Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?

Greg Krasovsky: If US policy toward the civil war in Ukraine is in any way similar to US policy in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Yemen, then Ukraine is headed toward the epicenter of a geopolitical disaster on world-wide proportions.

Why? Because Russia will act with greater response than in Syria to make sure that next-door Ukraine will not turn into a failed state that could (would!) be used by armed anti-Russian militants as a protected staging area in an attempt to overthrow Vladimir Putin's in Russia.

So let's keep an eye on Syria today, as the fates of Ukraine, Russia and America -- for better or for worse -- are intertwined in the resolution of the Syrian conflict. 

P.S. To see how things could spiral out of control, please read 

"Washington Asks Moscow: Please Do Not to Bomb American Troops Operating on the Ground in Northern Syria."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-asks-moscow-please-do-not-to-bomb-american-troops-operating-on-the-ground-in-northern-syria/5509226

"Experts: Invasion of Syria Could Lead to Nuclear War"

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/experts-invasion-syria-lead-nuclear-war.html

******* 

Could a Bomb Blast in Ankara Change the Outcome of the War in Syria?
by MIKE WHITNEY
Counterpunch.org
FEBRUARY 19, 2016

"The question is whether Putin will engage the Turkish military in a full-blown war just to recapture a few hundred meters of Syrian sovereign territory. I expect Putin will let the incident slide and chalk it up to “frustration” on Turkey’s part. If that’s the only victory that Erdogan requires, then it’s a price that’s worth paying. Putin has to stay focused on the big picture, and not get diverted by trivialities.

Of course, if Erdogan plans to push further into Syria, then there’s going to be trouble. After all, Moscow’s hands are tied. The only way it can hope to extricate itself from the conflict in Syria is by defeating the jihadists as quickly as possible, clearing out the hotbeds of resistance, and reestablishing security. If Turkey enters the war, that throws a wrench in everything. The tit-for-tat fighting will drag on for years, and there will probably never be a clear winner. This is exactly what Putin hopes to avoid. So, if Turkey launches an invasion and sends in ground troops, Putin will be forced to strike with everything-he’s-got to see if one, big shock and awe display of raw military power is enough to reverse the trend and send Erdogan’s legions packing. If it doesn’t work, and Turkey digs in, Syria could devolve into the mother of all quagmires, which is why we’re a little surprised that Obama is not pursuing a plan that would draw Turkey deeper into the fray, after all, Washington gains nothing strategically from its support for the YPG. In a way, the alliance makes no sense. Does Washington care about Kurdish aspirations for a homeland?

No. Does Obama want to help Putin clear the area North of Aleppo of jihadists, militants and opposition forces?

Of course not. Then what does Washington get?

Nothing.

An alliance with Erdogan, on the other hand, provides Washington with the footsoldiers it needs to fight its proxy war with Russia. It also creates a situation where Russia could get bogged down for years in a conflict that could drain its resources, undermine morale, and precipitate social unrest at home. Isn’t that exactly what Washington wants?"

Please read the rest of the article at http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/19/could-a-bomb-blast-in-ankara-change-the-outcome-of-the-war-in-syria/