Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Michael Karadjis says: "Look, I agree that the Turkish regime is a bag of shit, but I think there is a tendency to exaggerate our pet hate... "Turkey has only been able to invade northern Syria and northern Iraq because in all cases it had the full support of both US and Russian imperialism and the tacit support of both the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, based on deals." Obviously Turkey is much weaker than the US or Russia. I agree it required their consent to invade Syria and Iraq. But it is also true that Australia is much weaker than the US, and rarely does anything without US approval. Yet Australia is usually considered as an imperialist power. However I am not primarily concerned with definitions (Is Turkey imperialist, sub-imperialist or neither?). Turkey is invading Syria to suppress an experiment in democracy and women's liberation (exemplified by the female fighters of the YPJ, and by the system where all the elected bodies in the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria have both male and female co-chairs). The Erdogan regime, which is suppressing socialists, democrats and Kurds in Turkey, does not want to see a democratic revolution led by socialists, and with a high participation of Kurds, in Syria. It would be an example for the people of Turkey. The left must solidarise with this democratic experiment and give a high priority to campaigning against the Turkish invasion. Chris Slee From: mkaradjis . Sent: Friday, 16 March 2018 11:59:06 PM To: Chris Slee Cc: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG "Turkey is the strongest military power in the Middle East. It has invaded northern Syria and northern Iraq. It has troops in Qatar and Somalia." Look, I agree that the Turkish regime is a bag of shit, but I think there is a tendency to exaggerate our pet hate. For some it is Iran, for others it is Saudi Arabia (Saudi-phobia is the respectable-left Islamophobia), and I guess for some it is Turkey. Turkey has only been able to invade northern Syria and northern Iraq because in all cases it had the full support of both US and Russian imperialism and the tacit support of both the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, based on deals. None of those cases showed anything about Turkish "strength". Turkey was able sweep ISIS out of the Azaz-Jarablus-al-Bab region because it was operating together with the local anti-Assad Arab population of that region and their local rebel formations. Another deal with Afrin - despite Assad's rhetoric, it was clear along this was only aimed at pressuring the SDF into giving up, never to actually aiding it against Turkey. Compare that to Iran. It has thousands of its own troops, and heads thousands and thousands more troops from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan organised on a sectarian basis, in both Iraq and Syria. It owns the Iraqi regime in a joint-venture with the US. Yet it is also not omnipotent. It provides thousands of the ground troops needed by the Assad regime to smash the rebels, but neither the Iranian-led jihad nor Assad's own rabble would have had anything like the success they've had if not for the imperialist Russian airforce terrorising the whole country from the sky - and no other power has fought against the Iranians (Trump's rhetoric aside, actual US-Iranian collaboration stepped up in Syria in 2017). But where Israel doesn't want Iran around in the south near the Golan, Russia let's Israel take pot shots when it pleases. Once Assad is fully victorious, I predict Russia will have the upper hand if it decides Iran needs to be kicked out. Much the same, re both the strengths and the weaknesses, could be said about the Saudi role in the region. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * A brief reply to Chris Slee and Michael Karadjis on Turkey, Syria and the Middle East First I want to thank both comrades for their thoughtful contributions on this issue. On Turkey as a (sub)imperialist power: I agree in substance with the arguments of Michael. I think Chris fails to give a convincing answer to the following arguments: * If we characterize countries as imperialist because of an aggressive foreign policy, why not characterize Iran, Saudi Arabia or UAE the same way?! Saudi Arabia and UAE are waging a much more massive and murderous war against Yemen than Turkey is doing in Afrin. And they are also boycotting Qatar, bullying Lebanon, etc.. UAE has also various military bases and troops in Yemen, Djibouthi, Libya and other countries. And Iran has up to 125,000 troops in Syria alone and also many in Iraq. Why is this less aggressive than Turkey?! Look, the whole Middle East is a war-prone region. It is only logical that various countries are invading others. * I think Chris runs into danger of characterizing a country as imperialist because of its militarist foreign policy. This is a liberal concept and in clear contradiction to the Leninist approach. For my take on the definition of imperialist and semi-colonial countries, I would refer to my book “The Great Robbery of the South” (https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/great-robbery-of-the-south/) * Yes, Turkey has foreign direct investments abroad and they are increasing. But one must put them in relation to the foreign investment into Turkey. In 2011 Turkey had