Retaliation Promised: Russian Ambassador's Murder Justified, Even Praised Across the West

December 23, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - In the week leading up to the brazen, cold-blooded murder of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov in Ankara, Turkey, the United States repeatedly and publicly threatened "retaliation" against Russia for allegedly "hacking" the 2016 US presidential elections.

During the same week, Syrian forces backed by Russian airpower and Iranian ground support, finally ended the occupation of the northern city of Aleppo by armed militants who invaded in 2012. The inevitable liberation of Aleppo was accompanied by apoplectic hysteria across Western political, policy and pundit circles calling for everything from additional sanctions on Russia to threats against the lives of Russians themselves.

While the Western media has since attempted to dismiss murmurs across Russian and Turkish media in the aftermath of Ambassador Karlov's assassination implicating US involvement, they simultaneously appear incapable of concealing what can only be described as delight over the tragic attack.

The Washington Post, in an article titled, "Turkish police officer, invoking Aleppo, guns down Russian ambassador in Ankara," would characterize the assassination as a "retaliatory attack," stating:

The shooting was among the most brazen retaliatory attacks yet on Russia since Moscow entered the war in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad, and unleashed a bombardment on Aleppo that has drawn international condemnation for what observers on the ground have called indiscriminate attacks on civilians. 

The Washington Post also intentionally portrays labeling the incident as a terrorist attack as Moscow's exclusive point of view, claiming:

But in Moscow, where the Kremlin has maintained that its aerial sorties and missile attacks have exclusively targeted �terrorists,� Russia�s Foreign Ministry called the shooting �a terrorist attack,� and President Vladi�mir Putin called it a �provocation aimed at rupturing ties between Russia and Turkey.�

The Washington Post is able to refrain from openly applauding the assassination, but does everything in its power to legitimize, even defend it within the context of an angry "police officer" provoked by what the Washington Post calls Russia's "indiscriminate attacks on civilians." Relegated deep within the article and beyond the attention span of most readers, are details that reveal Ambassador Karlov's attacker as a participant in organized terror.

CNN, the BBC and the New York Times have also carried, almost verbatim, the same talking points and perspectives provided by the Washington Post, just falling short of openly defending the attack or praising the attacker.

Elsewhere, however, pundits help readers unable to read between the lines of these messages. The New York Daily News in an article titled, "Assassination of Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov was not terrorism, but retribution for Vladimir Putin�s war crimes," connects the dots plotted out by papers like the Washington Post. It bluntly states:

The image of an assassin standing over the dying body of Russian ambassador Andrei Karlov is a shocking one � but not a surprising one. 

As Vladimir Putin�s man in Turkey, Karlov was the public face of that murderous dictator�s war crimes around the globe and of oppression at home. Andrei Karlov is the human embodiment of policies that deployed bunker busters to kill babies, sent fighter planes on scorched earth bombing runs that destroyed a whole city, aided Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad in his campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands, and even ordered attacks on UN aid workers.

In addition to the baseless, even fully discredited accusations made, the New York Daily News compares Russian President Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler, and Ambassador Karlov's attacker to a "soldier � not a terrorist."

The Western media does not perform "journalism," but rather reflects the thinking and designs of Western policymakers, politicians and power brokers. That the media appears unanimously spinning the attack as "retaliatory," after spending the last week promising "retaliation" is if nothing else the worst case of institutional self-incrimination in recent memory. More likely, it is a blunt, ugly gesture toward Russia.

Unfortunately for the West, they find themselves threatening the world and celebrating the murder of ambassadors shot in the back by terrorists not from a position of strength, but from a position of profound and growing weakness. It is a vicious cycle that will only further undermine their legitimacy, diminish their influence and accelerate their decline.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.

Russian Ambassador Assassinated: Retaliation, But by Whom?

December 20, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Just days after the liberation of Syria's northern city of Aleppo, Russia's ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov, was gunned down while giving a talk at an art gallery in Turkey's capital of Ankara. 

