Tillerson meets Turkey's Erdogan for 'open' talks after weeks of strain

[Morch]

3 hours ago, JemJem said:

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/erdogan-pushes-forward-afrin-despite-un.html

 

When will the West realise that Erdogan is the number one menace to peace and stability in the region, and, actually do something about it ?

 

Let me answer my own question......possibly never    Erdogan has a big weapon against the West_the 'refugee card'.

 

Also, let's not forget the various business and military deals to be made of course.

 

Does the West care about the ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Syria ? Sadly no. Does the West care about the continually deteriorating human rights situation within Turkey ? Again, sadly no.

 

Big shame.

 

 

 

Not a fan of Erdogan, and rather resent what's becoming of a country which was one of my favorite places to visit and stay. That said - other than with regard to immediate neighbors, Turkey's involvement in regional conflicts is mostly symbolic, if not purely hot air.

 

And the Kurds in Syria are nowhere near being ethnically cleansed, unless one is into hyperbole nonsense.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There's no point in answering your tendentious contentions. I'll just wait a few more weeks to allow for more information and reality to refute what you're saying. Bye bye for now.

 

Other than repeating "tendentious",  you haven't really demonstrated that they are. Whether things unfold this way or that, it has less to do with what I posted. That you cannot address any of the obvious issues raised or inaccuracies in your own posts, is not "refuting". Run away now.

[JemJem]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Not a fan of Erdogan, and rather resent what's becoming of a country which was one of my favorite places to visit and stay. That said - other than with regard to immediate neighbors, Turkey's involvement in regional conflicts is mostly symbolic, if not purely hot air.

 

And the Kurds in Syria are nowhere near being ethnically cleansed, unless one is into hyperbole nonsense.

 

The Kurds in the Afrin region ARE in danger. A regional power that is a lot stronger than them has been attacking them for a month after all (and it seems it will continue a long time). The YPG's supply lines are limited, as you know. We still don't know if and to what degree Assad will help those Kurds. Why do you think Assad's forces haven't really attacked Erdogan's forces so far ? The NATO factor of course. 

 

How long can the Afrin Kurds hold on ? There will be many deaths, and also, many thousands will probably have to move to other parts of Syria later.

 

If Turkey (and FSA) take those places, do you think they will give those areas up later ? Of course not ! Those areas will then be populated by Arabs and Turkmens, who will be moved there from other parts of Syria.

 

 

[JemJem]

10 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You have a point. He was an early and enthusiastic backer of overthrowing the Assad government. I take it you're against that.

 

Planning of the overthrow of the Assad government was neither good nor realistic. In the very beginning, it seemed like a democratic movement to be supported. But soon after that, it was seen that the opposition wasn't as innocent as it seemed. We all know what form the opposition turned into about a year into the start of the conflict.

 

Erdogan is a Sunni-Islamic extremist. He has played the 'sectarian card' in Syria.

 

For those of you, who say 'Hey, Erdogan is not an Islamic extremist; he is just a pragmatist who has been using religion to his advantage'. Study his past, guys ! Study his links and devotion to Muslim Brotherhood and raleted groups.

 

Yes, he is also a pragmatist, and is using religion in many ways. But that doesn't unqualify him from being an Islamic extremist.

[JemJem]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

When Turkey is no longer a member of NATO?

Turkey's diplomatic behavior in the Middle East is complicated, sometimes hostile to NATO allies and sometimes friendly. In foreign relations there is little black and white politics. What is more important is dialog and consistency. On the latter the US suffers under the Trump administration.

Unfortunately, there is no provision in the NATO charter, about kicking out a member country. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Even if there was, I wonder if Turkey would be kicked out of there. Possibly, it wouldn't, due to  'strategic interests'.

 

It is very sad......thousands of innocent people are losing their lives and many more are suffering, due to Erdogan's extremism and his desire to cling to power as long as possible.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, JemJem said:

 

The Kurds in the Afrin region ARE in danger. A regional power that is a lot stronger than them has been attacking them for a month after all (and it seems it will continue a long time). The YPG's supply lines are limited, as you know. We still don't know if and to what degree Assad will help those Kurds. Why do you think Assad's forces haven't really attacked Erdogan's forces so far ? The NATO factor of course. 