outward FDI of $24bn but $140bn inward FDI. Its Current Account Balance has worsened dramatically and its debts are increasing massively (more on this in my book “A World Pregnant with Wars and Popular Uprisings”, chapter V, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/world-perspectives-2018/ as well as the Great Robbery book pp. 224-227) My only disagreement with Michael is that I think that the category “sub-imperialism” is not helpful. It seems to me a half-way house in order to avoid calling a country imperialist or semi-colonial. I have explained this more in detail in my book on Greece (https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/greece-semi-colony/, pp. 16-17) Concerning the relationship of Turkey and the HTS: naturally, one can not exclude any splits and developments in the future. But we should base our assessment not on speculation about the future but on the reality in the past and present. And this reality is that HTS has not been part of the Turkish-dominated projects (Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch, Syrian Interim Government, National Army, etc.) Turkey agreed to the Astana deal which explicitly calls for the elimination of the HTS. The pro-AQ wing of HTS has split away and is organized now in Hurass Al-Deen. They are very much against Turkey’s invasion. And is the Jolani-led HTS now on the side of Turkey? Obviously not as the pro-Turkish Zenki and Ahrar al-Sham (JTS) are waging a desperate war against HTS. YPG relation with US imperialism has been much more closer than HTS’ relationship with Turkey ever has been! I fear comrade Chris with all this phantasy about Turkish imperialism and an imagined joint Turkish/HTS/AQ/ISIS attack on Afrin wants to deflect attention from the fact that the PYD/YPG/SDF acted for years as US imperialism’s foot soldiers and still is doing this job in eastern Syria. Concerning Michael Karadjis observation on the RCIT’s assessment of the HTS’s role in Idlib: It is certainly correct that HTS alienated important sector of the population with its reactionary social-conservative agenda. People should be supported when they resist against such attempts. I only warn against believing the Assadist propaganda of the “AQ theocracy in Idlib city”. There are numerous videos which show demonstrations in Idlib city which are obviously not organized by HTS. Furthermore, it is also clear to me that HTS has popular roots. In footnote 5 of my latest article on the civil war in Idlib I provided links to a number of videos welcoming HTS entry in the past weeks. (https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/africa-and-middle-east/syria-idlib-the-attack-of-the-astana-conspirators-could-be-repelled-thus-far/) Michael Pröbsting -- Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG (Österreichische Sektion der RCIT,www.thecommunists.net) www.rkob.net ak...@rkob.net Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314 --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _ Full posting guidelin
Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * "Turkey is the strongest military power in the Middle East. It has invaded northern Syria and northern Iraq. It has troops in Qatar and Somalia." Look, I agree that the Turkish regime is a bag of shit, but I think there is a tendency to exaggerate our pet hate. For some it is Iran, for others it is Saudi Arabia (Saudi-phobia is the respectable-left Islamophobia), and I guess for some it is Turkey. Turkey has only been able to invade northern Syria and northern Iraq because in all cases it had the full support of both US and Russian imperialism and the tacit support of both the Syrian and Iraqi regimes, based on deals. None of those cases showed anything about Turkish "strength". Turkey was able sweep ISIS out of the Azaz-Jarablus-al-Bab region because it was operating together with the local anti-Assad Arab population of that region and their local rebel formations. Another deal with Afrin - despite Assad's rhetoric, it was clear along this was only aimed at pressuring the SDF into giving up, never to actually aiding it against Turkey. Compare that to Iran. It has thousands of its own troops, and heads thousands and thousands more troops from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan organised on a sectarian basis, in both Iraq and Syria. It owns the Iraqi regime in a joint-venture with the US. Yet it is also not omnipotent. It provides thousands of the ground troops needed by the Assad regime to smash the rebels, but neither the Iranian-led jihad nor Assad's own rabble would have had anything like the success they've had if not for the imperialist Russian airforce terrorising the whole country from the sky - and no other power has fought against the Iranians (Trump's rhetoric aside, actual US-Iranian collaboration stepped up in Syria in 2017). But where Israel doesn't want Iran around in the south near the Golan, Russia let's Israel take pot shots when it pleases. Once Assad is fully victorious, I predict Russia will have the upper hand if it decides Iran needs to be kicked out. Much the same, re both the strengths and the weaknesses, could be said about the Saudi role in the region. On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Chris Slee wrote: > Michael Karadjis says: > > "Now, if Chris sees Turkey as an imperialist power...then certainly, at very > least Iran and Saudi Arabia