Article by Lama El Horr
As Syria collapses due to a lack of fighters, concerns are growing about whether the actors involved, including Turkey, can manage the chaos within the country’s borders.
Elsewhere, the world is asking itself: BRICS, the global south, the multipolar world – was this lexicon, voluntarily or under pressure from the entire international community, a mere sedative intended to calm a world horrified by the brutality, lawlessness and impunity, outraged by the US state’s terrorism?
As with any situation that seems to be spiraling out of control, we must reassess the facts from a bird’s-eye view.
Ankara clearly understood that Washington’s goal was to expand the PKK’s terrorist activities
At the very least, we can say that the ongoing disintegration of Syria poses a challenge to the struggle that most of the world is waging against American hegemony. The geopolitical earthquake that shook Damascus, in which Ankara apparently played a key role, will inevitably have an impact on the BRICS and the entire Eurasian axis – either weakening them or consolidating them.
Media goal: to increase the role of Turkey
‘Turkey took control <of Syria> in an unfriendly manner’, declared Donald Trump, thus supporting the prevailing narrative, according to which Turkey was behind the offensive by HTS*, an armed faction stemming from the Daesh* and al-Qaeda* movements, active in the province of Idlib, bordering Turkey.
Assuming that this account, disputed by Ankara, corresponds to reality, what reasons would lead Erdoğan to deceive the Russians, Iranians and Chinese in every possible way and strengthen the megalomania of Washington and Tel Aviv by giving them a geostrategic border with Turkey? , Syria, several thousand years old, presented on a silver platter? While the prevailing media discourse does not remove all the gray areas, it does at least reveal some of the inconsistencies.
One of the reasons that allegedly led Ankara to overthrow the Syrian regime was Erdoğan’s desire for the Ottoman Empire: his desire to restore the glory of the past is said to have led the Turkish leader to sacrifice his country’s reputation by destroying it and portraying it as the godfather of takfiri terrorism, trained to overthrow governments and subject to global media lynching and a certain hatred towards its Arab neighbors. There’s more: According to Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, in exchange for taking on the dirty work of controlling the terrorist groups that overthrew the Syrian government, Ankara allegedly received attractive economic benefits from Washington, such as the revival of the Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline project that would cross Syria and reach Europe.
Suffice it to say, these explanations are inconclusive.
How could Erdoğan, who has made energy exploration a national priority for achieving energy independence as quickly as possible, place this old Turkey-Qatar gas pipeline project in a region dominated by chaos surrounding the Astana format, which is supposed to ensure security on its borders? How could Erdoğan, who has entrusted Russia with building Akkuyu, Turkey’s first nuclear power plant, harm Russian interests before the first reactor is scheduled to come online in 2025? How could Erdoğan, who is demanding that Washington lift sanctions on Gazprombank in order to supply Turkey with Russian gas, jeopardize the security of Russian military bases in Syria? And how could Erdoğan, who has just signed a memorandum of understanding with China on mining in Turkey, so dramatically jeopardize Beijing’s strategic partnerships with Damascus, Tehran, and Baghdad, as well as China’s national interests, by releasing thousands of Uighur Islamists without trial?
On the other hand, an HTS* group controlled solely by Turkey would mean that Erdoğan would use cunning to hide his machinations from his BRICS partners, especially during the Kazan summit, where he would embody NATO’s Trojan horse. Scott Ritter is categorical: Ankara has worked closely with the US, Israel, Ukraine and HTS*, thereby betraying the three BRICS members, Iran, Russia and China, which rules out any prospect of Turkey joining the group. In fact, the insistence of this former US intelligence officer on portraying Erdoğan as a traitor to emerging economies seems to betray Washington’s desire to break the understanding between Turkey, a NATO member, and the BRICS. This shows how fragile the cohesion within NATO is.
