The previous idea was that during the two-day ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) at Brussels (February 10-11), the Syrian crisis would be discussed by the defense ministers over dinner Wednesday.
The main topic of the ministerial meeting was expected to be the alliance’s forward presence on Russia’s western borders with a view to “send a powerful signal to deter any aggression or intimidation” by Moscow.
However, Syria can’t wait until dinner is served. It became necessary due to the German-Turkish move, following the hurried trip by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to Ankara on Monday, to seek the alliance’s involvement in the Syrian issue.
Sure enough, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg since spoke to the German and Turkish defense ministers. He said,
Stolenberg was highly critical of the Russian operations in Syria, which he said, are “undermining the efforts to find a political solution”, “driving tens of thousands of people to Turkey’s border”, making “a desperate humanitarian crisis even more desperate and even worse”; and, “leading to violations of NATO airspace”. He then went on to allege,
The salience points toward NATO involvement in the Syrian problem with a long-term perspective. The NATO will be ostensibly supporting the member countries in their fight against the Islamic State and helping Turkey to cope with the refugee flow. But it is bound to rub against the Russian deployments in Syria. One major asset Russians possess today is the capability to jam Turkish aircraft and radar systems. But can Russia deploy this capability to jam the NATO systems?
Stoltenberg’s pointed accusation that Russian deployments upset the “strategic balance” and regional stability constitutes a first-time reference. NATO is projecting itself as a relevant party. Also, Stoltenberg maintained that Russian aircraft violated “NATO airspace” while making incursions into Turkey. This is also a deliberate coinage.
Nonetheless, NATO has kept strategic ambiguity regarding its intentions in Syria. There are three possibilities. First, a conspiracy theory comes handy that the NATO (read Washington) could be inserting itself to prevent a Russo-Turkish conflict. Indeed, US-Turkey relations are not at their best moment and the Obama administration’s capacity to restrain President Recep Erdogan is limited.
On the other hand, given the aggressive way Moscow has been pushing the envelope in northern Syria near Turkish border, the US and its regional allies are staring at a strategic defeat in Aleppo, which of course, will have profound consequences not only for the Syrian war and the geopolitics of the Middle East but also the West’s perceptions of Russia’s assertiveness.
Meanwhile, a third possibility could be that the US concedes a temporary victory to Russia and would make a tactical retreat by bringing the NATO alliance to the forefront and leading it from behind, while at the same time quietly passing on the baton to America’s regional allies – Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia principally – to begin mobilizing for the long haul against the Russian presence in the Muslim Middle East.
This third possibility gained considerable credence on Tuesday when Turkish Prime Minister threatened Russia explicitly with another dose nineties’ Afghan-style ‘jihad’. In Ahmet Dautoglu’s words,
Davutoglu spoke on the eve of the NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels. In such a scenario, Ankara could be looking for NATO protection to the extent available, while switching tack to fight an asymmetric war in Syria by setting a bear trap.
Of course, the searing memories of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) and the Treaty of Sevres (1920) will not permit Turkey to place its destiny for anyone’s safekeeping, especially its western allies’.(
Link: http://atimes.com/2016/02/turkey-raises-the-call-of-jihad-in-syria/
20
