Category: Turkey

Idlib: Can the center of rivalry become a zone of cooperation? Mehmet Perinçek Historian and political scientist
Mehmet Perinçek
In order to understand the events in Idlib, it will be useful to briefly summarize the process, up until November 15, 2015.

Consensus of the November 15th 2015

On November 15th 2015, Erdogan and Putin held a meeting in Antalya, taking the use of the G-20 summit. The meeting had an important secret agenda.

Even Putin at first, did not know about this agenda. Erdogan has addressed his Russian counterpart as “Volodya” (a sincere informal version of the name Vladimir), and said that the Turkish Army would launch an operation on the Syrian territory. The Russian President has responded to these statements from Erdogan, by saying “we will look the other way”. Moscow had turned a green light, on the Turkey’s operation abroad.

As a matter fact, the Astana process would have begun around that time instead. The two countries had agreed upon intervening in the Kurdish corridor, without the consent of the United States, who wanted to establish such a corridor.

Sabotaged by the jet plane crisis

However, a Russian Su-24 fighter jet was shot down on November 24th 2015, while 10 days has not passed since this agreement was in order. The statements of “we can strike again if necessary”, “I gave the order to shoot down”, “NATO should intervene” have risen from the AKP government. To this, Putin would say, “We were stabbed in the back”, which was understood as an insignificant statement at the time, but what the Russian leader meant when saying these words, was the agreement of the November 15th.

What has happened, that these two countries came to brink of a war, when just nine days ago two leaders have agreed upon the intervention on Syria territory, by the Turkish Army? The consensus, which could change the course of the region, was sabotaged. Moreover the breakdown of the mentioned agreement, Turkey and Russia have become the sides of a very serious geopolitical fraction.

We have explained this many times in our articles. The Turkish-Russian conflicts has always ended up with negative results for the both countries. The winner from these conflicts has always been the West. In fact, the West’s implementations of its plans in the region was always dependent on the provocation of these conflicts.

Davutoglu’s “strategic depth” has prepared the ground for the Kurdish corridor, and then the sabotage of the Gulenist pilots and Ankara’s attitude, deprived of the necessary statesmanship has avenged it. On top of these, Turkey has now lost one its potential allies. The US has left this to Russia to be taken care of. The July 15th plot was initiated right after this operation.

With this, Turkey will be politically isolated; and Russia would fall into Washington’s trap, of the US project to “establish a new government in Turkey”.

The Patriotic Party’s (Vatan Partisi (Turkey)) warns in Moscow, has ended up with positive results. When the plan the US wanted to implement through FETO in Turkey was explained, the Russian view of the issue has changed, and the idea that the re-negotiation could be established with the condition of an apology from Ankara, has come dominant.

Relations have achieved complete recovery, when Ankara kept its promises, even removed Davutoglu from the prime minister’s office, but this time not only Turkey, but the entire region has faced an American coup attempt on the July 15th. Turkish-Russian relations were accelerated as a result of this threat being repelled, the Syrian consensus of November 15th 2015, was revived once more.

The US initiative has fallen apart

The Astana process has begun with a delay, even though it was sabotaged by the fighter jet crisis. The two countries need each other. But the opposing front did not settle down with this easily. The assassination of Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Ankara Andrei Karlov, was for the re-sabotaging of this regional cooperation, that is outside the US initiative. However, the two countries’ approach to this event has also failed this attempt.

With the ups and downs, this process was finally crowned with the Sochi agreement. The US’ Greater Middle East project was buried to the pages of history. The US’ plans had no chance of success, in conditions where Turkey and Russia are cooperating in the region. Turning this equation around, was again dependent on the deterioration of the Turkish-Russian relations.

The conflict scenario in Libya also did not hold well

Washington and its various contractors have seen Libya as an opportunity. Attempts of disruption from the inside and from the outside, did not end in positive results, in Libya. Solid interests, and the need for each other between the two countries, have also been quite decisive in the Libyan issue.

The leaders of these two countries agreed first. Then, ceasefire talks have begun in Moscow. The Atlantic front has again acted to prevent the moves outside its own initiative. Although the Atlantic front has tried to undermine this process by using its influence on Haftar, Turkish-Russian cooperation has proved itself to be the only option to the resolution of this problem.

Turkish-Syrian contacts and the killing of Soleimani

In parallel to the Libyan talks, Turkish and Syrian intelligences have come in contact in the highest level under the Russian mediation. The official sharing of this event to the public, has been a glimmer of hope for the ultimate resolution of the Syrian crisis. This glimmer of hope also meant the end of the Atlantic front’s story in the region.

Meanwhile, the world was shaken down by the murder of Soleimani. We have just learned one of the hidden “sins” of this attack. According to the American New York Times Newspaper, the United Arab Emirates held some secret talks with Iran in September 2019, without the notice of the Washington, and these talks were arranged by Soleimani, who was killed in the attack. The US was going mad, as its own initiative was breaking apart.

Re-escalation of the tensions and the centrifugal forces in Idlib

This is the moment, in times when Turkey and Russia have taken the initiative, on the issues of Syria and Libya, after a week has passed, just as back in the fighter jet crisis, a situation of opposing sides has occurred. The killing of the Russian officers and the Turkish soldiers, has created a new crisis.

However, there is a rule that applies to all three countries Turkey, Syria and Russia. You can even apply this law for every country and every region that was targeted by the United States. Let us formulate this rule in the simplest way.

All centrifugal forces are the instruments of the United States, indirectly or directly, and serve the imperialist plans regardless of their names, thoughts, ideologies, intentions, and are against the peace and prosperity in the region. The centrifugal forces are triggering fault lines in the region, and it is not possible for a break in one country targeted by the United States, not to spread to other countries. In fact, any centrifugal power in Syria, be it separatist or extremist, is a guarantee for another centrifugal power.

This was why the main principle of the Astana process, was to ensure the territorial integrity of Syria. So the purge of the centrifugal powers by the centrist powers, is in favor of all the three countries.

This also serves as an indicator for the policies of the countries’ leaders. The more you are in favor of the purge, the more patriotic you are; The more you support the centrifugal forces, the more you stand against the national interests of your country.

There is no conflict of interest

This part is very important: The attitude of the Turkish leadership comes from its responsibility to itself, not the responsibilities against Russia or Syria. The same applies to the Russian and Syrian leaderships. To be more clear, the more Putin delays the full elimination of separatist forces, the more he betrays the interests of his own country. The more Erdogan supports the terrorism in Idlib, the more it harms the Turkey’s own interests. The same applies to Bashar al-Assad.

Therefore, there is no such a conflict of interest between these countries in Syria. There are also no concessions that countries need to make. Every single conflict between Turkey, Russia and Syria, is not due to the clash of interests between the countries, but because of the subjective reasons.

The US’ take-over operation

Of course, there may be outsourced interventions and arrangements. The only thing left that holds the US’ Greater Middle East Project. That is to clash Turkey with Syria and Russia, and to make Turkey isolated by leaving it away from its allies.

Washington’s “We stand alongside Turkey” lies, are just a part of this strategy. We can see that clearly, when we look at the whole picture. It is not that the United States has given up on its strategic partner the PKK/PYD. It still remains as literally the captain of the front opposite to Turkey, in the Eastern Mediterranean. Did the same United States, just declared the Deal of the Century? While Turkey is clashing the United States on every front, there is a reason why it stands by the side of Turkey in only an anti-Russia and anti-Syrian conflict. The reason, is to prevail over Turkey, and on the other hand to pursue economic threats/sanctions in order to keep the control of it.

Contacts with Damascus and the wave of migration

However, there are some internal reasons that form the ground for this crisis. First reason, is the AKP government’s persistence to contact with Damascus, as it is necessary. When the contact with Damascus is not being established, the process of ensuring the territorial integrity of Syria, and guarantee for the Turkish national security as a consequence, opens to external arrangements.

The cooperation with Damascus will also prevent a wave of migration on Idlib. It is impossible for Ankara to stop Damascus to ensure its territorial integrity. A proper state will do so, by its own nature. This is a state instinct. If Turkey is there in the process, if Turkey plans this together with Syria, they can prevent that wave of migration. Turkey stands no chance to block Damascus to ensure its territorial integrity (and has no interest either), but by cooperating with Damascus, it is possible to prevent the wave of migration, by planning the process and by ensuring that necessary measures are taken.

Sixth column activities

However, it should be noted that all three countries have forces that want to undermine cooperation. In Russia, forces with openly Westernist axes can be described as the fifth column, which is isolated, and have little to no chance of affecting the state’s policies. But we can say that Putin has a liberal team clustered around him. This sixth column activities (also nested in the media) has lurked into the crises with Turkey.

While this trend in Turkey manifests itself through sectarianism, those who are fueling the problems with Turkey are not absent in Syria. Despite they also face such lies, the imperialist lie of the Armenian genocide being accepted in the Syrian parliament is one of the examples. A mistake done against the interests of the two countries, triggering other mistakes on the both sides. The pain we have with our martyrs, is the result of such a vicious cycle.

So-called “nationalist” slogans

In all three countries, these provocations are garnished with so-called “nationalist, patriotic” slogans. However, to leave them alone in the face of a powerful enemy, to expose the main threat by creating bigger problems in front of it, and even to spend your energy in the face of potential friendly forces in which you have common interests by drawing attention away from the real threat, are the largest detriments that can be done to these countries.

It is not possible to make them fall for these policies, which make these sinister imperialist forces enjoy, by saying “a view from Ankara” or “neither quite like this, nor that”. Especially funny conspiracy theories that are completely disconnected from the life and the facts such as “The United States and Russia have agreed and they will end Turkey”, would not save this axis.

Balancing the threat with power

One thing is for sure, it is that war is won by force. It is necessary to create a unified domestic force to balance out the threat you are facing with. But the magnitude of the threat also requires building a chain of international alliances. This is also a way to reduce the cost and losses of war in any case. I do not think it is necessary to mention that these alliances will be created on the basis of common interests.

Experience of the War of Independence

Turkey’s experience in the War of Independence and the international alliances that it established are full of important lessons, in this regard. We can learn ‘’how to perceive from Ankara’s view” from those who has shaped Ankara, to its current form.

The main role of the Independence War in achieving success was undoubtedly played by “the nation’s own persistence and decisiveness”. Turkey “trusted its own power”, but as Mustafa Kemal Pasha said, “it is obligatory to join forces considering the large number of our enemies”.

The Caucasus had a strategic role in the global struggle for interests, in terms of having raw material resources and especially oil, being at the crossings of the roads from the Central Asia to the Black Sea and creating a buffer zone between Turkey and Russia. While the Entante Powers, particularly Britain, have put forward the Caucasian Frontline Plan to prevail in this struggle, Turkey and Soviet Russia are faced with the necessity to go to a military co-operation to disrupt this plan, which is a matter of survival to them.

Ankara’s policy of military cooperation was based on its strategy to save the west of the country by first creating a foothold in the east. In fact, the liberation of Istanbul and the end of the Greek occupation actually depended on it.

Two important pillars of cooperation in the South Caucasus took place in Armenia and Georgia. The elimination of British collaborative governments in the two countries and the implementation of the Soviet administrations there, have become the common plan for Ankara and Moscow.

Common interests, not break-up points

This goal was first achieved in Armenia with common operations by the Turkish Armies and the Red Army. However, this process was sabotaged by the provocations of the West, initiatives from inside Russia and Turkey, as well as with the efforts of the Dashnak Forces to bring down the Turkish Forces and the Red Army. After all, for centuries, especially in the Caucasus, there were remnants of the ongoing rivalry.

However, the military and political leaders of the two countries saw that Turkey’s defense was Russia’s defense, and vice versa. When these facts were grasped, the common interests came forward and not the break-up points, thus the cooperation was strengthened. The problems between the two armies could be overcome by this perspective.