 

How long can the Afrin Kurds hold on ? There will be many deaths, and also, many thousands will probably have to move to other parts of Syria later.

 

If Turkey (and FSA) take those places, do you think they will give those areas up later ? Of course not ! Those areas will then be populated by Arabs and Turkmens, who will be moved there from other parts of Syria.

 

 

 

There is a difference between being in danger or under attack, and hyperbole claims of ethnic cleansing. So far, even by the (exaggerated) Turkish casualty figures, this is not quite what you earlier alleged.

 

It doesn't  seem like the Turkish operation is going as smoothly as planned or advertised, there are quite a lot of Turkish casualties (even by their own figures), and little to show for it. And that's with "limited" Kurdish (whatever that means) supply lines and without much assistance from Assad's regime.

 

Turkey being a NATO member may play a role in Assad's reluctance to engage, but I do not think it is a major one. In real terms, NATO's current capability to carry significant military operations against Assad is rather on the low side. Not unless it is willing to risk a confrontation with Russia, and without much of a justified pretext (assuming Assad's forces would limit attacks to invading Turkish units).

 

There are, however, other factors involved, some of the more obvious ones are Turkey being on sort of friendly terms (or having a degree of shared interests) with both Iran and Russia, which maintain Assad's rule. Or Assad possibly not being keen on assisting the Kurds without ensuring political concessions (such as their autonomy aspirations). Then there's the possibility that such a military campaign would not fair so well, which other than whittling down Assad's military, may do the same for his image.

 

I don't think Turkey will be allowed to permanently occupy significant tracts of Syrian territory. There's basically zero support for such a move, and Russia made its position on these matters quite clear. Putin already brought Erdogan to heel not that long ago, for those needing a reminder. As for other Syrians moving into Afrin, that's already the case for several years now. I think the refugees and displaced people greatly outnumbered the locals, at least before the Turkish invasion began.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, JemJem said:

Unfortunately, there is no provision in the NATO charter, about kicking out a member country. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Even if there was, I wonder if Turkey would be kicked out of there. Possibly, it wouldn't, due to  'strategic interests'.

 

It is very sad......thousands of innocent people are losing their lives and many more are suffering, due to Erdogan's extremism and his desire to cling to power as long as possible.

 

No, there is no such provision. Considering fighting another member state is not enough (or both Greece and Turkey would be out), the bar is set quite high. Oddly enough, Turkey could even, on the face of it, veto its own dismissal from NATO.

 

I don't know that "thousands of innocent people are losing their lives", at least not in the context of the OP (rather than the entire body of Erdogan's misdeeds).

[JemJem]

On 02.03.2018 at 5:29 PM, Morch said:

 

There is a difference between being in danger or under attack, and hyperbole claims of ethnic cleansing. So far, even by the (exaggerated) Turkish casualty figures, this is not quite what you earlier alleged.

 

It doesn't  seem like the Turkish operation is going as smoothly as planned or advertised, there are quite a lot of Turkish casualties (even by their own figures), and little to show for it. And that's with "limited" Kurdish (whatever that means) supply lines and without much assistance from Assad's regime.

 

Turkey being a NATO member may play a role in Assad's reluctance to engage, but I do not think it is a major one. In real terms, NATO's current capability to carry significant military operations against Assad is rather on the low side. Not unless it is willing to risk a confrontation with Russia, and without much of a justified pretext (assuming Assad's forces would limit attacks to invading Turkish units).

 

There are, however, other factors involved, some of the more obvious ones are Turkey being on sort of friendly terms (or having a degree of shared interests) with both Iran and Russia, which maintain Assad's rule. Or Assad possibly not being keen on assisting the Kurds without ensuring political concessions (such as their autonomy aspirations). Then there's the possibility that such a military campaign would not fair so well, which other than whittling down Assad's military, may do the same for his image.

