![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="73" height="73"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
I've been thinking about the reasons for this cutback and it's hard to speculate. But certainly it is based on the understanding that the fighters have no alternatives. If fighters started abandoning their positions or refuse to mobilize, Turkey would have stopped cutbacks.
Interesting undertone in @Elizrael's article on SNA factions. That of the budgetary reluctance Turkey is displaying towards the fighters it supports, in contrast with the recently adapted professional image of the former. An indication of its fate?https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/11/27/who-are-turkeys-proxy-fighters-in-syria/…
-
-
-
Hard to draw solid conclusions about that indeed, because there are quite some pieces of the puzzle missing. To my feeling one should take in account other financial support of Turkey there too to assess that. But could be wrong on that.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Few thousand fighters directly led by Turkey in 2016 were paid $300. Major factions like Levant front and Hamza were receiving US funds back then. As more factions became dependent on Turkey in addition to the police and civil servants, payments became less and less.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
