Does anyone else get the feeling that there could be a deal on between Turkey and Saudi Arabia for the division of Syria? And that their troops might be on the ground in Syria sooner rather than later?
The likely deal would involve Turkey getting control of a slice of northern Syria extending 100-150 kilometres south from its own border. Saudi Arabia would take all the remaining lands occupied by IS.
​The benefits of this deal for Turkey would be that it gets control of the Kurdish region in which the YPG is setting too good an example to Turkey's own restive Kurds of what an independent Kurdish state might look like.
The benefits to Saudia Arabia have been covered in earlier blogs and can be read below.

Why sooner rather than later?
Because of the Russians.
Saudi Arabia might have always had a long term plan to put troops on the ground in Syria, but until recently there was no rush. The longer the civil war in Syria dragged on and the more horrible and intractable it became the more likely it was that a Saudi intervention would be seen as a blessing.
Now that the Russians have rejuvenated the Assad loyalists, however, and there is talk of them re-taking Raqqa, the Saudi's need to get involved while there is still some Islamic State territory left for them to liberate.
Ideally the Saudi's would like to take Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, before they put boots on the ground inside Islamic state territory, but with their troops approaching the outskirts of Sanaa as this article is written, and the campaign for Sanaa generally progressing well for the Saudi's, it seems likely that they have decided that they need to seize their moment and will commit to fighting in two theatres.
The Turks, are also no doubt wanting to put a stop to the possible linking up of the two Kurdish controlled regions of northern Syria, a scenario which becomes increasingly likely as the continued aerial bombardment of IS makes them less able to fend off the Kurdish YPG advances.
Turkey was particularly concerned by the YPG's recent seizure of territory on the western bank of the Euphrates: which put the YPG one step closer to linking up their two bodies of territory along the Turkish border.
Another concern for both Turkey and Saudi Arabia is the prospect of a deal being struck between Assad and the Kurds. It would be advantageous for them both to act before such a deal came into being and further strengthened the Assad regime's reviving claims to be the legitimate, and still ruling, government of Syria. 

If the Turks get the North and the Saudis take the South who gets the East and the coast of Syria?
This is a good question.
With Russia giving the Assad regime considerable support one would have to say at this stage that the Assad regime is likely to retain control of the territory they already have and may well takeover most of the rebel areas which are not either Kurdish or IS. This would leave Syria divided into three spheres of power with Assad on the coast and in the coastal mountains, the Turks in the North and the Saudis controlling the remaining, mostly desert regions, to the South and South-East. 
With Russia having become so invested in supporting the Assad regime it is natural that the Turks and the Saudis would be very wary of trying to extend their intervention to the coast, but if both of these countries had their armies in the field and the tacit backing of the United States then they may well dare to take the fight to Assad and the Russians.
Then again, Russia's main concerns at the moment are with its Eastern European border and it could well be bought out of the fight in Syria if the US were to allow it significant gains in Ukraine, for example.

It's all about the Russians
The Russians, the Assad regime and even the Iranians have begun sabre rattling in response to the Turkish and Saudi announcements that they are willing to put troops on the ground in Syria. Naturally, it would be disastrous for the Russians, the Assad regime and Iran if either Turkey or Saudi Arabia or both intervened in Syria. Therefore they will be willing to go to lengths to prevent such interventions. Consequently, all of these parties are now engaged in a sabre rattling face-off.
Much will depend on the disposition of the US and the European Union in negotiations conducted far from the Syrian battlefields.
​Perhaps the Russians will succeed in staring down one or both threats.
If they do it will be a significant victory for Putin, leaving the Russian backed regime as the most likely final victor of the Syrian civil war.
Will the US allow this to happen?
The Syrian civil war could be about to enter a new phase of significant foreign intervention.

Many people have spoken about Paris being an exceptional place for a whole lot of different reasons, but Paris is, at this point in history, exceptional for a geopolitical reason which I have not heard mentioned by anyone else. It strikes me that Paris is the only capital of the former Western European imperial powers that still retains its role as the most important city in that linguistic empire.

What I mean by this is best demonstrated by example.

The Portuguese, Spanish, English and French all created globe spanning empires that left large parts of the world speaking their respective languages. If we look at these linguistic empires today, though, we find that all of the old European capitals have now been super-ceded in power by one of their former colonies.

For example:
The Portuguese speaking world is now definitely led by Brazil rather than Portugal. No one could doubt that Brazil with its 180 million people has more sway in today’s world than tiny Portugal. Lisbon is no longer the centre of the Portuguese speaking world. That honour must go to either Brasilia, the capital of Brasil, or Sao Paulo the largest city of Brasil and one that boasts a population larger than the entire country of Portugal.

The English speaking world is also no longer led from its former colonial capital of London. Although London is certainly still a city of global significance, there is no doubt that the USA is the current leader of the English speaking world and that either Washington, its capital, or New York, its largest city, are the epicentres of power for the English speaking world.

In the Spanish speaking world the Megacity of Mexico City, presiding over a nation of 150 million people, now has more sway in the world than its former colonial master, Madrid. Admittedly, the power gap between Mexico City and Madrid is not as great as in our other two examples, but as Mexico can be expected to continue to increase its economic power through the century Mexico City will pull further ahead.

Compared with all of these examples of imperial European capitals being overtaken by colonial heirs Paris is exceptional. Not only is Paris still the most important city of a French speaking world that numbers 29 countries where French is an official national language, but there is no other city that even comes close.

As an aside, I am aware that some might ask what about the Dutch empire, isn’t Amsterdam still the biggest Dutch speaking city? My answer to that would be that although the Dutch did rule over a very extensive empire in the past, Dutch is no longer an official language of any of the countries which now occupy that space with the exception of the small country of Surinam and the even smaller island of Aruba, consequently the vast majority of Dutch speakers still live in Europe and that outside of Europe there is not much of a Dutch speaking world to speak of, certainly not on the scale of the legacy of the maritime empires mentioned above.

So, apart from being an interesting historical fact, what is the geopolitical significance of Paris still being the pre-eminent French speaking city?

The significance lies in the fact that a large part of the world still looks to France and Paris for much of its cultural imports. Many countries throughout Africa, the Pacific and other corners of the former French empire are watching French news channels, reading French magazines and following the moods and fashions of metropolitan France. This gives France a great deal of ‘soft power’ in these regions of the world. And, just as the influence of the USA does not come just from its superior military (hard power) but also from the fact that teenagers around the world are listening to American music, watching American movies, consuming American products and dreaming of immigrating, the influence of ‘soft power’ should not be under estimated. Because of the fact that France is still at the centre of the French speaking world the cultural output of Paris is still molding the values and aspirations of the citizens of many nations beyond its borders and that is a powerful force.
 
​
….
 
 
As a footnote I am also aware that many will say that Moscow is still the capital of the Russian speaking world, and that is in many senses a vast empire. All of which is true, but Moscow is the centre of a land empire built by conquering neighbours and that is a different sort of empire to that established by the Western European Atlantic Powers.