The gunman, identified as a former Turkish police officer, flashed the familiar one finger gesture used by terrorist organizations operating in neighboring Syria including by Jabhat Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" - while shouting, according to the Guardian:

Don�t forget Aleppo. Don�t forget Syria. Unless our towns are secure, you won�t enjoy security. Only death can take me from here. Everyone who is involved in this suffering will pay a price.

The attack coincided with an alleged security incident near America's embassy in Ankara, characterized by the US Embassy as a "shooting," though it may be in reference to the actual assassination.

Western newspapers, however, including the Daily Mail, the UK Express, and The Sun attempted to portray the announcement as a separate incident. This may be a deliberate attempt to portray the US as a victim in tandem with Russia, to divert suspicion away from US involvement.

Assassination Takes Place Days After US Vowed "Retaliation" Against Russia 

US President Barack Obama, US policymakers and pundits, as well as US Senators for the past week have vowed "retaliation" against Russia for alleged "hacking" during the 2016 US presidential election. These threats take place against a wider backdrop of increasingly unhinged outbursts made by Western politicians, pundits, and policymakers amid frustration in advancing their global agenda versus a reemerging Russia and a rising China.

The Guardian in an article published just this week titled, "Barack Obama promises retaliation against Russia over hacking during US election," would state:

Barack Obama has warned that the US will retaliate for Russian cyberattacks during the presidential election. 

In an interview on National Public Radio on Friday morning, the US president said he is waiting for a final report he has ordered into a range of Russian hacking attacks, but promised there would be a response.

�I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections � we need to take action,� Obama said. �And we will � at a time and place of our own choosing. 

�Some of it may be explicit and publicised; some of it may not be.�

Articles like the International Business Times' "How Can The US Retaliate Against Russia's Hacking? Here Are 6 Possible Moves," would list possible forms retaliation could take, including:

Cyberattack on Russian networks or infrastructure; Release damaging information about Vladimir Putin; Target offshore accounts; Place malware inside Russian espionate networks; Interfere in Russian politics Economic sanctions.

However, it has been noted by many analysts, including those within the US' own foreign policy circles, that America's ability to retaliate with "cyberattacks" against Russia in such a manner would range from futile, to even galvanizing the Russian people further behind the Kremlin.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Obama Confronts Complexity of Using a Mighty Cyberarsenal Against Russia," would note:

But while Mr. Obama vowed on Friday to �send a clear message to Russia� as both a punishment and a deterrent, some of the options were rejected as ineffective, others as too risky. If the choices had been better, one of the aides involved in the debate noted recently, the president would have acted by now.

In all likelihood, an attempted counter "cyberattack" would have ended in further humiliation and isolation for the United States' ruling circles.


Cui Bono?

The cold-blooded assassination of a Russian ambassador in the heart of Turkey, however, is a very effective "retaliation," not only for Russia's role in balancing against the Western media's influence, effectively undermining the West's monopoly over global public perception, but also for confounding US geopolitical objectives across the Middle East - particularly in Syria, and particularly in the aftermath of Aleppo's liberation.

The assassination - a crime and even an act of war by any account - was apparently carried out by a militant drawn from the ranks of  terrorist organizations armed, trained, and funded by the United States and its regional allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and even Turkey. And despite this fact, should the US be involved in the assassination, it would be difficult to prove. And even if it was proven, it would be difficult to convince the global public that the US would make the jump from very publicly considering benign "cyberattacks" for the past week to assassinating a foreign diplomat.

Beyond simply "sending a message" as US policymakers sought to do - it also undermines alleged progress made between Ankara and Moscow regarding the former's role in the ongoing proxy war with Syria. The assassination strains any such progress, even threatening to rollback gains painfully made since Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane over Syria in November of 2015.

