Sad thought: Turkey, for all its problems, had shown the world that limited but well thought-out military direct engagement can bring warring parties to a standstill and therefore make further conflict not a viable BATNA anymore. That was the West (esp EU) had to do, but alas
And while it was harder (impossible?) to do in Syria (Idlib is home to too many different groups for EU to be at ease getting there), it was a possibility in Lybia.
Still, timing is everything, and current conflict exhaustion plays a role. Plus boots on the ground aren't really Turkish. But you could draw a linr and have it enforced earlier. We didn't.
Please don't learn wrong lesson from this: wars don't build peace. But there are instances where you can't avoid using a military op to make sure the ball passes into diplomacy (the real peacemaker)'s court. Learning pros and cons of this is key, and is lost to EU public opinion
This actually comes, in a way, directly from Clausewitz... remember "war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means"? That helps put it in context. If war happens, it means things have gone very badly, and so you need to move it back to diplomacy.
And to do it, you have to make war again NOT the best (or least damaging) choice for the involved parties. Please note that the "how to do it" part is case-by-case, and no "one-size-fits-all approach" is going to work consistently.
@threadreaderapp please unroll
