quote:

---

Syria

The Spark:
At the moment, ISIS has drawn the attention of most of the world’s most powerful countries, including France, the United States, and Russia. But the explosion of attention (not to mention air traffic) could complicate the next step in the war. On the one hand, an accidental confrontation between NATO and Russia aircraft could lead to bad tactical decisions, with one or more planes shot out of the air. On the other, a dramatic shift on the ground in Syria could force the hand of one of the supporters of the proxy combatants.

Escalation:
Even if the emerging anti-ISIS coalition prevails, conflict between major power could ensue. This could get ugly, as France, Russia, and the United States have very different views about how the future of Syria should look. If any of the three decide to intervene in favor of their preferred factions, the situation could very quickly come to resemble a game of chicken, with airstrikes, no fly zones, and secure enclaves providing the points of conflict. Serious fighting between external powers in Syria could quickly draw in Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and potentially spread to other parts of the globe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, as far as can be made out, that's exactly what ISIS want ... to draw both the Western powers and Russia and its allies into some kind of Armageddon ...

Everyone should tread carefully, lest they give the fanatics what they want.

---

quote:

---

Penny S: I couldn't imagine how they had time for ten warnings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It suits Turkey to draw NATO in and I suspect they're using the cover of NATO to goad the Russians ...

---

quote:

---

Penny S: Trying to find a map to refer to here didn't show anything which looked like the map on the BBC - I suspect a disputed area.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Are you concerned at all, or do you think this will blow over with no real global consequences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'm not very concerned. It seems very unlikely that any NATO countries would seriously consider sending folks to fight for Turkey. Russia can demonstrate calm and restraint for the moment and arrange some plausible deniability for a few killings of Turkish swells later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

They didn't need shooting down, unless Turkey had already gone through the diplomatic channels of demanding that they do not cut off the corner some time ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
As far as Syria is concerned, we should be on the same side as the Russians, and that has been the case since the civil war started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
On the BBC, the Turks were claiming that the crew are OK and they are getting to them.

They also showed a map. For some reason or other, the idiot dividers-up of the Ottoman Empire allowed a little panhandle of Turkey to project into Syria - I'm not sure how large it is as there was no scale. The Turkish map of the plane's route shows it cutting briefly across the neck of this area. I couldn't imagine how they had time for ten warnings. And it seemed totally ridiculous to complain about what was an extremely easy mistake to make, and which was no threat to Turkey's sovereignty at all.

Trying to find a map to refer to here didn't show anything which looked like the map on the BBC - I suspect a disputed area.

---

I can't agree with your comment about "idiot dividers-up", and think that your suspicion of a disputed area is equally wrong. If you look at any map, you will see that the area is a valley opening nor-west into Turkey, and with ridges dividing it from what is now Syria. I don't know the ethnicity of those living there, but from a topological viewpoint the boundary makes great sense.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It certainly seems to make more sense than the practice of drawing straight lines on maps, which respect neither ethnic boundaries nor natural features.

Regardless of the location of the border, no nation will be happy about military aircraft approaching their border. Even more so when the only reason for those aircraft to be there is to monitor or bomb allies.

There are al-Nusra (Al-qaeda affiliated) forces further north by the Turkish border which could be considered a target for a war on terrorist organisation. But in the region of the crash the territory is securely held by national coalition forces, who may not be blameless in their conduct of the civil war but are not implicated in terrorist action and together with the Kurds are about as close to "good guys" as there are in Syria.

It shouldn't take a military genius to know that if you're going to attack rebel forces supported by Turkey then flying close enough to Turkey that there's a risk of being thought to be in, or heading towards, Turkish airspace is an extremely aggressive act. Even more so when Putin has gained a reputation for aggressive actions - whether through rigged referendum in Crimea or sending troops into Eastern Ukraine, or even submarines in UK waters. He's pushing because he knows NATO does not want to engage his forces. But, it's a very dangerous game of brinkmanship. In terms of potential for things turning really bad, he makes Daesh look like amateurs.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
--IIRC, NATO didn't really want Turkey in the first place.

--Having grown up with fundamentalist Protestant teachings on the End Times, Armageddon, etc., I tend to keep a sensor out for news that seems to point in that direction. (Despite not being sure that the premise is remotely true, and not wanting it to be.)

Stephen Colbert (so it must be true ) recently said that Daesh's/ISIS' HQ is about 90 miles from where Armageddon is to take place. And Daesh/ISIS wants to bring about *their* version of the apocalypse...
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Western actions in the region look very aggressive in Russian eyes Alan. The Russians put today together the fall of the USSR, insofar as the USA created the precursor to Al Qaeda to defeat them, with continued aggression in search of oil in the Persian Gulf since. About 10 years ago, CBC Radio 1 had it that we are simply watching The Great Game, version 2. This time the USA has replaced Great Britain. I see this wikipedia link calls it "The New Great Game". Nice. Same shit, not a different pile. Great that we get to be nice Christian countries and take in some refugees.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I do think that history repeats itself. In the recent Remembrance thread I made the point that in the period prior to 1914 European powers were engaged in a "Cold War" conducted by proxy conflicts in colonies but based on the assumption that the arms race had created sufficiently powerful armies on all sides that an all-out war would be a disaster that would destroy all sides. The events of 1914-18 showed this to be true when the cold war brinkmanship pushed things too far.

