Originally Posted by
Tasunke
Well, this is quite an interesting debate. I certainly agree that Turkey has the right to work towards its own interests. That being said, I think a case could be made for Turkey to cede some of its western territories to Armenia and Kurdistan. Granted, if I recall, lands in western turkey were taken from an older Armenia during a war, which was an offensive retaliation done by Armenia for a minor skirmish previously started by Turkey. I am not sure if this was when the alleged Armenian Genocide supposedly occured, or if it was much later, long after western Anatolia was ceded to Turkey from Armenia (or simply occupied and annexed). I must admit that I am wholly unfamiliar with the events of the Genocide, either the events leading up to it, the event itself, or the events following directly after. Though I have heard of Turkey gassing Kurds like how the Iraqis have done in the past. As far as I can understand it, up to 30% of the Kurds living in Turkey are, or at least were at one point, radical Communist sympathizers/activists/terrorists/etc. Such as members of the PRK iirc. Kurds currently live in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
Hillary Clinton supported the idea of giving modern tanks, fighters, and bombers, and Artillery pieces to Iraqi Kurdish fighters, with full knowledge that they might later be aimed squarely at Turkey. As far as I am aware, the nation that best treats their Kurds is quite ironically Iran. But some Iranian Kurds would prefer their own nation.
The most likely territory for a newly formed Kurdistan would be in Northern Iraq and Syria, near where ISIS currently holds territory. If this newly formed Kurdistan were to begin a conflict with Turkey, they likely would be asking for land in western Turkey, and they would certainly be wanting a "corridor to the Sea" similar to Poland a la Germany after WW1. However, it is not so simple. Much of western Turkey was at one point in time a part of Armenia. If Kurdistan had US support, Armenia would very likely become a coalition member and would ask for all land to the west of the Kurdish corridor. Therefore, perhaps as much as the western fourth of Turkey (if not the western third) would be annexed if they lost such a conflict.
However, Turkey currently has the largest land army of all NATO (iirc) and on a War footing against just Kurdistan and Armenia by themselves, Turkey would likely be able to win, if not conquer these provinces. But would definitely be able to defend themselves. I think the only way Kurdistan and Armenia could take this land from Turkey was either if the US broke their ties with Turkey in order to support their new fledgling ally, or if Russia intervened on behalf of Armenia.
However, if Russia intervened on the behalf of Armenia, it would increase tensions with the US if the US was trying to either stay Neutral, or supporting Turkey as a member of NATO. This could be a violent powderkeg similar to how when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. He was a US ally and thought he had the go ahead to invade Kuwait, that the US would say some words about how they didn't like it but they would be secretly fine with it and wouldn't intervene. This is because the US agreed that Saddam could become a regional power if they won the war with Iran. Since Saddam wanted to make the white peace with Iran into a victory, he turned his attention to invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He did so with the full assumption that the US was allowing him to do so, as a 'prize' for standing up to Iran. Little did he know that US had been supporting both Iraq and Iran during that war, and cared not who the victor was, in a full campaign to keep the middle east destabilized ((for some reason)).
However, when Iraq actually went through with these plans, on the public level it was seen as Iraq acting as a Rogue Nation, and the US felt embarassed about it, and decided to help on ally (saudi arabia) by invading another (Iraq). This is similar to how Germany and Russia were very close, almost allies, up until the opening salvos of WW1. It was due to fears and public embarassment that Czarist Russia invaded Germany, and led to the Seminal tragedy of the 20th century.
Israel was created not by British involvement (although they had a hand in the early jewish immigration to British Owned Palestine), but by an agreement between the USA and the Soviet Union, as part of their post WW2 deal, discussed during the Yalta Convention (during the war with Roosevelt and Stalin) and then afterwards (with Truman and Stalin).
The occupation of Eastern Europe, and other topics were also discussed (including Yugoslavia). So during this conference, while British decolonization was occuring, Soviet Union agreed to help the US set up a globally recognized Israel within the territories of Palestine, as well as take over the British hegemony of Arabia and Kuwait, while Soviet Union took up the British/French hegemony of Syria, and Iraq. US meanwhile had close ties with Iran (until the 70s when they became closer to the Soviets after the anti-US revolution).
Many of these Arab states were set up in a pro-Soviet semi-Socialist system, with secular socialist dictatorships installed.
Meanwhile Turkey was an independent state and largely stayed out of the war, and wasn't under control by either power. But under president Truman the US began to shift from a Western First, but cooperation with the Soviets, to a Liberalism first, appeasement to Socialism, but Containment of true Communism policy. Actually the move away from Western First began much earlier, certainly with Roosevelt's demand of Britain's decolonization, but possibly ever since the Great Depression, the formation of the Unions, and the dark days of Herbert Hoover's failed attempts at fixing the economy. That was the last time that America fought for its own interests as a Western Power, because afterwards it was fighting as a multicultural Global Superpower intent on policing the entire planet. So while America is perhaps currently the leader of the Western Sphere, its foreign policy no longer became interested in expanding the interests of Western People, etc. And the rest of Western Europe mostly followed America's example, especially with all of the decolonization et al.
So anyways, even though Western Liberalism was already turning towards socialism, it paradoxically wished to contain Stalinist Communism even though by cultural policy it was actually promoting Communism. But geopolitics is never so straightforward, there are often conflicting policies, paradoxes, and actions that simply make no sense.
So anyways, as a way to help 'contain' the Communists, Turkey was added to NATO in 1951. In recent years, Erdogan has been bragging about his position in NATO and saying that (iirc) with or without US help, Turkey could be marching in Moscow in a matter of weeks, saying that they could easily defeat Russia in an all out war.
Well, I will say that given the size of Turkey's army, they would likely put up a noble resistance against any invasions attempted by Russia or USA, to survive such a war with Russia it would likely need to have USA on its side and capitalize on escalating tensions between USA and Russia. Still, even if it lost, it would probably only cede up to 1/3 of its territory ... but then the remainder might well become a Russian puppet state. This is of course assuming that the situation does not escalate to the use of nuclear weapons, or if so, it is only Turkey that uses them.
I do not think that Netenyahu can easily say that he has the moral high ground. Both Netanyahu and Erdogan are looking out for the interests of their people. Both wish to expand their lands and influence at the expense of others. For Turkey, for now, it seems largely to be non nationals living within their borders.
I think it would be more "fair" to the people for there to be created an independent Kurdistan, and for both Kurdistan and Armenia to have corridors to the Sea, but at this time I am not yet sure what end result will be more "just" and perhaps the justice will be more in the Means rather than the Ends.
EDIT: On the Cyprus question, I do think that Turkey should move out of Cyprus, but perhaps I am biased towards the Greeks.
Israel will likely only dogpile on Turkey if the USA is involved, or if Turkey starts the aggression. Much of the Jewish diaspora within the EU has been immigrating into Israel and USA because of all of the Muslim migrants flowing into the EU. There are low level tensions between US and the EU. It is likely that the US views its ties with Israel as vastly more important than its ties with Turkey (NATO or not), and US probably has the power to kick Turkey out of NATO if it really wanted to.
That being said, aggression on the part of Israel against Turkey will likely only take place with US consent, (unless of course it is retaliation of Turkish aggression), but they will not pre-emptively strike turkey unless US gives the go ahead. That being said, diplomatically they will likely take several steps. Step 1, get the international community to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Step 2 file a petition in the UN to place sanctions on Turkey, Step 3 apply pressure on NATO members to kick Turkey out of NATO.