The Role of Kazım Karabekir in Batumi Crisis

Then, the same military collaboration came to life in the Menshevik Georgia. The British collaborator Menshevik government was destroyed, but this time the two armies clashed with each other in Batumi. A crisis has risen that will lead to minor conflicts and mutual casualties.

At that time, the delegations of the two countries were in negotiation in Moscow. For the West, the signing of a treaty in Moscow meant that their plans were ruined. The dispute between Turkey and Russia in Batumi, was the only way for the West. On March 16th 1921, the Moscow Treaty was signed, and Batumi was left to the Soviet side. However, the crisis continued as there were still two armies in the city. The West, on the other hand, was forcing Ankara into a Caucasus Federation Project against Russia under the Turkish leadership. As a result, the problem was solved by the pulling back of Turkish Army from Batumi by following the Treaty.

Kazim Karabekir’s approach with the common sense, to the matter from Ankara, has played an important role in overcoming the crisis. His letter to Mustafa Kemal on March 27th 1921 is a summary of this view:

“The actual cause of the London conference was clearly revealed to be a double game of, melting Turkey in a ring of fire by provoking the Caucasian Ambitions of the Turks alongside the Georgians, in order to wage wars against the Russians, or at least to prevent the Turks to cooperate with the Russians against the Georgians. I attribute the agreement with the Menshevik Georgian government who has understood the Entante Powers’ Caucasian plot, and even reaching to a point where a Caucasian Confederation is agreed upon, and the invasion of Batumi being approved by the National Assembly, to the lack of individuals who understood the Eastern Issue and Russia’s vital problems, and to the terrifying Entente propaganda that surrounds us from all sides. (…) As long as the Russians dominate the Caucasus, we must remain friendly or even connected to them. This can be done by convincing the Russians with words and behaviors that we do not have any ambitions over their survival interests. Since the factories and railways were built entirely according to Baku resources during the Tsarist Russia, no matter what government form Russia has, it cannot be without Baku for Russia, or Baku also cannot make it without Batumi. We should no longer be suspected from the Russians, in the north of the border (…) This is needed to protect the railway connecting these two important ports. For this, first of all our representatives in Baku and Tbilisi and elsewhere should not be the ground for counter-revolutionary committees. Our representatives must have no contrary opinions to the policies drawn by our government with either personal or external influences, and they must have clear objectives. The Entente Powers are spreading such strong propaganda and they spend such costs that, it is needed to have the intelligence and morality not to be surprised by this. Otherwise, the Entente Powers will continue to influence our civil servants and will maintain the counter-revolutionary cells in the Caucasus in the circles of our officials and a great mistrust between us and the Russians shall be maintained. This is a disastrous policy for us as long as the Russians are in power.”

Mustafa Kemal Pasha said that he thought the same way in his response to Karabekir and this sort of an action was suitable for the national interest.

True patriotism and statesmanship

This is exactly what we mean by looking at the issue from Ankara, to be a great statesman and a commander, and to carry the country to the August 30th. Karabekir was perhaps one of the most ideologically and politically distant figures to Soviet Russia, but his true patriotism, his focus on the success and the victory, led him to take the most determined stance with this cooperation.

The status of Idlib cannot even be compared to the importance of Batumi, that Turkey had at that time. Idlib is eventually a Syrian administrative territory, and there is nothing as natural as it being under control of the Syrian central authority. We have emphasized many times that this is in favor of Turkey.

The Target is East of the Euphrates

Turkey’s focus should be on the east of the Euphrates. Turkey’s stance in Idlib also matters for clearing the terrorism in the east of the Euphrates. (We explained the issue of migration wave in the above.)

Turkey has achieved a significant success in Syria, by means of military operations that began in 2016 and has not allowed the American corridor to be established. With this success, the alliances it established within the international plan and the Astana process have played a very important role.

But for the ultimate success, it is necessary that this axis be insisted on, and that the mistakes made in the process to be abandoned. It is needed to be in contact with Damascus for our national interests. Turkey does not need mediators to come in contact with its neighbor.

Turkey’s insistence on the Astana process, will also allow its allies to take a more stable stance on the east of the Euphrates. Turkey will gain new allies in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Russia could not make it without Turkey and neither could Turkey without Russia. Syria and Iran are also included in this equation. In this process, it is inevitable that the necessities will be decisive again. These necessities impose itself enough to determine not only the government policies, but also the governments themselves. But by the time passes, the cost we pay goes up.

So let us look from Ankara’s view, let us learn from Kazim Karabekir!

Related articles

Solving the crisis in IdlibTensions between Turkey, Russia and Syria have risen dramatically after the killing of several Russian…

Turkey’s irreversible and existential problem in IdlibA country’s foreign policy is a complex synthesis, matured and distilled with the accumulation of…

Turkey’s Dilemma in IdlibTurkey and Syria have come over against each other… The relations between Ankara and Moscow…
- Idlib
- Syria
Mehmet Perinçek

Historian and political scientist (Turkey)
The Hidden agenda of Trump’s visit to India

Idlib: Can the center of rivalry become a zone of cooperation?

The Coronavirus’ effect on world politics and economy

Nuclear multipolarity: is Macron’s latest proposal for Europe realistic?

‘Westlessness’ and the new Cold War
February 23, 2020
“NATO Go Home!”

by Thierry Meyssan

For two decades, US troops have been imposing their law on the broader Middle East. Entire countries are now without a state to defend them. Populations have been subjected to the dictatorship of the Islamists. Mass murders have been committed. There have been famines as well. President Donald Trump has forced his generals to repatriate their soldiers, but the Pentagon intends to continue its work with NATO soldiers.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 18 FEBRUARY 2020

Arrival at the Atlantic Council of the Supreme Commander of the United States Forces for Europe and Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Alliance, General Tod D. Wolters (Brussels, February 12, 2020).

