> Unlike Ukrainians, the Syrians can't meaningfully fight back because Turkey is in NATO, so their forces have absolute safe harbor.

NATO won't protect Turkey if they are the aggressors. NATO is a defensive alliance.

Completely false. If tomorrow Russia defended Syria against Turkey by attacking mainland Turkey, Article 5 would certainly apply. Similarly if a Libyan faction fired a ballistic missile onto Paris tomorrow I guarantee Article 5 would be considered. Or if Iran sunk a Turkish ship off the coast of Syria in retaliation for a strike on the SAA, etc...

NATO means that Turkey doesn't have to worry about any retaliation from Syria's allies. That is to say, impunity. On the other hand if Israel invaded Syria and IRGC troops fired a missile onto a base in Israeli territory, the US wouldn't invade Iran, but they would if it was into Turkey. That's a significant chilling effect.

Preventing allies from retaliating

Who exactly was nato defending when they bombed yugoslavia in 1999?

The remaining Kosovar Albanians Muslims after 8000 were killed by Serbia.

You also need to read this: https://web.archive.org/web/20200319062355/http://www.michae...

Parenti is a Marxist https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0885430980842821...

A persuasive and full argument.

For a certain person, it is. Easier to have someone who makes right wing claims and then cites a Marxist to deal with the cognitive dissonance and introspect on how their worldview has gone wrong, than to spend twenty minutes on a thorough rebuttal.