are imperialist in the region, though I prefer > the term sub-imperialist for all three." > > My very tentative view is that Turkey is in a process of becoming an > imperialist power. > > Foreign investment by Turkish capital has grown rapidly in recent years, not > only in the Middle East, but in Africa, Russia, etc. > > Turkey is the strongest military power in the Middle East. It has invaded > northern Syria and northern Iraq. It has troops in Qatar and Somalia. > > Whether we call Turkey imperialist or sub-imperialist, it intervenes very > aggressively in other countries. It supported rebel groups in Syria, but > this support was conditional on these groups supporting Turkey's political > aims. In particular, they had to support Turkey's campaign against Rojava > and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria - a campaign that began with > proxy war and escalated into outright invasion. > > Michael says: > > "RKOB is correct that Turkey's plan to eliminate HTS is evidenced by 'the > current attack of Zenki and Ahrar against the HTS in the north of Syria'." > > Charles Lister (who seems well informed about the Turkish state's thinking) > says Turkey wants to divide HTS and "co-opt" a section of it, rather than > "eliminate" it as Michael claims. > > Michael says: > > "Chris speculates that HTS internal divisions may be at play - that 'one part > of HTS is collaborating with Turkey to attack Afrin while another part of HTS > is busy fighting Ahrar al-Sham.' Too byzantine, there is nothing to it > Chris. The Turkish incursion into Idlib some months back did split HTS - HTS > expelled the faction which had opposed leaving al-Qaida." > > The expulsion of the al-Qaida faction does not exclude the possibility of > further splits. There could still be divisions over relations with Turkey. > > However I admit this just speculation. > > Chris Slee > > > > > From: mkaradjis . > Sent: Friday, 16 March 2018 3:09:33 AM > To: Chris Slee; Activists and scholars in M
Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 3/16/18 8:21 AM, Chris Slee via Marxism wrote: Foreign investment by Turkish capital has grown rapidly in recent years, not only in the Middle East, but in Africa, Russia, etc. By this definition, Greece and Colombia were more imperialist than Turkey in 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_FDI_abroad _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Michael Karadjis says: "Now, if Chris sees Turkey as an imperialist power...then certainly, at very least Iran and Saudi Arabia are imperialist in the region, though I prefer the term sub-imperialist for all three." My very tentative view is that Turkey is in a process of becoming an imperialist power. Foreign investment by Turkish capital has grown rapidly in recent years, not only in the Middle East, but in Africa, Russia, etc. Turkey is the strongest military power in the Middle East. It has invaded northern Syria and northern Iraq. It has troops in Qatar and Somalia. Whether we call Turkey imperialist or sub-imperialist, it intervenes very aggressively in other countries. It supported rebel groups in Syria, but this support was conditional on these groups supporting Turkey's political aims. In particular, they had to support Turkey's campaign against Rojava and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria - a campaign that began with proxy war and escalated into outright invasion. Michael says: "RKOB is correct that Turkey's plan to eliminate HTS is evidenced by 'the current attack of Zenki and Ahrar against the HTS in the north of Syria'." Charles Lister (who seems well informed about the Turkish state's thinking) says Turkey wants to divide HTS and "co-opt" a section of it, rather than "eliminate" it as Michael claims. Michael says: "Chris speculates that HTS internal divisions may be at play - that 'one part of HTS is collaborating with Turkey to attack Afrin while another part of HTS is busy fighting Ahrar al-Sham.' Too byzantine, there is nothing to it Chris. The Turkish incursion into Idlib some months back did split HTS - HTS expelled the faction which had opposed leaving al-Qaida." The expulsion of the al-Qaida faction does not exclude the possibility of further splits. There could still be divisions over relations with Turkey. However I admit this just speculation. Chris Slee From: mkaradjis . Sent: Friday, 16 March 2018 3:09:33 AM To: Chris Slee; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition Subject: Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG Chris: "Currently the YPG is resisting the Turkish invasion of Afrin. Turkey is increasingly acting like an imperialist power, so we can say that the YPG is resisting Turkish imperialism. By contrast, the HTS is offering no resistance whatsoever to Turkish imperialism." Let me say to both Chris and Michael (RCIT): it will be a frustrating journey trying to focus on who is resisting which "imperialism", and it is not the decisive factor, because everyone is manouevering for survival in Syria. Now, if Chris sees Turkey as an imperialist power (because it "acts" like one, which does not sound very scientific to me), then certainly, at very least Iran and Saudi Arabia are imperialist in the region, though I prefer the term sub-imperialist for all three. So if the YPG is resisting Turkish "imperialism", while collaborating with US and Russian imperialism throughout the