While evidence is still forthcoming regarding the assassination, the US - through its own insistence on publicly and repeatedly threatening Moscow with retaliation -  has made itself one of the primary suspects behind the brutal killing. Considering the US' role in creating, arming, funding, and directing terrorists across the region for years - the US is responsible indirectly at the very least.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.�   

Turkey Invades Northern Syria � Truth of Turkish "Coup" Revealed?

August 25, 2016 (The New Atlas) - Syria's conflict has escalated into dangerous new territory as Turkish military forces cross the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt to annex the Syrian city of Jarabulus. The operation includes not only Turkish military forces, but also throngs of Western-backed militants who will likely be handed control of the city before expanding operations deeper into Syria against Syrian government forces.

With the beginning of the operation, aimed allegedly at seizing the city from militants of the so-called Islamic State as well as preventing the city from falling into the hands of advancing US-backed Kurdish forces, Ankara's move has made several things clear about the current geopolitical dimensions of the ongoing regional conflict.

The "US-Backed" July Coup Was Likely Staged 

First, with US warplanes providing close air support  for Turkish operations, claims by Ankara that the US was behind an attempted coup in July appear to have been fabrications and the coup itself likely staged.

US Vice President Joseph Biden made an official visit to Turkey just this week in what was the highest level visit by a US representative since the attempted coup in July. Vice President Biden discussed bilateral relations and joint US-Turkish military cooperation.


Reuters in its report, "With Biden visit, U.S. seeks balance with truculent Turkey," would claim:

Biden, who visited Latvia on Tuesday, will look to show support with Turkey, while raising concern about the extent of the crackdown, according to officials. Turkey will press its case for Gulen's extradition.

"The vice president will also reaffirm that the United States is doing everything we can to support Turkey's ongoing efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the coup attempt while ensuring the rule of law is respected during the process," a senior Obama administration official told reporters, briefing ahead of Biden's visit on condition of anonymity.

It is difficult to believe that Fethullah G�len could have orchestrated a violent military coup while residing in the United States without the explicit approval and support of the United States government. Thus, for the US to "hold accountable those responsible for the coup attempt" would require the identification and detainment of those Americans who were involved.

Regarding US joint operations with Turkey specifically, the BBC in its article, "Syria Jarablus: Turkish tanks roll into northern Syria," would report:

An unnamed senior US official in Washington told BBC News before the start of the Turkish operation that it was "partly to create a buffer against the possibility of the Kurds moving forward".

"We are working with them on that potential operation: our advisers are communicating with them on the Jarablus plan.

"We'll give close air support if there's an operation."

It would be likewise difficult to believe that Turkey truly suspected the US of an attempted decapitation of the nation's senior leadership in a violent, abortive coup just last month, only to be conducting joint operations with the US inside Syria with US military forces still based within Turkish territory.

What is much more likely is that the coup was staged to feign a US-Turkish fallout, draw in Russia and allow Turkey to make sweeping purges of any elements within the Turkish armed forces that might oppose a cross-border foray into Syria, a foray that is now unfolding.

Anthony Cartalucci, a Bangkok-based geopolitical analyst would note in a July 18 piece titled, "Turkey's Failed Coup: "A Gift from God" or from Washington?," that:

...the coup was staged - not against Turkey - but in part by it, with the help of not only the United States, but also Gulen's political faction. It will represent a 21st century "Reichstag fire" leading to a 21st century "Hitlerian purge," removing the last remaining obstacles to President Erdogan and the corrosive institutions he has constructed in their collective bid to seize absolute power over Turkey. 

And quite to the contrary of those changes one would expect Turkey to make if truly the US engineered this coup to oust, not abet Erdogan, Turkey is very likely to double down on hostility toward neighboring Syria and its allies.

With Turkey now moving into northern Syria, backing militant forces that will go on to fight Syrian forces and prolong the conflict from a new forward base of operations inside Syria and with NATO protection, this is precisely what has now happened.