The effects of that war were to make Britain and France very reluctant to enter another European War (Stalin was a psycopath, and probably a lot more keen on a war), which allowed Hitler to play the brinksman as he took tentative steps towards his plan and watched Britain and France back down - rebuilding German military strength, entering the Rhineland, annexing part of Czechoslovakia ... until finally his gamble failed and invading Poland was a step too far.

Of course, post 1945 we entered another Cold War. The arms race was different from the run-up to 1914, nuclear weapons and deployment systems replacing battleships and infantry divisions, but many of the other features of that Cold War were similar. We were lucky to avoid all-out war over Cuba, that came very close to being the point where brinkmanship went too far. But, it was a Cold War that didn't have a resolution and we are still living with the consequences of the proxy wars that were fought - in Afghanistan the West created the Taliban, both sides supported dictators around the world and left political vacuums as they fell (Iraq, Libya and Syria are but the latest to fall).

And, yes, the Western powers are still afraid of Russia, which still has a substantial nuclear arsenal. Was NATO expansion eastwards to counter that perceived threat wise? Possibly not, but the Baltic States and other former Warsaw Pact nations were sufficiently concerned about renewed Russian imperialism to seek NATO membership, or at least NATO support.

We aren't blameless in playing our part in this renewed "Great Game". But, does that excuse Russian annexation of the Crimea and military operations in the Ukraine? But, just as in 1936-39, the Western powers do not want outright war and so it's possible for Putin to push a little bit and get away with it.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
And we here remember the shooting down of a Malaysian Airlines plane over Crimea. It does not matter if it were Russians directly, or the local insurgents as the latter are Putin's clients. Certainly the weaponry used was well advanced from that in the normal armoury of the insurgents and it, along with those trained to use it, would have been supplied by the Russians.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It is very hard to know who to believe in the current circumstances, and I'm sure the media are telling their audience a version that is acceptable to them.

I suspect the reality is that we're all being lied to and that there are geopolitical games being played.

The undisputed truth, as far as I can tell, is that Russia has been bombing rebels in Syria - including but not exclusively IS - in support of Assad. One of their planes flying close to the Turkish border was shot down, with the pilots killed or missing.

But everything else seems to be disputed. Russia has apparently being regularly playing games on NATOs borders, with regular sorties by warplanes, possibly even submarines. But there is no independent corroboration of this, we only know what the NATO armies tell us.

Turkey, according to some, is tacitly supporting IS to some extent, although why they would do this is a mystery to most in Western Europe. At the same time, EU nations see Turkey as the answer to the refugee crisis.

The USA and allies are regularly bombing IS in Iraq and Syria, with some success according to them. But then we don't really know what is happening, because IS do not like western journalists and the coalition are mostly using drones flown from a desk a zillion miles away.

So it is possible with the limited verifiable information to construct narratives both ways around.

Maybe Turkey warned the Russians before they went into Turkish airspace, maybe they didn't. Maybe the Russias were actually in Turkish airspace (by accident perhaps?), maybe they weren't.

One possible point in Russia's favour appears to be that the plane was in Turkish airspace for a matter of seconds, and yet this was still long enough to be hit by a missle and to be caught doing it on camera. What are the chances of that?

It is a mess. I hope sensible heads will prevail.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Turkey has already shot down Syrian aircraft operating too close to it's border. And, the Turkish government has been telling the Russians for weeks that their aircraft are operating too close to and violating Turkish airspace.

---

quote:

---

mr cheesy: One possible point in Russia's favour appears to be that the plane was in Turkish airspace for a matter of seconds, and yet this was still long enough to be hit by a missle and to be caught doing it on camera. What are the chances of that?

---

quote:

---

Gee D: And we here remember the shooting down of a Malaysian Airlines plane over Crimea.

---

quote:

---

The only reason for a Russian jet to be in that part of Turkey is to bomb Turkmen targets, because Russia is supporting Assad. On the other hand, Turkey is supporting the Turkmen rebels (against both Assad and Daesh), the US is supporting the Kurdish rebels (against both Assad and Daesh) with airstrikes against Daesh, and France just seems to be bombing anything they can see that might be Daesh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I am curious as to any plan Western forces have now, since Russia is clearly supporting Assad, which will also antagonize the Sunni tribes.

---

quote:

---

The Sunni axis, which includes Turkey, is not happy at all, and they will keep turning to IS, unless they are offered something different.