President Trump will spend the last year of his first term in office bringing the Boys home. All U.S. troops stationed in the broader Middle East and Africa are expected to withdraw. However, this withdrawal of troops will in no way mean the end of US governance in these regions of the world. Quite the contrary.

The Pentagon’s strategy

Since 2001 – and this is one of the main reasons for the 9/11 attacks – the United States has secretly adopted the strategy outlined by Donald Rumsfeld and Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. This strategy was mentioned in the Army Review by Colonel Ralf Peters two days after the attacks [1] and confirmed five years later by the publication of the staff map of the new Middle East [2]. It was detailed by Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, Thomas Barnett, in a popular book The Pentagon’s New Map [3].

It is about adapting the missions of the US armies to a new form of capitalism giving primacy to Finance over Economics. The world must be divided in two. On the one hand, stable states integrated into globalization (which includes Russia and China); on the other, a vast area of exploitation of raw materials. This is why the state structures of the countries in this zone must be considerably weakened, ideally by destroying them and preventing their resurgence by all means. This “constructive chaos”, as Condoleeza Rice put it, should not be confused with the homonymous rabbinic concept, even though the supporters of the theopolitics have done everything in their power to do so. It is not a question of destroying a bad order in order to rebuild a better one, but of destroying all forms of human organization in order to prevent any form of resistance and to allow transnationals to exploit this area without political constraints. It is therefore a colonial project in the Anglo-Saxon sense of the term (not to be confused with a colonization of settlement).

According to this map, taken from a Powerpoint by Thomas P. M. Barnett at a conference at the Pentagon in 2003, all state structures in the dewy zone must be destroyed.

In beginning to implement this strategy, President George Bush Jr. spoke of a “war without end. Indeed, it is no longer a question of winning wars and defeating opponents, but of making them last as long as possible, “a century” he said. In fact, this strategy has been applied in the “Broader Middle East” – an area stretching from Pakistan to Morocco and covering the entire CentCom theatre of operations and the northern part of the AfriCom theatre of operations. In the past, the IMs guaranteed US access to oil from the Persian Gulf (Carter doctrine). Today, they are present in an area four times larger and aim to overturn any form of order. The state structures of Afghanistan since 2001, Iraq since 2003, Libya since 2011, Syria since 2012 and Yemen since 2015 are no longer capable of defending their citizens. Contrary to official discourse, there has never been any question of overthrowing governments, but rather of destroying states and preventing their reconstitution. For example, the situation of the people of Afghanistan did not improve with the fall of the Taliban 19 years ago, but is getting worse and worse by the day. The only counter-example could be that of Syria, which, in accordance with its historical tradition, has kept its state despite the war, absorbed the blows, and although ruined today, has weathered the storm.

It should be noted in passing that the Pentagon has always considered Israel as a European state and not as a Middle Eastern state. It is therefore not affected by this vast upheaval.

In 2001, the enthusiastic Colonel Ralf Peters assured that ethnic cleansing “it works! “(sic), but that the laws of war forbade the USA to carry it out itself. Hence the transformation of Al-Qaeda and the creation of Daesh, which did for the Pentagon what it wanted but could not undertake publicly.

To understand the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy, it should be distinguished from the “Arab Spring” operation, imagined by the British on the model of the “Great Arab Revolt”. The idea was to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, just as Lawrence of Arabia had put the Brotherhood of the Wahhabites in power in 1915.

The official, albeit not publicly assumed, objective of the U.S. General Staff: to blow up the borders of the Middle East, to destroy both enemy and friendly states, to practice ethnic cleansing.

Westerners in general have no vision of the broader Middle East as a geographical region. They know only certain countries and perceive them as isolated from each other. In this way, they convince themselves that the tragic events that these peoples are enduring are all due to special reasons, in some cases civil war, in others the overthrow of a bloodthirsty dictator. For each country, they have a well-written history of the reason for the tragedy, but they never have one to explain that the war lasts beyond that, and they certainly do not want to be asked about it. Each time, they denounce the “carelessness of the Americans” who could not end the war, forgetting that they rebuilt Germany and Japan after the Second World War. They refuse to acknowledge that for two decades the United States has been implementing a pre-stated plan at the cost of millions of lives. They therefore never see themselves as responsible for these massacres.

The United States itself denies that it is pursuing this strategy with regard to its citizens. For example, the inspector general investigating the situation in Afghanistan wrote a report lamenting the countless missed opportunities for the Pentagon to bring peace when precisely the Pentagon did not want peace.

The Russian intervention

In order to pulverize all the states of the broader Middle East, the Pentagon organized an absurd regional civil war in the manner it had invented the pointless war between Iraq and Iran (1980-88). Eventually President Saddam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini realized that they were killing each other for nothing and made peace against the West.

This time it was the opposition between Sunnis and Shiites. On one side, Saudi Arabia and its allies, and on the other, Iran and its allies. It does not matter whether Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Khomeini Iran fought together under NATO command during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-95), or whether many troops of the “Axis of Resistance” are not Shiite (100% of the Palestinians of Islamic Jihad, 70% of the Lebanese, 90% of the Syrians, 35% of the Iraqis and 5% of the Iranians).

No one knows why these two camps are fighting each other, but they are asked to bleed each other.

One third of the populations of the Shia Axis of Resistance are not Shia.

In any case, in 2014, the Pentagon was preparing to recognise two new states in accordance with its map of objectives: “Free Kurdistan” (fusion of the Syrian Rojava and the Kurdish Governorate of Iraq to which part of Iran and all of eastern Turkey were to be added at a later date) and “Sunnistan” (composed of the Sunni part of Iraq and eastern Syria). By destroying four states, the Pentagon paved the way for a chain reaction that would in turn destroy the entire region.

Russia then intervened militarily and enforced the borders of the Second World War. It goes without saying that these are arbitrary, stemming from the Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreements of 1915, and sometimes difficult to bear, but changing them by blood is even less acceptable.