Building Long-Desired Militant Safe-Havens 

The crossing of Syria's border constitutes the fulfilment of longstanding plans predating both the Kurdish offensive and the rise of the Islamic State.

The plans laid by Washington and its regional allies seek to establish a buffer zone or "safe-haven" within Syrian territory unassailable by Syrian forces from which Western-backed militants can launch operations deeper into Syrian territory. Currently, these operations are launched from Turkish territory itself.

With militants being incrementally pushed out of Aleppo and Syrian forces making advances everywhere west of the Euphrates River, it appears that the US is attempting to use Kurdish forces to annex eastern Syria while Turkey's latest move is aimed at finally creating a long-desired northern safe-haven in order to prevent a full collapse of fighting within the country.

British special forces, meanwhile, are reportedly in southern Syrian attempting to carve out a similar haven for militants along Jordan and Iraq's borders with Syria.

The participation of US airpower in the ongoing operation also makes clear the lack of strategic and political depth of US loyalty to its supposed Kurdish allies, a betrayal in motion even as Kurdish forces are being marshalled and directed against Syrian forces by the US in eastern Syria.

Plans for such safe-havens were disclosed as early as 2012, with US policymakers in a Brookings Institution paper titled, "Assessing Options for Regime Change," stating (our emphasis):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under [Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's] leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

This is now precisely what is being created, starting in Jarabulus, and likely to extend westward toward Azaz, directly north of the contested Syrian city of Aleppo. Since 2012, various pretexts have been invented, abandoned and then revisited in order to justify a cross-border operation like the one now unfolding.

Creating a Pretext � Staged Terror Attack Was an Option 

This included Ankara itself plotting attacks on its own territory to look like cross-border terrorism that could be used as impetus for the creation of a Turkish-controlled Jarabulus-Azaz corridor.

The International Business Times in a 2014 article titled, "Turkey YouTube Ban: Full Transcript of Leaked Syria 'War' Conversation Between Erdogan Officials," would reveal the details of a transcript in which Turkish leadership contemplated staging just such an attack:

Ahmet Davutoglu: "Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us."

Hakan Fidan: "I'll send 4 men from Syria, if that's what it takes. I'll make up a cause of war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah Tomb if necessary."

Feridun Sinirlioglu: "Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy outfit."

Yasar G�ler: "It's a direct cause of war. I mean, what're going to do is a direct cause of war."

It may just be a coincidence that a similar provocation unfolded just ahead of the current Turkish cross-border operation. The New York Times in its article, "Wedding Bombing is the Latest in a Series of Deadly Terror Attacks in Turkey," would detail the provocation now being cited for Turkey's current operation:

A bombing on Saturday night at a Kurdish wedding in Gaziantep, a Turkish town near the Syrian border, was one of the deadliest in a string of terrorist attacks that have struck Turkey. Since June 2015, Kurdish and Islamic State militants have staged at least 15 major attacks across Turkey, killing more than 330 people.

Thus, Turkey's government and a complicit Western media have helped place the blame equally on both the Islamic State and Kurdish militants ahead of the now ongoing cross-border operation.

The above mentioned BBC article would also note:

Turkey has vowed to "completely cleanse" IS from its border region, blaming the group for a bomb attack on a wedding that killed at least 54 people in Gaziantep on Saturday.

In the aftermath of the July coup, many were hopeful Turkey would realign itself geopolitically and play a more constructive and stabilising role in the region.

Instead, while citing the threat of the Islamic State and Kurdish forces along its border, a threat that its own collusion with US and Persian Gulf States since 2011 helped create, Turkey has decisively helped move forward a crucial part of US plans to dismember Syria and move its campaign of North African and Middle Eastern destabilisation onward and outward.

The response by Syria and its allies in the wake of Turkey's cross-border foray has so far been muted. What, if any actions could be taken to prevent the US and its allies from achieving their plans remain to be seen.