war, then HTS has fought both US and Russian imperialism and Iranian "imperialism", so not sure where that all gets us. Chris says "When Turkish troops first entered Idlib province, they were escorted by HTS members. HTS allowed Turkey to build bases in the territory it controls on the border with Afrin, in preparation for the invasion of Afrin." That is true. But that does not prove that Turkey and HTS like each other. Rather, Turkey's main focus at that point was the SDF in Afrin, so pragmatically left HTS for now; while HTS, fighting a joint Assad/ISIS offensive in south Idlib and Hama, also had a pragmatic interest in not confronting Turkey, at that point. RKOB is correct that Turkey's plan to eliminate HTS is evidenced by "the current attack of Zenki and Ahrar against the HTS in the north of Syria". Chris tries to avoid this conclusion by saying that HTS has previously attacked them and so they don't need Turkey's encouragement to hit back. But at that moment, HTS was not attacking them, and they chose that moment to "hit back" not out of a sudden desire to liberate Idlib from HTS, but due to their role as Turkish proxies (in general, I oppose the language of "proxies", but there is a case that Ahrar al-Sham has become pretty much fully proxified; Zenki is a once proud group that degenerated into roguishness a few years ago (and until recently was part of HTS, due to rejectio
Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Chris: "Currently the YPG is resisting the Turkish invasion of Afrin. Turkey is increasingly acting like an imperialist power, so we can say that the YPG is resisting Turkish imperialism. By contrast, the HTS is offering no resistance whatsoever to Turkish imperialism." Let me say to both Chris and Michael (RCIT): it will be a frustrating journey trying to focus on who is resisting which "imperialism", and it is not the decisive factor, because everyone is manouevering for survival in Syria. Now, if Chris sees Turkey as an imperialist power (because it "acts" like one, which does not sound very scientific to me), then certainly, at very least Iran and Saudi Arabia are imperialist in the region, though I prefer the term sub-imperialist for all three. So if the YPG is resisting Turkish "imperialism", while collaborating with US and Russian imperialism throughout the war, then HTS has fought both US and Russian imperialism and Iranian "imperialism", so not sure where that all gets us. Chris says "When Turkish troops first entered Idlib province, they were escorted by HTS members. HTS allowed Turkey to build bases in the territory it controls on the border with Afrin, in preparation for the invasion of Afrin." That is true. But that does not prove that Turkey and HTS like each other. Rather, Turkey's main focus at that point was the SDF in Afrin, so pragmatically left HTS for now; while HTS, fighting a joint Assad/ISIS offensive in south Idlib and Hama, also had a pragmatic interest in not confronting Turkey, at that point. RKOB is correct that Turkey's plan to eliminate HTS is evidenced by "the current attack of Zenki and Ahrar against the HTS in the north of Syria". Chris tries to avoid this conclusion by saying that HTS has previously attacked them and so they don't need Turkey's encouragement to hit back. But at that moment, HTS was not attacking them, and they chose that moment to "hit back" not out of a sudden desire to liberate Idlib from HTS, but due to their role as Turkish proxies (in general, I oppose the language of "proxies", but there is a case that Ahrar al-Sham has become pretty much fully proxified; Zenki is a once proud group that degenerated into roguishness a few years ago (and until recently was part of HTS, due to rejection by most other rebel groups in the north). I think Chris is a little uncomfortable with these conclusions because it suggests that some of the same groups attacking the SDFin Afrin are also attacking HTS in Idlib, in both cases as allies or proxies of Turkey. Supporters of the SDF like Chris prefer to see HTS/"Nusra" attacking Afrin, because it makes them sound bad; I would prefer that also, but reality is different, and we need to acknowledge it is a good thing that HTS is not taking part in the Afrin Op. Chris speculates that HTS internal divisions may be at play - that "one part of HTS is collaborating with Turkey to attack Afrin while another part of HTS is busy fighting Ahrar al-Sham." Too byzantine, there is nothing to it Chris. The Turkish incursion into Idlib some months back did split HTS - HTS expelled the faction which had opposed leaving al-Qaida. In other words, HTS' split from al-Qaida 18 months ago was consolidated. But the al-Qaida faction is more anti-Turkish intervention in Syria, so they are not taking part in the Afrin Op (and in any case, HTS put them in prison). It is the same HTS that is fighting Ahrar and others in Idlib, and *not* fighting the SDF in Afrin. I somewhat disagree with RCIT on the question of the conflict in Idlib. I agree that the pro-Turkish groups have been forced to go along with the Astana deal and increasingly are squeezed into being Turkish proxies, while HTS, correctly, opposes the deal. And as a result, often HTS has been continuing the fight against Assad (alongside some FSA, eg Jaysh al-Izza, which never stopped fighting) when Ahrar al-Sham and some other groups were not fighting. The refusal of Ahrar al-Sham to join the Hama offensive last April was a big factor in HTS's ability to defeat it right across Idlib in June - many FSA and even Islamist groups, and revolution-held towns, did not fight to defend Ahrar against HTS; and the towns made their own agreements with HTS to be "neutral" (as long as HTS kept out) rather than seeing Ahrar as their saviour. That is despite Ahrar having come to the side of the FSA and the revolution against HTS attacks in 2016. Astana and proxydom changed all this. However, I think RCIT is not fully seeing the other side of this. Once HTS defeated its main military rival in June, it was in a position to act even more in the way it acts when it can: as an oppressive fo