The Pentagon’s communication has always pretended to ignore what was at stake. Both because it does not publicly assume the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy and because it equates the Crimea’s accession to the Russian Federation with a coup de force.

The moult of supporters of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy

After two years of fierce fighting against President Trump, the general officers of the Pentagon, almost all of whom were personally trained by Admiral Cebrowski, submitted to him under conditions. They agreed not to
create a terrorist state (Sunnistan or Caliphate);
change borders by force;
maintaining US troops on the battlefields of the Broader Middle East and Africa.

In exchange, they ordered their loyal prosecutor Robert Mueller, whom they had already used against Panama (1987-89), Libya (1988-92) and in the 9/11 attacks (2001), to bury his investigation into Russiagate.

Then everything unfurled as smoothly as a player piano roll.

On 27 October 2019, President Trump ordered the execution of Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the main military figure in the Sunni camp. Two months later, on January 3, 2020, he ordered the execution of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the main military figure of the Axis of Resistance.

Having thus shown that he remained the master of the game by eliminating the most symbolic personalities of both sides, claiming it, and without incurring any significant retaliation, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed the final scheme on January 19 in Cairo. He plans to pursue the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski strategy no longer with the US armies, but with those of NATO, including Israel and the Arab countries.

On the 1st of February, Turkey made its break with Russia official by assassinating four FSB officers in Idleb. Then President Erdogan went to Ukraine to chant the motto of the Banderists (the Ukrainian legionnaires of the Third Reich against the Soviets) with the Ukrainian National Guard and receive the head of the International Islamist Brigade (the anti-Russian Tatars), Mustafa Djemilev (known as “Mustafa Kırımoğlu”).

The North Atlantic Council acknowledges the deployment of NATO trainers to the Broader Middle East (Brussels, 13 February 2020).

On February 12 and 13, the Defence Ministers of the Atlantic Alliance noted the inevitable withdrawal of US forces and the forthcoming dissolution of the International Coalition Against Daesh. While stressing that they were not deploying fighting troops, they agreed to send their soldiers to train those of the Arab armies, i.e. to supervise the fighting on the ground.

NATO trainers will be deployed primarily to Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. For example:

Libya will be encircled in the west and east. The two rival governments of Fayez el-Sarraj -supported by Turkey, Qatar and already 5,000 jihadists from Syria via Tunisia- and Marshal Khalifa -supported by Egypt and the Emirates- will be able to kill each other forever. Germany, happy to regain the international role it has been deprived of since the Second World War, will play the gadfly by talking about peace to cover the moans of the dying.

Syria will be surrounded on all sides. Israel is already a de facto member of the Atlantic Alliance and bombs whoever it wants whenever it wants. Jordan is already NATO’s “best global partner”. King Abdullah II came to Brussels on January 14th for lengthy talks with the Secretary General of the Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, and attended a meeting of the Atlantic Council. Israel and Jordan already have permanent offices at Alliance Headquarters. Iraq will also receive NATO trainers, although its parliament has just voted to withdraw foreign troops. Turkey is already a member of the Alliance and controls northern Lebanon through the Jamaa Islamiya . Together, they will be able to enforce the US ’Caesar’ law forbidding any company from anywhere to help in the reconstruction of this country.

Thus, the pillaging of the wider Middle East, which began in 2001, will continue. The martyred populations of this region, whose only fault is to have been divided, will continue to suffer and die en masse. The United States will keep its soldiers at home, warm and innocent, while the Europeans will have to take responsibility for the crimes of the US generals.

According to President Trump, the Alliance could change its name to NATO-Middle East (NATO-MO/NATO-ME). Its anti-Russian function would take a back seat to its strategy of destroying the non-globalized zone.

The question arises as to how Russia and China will react to this redistribution of the cards. China needs access to raw materials from the Middle East in order to develop. It should therefore oppose this Western takeover even though its military preparation is still incomplete. On the contrary, Russia and its huge territory are self-sufficient. Moscow has no material reason to fight. The Russians may even be relieved by NATO’s new orientation. It is likely, however, that, for spiritual reasons, they will not let Syria down and may support other peoples in the wider Middle East.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Roger Lagassé

[1] “Stability, America’s Ennemy”, Ralph Peters, Parameters, Winter 2001-02, pp. 5-20. Reproduit in Beyond Terror : Strategy in a Changing World, Stackpole Books.

[2] “Blood borders – How a better Middle East would look”, Colonel Ralph Peters, Armed Forces Journal, June 2006.

[3] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Putnam Publishing Group, 2004.

Türkçe: https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/2020/02/19/nato-go-home-turkce/

February 19, 2020
Cybrary Lands $15 Million Series B Round to Train Cybersecurity Workforce

Ryan Corey remembers when his business plan would get him and his team laughed out of a room with potential investors. Back in 2015, when the Cybrary platform for cybersecurity learning was founded, it didn’t matter that Corey had amassed over 175,000 signups in six months.

Investors didn’t like his business model, based on attracting users with free lessons. And it probably didn’t help that his website was a work in progress. “When you give something away, they tend to cringe,” says Corey, the 39-year-old CEO. “And our look was so ugly. But users were using the crap out of it.”

Now, his company, Cybrary (that’s cyber library) has grown to more than 2.6 million users, with 2,000 new users a day. The company claims to offer thousands of hours of courses and hundreds of hands-on learning exercises in its catalog.

Those are numbers that investors can’t mock. Cybrary has landed $15 million in a Series B funding round. BuildGroup led the deal, with participation from Arthur Ventures and Gula Tech Adventures. As part of the deal, Gray Hall of BuildGroup and Ron Gula of Gula Tech join the company’s board of directors.

The College Park, Md.-based company will use the new round toward hiring more employees, adding more content and improving a network of creators and industry subject matter experts that have helped populate the platform with lessons and mentorship services, Corey says. The company has raised a total of $23 million to date.