While the toppling of the government in Damascus looks unlikely at the moment, the Balkanisation of Syria was a secondary objective always only ever considered by US policymakers as a mere stop gap until eventually toppling Damascus as well. Conceding eastern and parts of northern Syria to US-led aggression will only buy time.

The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. 

NATO Nukes in Romania: Rumor Mill Vs. Reality

August 22, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - Unconfirmed reports regarding the US moving nuclear weapons it reportedly maintains at Incirlik Airbase, Turkey to Romania (a NATO member since 2004) made the rounds last week. It is just one of many stories surrounding the apparent fallout between the United States and its stalwart ally and fellow NATO member, Turkey.

Following a failed coup in July, Turkey has accused the US openly of orchestrating the attempted overthrow of the government. Despite this, US forces continue operating from Turkish territory, and according to official reports, American nuclear weapons remain in Turkey.

But what if they were being moved? And if not to Romania as Romanian officials insist, to another NATO members state, what would this mean? And if they are not being moved, who started this rumor and why?

NATO Nuclear Sharing 

The US currently maintains nuclear weapons in a number of NATO countries (Turkey, Belgium, Italy, German and the Netherlands) under a "nuclear sharing" program that dates back to the Cold War. The impact of joining this program is politically and strategically significant. There are risks and responsibilities involved with hosting US nuclear weapons, and those nations that seek to opt out once in the program can struggle for years before these weapons are finally removed from their territory.

A 2009 Der Spiegel article titled, "Yankee Bombs Go Home: Foreign Minister Wants US Nukes out of Germany," highlights just how difficult this can be, especially considering that as of 2016, US nuclear weapons remain in Germany, and as Deutsche Welle points out, new weapons may even be on their way.

According to a 2010 paper by The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled, "NATO�s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma" (PDF), part of the reasoning of maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe and Turkey is to give the NATO alliance "credibility" as well as discourage nuclear proliferation both within NATO and beyond it.

The paper postulated that the removal of nuclear weapons from Turkey could unbalance the region strategically and spur nuclear proliferation from Iran to Saudi Arabia and perhaps even force Turkey itself to seek its own nuclear weapons. In regards to Turkey, the paper concluded that maintaining US nuclear weapons there was desirable both for Turkey and for NATO.

Possible Reasons for the Rumors

Considering what were perceived to be the consequences of removing nuclear weapons from Turkey in 2010,  the transferring of US nuclear weapons to Romania now would be serious indeed. Thus, floating rumors of the weapons being moved could have been aimed at pressuring Ankara to make concessions regarding any number of current US projects in the region, the most prominent of which would be its ongoing proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Another possibility may have been to simply add credibility to claims that US and Turkish ties are strained, even unraveling. This might be perceived as necessary considering the lack of actual, quantifiable fallout seen on the ground in Turkey in regards to a continued US presence within its territory, as well as on the ground along the Turkish-Syrian border.

This geopolitical subterfuge might be aimed at Russia and Syria as a means of drawing them in before an inevitable betrayal.

US nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey and throughout Europe have always been somewhat secretive. In the RUSI paper words such as "reportedly" are used in reference to the number and location of US nuclear weapons across the region. This secrecy makes rumors regarding US nuclear weapons and their potential movement from Turkey to Romania particularly attractive in terms of extorting geopolitical concessions and manipulating public perception as they are difficult to confirm or deny.

Rumors Vs. Reality 

However, the perceived implications of the move have already been placed in the minds of many.

But regardless of these rumors, the reality of US-Turkish ties remains to be seen on the ground, in Turkey, at Incirlik Airbase, at America's sprawling complex in Ankara where a variety of diplomatic, political and military activities are organized from and along the Turkish-Syrian border where US forces and various armed proxies are still operating.

When Ankara begins taking concrete steps toward truly ending the war in Syria, such as cutting off supply lines that have fed US, European, and Persian Gulf-backed militants for years, resulting in the collapse of militant forces particularly in Idlib and around Aleppo, there may be proper impetus to make the prospect of transferring US nuclear weapons out of Turkey more believable.

