Breaking news on Sky.....

[Postman Plod]

Syria is still a sovereign country, yes? Despite the fact that "we" wanted to bomb the crap out of Assad a year ago, he is still the legitimate leader of Syria, and he has invited the Russian government to assist in his defence against Rebel (CystISIS / Other) forces. Yes?

So if Coallition forces start invading Syrian airspace, Assad has every right to defend, and given Russia has been invited to the party by Assad, for Russian forces to intervene on Assad's behalf. No?

Now I'd guess Assad has either been unable, or unwilling to intervene himself, and because much of the coalition action has been against CystISIS, Moscow has probably been a little ambivalent to the prospect of intervening. However now a coalition partner has decided to shoot a Russian aircraft out of the sky, wherever that may have taken place, it would be fair they may be a little less willing to allow intervention in a sovereign country it's been asked to help protect.

So Tourist
The US could still wipe out their little force in a morning, they just now have a little chance to sting in the process.

And to be honest, the Turks have the capability too.

Why the hell would they do that?! a MASSIVE, basically unwarranted escalation, directly against a sovereign state that's been invited by the host state to protect it! That's the quickest route to WW3!

and Pr00ne,
Just This Once,

Because we are bombing IS, they too are bombing IS, amongst others, so why does the deployment of a defensive SAM system present a threat to us?

A "Coalition" aircraft has just shot a Russian aircraft out of the sky, they perhaps might be a little less willing to turn a blind eye to Coalition aircraft invading the country they've been asked to defend?

Hopefully not however.

but Turkey look like the kind of ally many people could do without.

[Just This Once...]

Pretty much how I view it. We made an assumption that Assad would not dare exercise his reasonably capable IADS against a coalition aircraft; even if we were not exactly invited into his airspace. With the Russian intervention I'm not sure this assumption is a strong as it was.

At suitable point of his choosing, what is to stop Assad sending a polite note asking the coalition to stop flying their aircraft over his country?

[Tourist]

So Tourist
Why the hell would they do that?! a MASSIVE, basically unwarranted escalation, directly against a sovereign state that's been invited by the host state to protect it! That's the quickest route to WW3!

Calm down dear....

My answer was in response to an assertion that because Russia has brought some big boy toys to the area, they are now in charge. They are patently not.

[Tourist]

At suitable point of his choosing, what is to stop Assad sending a polite note asking the coalition to stop flying their aircraft over his country?

The fact that he knows Russia won't back him up against NATO if he does?

[PhilipG]

I feel that there are at least two different threads going through here.

Firstly the right of any country to defend its own airspace and secondly the agreed primary target for all the air forces in the region ISIS, except possibly the Turkish air force that has the Kurds as its primary target we are lead to believe.

I have heard no discussion of the Syrian State asking the coalition not to invade its air space and bomb ISIS targets, I have heard of Turkey issuing Diplomatic Messages etc to the Russians about not entering their airspace.

It cannot be too difficult for the Russians to understand that if they bomb a Turkish backed group just to the south of the border using a type of plane that the Syrian air force has, remember many of the Russian planes in photos have had their markings removed, that if they cross the border they are in danger of lethal force being used, the Syrians did shoot down an F4 for a slightly similar infringement.

As for all of the coalition targeting ISIS, I would have thought by now that there were rather fewer targets available than a few months ago. Do all parties engaged in the campaign have the same definition of what at ISIS target actually is? Assuming hat the Russian Cruise Missiles used the other week actually hit ISIS targets, was there any prior warning of these targets, to avert the possibility of two attacks at the same time on the same target?

[Just This Once...]

The fact that he knows Russia won't back him up against NATO if he does?

Perhaps, but they could be more subtle and still regain some control of the air and frustrate the coalition.

Russian & Syria could take defacto control of the airspace by issuing air control orders, transit corridors etc under the guise of preventing mid-airs, fratricide or collateral damage. What would the coalition do in the face of such (ahem) reasonable cooperation?

[SASless]

Waiting on orders to fight from our current C-in-C might be a very long wait!

He is big on "talk" but very short on "walk".

You notice he did not throw down any Red Paint on the Ground....so he is at least one order of magnitude less aggrieved by all this Russia, Syria, Turkey, ISIS stuff than with just Assad using Chemical Weapons even.

