kurdistan). Russia has also insisted that, against Turkish opposition, the Kurds be included in the Geneva talks. Russian air forces in Syria have also been providing air support for SDF forces.

What happens next? Turkish foreign policy is in shambles. Erdogan's attempt to position Turkey as the leader of the Sunni world is failing. Instead Turkey finds itself in a growing conflict with Russia, a conflict that if Turkey invades Syria could erupt into a direct military clash between the two countries. Such a clash could well, according to Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev "draw everybody in" and might lead "to a new world war."

link

[onlooker]

Yes things are definitely heating up. If Turkey and also remember that KSA is waiting in the wings, if they both enter Syria and have clashes with Russian forces that potentially could signal the start of a major powers confrontation. The US being bound to help fellow NATO member Turkey and of course being deeply intertwined with KSA. So yes, these circumstances puts us at maybe Defcon 2.

[Cid_Yama]

Turkey calls for unconditional US support against Kurdish YPG

"The only thing we expect from our US ally is to support Turkey with no ifs or buts," Davutoglu told a news conference following a five-hour security meeting with members of his cabinet and other officials.

Turkey reserves the right to carry out operations at home and abroad against terror threats, President Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying on Saturday.

"Turkey will use its right to expand its rules of engagement beyond (responding to) actual attacks against it and to encompass all terror threats," the pro-government Daily Sabah newspaper quoted him as saying at a speech in Istanbul.

link

The head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rami Abdel has said that at least 500 Turkish fighters on Wednesday crossed the border and headed for the Syrian town of Azaz. According to the Guardian, these troops come on top of almost 350 fighters who were also reported to have passed through the Atme border crossing on Sunday armed with heavy and light weapons.

As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, Turkey has been talking openly this week about a ground incursion alongside forces from Saudi Arabia.

As investigative journalist Robert Parry reports on Thursday, "the only person who probably can stop a Turkish-Saudi invasion is President Obama."

However, "I'm told that he has been unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention, though he has sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion," Parry writes.

"The dilemma for Obama is that many traditional U.S. allies, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have been the principal backers and funders of Sunni terror groups inside Syria, including Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and—to a lesser degree—the Islamic State," Parry explains. "Now, the 'allies' want the United States to risk a nuclear confrontation with Russia to, in effect, protect Al Qaeda."

link

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country has the right to launch operations in Syria against “terrorist organizations.”

“To fight the threats which it faces, Turkey has the right to launch any kind of operation, in Syria and wherever else the terrorist organizations are located,” Erdogan said in a speech on Saturday, according to a Dogan news agency report cited by AFP.

French President Francois Hollande said Friday that Turkey’s expanding use of force in Syria could risk a war with Russia.

“Turkey is involved in Syria…There, there is a risk of war,” Hollande told France Inter radio in an interview cited by AFP.

link

Turkey's plan is based on the assumption that, in case of conflict, the country could invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty, the collective defence clause if any member state is attacked.

But Luxembourg foreign minister Jean Asselborn told German magazine Der Spiegel that the Turkish government cannot count on NATO. 'NATO cannot allow itself to be pulled into a military escalation with Russia as a result of the recent tensions between Russia and Turkey,' he said.

Asselborn also stressed that Article 5 can only be invoked when a member state is clearly attacked.

A German diplomat echoed Asselborn's stance and said: 'We are not going to pay the price for a war started by the Turks.'

link


Those Turkish controlled nuclear weapons are really starting to bother me. We need to send in special forces and secure those weapons.

[dissident]

Yes things are definitely heating up. If Turkey and also remember that KSA is waiting in the wings, if they both enter Syria and have clashes with Russian forces that potentially could signal the start of a major powers confrontation. The US being bound to help fellow NATO member Turkey and of course being deeply intertwined with KSA. So yes, these circumstances puts us at maybe Defcon 2.

WWI resulted from such retarded alliance systems. To think the USA would back terrorist sponsor Turkey for the "sake of the alliance" is insane. Erdoturd should be left to hang out and dry. A good pounding of his invasion forces in Syria is the correct approach. By itself Turkey has no power to start any major war. It is the USA that would turn this into a major war or even world war if it backs Erdoturd.

