His tweet
I appreciate the many contributions that Ritter makes to understanding geopolitics but I also don't automatically assume that his assessments are accurate. I could be totally wrong on this but question Ritter's conclusion (assumption?) that these are Turkish-backed jihadists for several reasons.
Erdogan is unquestionably two-faced, self-serving and unreliable, but he's also sitting atop a huge Muslim population that is enraged by what is happening in Gaza and Lebanon. His last electoral win was not so impressive as to protect his government from their fury were he to obviously align with Israel as opposed to just making mealy-mouthed protests against the genocide while doing nothing material to stop it.
Instigating new jihadist attacks in Syria flies in the face of his attempts over the past year or so to normalize relations with Syria and further curry favor with Russia, the mediator in these attempts.
The US has a great deal of leverage with Turkey because of its dependence on Western financial aid to prop up its failing economy. But BRICS offers much more in terms of economic opportunities without Turkey having to sell its soul to the moneylenders. Erdogan is self-serving but he's not stupid or suicidal, which is what backing these new attacks would be as it would cement Turkey's fate to go down with the obviously sinking Western ship. It would also make two very powerful enemies, Russia and China, both of them more powerful now than they were even three years ago. I don't think Erdogan is stupid enough to believe that the US or its European vassals would lift a finger to help Turkey if that enmity became a threat.
If the source of the claim that these are Turkish-backed jihadists is Western media, I'm surprised that Ritter accepted it without a healthy dose of skepticism. Yes, it's very true that Turkey previously backed jihadists in this part of Syria; but it's also true that it was before Erdogan at least publicly got fully on board with Russia's mediation efforts. By many accounts, the delay has been on Syria's side, not on Turkey's; and my interpretation of what analysts have said is that where they've been unable to agree has to do with the Kurdish groups along their shared border that create instability in both countries. The US is historically adept at exploiting such differences, and equally adept at making it seem like someone else is responsible for a conflict that they instigated and fund.
