Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Putin, Erdogan strike deal to remove Kurdish YPG from Syria border

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, alan grice said:

Im sure this will be the topic of conversation amongst ExPats here for years to comeemoji481.pngemoji86.png


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

especially around the gutters of Pattaya

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liar and the novichoker in cahoots as the imitation Sultan Erdog try's to look important🤔 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jany123 said:

Sure sure.... that’s why NATO and US troops have such a heavy footprint in Germany and other Russian neighbors, right? Your hero just ceded allied territory to the enemy

 

meanwhile... Central America? Think Nicaragua.... and... Russian forces have a presence in Venezuela, just to the south, so are already heavily invested in Latin America.

 

Okay, so Russia has dabbled a little in the geopolitics of Latin America, presumably by invitation - no combat though.

 

As to giving away allied territory, that's an inflammatory perspective. Why defend arbitrary lines on a map?

The atlas of the world I grew up with bears little resemblance to today's atlas. The world is still sorting itself out. Just because a border has been there for a while doesn't mean that it's a sensible one. You can keep a lid on things by force for a while, but this region is basically another Balkans.

 

Trying to defend the status quo for its own sake by war is pointless when the only solution is to let the world change a little. That inevitably involves population movement, but population movement causes the problem in the first place. If people didn't keep shifting about and stealthily expanding there would be far fewer conflicts in the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Okay, so Russia has dabbled a little in the geopolitics of Latin America, presumably by invitation - no combat though.

 

As to giving away allied territory, that's an inflammatory perspective. Why defend arbitrary lines on a map?

The atlas of the world I grew up with bears little resemblance to today's atlas. The world is still sorting itself out. Just because a border has been there for a while doesn't mean that it's a sensible one. You can keep a lid on things by force for a while, but this region is basically another Balkans.

 

Trying to defend the status quo for its own sake by war is pointless when the only solution is to let the world change a little. That inevitably involves population movement, but population movement causes the problem in the first place. If people didn't keep shifting about and stealthily expanding there would be far fewer conflicts in the world.

 

 because these "imaginary lines" are not imaginary at all, they are there to separate one set of people from another, so that one set of people will not try and take what another set of people have worked hard to get.

  I wonder how you would feel someone took your wealth or freedom for their own purposes, I wonder if you would say ahh well  "let the world change a little "

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 because these "imaginary lines" are not imaginary at all, they are there to separate one set of people from another, so that one set of people will not try and take what another set of people have worked hard to get.

  I wonder how you would feel someone took your wealth or freedom for their own purposes, I wonder if you would say ahh well  "let the world change a little "

 

Sure, that's the general intention of borders, but my point was that the 'borders' in this region were fairly arbitrarily drawn by a committee at one point in history. Quite often the line is simply a fence (or not even that) across a piece of land that looks identically barren on either side.

And clearly the borders in this region have done nothing to keep the ethnic populations apart, resulting in rising tensions. When that happens, conflict is inevitable to sort everything out. The reality is that you either have to keep the parties apart by proper borders (which I think is what Turkey is trying to achieve) or let them mingle and fight it out periodically because competition for resources - water and grazing land - (and for ethnic pride) is intense in this environment. Take your pick.

 

I'm not sure what it is you're actually proposing, unless it is avoid anyone having to move - but that is bleeding-heartist and will solve nothing.

 

If someone tried to displace me I would first ask myself who has the greater moral or historical right to be there, and if it wasn't me, I would move.

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Okay, so Russia has dabbled a little in the geopolitics of Latin America, presumably by invitation - no combat though.

No combat yet... maybe because the need has not presented itself, but there they are, dabbling in America’s back yard, contrary to the point of view earlier expressed

 

5 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

just as we wouldn't expect Russia to get involved in Central America.

Russia is involved, and captain bone-spurs has further enlarged their sphere of influence, wreaking both the US sphere and NATOs influence.

 

the Syrian debacle was a US led NATO operation, and dunderklumppens betrayal of a friend demonstrates that the US is an unreliable partner in any geopolitical enterprise.

 

36 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Why defend arbitrary lines on a map?

The atlas of the world I grew up with bears little resemblance to today's atlas.

I’m sorry... but... what? Those “arbitrary lines” are oftentimes drawn in blood... but the question should actually be : why assist allies and friends, in reference to the Kurds, and if that needs explaining, I’m shocked... and expect it’s more willful ignorance than true ignorance.

 

your comment about atlases makes me wonder what century you grew up in as world borders have changed very little since WW2

 

52 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Trying to defend the status quo for its own sake by war is pointless when the only solution is to let the world change a little.

 

and protecting borders... what? Would the US not protect its borders, and in need, would it not expect its friends and allies to support them in protecting its borders. With comments like that, I can’t help but wonder if you understand the purpose of alliances.

 

Perhaps the problem at the US southern border would go away if the US gave Texas and California back to Mexico. I recognize the stupidity of that sentiment... And holds true elsewhere... ie... its a stupid sentiment... one that’s heard said by the loser as it runs away. “It’s only a bit of dirt, let em have it if they want it!” 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

Sure, that's the general intention of borders, but my point was that the 'borders' in this region were fairly arbitrarily drawn by a committee at one point in history. Quite often the line is simply a fence (or not even that) across a piece of land that looks identically barren on either side.