[onlooker]

Yes I do not think US would go all in and create conditions for WWIII, that would ruin the hyper capitalistic world the Neo-Liberal capitalists have created.

[Cog]

I don't why Cid doesn't think that nuclear weapons are already secured. What leads him to believe they are not is known only to him.

The reality is that the nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Airbase are controlled and guarded by members of the US Air Force Munitions Support Squadron. Turks do not have access to them and the PAL codes are in US custody.

[ennui2]

Yes I do not think US would go all in and create conditions for WWIII, that would ruin the hyper capitalistic world the Neo-Liberal capitalists have created.

Or...it could be the US aren't warmongers and know how to ratchet down tensions (like they did not that long ago with Iran). But that doesn't jive with your narrative, I know.

[Cid_Yama]

Turkey previously shot down a Russian jet. Now, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are threatening to invade Syria. How dangerous could this get, in a worst case scenario?

Robert Parry – the investigative reporter who broke the Iran-Contra story for the Associated Press and Newsweek – wrote yesterday:

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.

Washington’s Blog asked one of America’s top experts on Russia – Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University, and the author of a number of books on Russia and the Soviet Union – what he thought of Parry’s claim.

Cohen said:

Parry is a serious man [“serious” is the highest compliment that an insider can give to someone]. I cannot say it will lead to nuke war, but it is very dangerous, as is quadrupling US/NATO forces near Russia’s borders.

Pavel Felgenhauer – a leading Russian military analyst – also believes that a nuclear war is “very likely” to arise from Russia’s skirmishes with Turkey in Syria.

Last December, U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard – a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, Iraq war veteran, and Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard – warned that U.S. policy in Syria could lead to a nuclear war. And see this.

Also in December, retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard, chairman emeritus of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, retired Brigadier General John H. Johns, professor emeritus from US National Defense University, and Leslie Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, penned an article in Foreign Policy calling for US-Russia cooperation to de-escalate current tensions and diffuse the increasing worrisome nuclear blustering.

American security expert Bruce Blair – a former nuclear-missile launch officer – notes that Turkey’s downing of the Russian warplane at the Syrian-Turkish border “fits a pattern of brinkmanship and inadvertence that is raising tensions and distrust between Russia and US-led NATO,” and that “this escalation could morph by design or inadvertence into a nuclear threat.”

Blair writes that the threat of nuclear war is higher now that during the Soviet era:

Russia has shortened the launch time from what it was during the Cold War. Today, top military command posts in the Moscow area can bypass the entire human chain of command and directly fire by remote control rockets in silos and on trucks as far away as Siberia in only 20 seconds.

Why should this concern us? History shows that crisis interactions, once triggered, take on a life of their own. Military encounters multiply; they become more decentralized, spontaneous and intense. Safeguards are loosened and unfamiliar operational environments cause accidents and unauthorized actions. Miscalculations, misinterpretations and loss of control create a fog of crisis out of which a fog of war may emerge. In short, the slope between the low-level military encounters, the outbreak of crisis and escalation to a nuclear dimension is a steep and slippery one.

(Indeed, the U.S. and Soviets came within seconds of all-out nuclear war on numerous occasions. And only the courage of U.S. and Soviet individuals to say no when their superiors told them to fire nuclear weapons – in the face of mistaken readings – saved the planet from nuclear war.)

Russia expert Stephen Cohen agrees that the risks of nuclear war are much higher than people know, telling the Commonwealth Club last year that the threat of nuclear war with Russia is now greater than it was with the Soviets.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry agrees that the risk of nuclear war is higher than during the Soviet era.

link

[Sixstrings]

I don't why Cid doesn't think that nuclear weapons are already secured. What leads him to believe they are not is known only to him.

The reality is that the nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Airbase are controlled and guarded by members of the US Air Force Munitions Support Squadron. Turks do not have access to them and the PAL codes are in US custody.

That's what makes sense to me Cog, I don't know exactly and I'm not ex military but from all I know, just common sense, I'd agree with you.

This thing Cid tries to say about the nukes in Turkey -- it doesn't pass the common sense test. Sounds far fetched, like something you'd read in a climate change action green party newsletter, written by Noam Chomsky. (note, by the way, that Bernie Sanders never says that kind of stuff)

HAVING SAID THAT --

The Russia-kurds-Turkey situation is bad news.

