Friday, March 20, 2020

Russia and Turkey "Flexible Rivals"

Well thank goodness for that!
Flexibility rather then hostilities.Is that a bad thing? 
Anyone in a long term relationship understands reasonable flexibility is better then endless fighting.

Oped below ties nicely in with the earlier post from today

From Carnegie Moscow

"Russia and Turkey are allies once again. On March 15, the two sides completed their first joint military patrol along Syria’s M4 highway."
"In doing so, they implemented the last of three agreements reached by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan during their meeting on March 6. The previous two—a ceasefire and the establishment of a security corridor either side of the highway—have also been implemented."
Where's the alt media been on this news? It's been covered here!
In a telephone conversation on March 12, Putin and Erdogan “noted with satisfaction a significant de-escalation of tensions” in Idlib, one of the last strongholds of the Syrian opposition, and a bolt-hole for the most active terrorist organizations. Yet the new status quo has merely put the crisis surrounding this de-escalation zone on hold. Russia and Turkey’s interests in Syria remain largely at odds, and sooner or later Moscow will have to do something about the conflict in its relationship with a country that it has invested so much into cooperating with in recent years.  
The reasons for the crisis remain unaddressed. Russia continues to blame Turkey’s inability to fulfill its responsibility and drive out the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham jihadist group from the Idlib de-escalation zone. The Russian side is unhappy that the Turks are helping to keep Idlib under the control of dubious groups and organizations. Moscow still has an interest in developing a multifaceted relationship with Ankara, but is not prepared to relinquish its own interests in Syria for the sake of Turkish ambition. 
At the same time, the Russian leadership understands the difficulties that Erdogan has faced at home following the killing of Turkish soldiers during an attack by the Syrian air force on February 27, and is aware of how bad the humanitarian situation in Turkey will be if new waves of refugees flee there from Idlib. The Kremlin was therefore prepared to give Turkey the opportunity to at least temporarily defuse the situation.
In one sense, Moscow’s position on Idlib reflects the principles on which Russia builds relationships with tricky partners such as Turkey.
The first principle is to treat issues that are important to Turkey’s security with understanding.
The second is to clearly establish red lines and discuss from the outset a corridor of opportunities for cooperation on problem issues.
The third is to take advantage of the mistakes of Turkey’s other partners, especially the United States. 
Perhaps the US might have thought about exercising more diplomacy rather then disloyalty?
 "The fragility of the Idlib ceasefire begs the question of whether these principles are enough to guarantee that the significant investment that Russia has made in its relationship with Turkey can ultimately be justified.
It’s not easy to sum up the two countries’ relationship. If it is a tactical union over Syria, then Moscow has largely achieved its goals within that union. The de-escalation zones that Turkey helped to create have enabled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to capture a lot of territory that was previously controlled by the Syrian opposition, and that opposition is now fragmented.
If the relationship between Russia and Turkey is a marriage of convenience, then right now the two sides are staying in it purely for the sake of the children: i.e., the political investments that Putin and Erdogan have made in developing bilateral relations when not everyone approved. These efforts have resulted in the growth of trade and tourism, major energy projects such as the Akkuyu nuclear plant and TurkStream gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey, the purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems by Turkey, and potential cooperation in other areas of military technology. 
U.S.-Turkish relations were summed up by Richard N. Haass, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, as: “Turkey is no partner (even if it remains a formal ally).” With Russia, it is the other way around: Turkey is a partner but not an ally. It is essential to maintain a balance between the two sides’ interests.
The personal relationship between the two presidents plays a key role. In the last year, Putin has met with Erdogan more than with any other foreign leader. 
Both men came to power at the start of the 2000s and have led their countries through a series of political experiments that have had far from universal approval. Both men embody the changes in world order that have taken place since the Cold War, and which the West finds hard to stomach. Both enjoy surprising others—the media, politicians, and experts—and not necessarily in a good way. Finally, despite being disappointed in each other, both know how to pretend that they get along famously in order to improve relations between their two countries.
The greater the disconnect between the rosy picture presented to (and by) the media and the real discord, the more fragile and unstable the Russia-Turkey relationship. This is noticeable even among the public opinion in the two countries, where every time there is another crisis in relations, the leap from “strategic partner” to “historical enemy” is made in a matter of days. 
On the other hand, this makes it possible to keep the relationship very flexible. At the heart of that flexibility is cynical pragmatism on both sides, and the conviction that grudging cooperation is more beneficial to Russia and Turkey than conflict. At a time when the international system is becoming de-Westernized, Turkey sees Russia as a resource it can use to strengthen its own strategic sovereignty, while Russia sees Turkey as a tool for increasing its own authority as a great power. 
This flexibility has so far protected Moscow and Ankara from more dangerous clashes. But this dialectic of fragility and flexibility could become the norm in Russian-Turkish interaction for a long time to come, and each subsequent crisis will test once again which aspect of their relationship is stronger."
So far Russian and Turkish leadership have engaged in diplomatic and pragmatic behaviour-  

That fact, that reality, certainly making liars of those that imply Erdogan is irrational and the like. Actually, doesn't that also demonstrate those making such claims are irrational? How could they rationally make such claims? It doesn't seem possible. 

7:36 pm EST- One last article:Pompeo says Russia Killed Turkish Soldiers As Idlib Ceasefire Holds

Key Points

    *The US secretary of state has blamed Russia for killing Turkish soldiers in Syria ( Pompeo stirring the pot)

    * The Idlib ceasefire agreement is being largely observed, although another two Turks were killed on 19 March


  1. Hi Penny

    Yes, Putin's Russia and Erdogan's Turkey are major allies, even the Empire's charlatans at 'Carnegie' have to grudgingly admit that.