Cybrary’s growth is perhaps partly owed to a boom in the cybersecurity field. Data breaches command headlines and can keep executives up at night. IBM and Ponemon Institute reported this year that breaches cost U.S. companies $8.19 million on average.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics expects job openings for information security analysts to grow 32 percent from 2018 to 2028, faster than the average for all occupations. And online jobs board Indeed reported that the U.S. saw a 7 percent increase in the share of cybersecurity job postings from 2017 to 2018. India saw a 40 percent jump.

Other companies have also seen an opportunity in the industry. Coding bootcamp Lambda School said it’d use a round of funding raised this year toward adding cybersecurity classes. And coding bootcamp Trilogy’s cybersecurity courses helped sell it as an acquisition for online program manager 2U in April.

More than 60 employees now make up Cybrary, Corey says. In particular, he wants to double the number of engineers on staff to 24 over the next two years.

The free version of Cybrary comes with introductory courses, syllabi, assessments and a live chat feature to help users. A premium license, which costs $99 per month, gives access to the entire course catalog, live online training, practice exams, scenario-based virtual labs and a mentor network.

The company also offers a service to train teams of employees for businesses, a package that includes analytics around how the team has progressed.

The platform’s content ranges from a single 10-minute course to a six-month program, where users are expected to commit 10 hours a week to prepare for jobs like network engineer and penetration tester.

Corey considers the experts network part of his company’s secret sauce. In a field like cybersecurity, having the most updated lessons is pivotal to pleasing customers. “That group of people is the most valuable thing to me,” he says.

About 1,700 experts make up a network of mentors, instructors and content creators. Course instructors are paid a one-time fee for content. Others sign up to access more Cybrary content or to build a reputation as an expert within cybersecurity.

Before he became a member of the mentor and instructor network, William Carlson started as a free user of Cybrary, which he came across while looking for ways to prepare for an information systems security professional certification exam.

Carlson, a 38-year-old IT and cybersecurity director in the Fort Worth area of Texas, says the exams require years of previous experience, cost hundreds of dollars and can last up to three hours. “I was not only looking to learn, but I wanted to know my blind spots—what did I know, and what didn’t I know,” he says.

He passed the exam on his first try and used Cybrary resources to gain certifications as an information security manager and payment card industry professional. Carlson decided to pay for a subscription for the virtual labs and mentor network, communicating with mentors through Slack and Zoom calls. He decided to join the expert network to help others who are uncertain about breaking into the industry.

Cybrary is not currently profitable, but is on its way, Corey says. He said competition isn’t much of a concern. Still, he’s open to acquiring another company. “If a piece of that network grows enough, we’d have to make a move.”

Kaynak: https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-11-13-cybrary-lands-15-million-series-b-round-to-train-cybersecurity-workforce

February 17, 2020
As an Armenian, what are 5 positive things about Azerbaijani people & culture?
As an Armenian, what are 5 positive things about Azerbaijani people & culture?

Vano Sasuntsi, studied Economics & Ancient History at The University of Western Australia

Answered Jan 19

The purpose of this question is all about ignoring the negativity & stereotyping both sides engage in. My 5 key points are:
1. When watching some aspects of Azerbaijani music & traditional dancing I cant but agree that how familiar it is to our Armenian culture
2. While stuck in an airport in Europe with 4 friends of mine, without realizing we and a group of Turks & Azerbaijanis simply gravitated towards each other, at first a bit tense, but within 30 minutes we all were laughing & sharing funny and similar cultural stories and sharing cigarettes
3. My father tells me some of his best friends during the soviet days were Azerbaijanis who he trusted implicitly and were very good & hospitable people
4. I feel an instant bond in many ways when I meet a Turk or Azerbaijani
5. Having traveled through Tabriz, I found the Azeri people very hospitable and would go out of their way to help.
Andranik Badalyan

Answered Dec 26

For me it’s pretty difficult to tell about real positive things as last face-to-face contact with Azerbaijani person took place almost 32 years ago. But older generations would mention some positive behavior by them such us honesty during trade in eastern food market/bazar, being devoted friends, honesty when dealing with cash, pretty naive people in good sense (ordinary ones, not the ones trained by scholars/Muslim imams: meaning not aggressive, not cunning), easy people to be persuaded, hospitality is their trait when you’re at their home/house.

Hope answered to your question to the best o

More Answers from Andranik Badalyan

View More

What are some of the most reliable banks in Yerevan for both Armenian people and expats living there?

412 Views

What were the Ottoman empires reasons for commiting the Armenian genocide? Did religion play a role?

968 Views

Is Armenia safe to visit?

821 Views

Are Armenian people aware of their ancestors’ influence on Polish culture and their links to Poland?

196 Views

Are Armenia and Georgia close allies?

114 Views

Learn More

Vano Sasuntsi, studied Economics & Ancient History at The University of Western Australia

Answered Jan 18

The purpose of this question is all about ignoring the negativity & stereotyping both sides engage in. My 5 key points are:
1. When watching some aspects of Azerbaijani music & traditional dancing I cant but agree that how familiar it is to our Armenian culture
2. While stuck in an airport in Europe with 4 friends of mine, without realizing we and a group of Turks & Azerbaijanis simply gravitated towards each other, at first a bit tense, but within 30 minutes we all were laughing & sharing funny and similar cultural stories and sharing cigarettes
3. My father tells me some of his best friends during th…
(more)

Nurdan Kılınç

I apprecaite ur answer. I am a patriot Turkish and have very good feelings towards Azerbaijanis b…

Related Spaces (More Answers Below)
M Armenia/culture 18+info

Everything about Armenia, Armenians, history and events

Discover More Spaces

Anahit Ararat, Lived in Baku

Answered Feb 1
1. They are proud of their unique identity, with their Iranic heritage they are skeptical about Turkish integration and value their unique culture/heritage.
2. They are kind and hospitable and will go out of their way to help people.
3. They are hardworking and industrious in regards to the extent they have developed the Baku oil fields.
4. They are secular and not overly Islamic or conservative like their Middle-Eastern neighbours.
5. They are humble and see themselves as equals with other peoples (apart from the dehumanisation of Armenians they propagandise).
303 views · View Upvoters · Answer requested by Vano Sasuntsi

