has been flexing its muscle. It has been building up its military presence on the border with . High volume political rhetoric, as well as back channel diplomacy have been continuing.

In the meantime, a pro-government newspaper distributed a video clip demonizing the United States as the “new global villain,” while knowing fully well the ruling group orchestrates the public perception. This is an example showing the decision to step up the campaign of antagonism with the United States.

Why so? Bashing Israel had helped promote ruling elites for some time, but had paid a humiliating price for it. The initial harvest of the confrontation with Russia had been good, but had it not been really painful to take a U-turn from whatever had been said and done in order to achieve some sort of semi-normalization of ties? With Germany, the Netherlands and many other European Union countries and their institutions, has been on a course of crisis for a long time. How it will get out of that hurdle, no one knows.

From rampant reports and messages in between the lines in remarks or media reports, it should not be secret for anyone that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan firmly believes that the mastermind of the July 15 coup was the United States or some U.S. public establishments. ’s continued refuge in Pennsylvania, as well as the Iran sanctions busting case were what Erdoğan’s has perceived as “all elements of a hostile systematic campaign.”

Would all these and other anomalies in -West relations justify development of a confrontational rhetoric? If attacking U.S.-nourished and supported n Kurdish militia might end up in a confrontation situation between the biggest and second biggest military powers of NATO, can undertake such a risk? Would the U.S. turn a blind eye to such a probability and continue aligning with the n Kurds, at the expense of losing not only but perhaps risking the demise of its most important global tool, NATO?

will not allow n Kurds to establish a belt along the Turkish-n border, nor will it allow the n and Iraqi Kurdish enclaves to connect. ’s existential threat perception requires it to undertake whatever is required, including a full-fledged war, to defer such a “hostile development.”

The n border town of and its continued control by the n extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) separatist gang are such a high threat for for other very important reasons. First and foremost, of these of course is the fact that has been the passage point of logistical support the PKK has been receiving. Besides, the area has become some sort of new training ground for the gang. Was it not interesting that most of the arms, ammunition and weapons systems captured in operations were U.S. or Russian made? Was it insignificant that most of these reached the PKK through ?

will not allow the n Kurdish groups or the PKK to control its border with . At the moment, n Kurds control almost 65 percent of the Turkish-n border. If an army of 30,000-strong is established with U.S.-support and the n extension of the PKK is further consolidated, might face a far more serious existential threat.

Read more: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/yusuf-kanli/why-is-afrin-so-important-125901