General Akar, General Gerasimov, General Dunford... - NEDRET ERSANEL

General Akar, General Gerasimov, General Dunford...

The backstage of the two-day NATO Defense Secretaries meetings in Brussels is witnessing moments of frustration between Washington and Ankara…

The square enclosing Syria-Aleppo from the Black Sea and Iraq-Mosul from the “Central” Mediterranean does not symbolize the last moves of the White House before leaving the Middle East, but instead its attempts to turn a new leaf for the period to start with its new ruling power.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg aimed to convey the U.S.'s message to Turkey after the first session of the Defense Secretaries Meeting (Oct. 26, Brussels).

Leave Sochi, the line will cut Aleppo

Stoltenberg said, “I can happily announce that some countries have confirmed that they will provide support to the land, air and marine forces in the Black Sea. Canada, Germany, Holland, Poland, Turkey and the U.S. are part of this group.”

NATO's – in reality the U.S.'s – desire to increase its presence in the Black Sea is nothing new. Every attempt it made in the Black Sea was overturned by Russian-Turkish waves. What's new is: the U.S. using NATO to push Turkey into the Black Sea against Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This is actually what the following statement means: “The agenda concerns the 'advance in plans' for NATO presence in the Black Sea region.” We can probably say this is the “trap.”

This is different from the U.S./NATO's moves to pull Europe and use it against Russia. We need to try and understand that the timing is chosen specifically when Russia plans future moves on Syria.

The NATO secretary general is guided by the Pentagon; thinking otherwise would be stupid.

Yes, the U.S. is trying to control any possible intimacy between Europe and Russia and it is trying to make sure that the sanctions continue. NATO is the most convenient tool to do this. But this situation is different.

This time it is trying to curb and possibly stop Russia from attempting to turn to Syria, especially Aleppo, (this expectation had reached its peak during the Brussels meeting.)

Therefore, it is trying to push Turkey (using NATO) into the Black Sea against Russia. With this, it aims to prevent the strategic autonomy Ankara and Moscow have achieved in Syria.

There is concrete evidence that the U.S. uses NATO allies in an area (Syria) that is not part of NATO and that it bullies Turkey in this regard, too. For example: the pressure it put on Spain to not refuel the Russian war fleet going to the Mediterranean, in which the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was included. The reason was clearly stated as Syria and Aleppo. (“Russia withdraws request for carrier battle group to refuel in Spain amid NATO pressure on Madrid,” 26/10, RT.)

The Spain example was also intended to serve as a current example for Turkey

This is a warning, but currently the U.S. does not have the power to do what it says.

Using the Black Sea for this reason will increase Ankara's stress. Because it is impossible for Turkey not to take a role in NATO's deployment in the Black Sea.

How can the Montreux, which gives privileges to Turkish and Russian war ships, be used by Turkey if Turkey takes place in a NATO plan in the Black Sea?

Turkey and Russia will together, remain loyal to the Montreux agreement.

Well, what will happen to NATO's decision to accelerate its deployment in the Black Sea?

“Our President is currently very busy. He would like to talk about Stoltenberg's statements on NATO's decision as soon as possible. The most appropriate date can be the upcoming 'Feb. 29.'”

Syria's Aleppo on the other side of the scale?

Because the things on this side include the answers Ankara and the Kremlin give to NATO's moves.

Turkey's backhand

One of the answers is: Putin rejecting the requests for the Russian troops to start the operations once again. And this being announced to the world with a Kremlin strategy.

The meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and Syria and Russia's Sergei Lavrov can be added to this.

The second answer given to the U.S/NATO is: Russia inviting Turkey into a keystone city like Aleppo (which has importance for Iraq too.)

Three: After the American plan was revealed, Ankara expressed that Turkish military operations will not expand to Aleppo. But they announced that the target was Manbij, a city inhabited by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), its Syrian offshoot Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its armed wing the People's Protection Units (YPG), the U.S.'s close allies.

The U.S. is trying to use NATO as a black cat in the Turkey-Russia rapprochement.

Washington has gone crazy after seeing that the Turkish-Russian strategies on Syria-Aleppo are actually working.

While I write these lines, Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar is meeting his Russian counterpart Gen. Gerasimov. Let's not forget that only a week ago he met his U.S. counterpart.

These are probably what they are talking about.

I believe that everyone has now clearly understood what the president's statement meant when he said, “If I call out, I will be heard from Sochi; if they call out, I will hear Sochi.”

Well what will happen next? What will the U.S. do?

The White House has run out of time. It will keep Syria as is, meaning without allowing it to establish itself once again and then hand it over to the new president.

If this president is Hillary Clinton, a U.S. military intervention on Syria is inevitable.

Is this for certain?

Yes, that's what Hillary said!


Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.