RE: TURKEY-RUSSIA CRISIS
Introduction
The fight against the ISIS has elicited numerous controversies with different nations taking sides in the war against the global menace. To start, the emergence of ISIS has been a global concern and considered to a matter of gravity. Every rational nation finds it necessary to condemn the security threat that ISIS continues to pose on the local and international arena. It is critical to highlight that the war on ISIS continues to divide opinion and also create the danger to certain countries. However, the worrying situation is the devised method to combat the extremists group that have caused numerous loss of lives and claimed responsibility for several bombings either and across the borders (Ozluk 2-12). It is important to note that whatever decision a nation takes must be in the best interest of the people and the general safety of their nation amidst the war on the militia. In the view of the situation, it is important that security consciousness is observed concerning the fight. Despite ISIS being a threat to global security, the empowerment of informal group to fight the militia might have short-term benefits to the fight but can prove disastrous in the future (Splauding et al. 1-10). It is clear that the issue elicits diverging opinions as to the legitimacy of the war. Many have questioned the circumstances that led to their rise and had mostly been attributed to the invasion US made in the Middle East and the self-centered approach towards asserting authority over the Arab nations under the umbrella of being a global threat. Many questions continue to linger in the minds of experts and security analysts regarding the possible repercussions of the war if in any case it ends successfully.
Russia-Turkey Crisis
The feud between Russia and Turkey traces back to the world war epoch in which they had a strained relationship characterized by suspicion and relentless cold war. The two sides are all committed to ending the threat of ISIS. However, they are hell-bent on divergent motives as Russia wants to keep Assad in power while Turkey wants the government toppled. While Russia views the regime as the only bulwark against the rising Sunni radicalism, Turkey is determined to see Assad ousted from power by Sunni radicals (Eric 3-8). Despite this interest, once the Kurds are victorious, they might turn their sights on seceding from Turkey as they might be supported by the Russian enemy. However, there have not been any combative confrontations between the two nations despite their continued mistrust. While Russia has attempted to assert power as one of the world powers, Turkey has remained calm and concerned about the security of the nation and its relationship with the West. However, Russia remains concerned about the power rivalry with the US while acting recklessly with the international partners and the neighboring nations like the Ukraine. While it remains a fuss as to the possible end of the ISIS war and the war in Syria, the downing of a Russian jet within the Turkish territories only served to escalate the long-standing cold war that might lead to something serious. While Russia maintains innocence about any intention to carry out an attack in Turkey, the nations that had been violated remains coy on the issue and only cite the territorial violations through satellite images that clearly indicates the blatant violations of its space. In reaction to the issue, several security concerns regarding the emergence as it is difficult to predict the reaction that Moscow might be devising or whether the apologetic era remains the critical antidote to end the feud. The criticality of the matter thus gives rise to several concerns that pits Turkish interest against the global security. The move by Russia and the US to support the Kurds seems a move that is unwelcome by Turkey due to its predictable course. There are indications that the forces being empowered are likely to remain a security threat to the Turkish government after the war or even during the war (Gibson 5-9).
Policy Strengths
Policy flaws
The Kurds are undergoing military training and being equipped with machinery to combat the ISIS. However, what will happen at the end of the war remains subject to debate. The emergence of ISIS and its expertise in the execution of atrocities is credited to a failed foreign policy by the US during and after the Iraqi combat. While the West celebrated the invasion of the Iraq, the economic interest overwhelmed the process and the US eventually forgot to do the basic security cleanup to disarm the potential criminal elements that had already shown up even before the end. It is understood that after the toppling of the Gaddafi regime, several soldiers and police officers lost their jobs and were not reinstated in the newly formed forces. Consequently, it left many people with military training roaming the streets with virtually nothing to feed their families on. The only solace was in crime where they could make their living thus making it easy for the global threat in the form of ISIS to emerge (Ozluk 2-12). It further leaves several questions marks on the possible transformation of the Kurds to demand their secession from Turkey to form an own country. With the high military training they receive from the US, there are possibilities that other interest will set in if they happen to be successful. The first interest would be to become independent, and that will mean they have to fight their way out of Turkish government and form the own government. Russia is sequentially getting marveled at the issue that is likely to destabilize Turkey. Being an old foe, Russia finds it easy to support Kurds so that it becomes a faction Turkey. The ghost of the Iraqi war remains a grave threat to global security. The strategic intention of Russia seems to create a force that is anti-ISIS but is allied with the regional partners like Iraq, Iran as well as Syrian government. Russia is probably attempting to secure its Syrian Coast military interests. While both the US and Putin government support the fight against ISIS, the Russian government deems Syrian government as the only way out of ISIS issue.
Recommendations
The UN security and the allied forces should conduct thorough security cleanup after the war to ensure that no dangerous weapons remain in the possession of the rebels. It will reduce their military strength thus incapacitate them to be a threat.
Ensure that all those with military training are absorbed into the new government to serve the country officially. It will leave nobody on the street thus make them lose the interest of forming another country.
The Security Council and the US should ensure that thorough armory audit is conducted to provide ensure that no excess supply is done to the Kurds. The Kurds are likely to remain with heavy artillery if a serious audit is not conducted to ensure that no excessive supply occurs.
The UN should attempt to negotiate possible peace between Russia and Turkey to help create a formidable force to combat ISIS. Once there is unity and minimal diverging interests, it will be easy to combat the militia.
The US should work closely with the Turkish government and devise possible ways that will help thwart the rise of any parallel force from the war. It will help curb the future rise of militia after wars thus ensure the national security of the neighboring nations.
Work Cited
Eric, Her. "Contending Perspectives on Post-Cold War US Policy toward Asia." Mongolian Journal of International Affairs Mongolian J Int Aff 4.0 (2015): 3-8. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.
Gibson, Bryan R. "Sold Out? US Foreign Policy, Iraq, the Kurds, and the Cold War." (2015): 5-9. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.
Ozluk, Odem. "The Warplane Crisis Between Turkey and Russia and the Issue of 'Apology'" Orsam Review of Regional Affairs (2015): 2-12. Web.
Spaulding H., Kozak C., Harmer C., Urchick D., McFate L. “Russian Deployment to Syria: Putin’s Middle East Game Game Changer” Warning Intelligence Update (2015): 1-10. Web
Suchkov, Maxim A. "Why It Matters That Russia and US Have Different Narratives about ISIS." Essays on Russian Foreign Policy in the Caucasus & the Middle East (2015): 83-85. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.
