Qatar produce gas not oil. I know Americans call oil "gas" but this is actually the gaseous stuff. Europe is very dependent on Rusdian gas, not so much oil.

my apologies, mis-remembered.

> these weren’t wars they were minor redeployments of resources

There have been 470,000 casualties in Syria. For comparison, that’s more than the US suffered in WW2, and that loss was felt. It’s a colossal humanatarian disaster and very much a war.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/syria

i was referring just to russian deployments not to the whole mess. i agree about the whole thing being a disaster, a total clusterf.

russia didn't need to do to much due to all the efforts of the 4+ sides fighting each other.

I am betting on the Kurds to kick their ass. The Kurds are a well trained, well equipped (for the moment at least), motivated force defending themselves.

The Turks (IMHO) are unseasoned forces are fighting battle that is against international laws, and is for a country run by a dictator. Both points that are huge factors against their success.

It will probably come down to air power, I wonder what the Kurds have in the way of surface to air missiles?

Turkey has the second largest standing military force in NATO. They are also, well, in NATO. The current situation is uncomfortable for a whole lot of people, but when push comes to shove, I don't see how a proxy force with questionable allegiance stands up to a NATO country with a massive air and ground force.

NATO is hardly going to support Turkey's adventures in Syria so it'll have little relevance for that fight.

And while the Turkish have far more firepower and air power than Kurds, the terrain is extremely favourable for a defending force, particularly when it is as motivated and well-trained as the Kurdish fighters. A Turkish attack can become a debacle, or at militarily "best", a massacre of civilian population resulting in further alienating Turkey from civilization.

I don't disagree, but they certainly won't support the kurds' efforts against a NATO member.

Don't misunderstand that I think this is a) a good idea, or b) ultimately going to work out the way Turkey wants it to work out.

I don't think the kurds will choose to live and die by Afrin.

Yes, NATO as an organisation will hardly support Kurds either, but I can see that individual NATO members as well as other countries will start giving more and more moral and possibly economical support.

What the Kurds would need is surface to air missile, so they don't get slaughter from the air.

Is it even "likely" that you can shoot down a jet with an manually operated anti aircraft gun? Sure it's "possible"

Not likely at all unless you have masses of them (which the Kurds don't have), though they may successfully harass attackers and reduce their bombing accuracy.

Does Turkey have guided bombs? And will they be re-supplied so that Turkish air force could use them at will?

alas, since the crack downs, turkey just does not care about international opinion (they have a cordial relationship with russia, and donald seems to admire Erdoğan). they will probably just shell it for a while.

I actually think they care a lot about international opinion, but not always in the most healthy way. Turkey seems to be primarily interested in playing spoiler, keeping an eye on economic interests, and exercising their refugee destination card in a beneficial manner. They've got an interesting balancing act going between their increasingly strong Russian alliance and their membership in the European community.