Then we have to remember....the Dolt cannot even utter "ISIS" and is now using "Daesh" in order not to say the Words "Islamic", "Radical", or "Terrorism" in the same Month.

[Tourist]

Firstly the right of any country to defend its own airspace and secondly the agreed primary target for all the air forces in the region ISIS, except possibly the Turkish air force that has the Kurds as its primary target we are lead to believe.


You are naïve if you believe that the Russians primary target is ISIS.

[camelspyyder]

The Turks too are not as concerned with IS as they are with bombing the Kurds - ironically Iraq's major ally on the ground against IS.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Why don't Syria just ask Russia to close all Syrian airspace. SA-21 is an awesome bit of kit and may be a prelude to the above happening, not much the US&A can do about Assad asking the Russians to do it. No way have the US&A the balls to attack SA-21/SU-34. Goes without saying the same applies to UK, who just tag along submissively on a bitch collar with their master.

[Tourist]

Why don't Syria just ask Russia to close all Syrian airspace. SA-21 is an awesome bit of kit and may be a prelude to the above happening, not much the US&A can do about Assad asking the Russians to do it. No way have the US&A the balls to attack SA-21/SU-34. Goes without saying the same applies to UK, who just tag along submissively on a bitch collar with their master.


You are just being childish.

Why would the US have to attack the Russians?

The Russians are hardly about to attack the US because Assad asks nicely.

The Russians are not at their cold war height. They are a UK level military now.

They are in no way a relevant competitor to the US military might.

[Thelma Viaduct]

You are just being childish.

Why would the US have to attack the Russians?

The Russians are hardly about to attack the US because Assad asks nicely.

The Russians are not at their cold war height. They are a UK level military now.

They are in no way a relevant competitor to the US military might.

Syria have asked Russia to be their guest to attack 'terrorists', Syria can ask Russia to close Syrian airspace and deny the 'allies' access.

If Russia were to agree, the US&A (with submissive allies) would be foolish to fly in a SA-21/ SU-34 defended environment. The US&A would not risk a conflict with Russia over Syria, it's not worth it. Putin knows that, Assad knows it and Obama too. Russia would get to keep their Syrian ports and regional influence.

I'm sure someone of your limited intellect can follow that possible scenario.

Apologies for any grammatical errors, currently on my phone. 😉

[Lonewolf_50]

Syria have asked Russia to be their guest to attack 'terrorists', Syria can ask Russia to close Syrian airspace and deny the 'allies' access. Are the air ops against IS being done with explicit Syrian permission (all nations not Russia) or because Assad can't stop anyone flying over his airspace? :confused: I think there is some kind of back channel deal, but I could be very wrong.

[Pontius Navigator]

That also goes for the Russians taking out a Nato aircraft with their new SAMs.

Russia is no longer in the same league as Nato conventionally, and they know it.
That is called deterrence. Will the Turks believe the NATO shield to be impregnable, or would NATO accept tat for tit?

[downsizer]

I find the posters who still see Syria as a functioning state, and class it as such, hilarious.

They clearly have a very poor understanding of what is happening on the ground.

[MPN11]

Congratulations to all recent contributors, of whatever shade and intellect, because in the last page or so you have managed to neatly encapsulate the miasma that is Syria and Iraq .. and Turkey ... right now.

So many factions/Governments, of various loyalties/issues/religions, all playing in the same sand-pit for their varied objectives.

Yes, I accept that IS [let's skip the variations, whimsical or not, for simplicity] is 'probably' the prime target for most ... or is it also an excuse? Turkey v Kurds, Rebels v Assad, Sunni v Shia?

And WHO is buying the oil that funds IS? There are plenty of disparate players in that game, including I suspect the bloody Kingdom of Saud.

The person who intellectually can unravel this farrago deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. And neither of the winners will be Sykes-Picot.

[SkyHawk-N]

More detailed information from the Russian perspective.

Most interesting bit for me was ...


To attack the Russian bomber with a close-range air-to-air missile, the Turkish fighter jet had to enter Syrian airspace, where it remained for about 40 seconds. Having launched its missile from a distance of 5-7 kilometers, the F-16 immediately turned towards the Turkish border, simultaneously dropping its altitude sharply, thus disappearing from the range of Russian radars at the Khmeimim airbase....
The crew of the second Su-24M had a clear view of the moment the missile was fired from the Turkish F-16, and reported this to base.


https://www.rt.com/news/323651-turkey-su24-downing-syria/

[MPN11]

Or, stripping out the posturing from both sides ... the Russians were pushing the boundaries and the Turks over-reacted?