Related Questions
- As an Azerbaijani, what are 5 positive things about Armenian people & culture?
- Why do Armenians hate Turkish people?
- What are the negative and positive characteristics of typical Azerbaijanis?
- Armenians: How do you see the solution of Azerbaijani – Armenian and Turkish – Armenian conflict?
- Why do Azerbaijanis hate Armenians?
- Are Azerbaijanis cold people?
- What do Azerbaijanis think of Armenians?
- What makes a Georgian, Armenian, or Azerbaijani girl more beautiful?
- What do Armenians think of the expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia? And what do Azerbaijanis think of the expulsion of Armenians from Azerb…
- What race are Armenians?
- Is there anything positive what Azerbaijanis and Armenians can say about each other?
- Are Azerbaijanis and Armenians really that different?
- What are some typical Armenian cultural things?
- Who is on the right side in the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
- Is Azerbaijan safe for an Armenian?
Related Questions
- As an Azerbaijani, what are 5 positive things about Armenian people & culture?
- Why do Armenians hate Turkish people?
- What are the negative and positive characteristics of typical Azerbaijanis?
- Armenians: How do you see the solution of Azerbaijani – Armenian and Turkish – Armenian conflict?
- Why do Azerbaijanis hate Armenians?
- Are Azerbaijanis cold people?
Ask Question ·

More Related Questions
February 14, 2020
US Army transported 50 tons of gold from Syria, report says

US Army transported 50 tons of gold from Syria, report says
DAILY SABAH
ISTANBUL
AFP File Photo

The U.S. Army is transferring tons of gold from Daesh-held areas in Syria to the U.S., multiple reports said.

According to a source who spoke to Kurdish Bas News Agency, the U.S. forces transferred about 50 tons of gold from areas seized from Daesh terrorists in eastern Syria’s Deir el-Zour region and gave a portion of the remaining gold to the PKK’s Syrian offshoot People’s Protection Units (YPG).

The gold was reportedly transported from the U.S. military base in Kobani.

Meanwhile, 40 tons of gold bullions stolen by Daesh terrorists from Iraq’s Mosul province was also taken by the U.S. forces.

Local sources who spoke to regime-run SANA news agency claimed that the troops relocated large boxes containing Daesh’s gold treasure from al-Dashisheh region in southern Hasakah.

Daesh terrorist leaders nabbed by U.S. troops reportedly provided information on the whereabouts of the gold, the report said.

The claim coincides with a report by the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which said that the U.S.-backed YPG was after 40 tons of gold left behind by Daesh terrorists in Deir el-Zour.

“The U.S.-led coalition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) deliberately do not target the areas under the control of the ISIL terrorists and commanders in Eastern Euphrates in Deir el-Zour as they are trying to locate this treasure by forcing the ISIL militants to speak about its location after surrendering,” the SOHR said, referring to Daesh using another acronym.

Though Daesh lost many strongholds in Iraq and Syria, a controversial deal between Daesh militants and Syrian groups linked to the PKK, a major terrorist group that carries out attacks in Turkey, helped their safe evacuation from Raqqa, Syria.

The U.S. still has about 2,000 troops in Syria, many of whom are working in close cooperation with SDF.

Almost all the territory in the east of the Euphrates River comprising some one-third of the territory of Syria, except for the Assad regime-controlled area near Deir el-Zour and the Daesh-held area near the Iraqi border, is controlled by the SDF. The SDF also controls the districts of Manbij and Tabqah on the right bank of the river.

February 13, 2020
The US has already lost Turkey
Cem Gürdeniz
Last week, the RAND Company, which has a budget of $350 million and is supported by the US government and the CIA, released a report on Turkey. The 243-page report, entitled “Turkey’s Nationalist Course: Implications for the US-Turkish Strategic Partnership and the US Army” was compiled by 10 different authors, including a former Naval Officer Stephen Larrabee. Larrabee is an analyst who knows a great deal about the AKP and the Turkish politics, as do his colleagues Graham Fuller and George Friedman: he has published many articles and research about Turkey in the past. Nonetheless, this report did not have a large public impact in Turkey for two reasons. The first is that the importance of the Atlantic system, or we can say the United States, in Turkish public opinion, has weakened significantly. The number of people who treat every report published in the United States about Turkey as a holy text grows less and less by the month. Second, as we move away from a unipolar world and toward a multipolar world, the Asian century has begun, and the entire framework of geopolitcs is being reassessed.

TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN THE SHADOW OF JULY 15

Aside from these two factors, we must also take note of some of the historical changes that have taken place over the past few years, including when FETO members in the Turkish military attacked Turkish civilians on the night of July 15, 2016, and the continued US support for PKK/PYD/YPG terrorism which results in new casualties every week. Today, the average person in Turkey knows that FETO was a mechanism of the United States government and that Washington is backing the PKK/PYD/YPG. In a country where even shopkeepers and taxi drivers are aware of this fact, it follows that the United States will not be able to serve as a reliable mediator or factor in the country’s decisions. On the other hand, despite these two clear threats to Turkey’s national security, the fact is that there are still some people who pioneer and defend the Pax Americana among our government servants, opposition and academics, which indicates the United States’ relative but continued success.

The opposition and the National Defense Ministry

The simplest and clearest response to this report was that of Retired General Nejat Eslen in his statement to VeryansinTV, where he called it “a plot in domestic politics and a Coup provocation for the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF).” In the RAND report, we can see that in an attempt to revive current US-Turkey relations, the opposition and the Ministry of National Defense (i.e. officer-to-officer relations) are being stressed as potential weak points. However, that ship has already sailed. The US can no longer initiate a coup in Turkey just because it wants one. On the other hand, the institutions aforementioned in the report should nonetheless be extremely careful. In our country, the opposition explores sees every avenue of coming to power as legitimate and valid. However, how moral and valid can the opposition be in Turkish public opinion when the force backing them protects FETO and spurs bloodshed throughout Anatolia by backing the PKK?