Likewise, should Turkey begin incrementally removing the large presence of US military and diplomatic personnel from its territory to levels more proportionate to those seen in non-NATO member states, the idea of the US moving its nuclear weapons out of the country will not seem so far fetched.

However, even if Turkey wanted to take all of these steps, it would not be easy to immediately implement them. Much of what constitutes current US-Turkish ties has been in the making for decades, forged during the Cold War and tempered further in its aftermath. And if these decidedly smaller steps are difficult to initiate, larger steps like transferring nuclear weapons and altering the geopolitical and strategic lay of an entire region are even more so.

With this in mind, we should consider these rumors as possibly coercive in nature, and even more so, possibly meant to manipulate public perception into believing the fallout between Turkey and the US is greater than it really is. Regardless, when really put into perspective, the possibility of the US transferring nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania is still just that, rumors.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�. 

Turkey's Failed Coup: "A Gift from God" or from Washington?

July 18, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - The coup this weekend that rocked Turkey was a particularly spectacular geopolitical development. Theories abound regarding who was behind it and their motivations for carrying out what ultimately proved an apparently failed attempt at removing the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Still, it is too early to tell, as facts are far from forthcoming. However, it is possible to discern the most plausible possibilities based on the subsequent actions taken by various potential players who may have been involved in the coup attempt.

US Faces Serious Accusations 

The most significant of these actions is President Erdogan's own accusations against the United States for having engineered the coup in collaboration with self-exiled Turkish political figure, Fethullah Gulen.

The UK Independent in its article, "Turkey coup: Tensions between US and Erdogan administration rise after failed power grab," would report that:

Tensions between Turkey and the US have escalated following the attempted coup against the Erdogan administration, with the country's leader demanding the extradition of a US-based cleric accused of orchestrating the violence. Another senior official has directly blamed the United States.

Indeed, tensions "rising" might seem like an understatement if Turkey truly believed the US was behind the coup attempt. In essence, Turkey is accusing the United States of backing an attempted assassination of Turkey's president, the bombing of the Turkish parliament building, the strafing of Turkish citizens from the air, and the deployment of heavy armor in Turkey's streets.

In essence, Turkey has accused the United States of an overt and egregious act of war.

Turkey's Actions Fall Short Vis-a-Vis the Scale of its Accusations 

However, considering the gravity of Turkey's accusations against the United States, its actions so far have been disproportionately subdued. No one is suggesting that Turkey would "go to war" with the United States, but even amid diplomatic rows of far lesser significance, nations have expelled diplomats and withdrawn the use of their territory for specific uses by the nation in question. Turkey, so far, has done none of this in regards to the United States.

In the coming week, should Turkey fail to take even these most basic punitive - even cautionary measures, it would appear Turkey's accusations are a distraction - but a distraction from what?

The Purge. 

The BBC in its article, "Turkey coup arrests hit 6,000 as Erdogan roots out 'virus'," reports that:

Arrests in Turkey after Friday's failed coup have risen to around 6,000, with President Erdogan vowing to purge state bodies of the "virus" that caused it. 

At a funeral for one of the victims, Mr Erdogan again blamed US-based Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen for the plot. Mr Gulen strongly denies any involvement. 

High-ranking military officers and 2,700 judges are among those held.

Beyond Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, one would be hard pressed to cite a political purge of this scale. Despite the sweeping scale of the mass arrests - the Western media has reported on them without the sensational hysteria that generally accompanies the arrest of even one US-backed opposition member in any other nation. The scale of the arrests are such that preparations for them must have been made ahead of time, calling into question the very nature of the coup itself.

The Coup Was a "Gift From God" 

A Reuters report titled, "Turkey rounds up plot suspects after thwarting coup against Erdogan," would state (emphasis added):

"They will pay a heavy price for this," said Erdogan, launching a purge of the armed forces, which last used force to stage a successful coup more than 30 years ago. "This uprising is a gift from God to us because this will be a reason to cleanse our army."