    When even 'Carnegie' can't get away with openly promoting war between Russia and Turkey, let alone promoting regime change in Turkey (or Russia), as well as severly criticizing Putin, because it would be too obviously on behalf of the Empire and Israel 2.0, but which is something "The Saker" and Russell "Texas" Bentley (whether wittingly or unwittingly) are doing, then what does that tell you about the dogmatic 'alt' media?

    1. It was interesting, actually very interesting that yes the Carnegie oped writer begrudgingly admitted that Russia and Turkey were cooperating. I'm sure the two nations have issues they don't agree on, yet, there it is.
      There they are working together!

      What was agreed to on March 6/20 has been accomplished and Erdogan and Putin are in constant contact.!

      I'm not sure who Russell Texas Bentley is, but, Saker is supposed to presenting the Russian perspective?
      But continues to ignore all the obvious signs of cooperation? How's that possible?

      Saker reminds me of RT.

  2. Clarifying: Saker reminding me of RT is not a compliment.

    Since I find RT offers up a very limited hangout for the most part- They come off as a globalist outfit masquerading as a Russian source- TASS is where I go for news from Russia.

    No offense intended to those who may like RT. I'm just not one of those people

  3. Penny:

    I know your position on Turkey, however, let me ask you a few honest questions.

    1) Did Turkey not provide a transit for foreighn Jihadis into Syria ?

    2) Di Turkey not provide arms and supplies to the Jihadis ?

    3) Did Turkey not participate in the wholesale theft of Syrian industry from Idlib ?

    4) Was Turkey not the destination for stolen Syrian oil ?

    5) Wasn't Erdogan's familiy involved in some / or all of the stealing ?

    It seems to me Turkey made its bed and now should deal with the ramifications instead of trying to play all sides against each other. They dance with the devil ( The Zio-Controled world ) and got burned.

    1. I don't have a specific position on Turkey, anymore then President Putin would.

      If you think you know my position I'm not sure how you would or could? When I've no specific position.

      Circumstances change.

      And as is clear between Putin and Erdogan flexibility is key. I'm reporting on that flexibility as it occurs.

      What is the point of these questions?

      Are they relevant to what is occurring at this time?

      I'll ask you a couple of questions?

      When you say Turkey made it's bed and should now deal with ramifications what are you actually saying?

      If the danced with the devil and got burned, so be it.
      I'm sure they understand that can happen. But I don't have a clue what you mean by that?

      When you say "play all sides against the other"?

      I ask, isn't that the status quo in geopolitics?
      Don't all nation states do this? I personally think they all do it!

      So if I said, sure Turkey played the geopolitical game, considering the reality of real politiks what would it mean, really?

      Isn't Russia playing Turkey against the US?
      Dam straight they are!

      What difference does asking me a bunch of pointless questions really make?

      I will answer question 4 though; Judging by everything I've read and all information posted here. ISRAEL was the destination for some/most? of the Syrian oil.

      Turkey was the transit and that's vastly less significant then you seem to think it is.

    2. " When you say Turkey made it's bed and should now deal with ramifications what are you actually saying? "

      They supported the very savages they now fear, Lets not play coy Penny. They also stole Syrian property, oil, and land. In that I have no sympathy for them. Additionally, it seems they have no game plan on how to deal with the Idlib vermin and are needlessly prolonging this conflict, correct me if I'm wrong.

      Its also possible, that Turkey is just stalling for time at this point, because their actions seem to point towards that scenario. Lets all be honest, Turkey was ready and fully willing to steal Syrian land if Damascus fell, and I'm sure thats what the Zios promised them.

      " Turkey was the transit and that's vastly less significant then you seem to think it is. "

      I have absolutely no love for the Yid infestation in Palestine, but they would never get oil unless Turkey allowed them to get it. Its a basic fact.

      Having said all that, you know that support Turkey's switch to the " Russian " side, however, it looks like that wont happen, which is worrying. If Turkey wont back out NATO now, then it never will. I was under the impression that you support Syria's freedom from the hell that was imposed upon it. Its simple, Turkey needs to get out of Syria, protect its borders, and kill any Jihadi or Turd that tries to cross them. Russia and the SAA will take care of the rest. BTW, your recent comments are coming across as combative, argumentative, and a little condescending. And Thats coming from one your regular as you know.

    3. How my comments seem to you is very different from how they are intended. And there is little I can do about that.

      MI "They also stole Syrian property, oil, and land"
      You believe so. I'm not certain.

      From a 2015 post

      "“The authors of this paper would like to make it clear from the very beginning that this has not been the case of a ‘smoking gun’. The evidence has been inconclusive. But even if volumes of ISIS crude found their way, beyond any reasonable doubt, to the international crude oil markets via the Ceyhan terminal, this fact would not conclusively point to collusion between the Turkish authorities and the shadow network of smugglers, let alone ISIS operatives"

      So these two can't prove collusion with access to resources I could only dream of and yet.. you know Turkey colluded?

      I try to make statements with information to support them.

      MI "Having said all that, you know that support Turkey's switch to the " Russian " side, however, it looks like that wont happen, which is worrying. "

      "If Turkey wont back out NATO now, then it never will"

      Yes, I support Turkey and Russia working together to settle the Syrian issue- I have for years-

      My husband say's it's better for Turkey to be thrown out of NATO because it shows everybody what the alliance is really made of. I agree with that.

      " Turkey needs to get out of Syria, protect its borders, and kill any Jihadi or Turd that tries to cross them."

      That's your opinion. Yet Russia doesn't appear to agree with you, at this time....
      Russia green lighted Turkey's entries into Syria and it only makes sense Damascus, despite the rhetoric, was aware of this.

      I expect the three nations understand what's going on far better then either of us do.

      And finally the fact that Carnegie, the globalist mouthpiece, is admitting Turkey and Russia are cooperative or flexible in working together is quite significant.