US to Russia: I cannot hold back the Turks - NEDRET ERSANEL

US to Russia: I cannot hold back the Turks

Russia's decision to “decrease” in Syria was described by the Kremlin as “to withdraw the main part of the forces” and by the White House as “to withdraw partially.”

When superpowers enter wars that they believe they will not succeed in or cannot estimate the end, the “diplomacy table” becomes their exit door and their objective becomes to gather “negotiation trump” rather than achieve victory. However, even on withdrawal, the current deadlock continues...

The Turkish explanation for the Russian move is, “I'll be there as needed, and will return any moment” and the addressee is Ankara.

I mentioned that I would tackle the matter in parts. There is the myth that the “Islamic alliance” led by Riyadh would fill in the freed area, but we come to a junction here. What is the Russia-Israel deal? (I will explain later.) Two: What is the Moscow-Riyadh deal? What is the size of the agreement on petrol prices? Firstly, I would like to say, the US-Russia deal has determined which power is to come into the region, and what's more is that the date is also designated.


Russia's remaining piece: Its bases, observation and intelligence services are included too. In other words, this is just like the US's presence in Afghanistan. More precisely, exactly like the US's presence after Russia withdrew from Afghanistan.

Their reason for being there was the same too. The US was in Afghanistan to restrict/stop Pakistan. Russia entered Syria to stop/block Turkey. Of course there were other reasons like enhancing Russia's regional/global image and the desire to be recognized as an addressee. You can read many other reasons listed by foreign politics columnists of other papers, but, this is the version of the “US-Russia cooperation” in Syria.

In this sense, we might have to add US President Barack Obama's statement about Russia padding the bill for being in Syria to the “agreement.” Yes, the financial burden of the war is heavy, but we understand that Obama, knowing that Russia will withdraw from Syria, publicized this in his own society to reassure himself.

Now let us move onto the elections. The withdrawal is “useful” for the election in Russia in September and the US election in November. Evidence that confirms the collusive agreement is that while Russia withdrew from Syria, Obama made a “speech to the people,” because he was the one who fulfilled the election pledge.

Despite Russian President Vladimir Putin and his group's chauvinistic shows, we can say that the people of Russia will not be happy with the Kremlin sliding into an open-ended adventure.

There is certainly something different in the US-Afghanistan, Russia-Syria analogy. Firstly, Washington was not after a Moscow alliance/accord. On the contrary, the US pushed Russia back. However later, Russia sought cooperation and even partnership with the US.


But one of them lacks stars.

It is important to explain/evoke the US's view. Cooperation between the two superpowers is limited, and this is the US's choice. The US determines when, how, where and under which conditions it will cooperate with Russia. This is “selective strategy.”

When the US selects its area of cooperation with Moscow, it not only invites but it forces. Academics should pay attention to this. Most probably, for the first time in the history of international relations, a country was used as a tool in the “power war.” Part of it was willingly.

The US continues to see Russia as a rival in most fields. In a possible Pacific war it foresees the need for a partner, and this will continue to be the case during the new presidential period.


We should evaluate Russia's withdrawal from Syria in terms of its impact on the US's regional allies and Russia's allies.

Iran, Baghdad, Hezbollah and militias were all on Russia's side. Although there were many effective variables, which we mentioned from time to time, we can perceive Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and even Israel as comprising the Western/US front. Interestingly enough, both countries abstained from portraying the image that they acted in unison with their allies. They tried to portray that their allies did not have an effect on them.

However, we have now started the “peace” journey. How will reconciliation be enforced on these regional power countries that have “shutting off” capabilities?

The truth is that, the cooperation between Russia and Iran is limited, and the reason for this is the difference in their strategic objectives. All of the West's partners have different expectations.

Undoubtedly, we need to open a new part for Turkey; a reason for Putin's partial withdrawal was to stop Turkey from hindering the agreement in Syria. It is clear that both superpowers fear Ankara breaking the cease-fire.

The US is given the role to administer this withdrawal. How? With the Kurdish corridor negotiations. We understand this from the message Russia's London embassy received before the Obama-Putin talks and last Geneva meeting happened: “Stay away from the PYD [Democratic Union Party], do not annoy the Turks until the withdrawal [agreement] is completed.”

If I had space, I would elaborate on how the withdrawal affected Israel-Russia and Russia-Iran relations.


Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.