---

quote:

---

Net Spinster: The bit of land is part of the province of Hatay which was after the break up of the Ottoman empire part of the French Mandate; its ethnicity was very mixed (less so now) and it became part of Turkey in 1939 after a referendum (a somewhat disputed referendum). It is disputed though quieting down to the point of a few joint projects before the whole war started.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Apparently the Russians are saying they have rescued one of their airmen via a special-forces operation of the Syrian army and Hezbollah.

That's... um.. scary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The bit of land is part of the province of Hatay which was after the break up of the Ottoman empire part of the French Mandate; its ethnicity was very mixed (less so now) and it became part of Turkey in 1939 after a referendum (a somewhat disputed referendum). It is disputed though quieting down to the point of a few joint projects before the whole war started. It was one of the great cross roads of trade (Antakya, its capital, is Antioch of old; the valley of the Orontes river comes from the south and passes through mountains that form the south border of Hatay, other routes came from other directions).

---

quote:

---

Matt Black: [Film trivia point] The short-lived Republic of Hatay features in 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'[/Film trivia point]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
No question it was the CIA.

---

I'm inclined to agree Martin. Guess most who did so in the past no longer have the energy to thrash heads against table-tops in anti-US rant. Good friends to us when Europe was in a mess, now we must do likewise over the Middle East.

Can't help but feel sorry for Syria though, a hopeless uprising followed by what seems like the whole world queuing up to bomb the place. I mean are those big fish we so keen to zap really going to be sitting there waiting for a bomb to drop on their head?

Here's to something better rising from the ashes
 

---

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
This makes no sense at all rolyn. I can't even decipher whether you think destabilising Egypt was a good thing or a bad thing, or whether you think we are obligated to support a US intervention, or whether you think we should just leave the whole thing alone.
 

---

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I don't know what I think either TT.
Sometimes I feel like converting to pacifism over this, you know doning a loin cloth and preaching peace in war torn places until someone assassinates me, the end which usually befalls active pacifists.

Die a warrior, die a pacifist or die sitting on the fence, at least with the first two options you get to take the courage of conviction with you.

[ 27. November 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 

---

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
An interesting article suggests that neither Turkey nor Russia are being 100% upfront about what happened: Belgian Physicists Calculate that Everyone Is Lying About the Downed Russian Jet.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
As far as the number of warnings possible in the time over Turkish territory (if that was where the aircraft was) then clearly the Turkish authorities issued those warnings as the Russian aircraft approached the Turkish border. It is common sense that unidentified on a course that will enter, or come close to, an nations airspace are challenged and warned, and if the response is inadequate that air defence measures are prepared. It is not reasonable to expect that the Turkish military would only issue a "you're in Turkish airspace" warning, a series of "you are approaching Turkish airspace, please change course" warnings while the aircraft are still a significant distance from the border is only logical. Even a course that would take the aircraft a few km south of the Turkish territory would warrant that sort of warning.

So, I'll have to say that part of the analysis is in error. So, only Physics 2, Turkey 0, Russia 0.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Am I wrong in assuming that the planes were shot down from the ground?

When we periodically hear about NATO planes being scrambled to intercept Russian "near" to NATO airspace, I guess there is little confusion about who exactly is being challenged and what the message is (you're getting too close, bozo, change course).

But if you are flying fast in a warzone, someone challenges you in a language you don't understand from the ground about an territorial incursion you don't believe you are doing or about to do - I think it is possible that such messages were not considered to be serious threats.

So it seems to me that they both could be telling the truth: Turkey may well have warned the Russian planes, the Russians may not have noticed or considered them to be real threats.

Or they all could be spinning what happened for their national audience, of course.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But if you are flying fast in a warzone, someone challenges you in a language you don't understand from the ground about an territorial incursion you don't believe you are doing or about to do - I think it is possible that such messages were not considered to be serious threats.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The recordings released by Turkey are in English, which is the international language of aviators. The Russian pilots should have been able to understand the clear instructions to turn south.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

When are we ALL going to realise it's a zero sum game? Before the 10,000 year deadline of evolution that is? Where no social metanarrative, no culture survives. No politics, no philosophy, no language and no, thank God, religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
No question it was the CIA.

---

I'm inclined to agree Martin. Guess most who did so in the past no longer have the energy to thrash heads against table-tops in anti-US rant. Good friends to us when Europe was in a mess, now we must do likewise over the Middle East. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Which particular conspiracy theory is this? Is it being alleged that the CIA orchestrated the bomb attacks in Paris, shot down the Russian fighter, is funding the Daeth, or all three, or some different bizarrity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Yeah, but you're in the CIA ...

---

What? I'd joke that I'd been rumbled, if I wasn't sure which shipmates can spot humour.

Or would denying it mean I must be admitting it?

[ 30. November 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hmmmmmmm. Quadruple think! The CIA can't do that!
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0