And who believes anything either side would say anyway?

[Pontius Navigator]

@MPN 11 or the middle east peace ambassador (but I wouldn't bet on him)

[MPN11]

...or the middle east peace ambassador (but I wouldn't bet on him)

Didn't he resign?

Went out on a high note, though :D :D

[glad rag]

You mean this kunt?

Well there's a thing indeed....

URL below.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c006f366cbb698360051af125676da14d2352ffe/12_213_4868_2920/4868.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&


https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c006f366cbb698360051af125676da14d2352ffe/12_213_4868_2920/4868.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&ditto to above...

Ref
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/11649854/Tony-Blair-accused-of-trying-to-erase-his-role-in-rise-of-Isil.html

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/59086/tony-blair-accused-of-lies-over-syrian-wmds


https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c006f366cbb698360051af125676da14d2352ffe/12_213_4868_2920/4868.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&

[al_renko]

The Turks should be kicked out of NATO as soon as possible before this idiot Erdogan goes to far,and then we shall see who is playing with fire.

[Thrust Augmentation]

The Russians are not at their cold war height. They are a UK level military now



Agreed on the 1st statement, but the second - seriously?

[Chinny Crewman]

....but the second - seriously?

They're not that bad are they?

[AreOut]

Are the air ops against IS being done with explicit Syrian permission (all nations not Russia) or because Assad can't stop anyone flying over his airspace? I think there is some kind of back channel deal, but I could be very wrong.

I think Assad has welcomed western strikes although he knew those were mainly for posturing and didn't have much of effect on ISIS(considering very "moot" RoE). So even if he had the means to close the airspace he wouldn't do it IMO, ISIS was and still is the biggest threat to him as all other factions can't rally more than a thousand or two of fighters each at any given time. Those "moderate" warlords seem not to really like each other.

[ORAC]

This should be fun. Russia plans to blockage the Syrian-Turkish border, through which of course the Turks supply their allies, Assad's foes.

Not sure how they intend to do it, as I can't see it being effective with the small number of aircraft they have in the region, and ground troops would be just about impossible to supply, especially if the Turks retaliated by closing the Bosphorus.

I note the substantial dig they make at the US et al, as well as justifying it riding on Hollande's coat tails....

Russia ready to coordinate steps to block Turkish-Syrian border — FM (http://tass.ru/en/politics/840018)

MOSCOW, November 27. /TASS/. Russia is ready to coordinate practical steps to block the Turkish-Syrian border in cooperation with Damascus, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Friday after talks with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem.

Lavrov recalled that French President Francois Hollande earlier voiced the proposal to adopt specific measures to block the Turkish-Syrian border.

"We actively support that. We are open for coordination of practical steps, certainly, in interaction with the Syrian government," he said. "We are convinced that by blocking the border we will in many respects solve the tasks to eradicate terrorism on Syrian soil. We hope that initiative by President Hollande will be implemented within the framework of our joint work, including in the Group of Support for Syria," the minister said.

Russia has questions about Ankara’s commitment to anti-terror efforts

Lavrov pointed out that Russia has question about Ankara’s real plans, including those on counter-terrorist efforts.

"The hotbed of terrorist treat is concentrated in vast territories of Syria and Iraq," he said. "It is the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and we have a common opinion that it can be exterminated only without any double standards. Special responsibility in terms of denouncing such double standards and acting in a united front against terrorism rests on Syria’s neighbor countries."

"We think it highly cynical when some of the countries speak about their commitment to the corresponding United Nations Security Council resolutions and declare themselves members of anti-terrorist coalitions but in reality are playing a game where terrorists are allocated the role of secret allies," Lavrov stressed. "We have more and more questions about Ankara’s real plans and the degree of its readiness to exterminate terrorism, in particular in Syria, and its commitment to the normalization of the situation in Syria."

The Russian top diplomat drew attention to the statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stressed that terrorist threat could be countered through the efforts of the entire world community, with due respect to the norms of international law and the United Nations Security Council’s central role.

"We are ready to take due account of these or those concerns and interests of the countries committed to anti-terrorist efforts and are ready for such formats of coalition, cooperation and coordination that would cause no discomfort to anyone," he said. "Now it is up to our partners, including those who are members of the coalition formed last year by the United States, which has yielded no visible results as of yet."