On the other hand, the institutions that suffered the most from the bloody July 15 coup attempt were the police and the Armed Forces. The Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) suffered from the Ergenekon and Sledgehammer conspiracy plots and then from the bloody FETO coup attempt, many losing their comrades-in-arms during the attacks. They have seen the fire and the betrayal. They have suffered alongside their families. The source of both of those vile attacks were FETO spies and militants within the TAF. Today, FETO’s leader is being hosted in the United States and the group’s fugitives are being given protection and asylum in almost every NATO country. Meanwhile, FETO trolls continue their social media attacks from abroad just as they did during the period of the plots. While this is personally painful, it has also led to the blossoming of a righteous opposition to the US and the West. As of today, even being associated with the United States, especially in the fields of politics, defense and security, creates an uncertainty and mistrust in Turkey.

For example, media reports about a US institution being a funder for Canal Istanbul has intensified skepticism and the mistrust for the project which was already faced with strong public disapproval. The last straw was RAND making the National Defense University (NDU) one of the focal centers of their proposed attack, calling to intervene in the institution’s curriculum… How dare they!? This report clearly shows that some factions in the United States still see, or want to see, Turkey as bon pour L’Orient. Every Turkish citizen has the right to expect that the Ministry of National Defense and its University be on alert to counter this arrogant approach.

The US has already lost Turkey

Let us be the first to tell the writers at RAND that they are going to have to find a new angle for their research on Turkey… some of their colleagues are already aware of that fact. For instance, lets see what Graham Fuller, who has been the CIA Station Chief in Turkey for many years and is FETO’s physical and spiritual father, has written on his website, in an article aptly titled “Who lost Turkey?”:

“No one in Washington has ‘lost’ Turkey, the process has been the product of a myriad new geopolitical forces. Turks furthermore find it demeaning to be regarded by Washington as a property to be ‘kept’ or ‘lost’, or to accept the assumption that Ankara’s default character should be as an American ‘ally’. It would be a grievous mistake to assume that when a new Turkish leadership emerges, that it will revert to the old status of ‘ally’ whose pliability the West had long relied upon. Any new leader at the outset may seek to mend a few fences here and there with the West, but will surely continue to pursue what Turkey sees as its expanded geopolitical destiny that includes deep engagement in Eurasia.”

There are quite a few ways we might answer Mr. Fuller’s question, but we cannot move on without assuring him that Washington has already lost Turkey. It was not the average American on the streets that destroyed relations with Turkey, it was Washington’s politics and the imperialist state which funded and supported FETO and the PKK. Now, let us move on. George Friedman, president of Stratfor, a think tank widely considered to be a shadow of the CIA, said the following in a speech at the “Digital Future” seminar held in Istanbul on November 28, 2019:

“Ten years ago, I wrote something absurd, which is that Turkey is emerging as a great power…. People said to me it is impossible, especially the Turks. But it is possible, and it is happening… Ten years ago, the idea that Turkey would sit at the same table with Russia, with the United States, with all of these countries and speak as an equal… This was not likely.”

Incirlik air base

Turkey, be confident!

Roughly 2 years ago on November 26, 2017, my article titled “Turkey, be confident. End the 70-year cycles” was published in the Aydinlik Newspaper. At that time I took note of two separate 70-year cycles from the Crimean War up to this day, the periods between 1853-1923 and 1946-2016. Both began with the intervention of the West for the protection of Turkey, and eventually ended up with the invasion attempts of our homeland by the very forces that had allegedly come to protect us. In between these two cycles, between the years 1923 and 1946, we saw a period of independence thanks to the geopolitical principles of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Today, we are at a new juncture. Asia has awakened, and Turkey is also awakening.

It is learning to shape the geopolitical fate of its own region in West Asia with its neighbors. The Foreign Ministry’s eastern turn, Turkish-Russian strategic cooperation, the Astana and Sochi Processes, the Turkish-Iranian convergence, the cooperation with Libya and Turkish-Chinese economic cooperation through the Belt and Road Initiative… these are the dynamics of the new era. Neither Turkey’s economy, nor its demographic strength nor its defense industry can be compared to the conditions of 1853 or 1947. As we break off from the second cycle, we must remember that our ancestors built empires in Anatolia, that we were the first nation to punch imperialism with the Revolutions of Foundation and the War of Independence.

Wikipedia

Moreover, we must keep in mind that our homeland has never been saved by anyone other than ourselves. The Turkish people have to be confident. Our future cannot be decided by a 243-page report, the Turkish people control their own destiny.

Related articles

Tension between Turkey and the United States is growingTensions between Turkey and the United States has risen dramatically following Ankara’s purchase of Russian…

Mutual sanctions: Turkey and the United States on the brink of economic warThe relationship between Turkey and the US has reached a critical point. Sanctions against two…
Cem Gürdeniz

Admiral Cem Gürdeniz graduated from Turkish Naval Academy in 1979. As a deck officer, he served in different in destroyers and frigates. He assumed the Command of guided missile frigate TCG Gaziantep and the Third Destroyer Division. He completed his education in Turkish Naval War College and Armed Forces College. He holds two masters degrees from US Naval Postgraduate School and Université Libre Brussels (ULB) in personnel management and international politics respectively. He was promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral (lower half) in 2004 and upper half in 2008. He served as the Chief, Strategy and Agreements Department and then the Head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet. He retired in 2012 as a result of the Sledgehammer Bogus Case. He is the founder and Director of the Istanbul Koc University Maritime Forum. In addition to his native Turkish, he is fluent in English and French. Admiral GUrdeniz is the writer of numerous publications in multiple languages languages including ‘Bluehomeland Writings.’ He is a columnist at Aydınlık Daily and Yacht Magazine.
February 10, 2020