President Erdogan, heading a NATO-member state and a stalwart US ally, receiving a "gift from God" from an alleged political opponent lodging in the United States, raises serious suspicions over the true motivation behind the coup. While it appeared as a convincing attempt to oust President Erdogan from power, it ultimately failed and instead provided him with the perfect context to uproot the military "deep state" both his political allies and US policymakers have sought to eradicate for decades.

Despite the apparent "rift" between the United States and Turkey's president, it should be noted that for the past 5 years particularly, President Erdogan and his government have played a key role in US-led regime change operations in neighboring Syria. It was President Erdogan's anti-secular factions, including factions within Turkish intelligence and within the military itself, that trained, armed, equipped, and provided cover for terrorists operating within, along, and over the Turkish-Syrian border.

Image: A torrent of supplies cross the Turkish border into Syria destined for Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State." The US and Turkey have done little to expose this, saying nothing of their inaction to stop it. It was only Russian airstrikes along the border that have finally brought the torrent down to a trickle. 

Without President Erdogan's stalwart support, US designs in Syria would have been untenable even before they began. While the US poses as "fighting" terrorist organizations in Syria, it has consistently neglected any attempt to secure the Turkish-Syrian border over which the summation of material support for these terrorist organizations is passing. It must be remembered that not only are the US and Turkey cooperating in regards to Syria, the US has troops stationed within Turkey itself, engaged in various aspects of the ongoing violence in Syria.

US intelligence agencies have admittedly operated along the Turkish-Syrian border since as early as the beginning of 2012, according to the New York Times article, "Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,"

A Crucial Litmus Test 

If the world is expected to believe accusations by Turkey regarding US involvement in the recent coup attempt, Turkey must materialize significant changes in its foreign policy.

This would include the expulsion of US forces from Turkish territory, including from Incirlik Air Base as well as from along Turkey's border with Syria.

The expulsion of US diplomats and the closure of America's substantially large embassy, diplomatic, and military complex in Ankara would also be expected in the wake of an act of war on this scale.

Additionally, Turkey would be expected to reevaluate its membership within NATO - an alliance that failed to come to Turkey's aid amid a military attack upon it by one of NATO's own members. One would wonder what the utility was of an alliance predicated on "collective defense" that is more likely to eliminate one of its own members, than a foreign enemy.

Finally, considering Turkey's accusations against the United States, Ankara would be expected to realign itself geopolitically. This would mean closer ties to Europe, Russia, and Iran - among others. In order to do this, however, Turkey would have to end its role in the destruction of Syria which has resulted in a torrent of refugees flooding Europe,  and in a conflict that has cost Russians and Iranians their lives as they fight to restore peace and stability across their ally Syria's territory.

Turkey Likely Will Change Foreign Policy for the Worse, Not the Better 

In all likelihood however, none of these changes will take place - indicating before the entire world that the coup was staged - not against Turkey - but in part by it, with the help of not only the United States, but also Gulen's political faction. It will represent a 21st century "Reichstag fire" leading to a 21st century "Hitlerian purge," removing the last remaining obstacles to President Erdogan and the corrosive institutions he has constructed in their collective bid to seize absolute power over Turkey.

And quite to the contrary of those changes one would expect Turkey to make if truly the US engineered this coup to oust, not abet Erdogan, Turkey is very likely to double down on hostility toward neighboring Syria and its allies.  

Military Coup in Turkey

July 16, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A bloody and destructive military coup attempt swept Turkey from Ankara to Istanbul today with reports of limited ground and air combat. The parliament building was reportedly bombed, news stations overtaken by troops including CNN's Turkish studio, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ordering "rebel" aircraft shot from the sky and the coup-plotters brought to "justice."

Events are still developing, and regardless of the outcome, Turkey's political landscape has descended  one step further still into chaos and instability with the prospect of a united and stable Turkey emerging anytime soon very unlikely.