[Pontius Navigator]

Sealing a porous border would seem to be highly desirable.

[AreOut]

"Not sure how they intend to do it, as I can't see it being effective with the small number of aircraft they have in the region"

they don't have to close it hermetically, destroying a convoy or two here and there will make turkish truck drivers think twice before crossing the border

[Stanwell]

ORAC,
"Lavrov pointed out that Russia has question about Ankara's real plans..."

Well, of course - and nobody has question (sic) about RUSSIA's real agenda, do they?


This guy (Lavrov), by comparison, makes both George Dubya's AND Comical Ali's past pronouncements appear most believable.

[smujsmith]

And now it seems Russian embargoes on importation of Turkish goods and services, severe cut backs on travel for Russian citizens to Turkey etc etc. I do hope Erdogan feels he is reward for the shoot down is worth the effect on his economy.

Smudge

[GlobalNav]

"Expel the Turks
The Turks should be kicked out of NATO as soon as possible before this idiot Erdogan goes to far,and then we shall see who is playing with fire."

On the contrary. The Turks are standing up to the real aggressor and supporter of aggressors in the middle east. NATO should show backbone (and brains) in the way it supports Turkey and resists Vladimir's agenda. The Turkish shootdown was a miscalculation, but Russia is the aggressor and must be carefully restricted.

[smujsmith]

" The Turkish shootdown was a miscalculation, but Russia is the aggressor and must be carefully restricted. ". - I can't believe I just read that total contradiction of terms. Miscalculation ? You mean they got it wrong and an aviator, doing his job, attacking terrorists was killed as a result. And NATO should support the party in the wrong ? When did doing the wrong thing become the thing for "our side" to back? Are you a paid government spin doctor mate ?

[Easy Street]

smuj - Quite so.

GlobalNav,

I understand the US's historical perspective on this. Given that the US's principal strategic rival over many decades was the USSR, it made sense to ally with jihadists to harry the Soviets' southern flank and hinder their efforts to build alliances in the Middle East. It was a good strategy in as much as it achieved its primary aim and was compatible with good relations with the Saudis, which brought access to oil and helped the US's secondary post-WW2 aim of discouraging French and British colonialism in the region.

The trouble is, today, the Russians are no longer the principal grand strategic threat, certainly not to the US and not even to the Europeans. Putin's activities in Crimea and East Ukraine are significant roadblocks to normal relations with Europe, but no-one on this continent believes that his intentions are anything more than re-establishment of what he sees as Russia's historic zone of influence or buffer zone, whatever terminology you choose. Whether you think Russia is entitled to that is beside the point, and clearly where you reside in Europe has an effect. But the vast majority of us are not desperately unsettled by it; deterrence has prevented aggression against NATO members and, provided we maintain a credible deterrent (something the recent SDSR took care to address) then there is no reason why it should not continue to do so.

The problem for the US's tried-and-tested strategy is that its allies in the region, the Saudis and like-minded folk in Qatar and Turkey, are increasingly seen in Europe as "the problem" - indeed a grand strategic problem of far greater relevance to Western Europe than anything Moscow can threaten. The supplanting of traditional Islamic practices by Wahhabism, endorsed and exported with Saudi backing, has to a great extent underscored the current conflict in the Middle East and risks driving a wedge into societies wherever a significant Muslim minority exists. I offer that the US is better-placed than most to resist this effect thanks to its particular culture of patriotism and its small Muslim community. The same defences do not exist in Europe, where traditional patriotism has been dismantled over recent decades as a defence against nationalistic warfare, and where history, proximity and now a refugee crisis greatly complicate our relations with the Muslim world.

The result is that many of us are deeply uneasy over the US's strategy and worry that, through our traditional pro-US, anti-Russia, pro-Saudi, anti-Iran stances, and constrained by Turkish membership of NATO, we have got ourselves too firmly entrenched in the "Assad must go" camp to have any hope of meeting our strategic objectives at acceptable cost. Even the Daily Mail has not fallen for the "70,000 moderates" line. That is why we are very worried about our NATO treaty commitments dragging us into conflict with Russia when they seem, to many, to have a better grand strategy than we do. The parallels between the current mess and the system of alliances that helped bring about WW1 are quite uncomfortable.

