For information F-22's met Syrian SU-24's. The Syria jets left the area apparently on 'seeing' the US.
I don't think it's a coincidence. I think that the Kurds were looking for some sort of deal to be proposed by Assad on their potential autonomy. As is, they're trying to force the SAA out of Kurdish held areas. And while before negotiation was the typical way they resolved conflicts, this time the Syrians immediately escalated to air strikes. I don't think it's a smart move either, but Assad is desperate for room to maneuver. He doesn't want to be left dependent on Russia and Russia alone, and the high-level meetings that have taken place between Turkey and Syria seem to indicate that he might be willing to deal with Erdogan.
I think you're conflating "the west" and "the US of A". ;-)
Also, it appears Syrian Su-22s hit positions near US forces, and this is why the F-22s were dispatched. The US has also sent Russia a notice that if the lives of US troops are threatened, the US will defend itself.
Is Assad an option though? Even if the west lets him win in Aleppo and Idlib, and with Turkey changing their stance that's a real possibility, the Kurds are still dead-set on either broad autonomy or independence. Meanwhile Assad is against the autonomy and considers Syria to be indivisible. There's also the fact that the Kurds are in no hurry to assault Raqqa, and instead are interested in linking their two enclaves through Azaz. In response to the question "where will we be 3 years from now" I suspect we will have a partitioned Syria, with ISIS in the east, Assad in the west, and the Kurds in the north. To be honest, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the smartest thing Assad could do is offer the Kurds their independence, in exchange for clearly defined borders, and their help in re-establishing control over the rest of Syria. But with the Russo-Turkish rapprochement, and Turkey making nice with Iran, that option seems to be off the table.
How much Syrian nationalism is there? I'm not an expert, I'm looking at this purely from the foreign policy angle. Because let's face it, Assad doesn't currently control Syrian Kurdistan, the Kurds do. And they intend to keep things that way. Assad has enough problems trying to pacify the various rebels in western Syria, and after the disastrous Tabka push, ISIS isn't a real priority.
If Assad was offering independence he'd be in a fairly strong position as to dictating the borders of the new state. That having been said, I've taken a look at an ethnic map and you're correct. The Kurds would either be broken up into 2-4 enclaves that are separated or there'd be considerable territory inhabited by other ethnic groups. Of course this doesn't take into account the recent war. I wonder how many of those territories are even populated today.
But that would be perfect. US-backed Kurds get their independence, are promptly invaded by Turkey leaving the US between two "friendly" forces, to unf*ck the mess, while Assad consolidates his power. If he could sell it domestically, it would be a brilliant move.These are hard pills to swallow.
And then, there is Turkey. Allowing the creation of a kurdish state on their border would be considered by most turks an epic failure, whoever leader allows this to happen will go down in turkish history as an impotent traitor. A turkish invasion is very possible. Otherwise there may even be ... a coup
Well, I am not familiar with internal syrian or turkish politics and the sentiment of the population, so I may be off in my above thoughts.
On another note, is anyone else thinking that after Mosul eventually falls, there will be an influx of shia militias into Syria? And it may shift the balance of forces?
The future of the Kurds will be a major stumbling block. Turkey are against the idea of independence and as we know Turkey are looking more in the direction of Iran, Syria and Russia than the US. On RT this morning there was an an article about the Russians using the Incirlik air base. How would that work alongside US operations one wonders?
Or worse it could lead to the US falling back in with the ol' Sunni Gang of Saudi Arabia, UAE et al. They would all back the Kurds if only to weaken the Shia crescent. Hell the old NATO saw wouldnt be too far off here but changed to "America in, Iran out, and the Shia down".
The Syrian attack on the Kurdish areas has certainly stirred up a hornets nest in the US camp. The top commander of US operations in Syria and Iraq LT General Stephen Townsend has disclosed that warnings have been given to the Russians and Syrians.
Outsiders fave been meddling the region for a long time and things are not going to change soon. From the creation of artificial borders to the propping up of rulers who who were never chosen by the people; various policies put in place by outsiders - foe their own selfish self-interests -have proven disastrous. Look what's happening in Yemen. The U.S. is providing logistical and intelligence support to the Saudis but why are the Saudis really in Yemen?
Turkey had previously - I think it was in 1995 - threatened to enter north Syria if the Syrian government didn't clamp down on Kurds along the Syrian border who were attacking Turkey.
What a terrifying prospect. While its reasonable to believe NATO would disavow any action by Turkey in Syria it'd be too easy for something to escalate in the region. Worse Erdogan could feel he had magic NATO armor that'd keep things from getting out of hand for Turkey giving him a false sense of security to do as he felt in Syria.
The situation today is similar to the pre-war Iraq-Iran counter balance assuming ISIL's eventual demise with one important difference, Saddam was more competent than the Saudi coalition.
Apologies in advance for expressing an opinion but the military campaigns to follow will be driven by politics and in this way: