Expert: NATO may intervene in the situation in Idlib to defeat Russia

February 28 2020 14

On February 28, 2020, the press service of the President of Russia disseminated information that, on the initiative of the Turkish side, a telephone conversation took place between Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. During the conversation, the parties exchanged views on the situation in Syria, expressed serious concern about the escalation of tension in Idlib and emphasized the importance of improving coordination through the channels of the military departments of the two states.

Both sides emphasized the need for additional measures to normalize the situation in northwestern Syria. It was agreed to intensify relevant interdepartmental consultations and work out the possibility of holding a summit in the near future

- It was reported in a statement published on the official website of the Kremlin.

It should be noted that on February 28, 2020, at the request of Turkey, urgent consultations should be held within the "peace-loving" NATO bloc regarding the situation in the Idlib "de-escalation" zone. On this occasion, a military expert, doctor of military sciences Konstantin Sivkov, has already expressed his opinion to the newspaper "Sight".

NATO is interested in inflicting military defeat on Russia. Therefore, it is possible that the alliance will intervene in the situation in Idlib and will incite Erdogan to war with Russia.

- considers Sivkov.

Judging by the NATO charter, there should be no reaction from the alliance other than diplomatic. After all, we are not talking about aggression against Turkey. On the contrary, Erdogan is fighting on the territory of another state, contrary to the position of NATO. Therefore, de jure, the alliance has no reason to intervene

- explained Sivkov.

However, the reality is that NATO is interested in inflicting military defeat on Russia. Therefore, it is possible that the alliance will intervene in the situation in Idlib. But this is unlikely to be direct military intervention.

- suggested Sivkov.

He (Erdogan - ed.) For them (USA - ed.) The figure is unacceptable. Because Washington, on the one hand, will by all means set Erdogan at war with Russia. On the other hand, he will try to make sure that he suffers heavy losses in this war, which will lead to a regime change in Turkey

- suggested Sivkov.

In turn, a senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, an Arabist Vladimir Sotnikov is sure that what is happening in Idlib is not capable of quarreling Moscow and Ankara.

Russian-Turkish relations have not collapsed. Skirmishes, clashes and attacks from both sides do not mean the end of negotiations and plans for a meeting between Putin and Erdogan, which supposedly draws some line under strategic partnership. This is important for both parties. Erdogan, of course, leads his game, but he will not finally quarrel with Russia

- said Sotnikov.

Moreover, Russia's interests look twofold. On the one hand, it is cleansing the entire territory of Syria from militants and gangs, terrorists of various stripes, as well as frenzied opposition. On the other hand, it is a desire to preserve, if possible, a strategic partnership with Turkey

- summarized Sotnikov.

We draw attention to the fact that everyone who is not lazy is talking about the virtual "occupation" of Donbass by the "Russian troops". At the same time, for some reason, many are silent about the real occupation of part of Syria by the troops of Turkey and the USA.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Tramp1812

0

28 February 2020 16: 30

Russia is unlikely to be able to "clean up" the entire territory of Syria. This is unrealistic. How initially the military victory in Afghanistan was unrealistic. It is unlikely that NATO will go into open military confrontation with Russia. But driving it into an arms race against the backdrop of other challenges and overstraining economically is not excluded. I rolled such an option from the USSR. Why not repeat for an encore?
1. av58
  
  +4
  
  28 February 2020 23: 22
  
  They cleared almost the entire territory of Syria, which no one believed in us, nor in the West. What will hinder to finish this work?
  1. Tramp1812
    
    +1
    
    29 February 2020 13: 55
    
    Syria is mostly a desert area. It is quite difficult to control it. There is no reliable data on which part of Syria was "cleared" by forces loyal to Assad with the support of the Russian Federation. Those that exist are contradictory. Data spread: 60 to 80 percent. And the ongoing battles, counterattacks by the opponents of the Assad regime, the transfer of territories from hand to hand - evidence that "the holiday continues." We are talking about priority territories: the coastal zone, rich in minerals, of strategic importance for one side or another. The desert, as such, hardly interests anyone.
2. Rusa
  
  +5
  
  29 February 2020 14: 38
  
  Afghanistan has nothing to do with it. Moreover, the Soviet Union, together with the government army of Kabul, completely controlled the entire territory of Afghanistan.
  And only when Gorbachev withdrew our troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban soon came to power.
  So you have a bad comparison.
  1. Tramp1812
    
    0
    
    29 February 2020 16: 14
    
    I formed my opinion about the war in Afghanistan from information gleaned from nonfiction literature: A. Maiorov "The Truth about the Afghan War" (Chief Military Adviser), A. Lebed "It's a shame for the State", Guy, Snegiryov "Invasion", numerous publications in press. My position is objectively confirmed:
    1. Withdrawal of the contingent of the USSR Armed Forces from Afghanistan, without any conditions. So the winners do not go away.
    2. The seizure of power by the Taliban, almost immediately and without the resistance of the Afghan armed forces loyal to the USSR. With full control of the territory of Najibullah, this is simply impossible.
    3. Even theoretically, to control the impenetrable mountains of a huge country by a tiny 180 thousandth Soviet contingent is unrealistic.
    4. The population of Afghanistan almost completely supported the radical Islamists, and not the regime of B. Karmal, and then Najibullah. Under such circumstances, and even with the forces of a limited contingent, and even in hard-to-reach areas, no one was able to cope with total partisan resistance. Neither Napoleon in Spain nor Hitler in Russia succeeded. The mighty USSR, with its borders completely covered by small extent, until 1960, with all its might, fought with a handful of Ukrainian nationalists, armed only with small arms.
    5. The thousand-kilometer mountain and desert borders of Afghanistan with Pakistan and Iran, failed to be blocked. From there flowed a modern weapon for the Mujahideen, which included air defense systems.
    6. The partisan movement in Afghanistan was not uniform: there were a huge number of small detachments of very different ideological orientations. It's like mercury in the mountains. What could they oppose a powerful clumsy army community with its tanks? You can hit the area, which was done, and then theoretically calculate the loss of the enemy. It turned out that the Mujahideen were completely destroyed six times a year.
    7. After the fight - they don’t wave their fists. The troops were withdrawn, the enemy came to power by force - period. The rest is excuses. Those arguments that you bring are pseudo-historical: what would happen if .... Let us proceed from what is. If it reassures you: the Americans now have the same headache in Afghanistan that Russia had nearly half a century ago. For the same reasons.
3. Astronaut
  
  +2
  
  1 March 2020 00: 26
  
  But driving her into an arms race against the background of other challenges and economically tearing herself is not out of the question. I rolled this option with the USSR.
  
  These are your Wishlist. Twice on the same rake it is necessary to be completely stupid to step.
Marzhecki

-1

28 February 2020 16: 39

Quote: Rogue1812
But driving her into an arms race against the background of other challenges and economically tearing herself is not out of the question. I rolled this option with the USSR. Why not repeat the encore?

But the Russian Federation is far from the USSR in terms of economic and military potential.
1. Tramp1812
  
  0
  
  28 February 2020 17: 06
  
  Here I am about that. And there are enough calls. What is external, what is internal.
gorenina91

+1

28 February 2020 16: 55

... a senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, an Arabist Vladimir Sotnikov is sure that what is happening in Idlib is not capable of quarreling Moscow and Ankara.

- Given that Moscow’s compliant and accommodating attitude towards Turkey, it is unrealistic to quarrel Moscow and Ankara ...
“What has Turkey just lately been doing for the last time ...” - and shot down a Russian military plane; and right during a business meeting the Russian ambassador was killed; and no matter what hostile polemic the Turkish media started (which, incidentally, is happening today on Turkish channels) ... - but nothing to Russia ... - know only Erdogan’s save from the coup, but the S-400 supplies, and gas and The nuclear power plant at its own expense provides ... - well, what else should Turkey do to Russia, so ... so ... so ... - but nothing ... - Russia will always be happy with everything ...
- By the way ... - in the entire history of the Republic of Ingushetia, the world has never seen such a thing ... - today we just live in an amazingly unique time ... - What will happen next ... - It’s hard to even imagine ...
Sapsan136

+2

28 February 2020 17: 13

The military doctrine of the Russian Federation openly says that if the Russian Federation is fighting more than against one state, the Russian Federation uses nuclear weapons ... This is for all (experts).
Cucumbers

+3

28 February 2020 22: 42

So the alliance is already at war with the Russian Federation, Turkey is a member of NATO. Here, as always, our enemies want to kill a flock of hares. And to push Russia and Turkey, and to remove Erdogan with the help of the opposition, and to destroy Turkey and Russia, but at the same time control over the oil fields of Syria remains with them. Take a look around - Russia has many allies around the perimeter? And the flags are already set (Lugar laboratories). The enemy is defeated, there is a choking reception (sanctions) - this is about us. Why aren't those who are supposed to and who get paid for it not sound the alarm? Why does Israel, for example, if it believes that there are terrorist targets in Syria, inflicts a missile strike on them? He warns through the media that there are no victims, and strikes. And then the biolaboratory around.
Sergey p.

+1

29 February 2020 19: 20

... There is a guess that Vladimir Putin and Erdogan have an agreement to clean out each other's "inconvenient partners", thereby pushing them (partners) to greater negotiability, and if it works out, then to disposal. Here are just overlaps, but the matter is fixable and these issues can be solved. So, I think, everything will be decided to the satisfaction of both sides, and you can ignore the formidable rhetoric and some gestures, as well as some losses - this is all for convincing public opinion and, possibly, getting additional dividends from this game. Cynical, of course, but politics is a dirty "mess" ...
Mikhail Petrov

0

29 February 2020 21: 32

All allies will help us - Abkhazia and South Ossetia - in words. And also Luka can send a bag of potatoes to help, or maybe not send.
1. Astronaut
  
  +2
  
  1 March 2020 00: 28
  
  Learn the theory: Russia has only two allies - the army and navy!