 

I don't think Turkey will be allowed to permanently occupy significant tracts of Syrian territory. There's basically zero support for such a move, and Russia made its position on these matters quite clear. Putin already brought Erdogan to heel not that long ago, for those needing a reminder. As for other Syrians moving into Afrin, that's already the case for several years now. I think the refugees and displaced people greatly outnumbered the locals, at least before the Turkish invasion began.

 

 

I think you could possibly be right, at least to some extent, about the reasons for Assad's reluctance to attack the Turkish forces.

 

But, I still insist that this whole Afrin invasion thing really stinks; and it is bound to cause even more rifts between Turks and Kurds within Turkey ; of course, I don't include the pro-Erdogan, assimilated, Islamist ones among the Kurds.

 

Being in Turkey now, it is really painful and upsetting for me to see endless pro-invasion propaganda and lies; and language bordering on racism against Kurds (I think you can guess that the situation in the social media is even worse). By the way, I see this propaganda and lies only when, for example, I go to a cafe and the TV is on there. At home, I don't watch local channels anymore, except some sports-only channels :)

 

By the way, you wrote that Turkey would not be allowed to permanently occupy significant tracts of territory. I am not sure about that at all. I mean, yes, probably not permanently; but, Turkish armed forces might stay in some areas for quite a long time. And, don't forget....even if they don't have direct presence, they can rule and control some areas that are so close to Turkish territory. For example,  Jarablus ! It won't be wrong to say that Jarablus is under Turkish control. And, I don't even know.....maybe there are still many Turkish soldiers in Jarablus anyway. Are there ?

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

Another tasty bite of reality:

Inside Syria: With its enemies diverted or fighting each other, Isis is making a swift and deadly comeback

"In Syria, it was the Turkish invasion of the Kurdish enclave of Afrin north of Aleppo on 20 January which suddenly made the military situation more favourable to Isis. Asked if Isis is getting stronger, Aldar Khalil, the co-chairman of the Executive Committee for a Democratic Society – which runs the 30 per cent of Syria held by the Kurds with US backing – says: “Go look at our cemeteries... Isis are now the ones doing the attacking, while we used to be the ones who were on the offensive.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-comeback-syria-ypg-raqqa-kurdish-war-fighting-islamic-state-a8239316.html

[JemJem]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Another tasty bite of reality:

Inside Syria: With its enemies diverted or fighting each other, Isis is making a swift and deadly comeback

"In Syria, it was the Turkish invasion of the Kurdish enclave of Afrin north of Aleppo on 20 January which suddenly made the military situation more favourable to Isis. Asked if Isis is getting stronger, Aldar Khalil, the co-chairman of the Executive Committee for a Democratic Society – which runs the 30 per cent of Syria held by the Kurds with US backing – says: “Go look at our cemeteries... Isis are now the ones doing the attacking, while we used to be the ones who were on the offensive.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-comeback-syria-ypg-raqqa-kurdish-war-fighting-islamic-state-a8239316.html

Surprise surprise !!

 

What did people expect ?

 

I, personally, am direct. As a  socialist, it makes me so sad......this invasion. 

 

YPG are my comrades. I have been listening to this song, every now and then, man.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, JemJem said:

Surprise surprise !!

 

What did people expect ?

 

I, personally, am direct. As a  socialist, it makes me so sad......this invasion. 

 

YPG are my comrades. I have been listening to this song, every now and then, man.

 

 

I hope against hope that the Kurds gìve the Turkish armed forces & friends a big black eye.

[JemJem]

The destruction done by the Turks :

 

https://twitter.com/TolhildanS/status/970587051375636480

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, JemJem said:

The destruction done by the Turks :

 

https://twitter.com/TolhildanS/status/970587051375636480

I do trust you are taking appropriate measures to keep your identity / IP address on social media  secret from probing eyes

[Morch]

7 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Another tasty bite of reality:

Inside Syria: With its enemies diverted or fighting each other, Isis is making a swift and deadly comeback

"In Syria, it was the Turkish invasion of the Kurdish enclave of Afrin north of Aleppo on 20 January which suddenly made the military situation more favourable to Isis. Asked if Isis is getting stronger, Aldar Khalil, the co-chairman of the Executive Committee for a Democratic Society – which runs the 30 per cent of Syria held by the Kurds with US backing – says: “Go look at our cemeteries... Isis are now the ones doing the attacking, while we used to be the ones who were on the offensive.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-comeback-syria-ypg-raqqa-kurdish-war-fighting-islamic-state-a8239316.html

 

The article linked is far more nuanced with regard to implications and predictions compared to your own posts. It also stresses a point ignored earlier - that declarations of ISIS's demise were either hasty or exaggerated. The headline is somewhat alarmist, in that it does not fully match the content. The view that ISIS will remain a threat (albeit following more "traditional" terrorist/insurgency ways, is nothing new - and was previously aired on related topics as well). Also, all the sources cited are heavily partisan - and are rather obvious pushing their own agenda.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I hope against hope that the Kurds gìve the Turkish armed forces & friends a big black eye.

 

Against hope how? Considering the force Turkey applies, the operation is far from being a success. Even official Turkish casualty figures aren't flattering. And that's while focusing on a limited area. Most of the Kurdish held territory is not under Turkish attack.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, JemJem said:

The destruction done by the Turks :

 

https://twitter.com/TolhildanS/status/970587051375636480

 

Quoting partisan twitter accounts is all very well, but does not necessarily give an accurate view or details. The clip linked shows nothing more than how many urban areas looks after attacks. There was far worse done (and being done) elsewhere in Syria.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Against hope how? Considering the force Turkey applies, the operation is far from being a success. Even official Turkish casualty figures aren't flattering. And that's while focusing on a limited area. Most of the Kurdish held territory is not under Turkish attack.

 

So far, from what I've read, they have occupied about 20 percent of Afrin. As I've noted before, megalomaniacs and politicians like Erdogan tend not to be great military leaders. He's not likely to give the military free rein and more than likely to put people in command whom he trusts rather than the most competent.  And in his case even more so since he actually has reason to distrust his military.

On the other hand, the Turks do have pretty much absolute air superiority and much bigger forces. So while my bet is still on them to win, I think the Kurds have a small chance of prevailing. If they hold on long enough, and the now formidable  official Syrian armed forces are brought into play, that might do the trick. Of course, if the Syrian armed forces do enter Afrin, I don't think it's likely they would be leaving even if they do stop the Turks. So I don't know if that would be a happier outcome for them.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So far, from what I've read, they have occupied about 20 percent of Afrin. As I've noted before, megalomaniacs and politicians like Erdogan tend not to be great military leaders. He's not likely to give the military free rein and more than likely to put people in command whom he trusts rather than the most competent.  And in his case even more so since he actually has reason to distrust his military.

On the other hand, the Turks do have pretty much absolute air superiority and much bigger forces. So while my bet is still on them to win, I think the Kurds have a small chance of prevailing. If they hold on long enough, and the now formidable  official Syrian armed forces are brought into play, that might do the trick. Of course, if the Syrian armed forces do enter Afrin, I don't think it's likely they would be leaving even if they do stop the Turks. So I don't know if that would be a happier outcome for them.

 

All of which doesn't quite fit the "against hope" bit. In effect, and considering the odds, the Kurds managed to stall the Turkish advance. They do not need to independently affect a full Turkish retreat in order for this to be a success. I doubt the US will pull out, or that Turkey will risk a major confrontation with US troops. While NATO does not have a clause about kicking members, there's always a first time - and Erdogan usually blinks first when push comes to shove. By  the way, and not to get too distracted - I'm pretty sure that there were "a few" megalomaniacs, even politicians (or political leaders), who were rather famed for their military leadership as well. 