[phil9560]

Brilliant ^^

[Pontius Navigator]

@Phil, seconded, would that our media pundits and talking heads could be as concise.

[Clockwork Mouse]

Excellent post ES.

[peter we]

You are utterly naive and ill-informed if you believe that Russia is not a major strategic threat to the West.

Nato thinks Russia is on par with Daesh

NATO Chief Names IS and Russia as Greatest Threats to Peace | News | The Moscow Times (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/nato-chief-names-is-and-russia-as-greatest-threats-to-peace/507193.html)

Russia, views NATO as enemy number 1

https://www.rt.com/news/217823-putin-russian-military-doctrine/

Russia is not in Syria to fight 'terrorism' they are their to defend their strategic interests, Assad at this point but their naval base in reality. Syria is extremely important to them, its geographically close. But they are not there to fight Daesh and Russia is not our ally. Russia will will their situation to attack and weaken Nato.

Repeatedly overflying Turkey and bombing the border crossing were a deliberate policy to attack and weaken Nato. Divide and conquer via Hybrid Warfare is their goal.

The Russians believe the Holy Russia Empire is the descendant of the Roman Empire they are the want to rebuild their empire. Nato has been cast as The Nazi's and they see them selves as the rebuilt Soviet Empire with a heavy dose of Religious fanaticism added.

I think a nuclear armed nation who believes it has a divine right to rebuild its Empire, through the destruction of Godless, debauched savages (you) is more of a threat than IS.

[Chugalug2]

Yes, excellent post ES. The logic of which seems to be that Saudi Arabia, and certain other Gulf States, are the real threat to world security, rather than various gangs of their proxy thugs.

I have posted elsewhere that if we can embargo other "rogue states" such as N Korea, South Africa, and Myanmar, then logic would suggest the same applies here, if a UN resolution to that effect can be obtained. That of course would immediately deny us of their oil, which in turn would have very serious economic repercussions. It would indeed be a "courageous decision, Prime Minister", but anything less will simply be a re-run of all the other Middle East adventures and turn out for the worse rather than the better I would suggest.

[al_renko]

When that idiot Erdogan returns the bullett ridden body of Lt Col Peshkov I think comrade putin will be even more pissed off.

[smujsmith]

Chugalug2,

Totally agree with your appraisal, and our apparent slavish adherence to the House of Saud's direction, with regard to Middle East involvement since 2003. With the Bliar as the prime example, there's no doubt that politicians in the correct positions can do well for their bank accounts. No wonder Cameron is such a tosser.

Smudge :ok:

[GlobalNav]

I, too, am not enthusiastic about the US "strategy" in the Middle East, or rather, lately, the practical lack of one. Nor am I enthusiastic about the ill-fated strategy attempted by the US in Iraq and Afganistan. I believe we do need to go after our enemies, but that doesn't include "nation-building" on the premise of "fix what you broke." Let the natives build their own country and if the result is a dangerous enemy of the free world, then suffer the consequences. We stuck around in Iraq and Afganistan thinking we could change their hearts and minds and have them secure their own government. Sorry, they have a different set of values and we won't and shouldn't try to change that. Not much of what the US created and propped up lasted after we left.

Perhaps, Easy Steeet is correct that Russia is not the number one strategic threat. But I think Putin wouldn't mind changing that, and if the truth be known, he is in the background fomenting many anti- west activities in this world, including particularly those of Iran. He is a bigger threat than is obvious. I believe his objective is to restore super-power status of Russia, and do that primarily by undermining the welfare of the US and her allies. He needs to be consistently resisted because he promotes international insecurity. This is evidenced by the lack of a single true peace-seeking action from that country. Crimea, Ukraine, and even the remainder of former Soviet/Warsaw Pact states have no doubt about Vladimir's designs. We ignore them at our peril.

[al_renko]

A lot of what you say would be true but in the reverse! How is Dick's Halliburton $39.5 Billion,probably needs a Syrian top up!

[SkyHawk-N]

Unsurprisingly it looks like the Russians are arming their SU-34 with air-to-air capability. I don't understand a word of this video, anyone out there care to translate the gist of it?

LiveLeak.com - Su-34 in Syria, first received missiles "air-air"

[SkyHawk-N]

More here on RT News (https://www.rt.com/news/323992-russia-syria-air-missile/)