For his part, Aldar Khalil, the co-chair of the Movement of a Democratic Society in Afrin, has been quite vocal about Moscow’s strategy. “Syrian Kurdish forces were given an ultimatum over the weekend,” Khalil said.  “[We were told] leave your positions to the Syrian regime or face the wrath of Ankara. They chose to stay." 

activists on the ground: yes, turkey is still in nato. but, it's a formality, at this point.

the turks are currently actively acting against american interests, and actively aligning with the russians.

i know that you're used to seeing nato as this monolithic thing, where orders are barked from washington. but, this started to break down in the bush administration, was band-aid-ed over by obama, even as he put events in motion that would ultimately weaken american leadership, and has now completely imploded, fairly quickly, under trump. the return of russian power is a consequence of a lack of american leadership, more so than it is a complicating factor.

a return to a multipolar world doesn't and shouldn't change basic political allegiances, and the rojava are certainly worth standing in solidarity with, whatever their flaws. but, it calls for a sharper analysis and a more careful attention to details.

the old alliances are just that, now: old alliances. and, turkey's re-alignment is likely the beginning of things, rather than an isolated happening.

the turks have reason to align with the persian empire - and the kurds are likely the power that will return the persians to empire, one day. but, the russians cannot align with the persians, these are historically competitive empires. they can dominate the persians, they can act as a counter-balance to american interests, and etc. but, the russians must ultimately seek to reduce persian power, and are already opening up a potential pandora's box in doing what they're already doing. when america is gone, the byzantine-persian conflict will persist. the russians have an existential stake in ensuring that they remain the dominant power in that relationship.

i'm just requesting that people be careful enough in their analysis to adjust to the shifting realities, as this is a real thing that is happening, and is likely to accelerate.

so, could we lose america before we lose capitalism? is that what is ruffling these old leftists, who have identified the two things as the same thing? how is this possible?

i will tell you, authoritatively: we will lose america before we lose capitalism, america will not be where the revolution takes place and america will not be the society that leads us into socialism, or into communism. capitalism will not be the same, without america. but, america only has itself to blame for it's decline. and, that decline has been apparent, for decades.

so, this should not shock any old leftists at all. it's just a question of realizing what's happening.

jagmeet singh must cut his beard.