[ilostmypassword]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

All of which doesn't quite fit the "against hope" bit. In effect, and considering the odds, the Kurds managed to stall the Turkish advance. They do not need to independently affect a full Turkish retreat in order for this to be a success. I doubt the US will pull out, or that Turkey will risk a major confrontation with US troops. While NATO does not have a clause about kicking members, there's always a first time - and Erdogan usually blinks first when push comes to shove. By  the way, and not to get too distracted - I'm pretty sure that there were "a few" megalomaniacs, even politicians (or political leaders), who were rather famed for their military leadership as well. 

American troops aren't in Afrin. At least not officially. So, what has the Americans pulling out got to do with it? Can't think of too many megalomaniac politicians who were brilliant strategists. And in the case of Erdogan, given his justifiable mistrust of the military, it seems likely that he would promote those he sees as loyal over those who may be better soldiers, but not trusted by him.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

American troops aren't in Afrin. At least not officially. So, what has the Americans pulling out got to do with it? Can't think of too many megalomaniac politicians who were brilliant strategists. And in the case of Erdogan, given his justifiable mistrust of the military, it seems likely that he would promote those he sees as loyal over those who may be better soldiers, but not trusted by him.

 

The nearest permanent US military contingent is in Manbij. Previously, Erdogan declared the operation would swing that way and called on the US to withdraw it's forces. I don't think that will happen - hence the comment about Turkey not chancing an actual major military confrontation with the US. Hope its clearer now.

 

As for "can't think of too many megalomaniac politicians who were brilliant strategists" - yeah, sort of figured that from your previous post. There was no implication that Erdogan is to be numbered among them.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

On 3/1/2018 at 6:57 PM, Morch said:

 

@ilostmypassword

 

Again, asserting "as it turns out" relies on your full acceptance of this or that narrative. You have not provided much by way of a compelling reason to do so. Ignoring that all sides involved got wider and more varied agendas then the public statements offer, is a choice.

 

I don't know that the SDF Arab troops are "not much of a threat to anybody". Don't think I saw anything in the links provided which goes as far as that, and saying that he Kurdish fighters are better is not quite the same thing.

 

The figures thrown about vary - some places refer to thousands, other places more like hundreds. There are also various figures offered with regard to total SDF strength and composition, but any which way - hard to accept without question the claims that this brought the campaign against ISIS to a standstill. That it might be the case in specific areas is possible, but maybe not quite as dramatic as presented.

 

Under Erdogan, the referenced Turkish attitude toward and relations with Sunni extremists is not exactly news. And I think it was pointed out in one of them links that they'll be discarded when their usefulness expires. As for Turkey turning "them loose on those hapless Syrian Arab SDF troops in Northern Syria" - I'd suggest that this exhibits (again) some lack of clarity as to demographics, battle lines, composition and position of forces. Not really as straightforward as that.

 

 

As for the effectiveness of the non-Kurdish forces in the SDF, how about this?

"Late June, an analysis by the Counter Terrorism Center at West Point noted "growing acceptance of the SDF by Sunni Arab rebel groups" and more generally "growing legitimacy of the SDF".^[124] Another analysis as of late June described the YPG as "only one faction of many within the SDF", however that "it’s the YPG that makes the SDF reliable and effective. The SDF’s other components function as auxiliaries to the SDF’s 'backbone', the YPG, which ensures effective, unitary command and control.

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

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The nearest permanent US military contingent is in Manbij. Previously, Erdogan declared the operation would swing that way and called on the US to withdraw it's forces. I don't think that will happen - hence the comment about Turkey not chancing an actual major military confrontation with the US. Hope its clearer now.

 

As for "can't think of too many megalomaniac politicians who were brilliant strategists" - yeah, sort of figured that from your previous post. There was no implication that Erdogan is to be numbered among them.

 

 

 

He doesn't have to commit his forces at all. He can just open the spigot for Isis fighters to be his catspaws. Apparently, he's done it before. 

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

He doesn't have to commit his forces at all. He can just open the spigot for Isis fighters to be his catspaws. Apparently, he's done it before. 

 

Yeah, well - without direct Turkish military support, especially air support - this isn't quite the same level of threat, or something that the US and the Kurds cannot handle. While I understand the need to grasp at straws, that was one lame deflection.