[Sixstrings]

Such a clash could well, according to Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev "draw everybody in" and might lead "to a new world war."

Well that's a clever thing for the Russians to say, considering they're the ones inserting themselves and stirring the pot.

WWI resulted from such retarded alliance systems.

And NATO was founded, in response Russian aggression in the late 1940s.

To think the USA would back terrorist sponsor Turkey for the "sake of the alliance" is insane.

Is this news? That Turkey is in NATO? Turkey's been in NATO for 65 years now, Dissident.

Why is Russia trying to start a war? This isn't good.

There is nothing to be found in Syria, that should make war worth it, to Russia.

I thought Russia was always saying it's defensive and worried about getting invaded and all that. Well now, Russia starts all this stuff up with Turkey -- not good.

Erdoturd should be left to hang out and dry.

I don't like him either, but Turkey is in NATO and there's no changing that.

You guys always want to blame the US for everything, but Russia's making some risky moves here with this Turkey stuff.

edit: I think I flew off the handle about this, my apologies. It's just frustrating that after not following all this news for a long time now, now I see this stuff from Cid and I can see the whole thing has progressed to a worse situation.

Russia itself is in a real quagmire, Russia's got problems with Turkey over this, and Russia never needed to be down there in Syria to start with. What's the point? Just to wave the flag around, test out ships in the caspian sea? There's just no point to it, for Russia.

The USSR never got itself mixed up in such a situation like this, without anything to be gained. The USSR was more cautious than this, too. This whole thing makes no sense for Russia. They couldn't have picked a worse place in the world to get mixed up in.

[Peak_Yeast]

A curious thing about these tensions are that they have not even been mentioned in any of the MSM here in Denmark. And it is not because the news are overflowing with interesting stories of other things and is being drowned. I wonder why these developments are not of any interest to the danish people - that is according to MSM.

[Newfie]

I do t see it discussed in the news outlets I follow in the US.

I would not try to second guess Obama. To me he is a bit of a loose cannon.

[Sixstrings]

@peakyeast -- it's nowhere in the news in the US, either.

A Russian media site (sputnik) seems to say that NATO's told Turkey it won't get involved:

European leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in participating in a war of Turkey’s making.

"NATO cannot allow itself to be pulled into a military escalation with Russia as a result of the recent tensions between Russia and Turkey," Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn told Der Spiegel.

Of Article 5, Asselborn stressed that "the guarantee is only valid when a member state is clearly attacked."
Germany appears to agree.

"We are not going to pay the price for a war started by the Turks," said a German diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

NATO leadership made similar warnings soon after Turkey’s downing of the Russian bomber last year.
http://sputniknews.com/world/20160220/1035066264/NATO-turkey-russia-syria.html

So is that all true, or is that Russian spin?

From February 19th, don't know if this is a Turkish news source or what:

Obama reaffirms support for Turkey

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region--Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that U.S. President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his country's support for Turkey after a one-hour twenty minute phone conversation between the two leaders on Friday.

Obama said, according to AFP, that Turkey has the right of self-defense and that he shares Ankara's concern about Syrian Kurdish advances against opposition forces in northwestern Syria, an action which has led to Ankara repeatedly firing artillery at Syrian Kurdish positions over the course of the last week.

Obama also urged Erdogan to "show reciprocal restraint".

The U.S. President gave his condolences to Erdogan over the Wednesday bombing in Ankara which left 28 people dead.

The U.S. State Department denied Erdogan's claim, made on Friday, that the Syrian Kurds had used weapons provided by the United States against the Turks saying that Washington had not "provided any weapons of any kind" to them.

The Turkish government has officially blamed the YPG for the Ankara attack on Wednesday leading to renewed anger and resentment against Washington for not declaring the YPG a terrorist organization as it has done for years with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group Turkey argues is inextricably tied to the YPG.
http://rudaw.net/english/world/20022016

Would be nice if there was some in depth news coverage to get an idea of the US position.

It's hard to believe Russia could be doing these things, without some kind of understanding with the WH / Pentagon.