And clearly the borders in this region have done nothing to keep the ethnic populations apart, resulting in rising tensions. When that happens, conflict is inevitable to sort everything out. The reality is that you either have to keep the parties apart by proper borders (which I think is what Turkey is trying to achieve) or let them mingle and fight it out periodically because competition for resources - water and grazing land - (and for ethnic pride) is intense in this environment. Take your pick.

 

I'm not sure what it is you're actually proposing, unless it is avoid anyone having to move - but that is bleeding-heartist and will solve nothing.

 

If someone tried to displace me I would first ask myself who has the greater moral or historical right to be there, and if it wasn't me, I would move.

 

 

a border is an internationally recognised  geographic location . I don't know what you mean by " proper borders

As far as arbitrarily drawn borders(agreed is a problem) applies just as much to Turkey as it does to the Kurds. Historically the region was not Turkish , the Turks are invaders who .....

"Turks arrived from Central Asia and Western China and settled in the Anatolian basin in around the 11th century through the conquest of Seljuk Turks, mixing with the peoples of Anatolia. The region then began to transform from a predominately Greek Christian one to a Turkish Muslim society. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I’m sorry... but... what? Those “arbitrary lines” are oftentimes drawn in blood... but the question should actually be : why assist allies and friends, in reference to the Kurds, and if that needs explaining, I’m shocked... and expect it’s more willful ignorance than true ignorance.

 

your comment about atlases makes me wonder what century you grew up in as world borders have changed very little since WW2

 

 

and protecting borders... what? Would the US not protect its borders, and in need, would it not expect its friends and allies to support them in protecting its borders. With comments like that, I can’t help but wonder if you understand the purpose of alliances.

 

Perhaps the problem at the US southern border would go away if the US gave Texas and California back to Mexico. I recognize the stupidity of that sentiment... And holds true elsewhere... ie... its a stupid sentiment... one that’s heard said by the loser as it runs away. “It’s only a bit of dirt, let em have it if they want it!” 

 

If you're shocked at realpolitik and human nature I guess being in shock is your normal state.

You haven't noticed all the border changes in the developing (especially post-colonial) world since WWII? Whole new countries have been formed in some cases, even in Europe. Point is, it's naive to assume the world has reached a point at which there is to be no more change allowed and that everything must now be set in aspic, simply because first-worlders, who have got everything they need thanks, are afraid of the idea of conflict. The first world has been sorted out over the centuries - but that cost war along the way too, and plenty of it. The developing world is still thrashing it out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

a border is an internationally recognised  geographic location . I don't know what you mean by " proper borders

As far as arbitrarily drawn borders(agreed is a problem) applies just as much to Turkey as it does to the Kurds. Historically the region was not Turkish , the Turks are invaders who .....

"Turks arrived from Central Asia and Western China and settled in the Anatolian basin in around the 11th century through the conquest of Seljuk Turks, mixing with the peoples of Anatolia. The region then began to transform from a predominately Greek Christian one to a Turkish Muslim society. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people   

Proper border = defensible and impermeable border between territories of different ethnicities sufficient to ensure the security of both parties. When populations have mingled or the borders have been arbitrarily drawn, the borders are fairly meaningless.

Correct that Turkey absorbed that part of Kurdistan centuries ago. I don't think the Kurds were native to the desert corner of Syria under discussion for so long though.

It's a real mess. I think Turkey's solution, which is to at least drive a wedge between the parties, is best.

 

Edited by JamesBlond
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

Proper border = defensible and impermeable border between territories of different ethnicities

When was there ever, and impermeable border? borders are jus as good as the ability of both countries to defend them as this incident clearly shows.

 

13 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

borders have been arbitrarily drawn, the borders are fairly meaningless.

 They might be unfair , but they are not meaningless.

16 minutes ago, JamesBlond said:

 I don't think the Kurds were native to the desert corner of Syria under discussion for so long though.

If they are not, then neither are the Turks, so what makes the Turks claim more relevant than the Kurds?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jany123 said:

I’m sorry... but... what? Those “arbitrary lines” are oftentimes drawn in blood...

 

In this case though I think they were drawn with a marker pen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If they are not, then neither are the Turks, so what makes the Turks claim more relevant than the Kurds?

The Turks are not claiming the territory, only trying to clear a corridor free of Kurdish insurgents in order to secure their own border. Given the amount of Kurdish terrorism in Turkey over the years (which doesn't often reach world news) I think it is a legitimate objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Putin's diplomacy gains on Trumps incapability to find satisfying solutions for political and humanitarian problems .

There was a reason why Putin wanted Trump to become POTUS .

Trump should be the manager of his golf resorts and his businesses , but he is not a diplomat .

you are correct, not a diplomat  555 the master of the deal that stabs his allies in the back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JamesBlond said:

The Turks are not claiming the territory, only trying to clear a corridor free of Kurdish insurgents in order to secure their own border. Given the amount of Kurdish terrorism in Turkey over the years (which doesn't often reach world news) I think it is a legitimate objective.

  is a peoples defence of their inalienable right of self determination and resistance to occupation by a foreign invader   Terrorism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...