Re: [Marxism] Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG
POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Michael Probsting says: "In opposite to the YPG, the HTS and other forces are are confronting Assad and the imperialist forces - not inviting and serving them like the YPG." Currently the YPG is resisting the Turkish invasion of Afrin. Turkey is increasingly acting like an imperialist power, so we can say that the YPG is resisting Turkish imperialism. By contrast, the HTS is offering no resistance whatsoever to Turkish imperialism. When Turkish troops first entered Idlib province, they were escorted by HTS members. HTS allowed Turkey to build bases in the territory it controls on the border with Afrin, in preparation for the invasion of Afrin. So we can say that HTS has collaborated with Turkish imperialism. In a previous message RKOB claimed that "Turkey is hostile to the HTS". But I have not seen any reports of armed conflict between Turkish troops and HTS fighters. Chris Slee From: RKOB Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2018 2:42:21 AM To: Chris Slee Subject: Once again on GLW, Syria, HTS and YPG In reply to comrade Chris Slee, I want to make two brief comments: First, the discussion started when he distributed the nonsensical statement of the YPG that HTS would participate in the Turkish assault against Afrin. Until now no serious person has confirmed this. The argument that may be some ex-members of HTS are participating is nonsense. Shall we start to discuss the past of the various SDF units? Secondly, and more interesting, is comrade Slee’s statement: “The RCIT places a lot of importance on the fact that HTS rejects the Astana agreement. But groups should be judged on what they are for, not just what they are against. HTS stands for theocratic dictatorship. They are enemies of the Syrian revolution - if by "Syrian revolution" we mean the struggle for democracy that began in 2011.” Right, let us judge force by what they are for, not only what they are against. Naturally, we shouldn’t start with some rhetorical ideological commitments. Hence we don’t judge the PKK/YPG in the first place by their crude mixture of Kurdish nationalism and Anarcho-Stalinism. Neither do we judge the imperialists by their claims that they would intervene for the sake of “democracy”, “human rights”, “fight against terrorism”, etc. We judge them all by their deeds, not their phrase-mongering. The deeds of the imperialist Great Powers are undisputed in this forum so I will not dwell in this. The deeds of the YPG are that they have played for years a crucial role in helping US imperialism to build a strong basis in North and East Syria (including many military bases), that they have collaborated with the Assad regime and that at no moment did they join the Syrian Revolution. This is what these people are for in deeds (not in ideological phrases reprinted naively in “Green Left Weekly”!) This is the difference in deeds. For us Marxists this difference in practice is not irrelevant! In opposite to the YPG, the HTS and other forces are confronting Assad and the imperialist forces – not inviting and serving them like the YPG. True, they combine this with a reactionary Islamist utopian program. We have seen such combinations various times in history. To give just two examples: the liberations struggle in Morocco against the Spanish and French imperialists led by the Islamist Abdel Karim in the 1920s (and strongly supported by the communists) or the resistance of the Palestinians led by Hamas. All those Islamophobic “leftists” who refuse support for such movement because of the latters Islamist agenda, are lost for the anti-imperialist struggle. Michael Pröbsting Am 13.03.2018 um 06:31 schrieb Chris Slee: RKOB says that "Turkey is hostile to the HTS", and claims this is the background to "the current attack of Zenki and Ahrar against the HTS in the north of Syria". But HTS has previously attacked Ahrar al-Sham and other groups, so the latter probably don't need Turkey's encouragement to hit back. It is not uncommon for rebel groups to fight each other. In 2014, for example, Jabhat al-Nusra attacked the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, a Free Syrian Army coalition with a strong presence in Idlib province. Some of the survivors of the SRF fled to Afrin and later became part of the Syrian Democratic Forces. Others fled to Turkey. I agree that HTS is not fully under Turkey's control. But they have in the past worked together to attack Rojava. Kurdish sources have claimed that "Jabhat al-Nusra" members have joined the Turkish invasion of Afrin. I am not sure if they are referring to current members of HTS, or people who h