[onlooker]

The NATO doctrine has always been if any of its members is attacked they should all come to its defense. Or so I have thought it to be. It makes sense because that is the means by which they defend each other. As soon as they're is just but one member or one example of non compliance then the whole reasoning behind this alliance breaks down.

[Subjectivist]

The NATO doctrine has always been if any of its members is attacked they should all come to its defense. Or so I have thought it to be. It makes sense because that is the means by which they defend each other. As soon as they're is just but one member or one example of non compliance then the whole reasoning behind this alliance breaks down.

That is only partly correct, if Turkeys sends forces into Syria NATO is not obligated to defend those Turkish forces. NATO is fundamentally a mutual defense treaty, it only applies if Syria or Russia invades Turkey, not the other way around.

[Cid_Yama]

This is the website where MBS has been following the battle.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/category/syria/

[Synapsid]

Peak Yeast, Newfie, Sixstrings:

Read Reuters.

Bloomberg sometimes has relevant material too, but I've found Reuters most useful. And if you-all aren't aware that The Christian Science Monitor is one of the best newspapers in the US, well--surprise yourself.

[Sixstrings]

Some helpful analysis of the situation:

The Kurds, backed by Russian air power, want to oust Turkish-backed Syrian rebels from the Azaz region, in order to create contiguous territory from northern Iraq to Syrian Kurdistan, and prevent the Syrian rebels from being resupplied by Turkey. The net effect is to boost Kurdish-Russian cooperation; to provide relief for Assad's army in the north; to increase Turkey's hostility toward Russia; and possibly to put Turkey on a collision course with the U.S. -- if Ankara believes its position in NATO will protect it from Russian fallout. (It should be noted that although Turkish troops attacked Syrians, they stayed clear of threatening Russia directly.)

The U.S. has urged both Turkey and the Kurds to decrease hostilities, but Turkey dismissed U.S. calls for a ceasefire. Attacks on the Kurds continued as Turkey began to fire on Syrian forces, and Turkey's President Tayyip Recep Erdogan did not rule out a ground attack inside Syria.

The history is Sunni Muslim Ottomans vs. Orthodox Christian Russians, beginning in 1568. The Armenian genocide, Russian massacres in Chechnya and Dagestan, and the desire for revenge on both sides of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan are just recent occurrences. The Kurds, oppressed by the Ottomans and then the Turks, had believed the U.S. would be their sponsor, both in Iraq and in the larger region claimed as Kurdistan. But for the non-jihadist and non-anti-Assad Kurds, anti-Turkish Russians are an equally compelling ally. Hence last week's Russian air strikes against Turkish allies on behalf of the Kurds.

To drive home the public relations point, the Russian media outlet RT ran a long article Sunday on the economic collapse of Northern Iraq (also known as Iraqi Kurdistan). The article focused on corruption, Turkey's control of Kurdish oil and how the Kurds feel abandoned by the West as well as by Baghdad.

Where is the U.S. in this? Muddled, as usual, without a clear goal, clear allies or fixed positions beyond support for a "political process."

The U.S. regards some Kurdish groups as terrorists, but agrees with Russia that the Kurds are an ally against ISIS. Closer U.S.-Russia cooperation means less American patience for Turkey. ...

U.S. President Barack Obama, perhaps sensing futility, called Vladimir Putin last weekend. The Kremlin's report of the phone call posits the U.S. and Russia getting closer -- although, it appears, on Russia's terms.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7453/us-russia-syria-realignment

The Enemy of My Enemy: Russia and the Kurds Reshape the Syrian Civil War
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-v-micallef/the-enemy-of-my-enemy-rus_b_9282978.html

Alright, for now I'll conclude that no this is not "the start of WWIII."

It all sounds to me like Erdogan and Putin are both calling to check in at the white house to make sure everything is okay, and meanwhile Obama sort of has us allied to everybody all at once.

US foreign policy has been in flux / transition on this whole issue for a long time now, from "Assad must go" to "Assad can stay" and varying degrees of approval and disapproval of Russian actions / working with Russia.

Putin's playing a risky game on this Turkey stuff, they just have to watch it is all. The riskiest thing the Russians may wind up doing, is aiding kurds too much, and Russia essentially getting involved with an internal problem in Turkey. Russia certainly wouldn't like anyone doing that to them, like in Chechnya etc.