[boomerangutang]

Unsolicited note to Tillerson:  it doesn't matter what you say to Turkish or other leaders overseas, none of it carries much significance.  Trump can contradict you in a NY minute with one little tweet.  Sorry Rex, all your efforts at appearing wise and knowledgeable go up in smoke, when Trump counters what you say.  Fools led by fools.

[Srikcir]

21 hours ago, Morch said:

While NATO does not have a clause about kicking members

The US and Kurdish allies were recently attacked by Russian mercenaries in Syria.

What if the US invokes Article 5, which states that any armed attack defense &  against one member of the alliance is an attack against them all. Ask for Turkey to support US counter attacks next time against these mercenaries )which we all know are Russian soldiers on leave or "retired")? If Turkey refuses, invite it to leave NATO.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The US and Kurdish allies were recently attacked by Russian mercenaries in Syria.

What if the US invokes Article 5, which states that any armed attack defense &  against one member of the alliance is an attack against them all. Ask for Turkey to support US counter attacks next time against these mercenaries )which we all know are Russian soldiers on leave or "retired")? If Turkey refuses, invite it to leave NATO.

 

Sounds like over complicating things. If the US and other key NATO members were set on kicking Turkey from the organization, coming up with a pretext is the lesser problem. The one suggested above is iffy, though - there is no way for Turkey to directly support operations in areas such as Deir al-Zour (where the incident mentioned took place). At least not without crossing right through the Syrian Kurds territory. Can't see that happening. If "support" is meant as "lay off the Kurds", pretty much a no go too.

 

Also, I think there's still a bunch of NATO/US gear in Turkey, plus some personnel. A whole lot of logistics to take care of, and that's without dealing with the political ramifications.

 

If Turkey was kicked out of NATO - what would hold Erdogan back from expanding operations in Syria? Yes, the US is there, but does the US need yet another military conflict going nowhere? I think not. The current, uneasy situation may be a loathsome compromise, and a shaky one at that - but it beats escalation.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

Turkish offensive in Syria leads to pause in some operations against IS: Pentagon

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon acknowledged on Monday that a Turkish offensive against a U.S.-backed militia in Syria had affected the fight against Islamic State and led to an “operational pause” in eastern Syria.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-pentagon/turkish-offensive-in-syria-leads-to-pause-in-some-operations-against-is-pentagon-idUSKBN1GH2YW

[ilostmypassword]

Utterly predictable:

Kurds pull back from ISIS fight in Syria, saying they feel let down by U.S.

"U.S.-allied forces in eastern Syria said Tuesday that they are withdrawing from the front lines of the war against the Islamic State in order to battle the United States’ NATO ally Turkey elsewhere in the country, jeopardizing the fight against the militants.

Citing disappointment with the United States, the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) said they were pulling fighters off the front lines in the province of Deir al-Zour, where Islamic State fighters have been putting up a fierce fight in a pocket of territory on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River. The holdouts there are thought to include some of the most senior leaders of the organization who escaped the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria last year, U.S. officials say."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/kurds-pull-back-from-isis-fight-in-syria-say-they-are-let-down-by-us/2018/03/06/3fd2c2ca-2173-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.93ce16e13c46

Edited March 7, 2018 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

I wonder if the Kurds will come to the realization that defending Afrin just isn't worth it. Better to consolidate their forces in Rojava where the presence of American advisers should discourage overt Turkish intervention. And they could let Syria forces occupy Afrin. Then the Turks would have a hard time justifying the continuance of their campaign if the Syrian government was in possession.

[Srikcir]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Provide me with one article from a reputable news source that supports what you are contending about the diversion of fighters to Afrin I haven't found any. You would think that by this time some enterprising reporter might have sussed  out some evidence that supports your views.

An interesting interview.

There are also reports that there are Kurdish militants fighting for Turkey. What's going on there?

http://www.dw.com/en/turkish-attack-on-afrin-the-kurds-put-their-trust-in-the-us-and-the-west/a-42727724