Even NATO is unwilling to touch Turkey’s
Idlib mess with a ten-foot pole
By Scott Ritter
February 28, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" - Having been hit by
the Syrian Air Force in Idlib, Turkey has called
on NATO’s protection, but as much as the
alliance would like a fight with Assad and his
ally Russia, it’s refused to back Ankara’s
questionable adventure.
Turkey engaged NATO in Article 4
consultations, seeking help regarding the crisis
in Syria. The meeting produced a statement from
NATO condemning the actions of Russia and Syria
and advocating for humanitarian assistance, but
denying Turkey the assistance it sought.
The situation in Idlib province has reached
crisis proportions. A months-long military
offensive by the Syrian Army, supported by the
Russian Air Force and pro-Iranian militias, had
recaptured nearly one-third of the territory
occupied by anti-Assad groups funded and armed
by Turkey. In response, Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan dispatched thousands of Turkish
soldiers, backed by thousands of pieces of
military equipment, including tanks and armored
vehicles, into Idlib to bolster his harried
allies.
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
|
The result has been a disaster for Turkey, which
has lost more than 50 soldiers and had scores more
wounded due to Syrian air attacks. For its part,
Russia has refrained from directly engaging Turkish
forces, instead turning its attention to countering
Turkish-backed militants. Faced with mounting
casualties, Turkey turned to NATO for assistance,
invoking Article 4 of the NATO charter, which allows
members to request consultations whenever, in their
opinion, their territorial integrity, political
independence or security is threatened.
Dangerous precedents
Among the foundational principles of the NATO
alliance, most observers focus on Article 5, which
declares that an attack against one member is an
attack against all. However, throughout its 75-year
history, Article 5 has been invoked only once – in
the aftermath of 9/11 – resulting in joint air and
maritime patrols, but no direct military
confrontation. The wars that NATO has engaged in
militarily, whether in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya or
Iraq, have all been conducted under Article 4, when
NATO made a collective decision to provide
assistance in a situation that did not involve a
direct military attack on one of its member states.
With that in mind, Turkey’s decision to turn to
Article 4 was a serious undertaking. For additional
leverage, Ankara linked the NATO talks with a
separate decision to open its borders to refugees
seeking asylum in Europe, abrogating an agreement
that had been reached with the European Union to
prevent uncontrolled migration into Europe through
Turkish-controlled territory and waters. Through
this humanitarian blackmail, Turkey sought to use
the shared economic and political costs arising from
the Syrian situation as a bargaining chip for NATO
support.
A failed gamble
The best Turkey could get from its Article 4
consultation, however, was a lukewarm statement by
Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general,
condemning Syria and Russia while encouraging a
diplomatic resolution to the fighting in Syria that
focused on alleviating the unfolding humanitarian
crisis regarding refugees. This is a far cry from
the kind of concrete military support, such as the
provision of Patriot air defense systems or NATO
enforcement of a no-fly zone over Idlib, Turkey was
hoping for.
The provision of military support under Article 4
is serious, involving as it does the entire weight
of the NATO alliance. This was underscored by recent
comments made by the Supreme Commander of Allied
Forces in Europe, US General Tod Wolters, which
linked NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture to current
Article 4 NATO operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
At a time when NATO is focused on confronting Russia
in the Baltics, opening a second front against the
Russians in Syria is not something the alliance was
willing to support at this time.
While the US was vocal in its desire to support
Turkey at the consultations, NATO is a consensus
organization, and the complexities of Turkey’s
Syrian adventure, which extend beyond simple Russian
involvement to include issues involving the legality
of Turkey’s presence inside Syria, and the fact that
many of the armed groups Turkey supports in Idlib
are designated terrorist organizations, precluded a
NATO decision to intervene on Turkey’s behalf.
Having failed in its effort to get NATO support in
Syria, Turkey is now left with the Hobson’s choice
of retreating or doubling down. Neither will end
well for Turkey, and both will only further
exacerbate that humanitarian disaster taking place
in Idlib today.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps
intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union
as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in
General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and
from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him
on Twitter @RealScottRitter -
"Source"
-
Do you agree or disagree? Post
your comment here
|