That's a big no-no, that's more hybrid war kind of stuff. Like Russia picking the kurds, the same way they picked eastern Ukrainians, and then they just get a civil war going on.

Russia can't ever do that with Turkey, a NATO state, and that's a big problem if they do.

Ultimately -- if Russia starts doing some hybrid war thing in Turkey, then Turkey is well able on its own to have a conventional war with Russia. Nukes needn't get involved with that, Turkey has the largest army in NATO (other than US) and that's a conventional war that Russia definitely shouldn't be wanting to have, even if it were just Turkey and the rest of NATO stays out of it.

Another complication to all this is Erdogan is a bit on the outs with the rest of NATO, and it could wind up that Erdogan is pissed off at Russia AND the US. So that could change things.

As a general principle though -- Russia has to realize, without doubt, that they can't do hybrid war stuff within any NATO state that's in good standing with the US.

That's the overarching concern about Russia. That they can't start stoking / supporting civil wars in various NATO countries.

[Cid_Yama]

Worries that the tensions could escalate further are spreading, both in Turkey and in the wider international community, prompted French President François Hollande to warn on Friday that "There is a risk of war between Turkey and Russia."

"Turkey is facing a multifaceted catastrophe," said Gokhan Bacik, professor of international relations at Ankara's Ipek University. "This is a country that has often had problems in the past, but the scale of what is happening now is beyond Turkey's capacity for digestion."

A rift with the United States, Turkey's closest and most vital ally, over the status of the main Syrian Kurdish militia, the People's Protection Units (YPG), has further exposed Turkey's vulnerability. A demand by President Recep Tayyep Erdogan that Washington choose between NATO ally Turkey and the YPG, its main Syrian ally in the fight against the Islamic State, was rebuffed by the State Department this month.

On Saturday, Turkey dug in, demanding unconditional support from the United States. "The only thing we expect from our U.S. ally is to support Turkey with no ifs or buts," Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told journalists in Ankara.

Turkey now stands completely isolated, trapped in a maze of quandaries that are partly of its own making, said Soli Ozel, professor of international relations at Istanbul's Kadir Has University.

"It has so alienated everyone it cannot convince anyone to do anything," he said. "It is a country whose words no longer carry any weight. It bluffs but does not deliver. It cannot protect its vital interests, and it is at odds with everyone, including its allies.

"For a country that was until very recently seen as a consequential regional power, these facts strike me as quite disastrous," he added.

Most immediately, Turkey is agonizing over the fast-changing dynamics along its southern border with Syria, where Russia is bombing, Kurds are advancing and the rebels it has supported against President Bashar Assad for the past five years are facing defeat.

Sending troops into Syria, as Ankara has hinted it might, would risk a confrontation with Russia that Turkey would almost certainly lose. The downing of a Russian plane in November was, in retrospect, a major miscalculation, analysts say, one that has hamstrung Turkey's ability to project its influence into Syria and prevented it from flying missions there even in support of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State.

Not to intervene would mean bowing to the inevitability of an autonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Syria bordering Turkey's own restive Kurdish region, as well as the defeat of the rebels Turkey had hoped would topple Assad and project Turkish influence into the Arab world.

For now, Turkey has confined its response in Syria to artillery shelling against the advancing Kurdish forces and efforts to reinforce the rebels. A rebel fighter in the border town of Azaz, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is sensitive, confirmed multiple reports that Turkey has facilitated the deployment of several hundred rebel fighters from the province of Idlib into Aleppo, via Turkish territory.

At a time when Erdogan is also confronting unforeseen challenges to his domestic ambitions, notably his plans to amend Turkey's constitution to enhance his presidential powers, further Turkish missteps cannot be ruled out, said Bacik, the professor in Ankara.

"I'm not saying that Turkey has lost its mind and is poised for war, but the posture in Ankara is very strange and could lead to surprises," he said. "What's happening in Syria is a question of survival for Erdogan, so it is not possible to rule anything out."

"For Turkey," he added, "there is no good scenario from now on."

link

[onlooker]

It seems to me that the US has abandoned Turkey. Yep no good scenarios for Turkey.