Turkey hosts a myriad of competing factions, including Turkey's ruling party, Justice & Development Party (AKP), Kemalist nationalists that functions as a military "deep state," a large Kurdish minority and a tangled web of street and even armed fronts supporting each respective faction.

President Erdogan himself laid the blame for the coup attempt on Fetullah Gulen, a US-based opposition figure who has long sought political power in his native Turkey.

President Erdogan immediately seized upon the violence to declare his intentions to "cleanse" the military of dissents, however, this is likely to only further divide the country and force his political enemies to take even more drastic measures to ensure self-preservation.

Turkey Brought to the Brink   

Beyond merely vying for political power, there may be other reasons for increasingly violent infighting across Turkey's political landscape.

Turkey's involvement in recent years in neighboring Syria and the ongoing war there has manifested itself within Turkey as a self-destructive policy of cultivating regional terrorism, pitting the nation against its neighbors and powerful economic partners like Russia and even has brought Turkey on multiple occasions toward the brink of wider regional war.

Evidence suggests that terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) are harbored within Turkish territory as well as resupplied, rearmed and reinforced in Syria via Turkey. Russian air operations along the border, stemming this torrent of supplies have been credited with the subsequent collapse of terrorist operations within Syria, further lending credence to accusations of Turkey's direct involvement in sponsoring regional terrorism.

Turkey's continued participation in US-led attempts at regime change in Syria has cost Turkey politically, economically and with several major terrorist attacks within Turkey carried out allegedly by the very groups Turkey's government is supporting in Syria, the nation is clearly suffering in terms of security and stability.

For factions within Turkey's military itself, charged with the defense and self-preservation of the Turkish state, it must be tempting to intervene in order to reverse this disastrous course.

It must also be tempting for the government of President Erdogan to preempt any such intervention. For the US, who has benefited immensely from Turkey's cooperation in Syria, it must be tempting for Washington to ensure Turkey remains on its current course, or even accelerate and expand its efforts.

The Coup's Execution 

The lack of any significant leading figure coming forward to lead the coup has led to speculation regarding several possibilities.

First is that whichever faction launched the coup, did so as a means of testing its viability and garnering wider support if possible based on its perceived success. At the same time, they attempted to maintain plausible deniability by not openly leading it. However, by doing so, they may have undermined their chances of success.

The second possibility is that the coup attempt itself was a ruse not intended to succeed, but like many of the other terrorist attacks carried out within Turkey itself, was intended as a means of justifying a further consolidation of power by President Erdogan.

A third possibility is that the coup was indeed organized by Gulen from abroad, as a means of pressuring and coercing President Erdogan further down the destructive path he has brought Turkey down. It should be noted that in the lead up to the coup, President Erdogan uncharacteristically began attempting to mend relations with both Russia and Syria after bringing Turkey to the brink of war with both nations.

Making Sense of the Fallout 

There is the possibility that military factions involved in the coup will continue to undermine, resist and otherwise attempt to overthrow the current Turkish government, even if the current coup itself is fully put down.

It should be remembered that Turkey's Kurdish minority has waged a low-intensity conflict against Turkey for years with the fighting seeing renewed vigor during the recent 5 year conflict in neighboring Syria.

If the coup was truly led by disenfranchised military leaders, they could end up as a long-term and increasingly potent factor in an already complex regional political and military struggle.

Should President Erdogan double-down on Turkey's role in US-led regime change operations in Syria, while consolidating power and further diminishing the military's political role within Turkey itself, the apparently poorly executed coup may indeed have been nothing more than a ploy to redirect Turkey back onto the destructive course President Erdogan has sent it down since 2011.

While the Western media is attempting to portray the apparent failure of the coup as a "victory for democracy," it is clear that Turkey's unraveling over recent years will benefit no one and no political institution or principle, including democracy itself.

 Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook�.