Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
November 25th 2015 print

Daryl McCann

The Guns of November

Given that Putin is a hero of the Shia-populated world it is no surprise that Russia is now in direct conflict with Recep Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist-in-chief and the increasingly dominant force on the other side of Shia-Sunni rivalry. The secularist Kurds are the likely and biggest losers

su24 going downThe downing of an outdated Russian SU-24 warplane by Turkish F-16s along the Syrian border has a lot of people thinking about Barbara W. Tuchman’s The Guns of August (1962) and the outbreak of the First World War. I am tempted to agree, but with some serious provisos.

First of all, the notion that the two European blocs in 1914 “fell into” the First World War because of contingent circumstances is problematic. In the end, the Kaiserreich played every trick in book to kick-start a European conflagration – even if the war they got was not the war they wanted. Also, I am thinking more World War II than World War I. The firestorm growing in the Greater Middle East is not binary but a three-player game, and that’s leaving the interlopers out of the equation. This is, generally speaking, how it was at the commencement of the Second World War: the Soviets, the signatories to the 1940 Tripartite Pact and, of course, the Western democracies.

Today in the Greater Middle East there is, in the first instance, Iran and all its sectarian allies, from the hybrid official-unofficial Shia forces of Iraq, including the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and the homicidal Assad regime. The best one can say about Russia’s military intervention in Syrian is that it might safeguard the interests of the Alawites, Christians, Druze and Sunni merchant class residing in Assad’s seriously shrunken state. More likely, though, if Vladimir Putin continues on his current course he will be condemning those minorities – in the longer term, at any rate – to exile or worse.

The Syrian conflict is a civil war inside a greater civil war throughout the Middle East, and if it goes the full fifteen rounds the winner will be – if for no other reason than demography – Sunni fundamentalism. Given that Putin is now depicted within the Shia-populated world as some kind of a “tribal Shia hero”, we should not have been too surprised that at some point Russia would come into direct conflict with Turkey’s Islamist-in-chief, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the increasingly dominant force on the other side of Shia-Sunni rivalry.

Then again, Putin’s and Erdogan’s “anti-terrorism” policies have certain things in common: their respective air forces brutally bomb a lot of towns in the region in the name of destroying the Islamic State – without, well, hitting Islamic State targets. There is reason to believe that Moscow and Ankara were in serious negotiations to come to an arrangement in Syria: indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei would have been arriving in Turkey at this very moment had not the SU-24 been shot down. Now, of course, the visit has been cancelled and President Putin is making all kinds of ominous noises short of declaring war on the Turkish Republic: “…today’s tragic events will have serious consequences for Russo-Turkish relations.”

The policies of Moscow and Ankara follow along logical – if felonious – lines. Putin wants to prop up the Assad regime for his own reasons of Realpolitik and that involves focusing not on the Islamic State but the other Salafi jihadist outfits – including the al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham and up to a dozen Turkmen militias – pressing at the extremities of Assad’s heartland. Erdogan, for his own self-interested reasons, has been prepared to do business with the Islamic State because its enemy – the Kurdish YPG/YPJ militia of Rojava/northern Syria – is also his enemy. Putin and Erdogan might have been trying to draw up demarcation lines before the SU-24 came down and the Turkish-backed Alwiya al-Ashar jihadist militia began firing at the Russian pilots attempting to parachute to safety.

Now we come to the third player in the Middle East – the ‘moderns’ or the secularists. The loser in any Russian-Turkish carve-up of Syria would have been the secularist Kurds (Rojavans) and their Kurdish-Christian-Sunni tribal alliance known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which has of late been taking it up to the Islamic State. Their capture of the Raqqa, the capital of the Islamic State, is no longer beyond the realms of possibility. And if Putin decides to rip up any nascent understanding between himself and Erdogan, then he might be prepared to spend some of his military efforts backing the SDF against the Islamic State in order to punish the interests of Turkey and its jihadi proxies in Syria. In that case, “the Guns of November” might turn out differently from what we first feared.

Daryl McCann has a blog at darylmccann.blogspot.com.au

Comments [5]

  1. Jody says:

    I’ve said for the last months that I fear this conflict is brewing into all the makings of a world war, based on history. It alarms me, then, to read that somebody else shares my sentiments.

  2. en passant says:

    “10-seconds or 17-seconds or none at all in Turkish airspace is not relevant as this was Erdogan invoking Turkey’s NATO membership to drag everyone on to this ‘Sick Man of Europe”‘s side. Despite what Darryl says about WW1, remember how the interwoven treaties in Europe in 1914 were supposed to guarantee peace, but instead instigated the largest conflagration the world had seen up to that time? They result also set the groundwork for the even bigger WW2. Erdogan is a fanatic, a caliph whose god is on his side so invoking WW3 would suit his religious insanity.
    So, what will happen?
    Scenario-1: Russia falls for the trap and hits Turkey hard. Erdogan calls on NATO for help and the feckless Obama and Kerry respond by sending planes to Turkey. Kerry demands that Russia respect US imposed ‘no-fly’ zones or suffer the consequences. After that, things quickly escalate out of control with unforeseeable outcomes. Putin is too good a chessplayer to fall for that one.

    Scenario-2: Russia takes the indirect approach and does some or all of the following:
    1. escalates support for Assad, including troops on the ground.
    2. destroys every oil tanker in ISIS territory, thus cutting both ISIS and Turkish illicit revenue
    3. provides extensive support to Kurdish forces inside Turkey by setting up firm Kurdish bases in Syria and Iraq, some of which will provide support to Kurdish rebels inside Turkey. This could provoke Turkish cross-border incursions, which the Russians will ruthlessly destroy.
    4. Russia may clandestinely support every anti-Erdogan opposition group in Turkey.
    5. Russia will openly expose every dirty deal Turkey has done in support of ISIS.
    6. Russia will target and kill every border crosser heading for ISIS territory so that Turkey is no longer a safe route to heaven.

    The fate of WW3 is up to you, so choose your scenario carefully.

  3. Daryl McCann says:

    Well put, en passant. “Scenario-2″ is the more likely outcome as I, in my own way, conclude at the end of the article – although I think you say it better than me.

  4. en passant says:

    Darryl,
    Let’s not forget the $Bn’s spent in Turkey by 2 million Russian tourists. I suspect there will be a few spare rooms going very cheaply and their economy is going to hurt as no cheap pirated oil and no tourists.