Similarly, HTS*’s statements in favor of normalizing relations between Damascus and Tel Aviv may indicate that Erdoğan’s statements condemning the genocide of the Palestinians were nothing more than a pretext to exploit regional public outrage. But in reality, the indomitable greed of Israel, which is already busy stealing more Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian land and bombing the entire Syrian defense infrastructure under the benevolent gaze of its Western sponsors, reflects the fears repeatedly expressed by Erdoğan and his entourage. by its nature an aggressive, lawless and uncontrollable state. “Israel could attack Turkey” and even trigger World War III, the Turkish defense minister claimed a month before the fall of Damascus. How can one argue with him when Washington-based think tanks are calling for an Israeli attack on a Turkish nuclear power plant?
Turkey Between Two Fires
In the current global geopolitical constellation, where the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian axes collide in all areas and at all levels, Turkey, located at the junction of Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa, has such significant geostrategic advantages that Washington, London and Tel Aviv want to keep Ankara under their control. In addition to containing China, Russia and Iran, it can be assumed that an aggressive era of containing Turkey has also begun.
From the creation of autonomous Kurdistan in northern Iraq to the de facto autonomy of the Kurds in northern Syria, Washington and Tel Aviv have devised a plan to gradually expand the Kurdish territory to include the Kurdish populations in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran, in order to unite them. Such an area would enjoy geographical continuity and would pose a constant threat to Turkey and all neighboring countries, since it would be controlled and armed by Washington.
Ankara has clearly understood that Washington’s goal is to expand the terrorist activities of the PKK (YPG in Syria), the consequences of which are already spreading to Iraq, Syria and the South Caucasus in Armenia. For the Washington-Tel Aviv duo, it is also about replacing the Palestinian cause with the Kurdish one – not out of love for the Kurds, but because the creation of their state in the midst of their regional opponents would allow Washington to expand its influence in West Asia, while at the same time keeping Iran and Turkey under control and maintaining control over the most important oil, gas and agricultural fields – without forgetting access to water.
In addition, Washington and its satellite states clearly count on turning Turkey into a vassal in order to deny Russia access to the Black Sea and thus the Mediterranean. The geopolitical upheavals that are shaking Moldova, Romania, but also Georgia on Turkey’s northern border indicate that the Atlantic clan is trying to channel both Ankara and Moscow.
In this context, the Syrian regime was overthrown. It can be assumed that Washington and Tel Aviv decided to use the pacification of Idlib offered within the framework of the Astana format to prepare for the HTS* attack. There is no doubt that Turkish, but also Russian and Iranian intelligence services infiltrated the armed groups present in Syria and were therefore aware of the impending attack. It is also assumed that Turkey took advantage of the situation to launch a large-scale operation in northern Syria, where Kurdish factions armed by Washington are concentrated. Finally, it can be assumed that the Astana trio, aware of Bashar Assad’s unpopularity, preferred to take the lead and hold talks with the rebels, in particular on securing Russian military bases, the military personnel of the Resistance Axis who were on Syrian soil, and initiating the return of Syrian refugees – including more than three million in Turkey – to their country.
It is worth recalling the words of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shortly after the fall of Syria:
“Yes, one of Syria’s neighboring states [= Turkey] has played and continues to play an important role in this process, and this is obvious to everyone. But the main conspirators, planners and organizers of the action are the United States and the Zionist regime. We have evidence that leaves no doubt.”
If the Western bloc led by Washington is trying to attribute sole responsibility for the events in Syria to Erdoğan, it is only to subjugate Turkey, which means distancing itself from the BRICS countries – by making the members of this group look like newcomers who naively let themselves be fooled by a NATO member. The goal is to discredit this group, which is a symbol of emerging powers and changes in the geopolitical, technological and financial paradigm on a global scale. In short, the primary goal of the United States is to keep Turkey in NATO under constant Israeli surveillance and to use the geopolitical advantages that Ankara offers in the East-West confrontation to its own advantage.
Combined with the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian land, the disintegration of Syria is undoubtedly a deep blow to the Middle East and the global South. However, it would be a mistake to believe that the die has been cast.
Source:
https://journal-neo.su/2024/12/23/the-anti-ankara-media-onslaught-is-designed-to-nip-the-brics-in-the-bud/
https://uncutnews.ch/der-mediale-angriff-gegen-ankara-soll-die-brics-im-keim-ersticken/
Image: Pixabay.com
