…is this the end of NATO?
Here’s the scenario I’m thinking about right now. Imagine that the Turks shot down the Russian plan over Syrian airspace as actually seems somewhat likely given that the Russian pilots apparently ejected over Syrian territory. Even if the Russians did engage in a technical violation is certainly seems like a gross overreaction by the Turks.
Now imagine that the Russians start shooting every time they see a Turkish aircraft, not that unreasonable a course of action under the circumstances. Or start attacking Turkish artillery batteries. Turkey invokes Article 5.
Note that in my scenario Turkey is the aggressor. I don’t think the NATO charter was set up with the understanding the member countries would be the aggressors.
New reports that American backed Syrian rebels shot down the Russian helicopter sent to rescue the pilot(s) of the plane that was shot down by the Turks.
Thank God we have the Smartest & Most Competent Man in the History of All Possible Universes running the show, or I might be concerned that we’re in the process of screwing the Mother of All Pooches.
And that the pilots of the Russian jet were machine-gunned as they fell.
Just read that bit about machine-gunning the pilots in their parachutes. Are their Article of War conventions about shooting at pilots in parachutes and at rescue helicopters?
This is a seriously fucked-up situation.
This is the worst morning of news I remember since 9/11/2001.
I assume it was the Syrian Turkmen who gunned down the pilots, right? Who are they anyway? Ethnic Turks who inhabit Syria, I presume- but where do they fit in the political morass? Are they part of the so-called moderate resistance?
The Turkmen are Erdogan’s men, presumably fighting for a Greater Turkey.
And gunning down the pilots is a definite war crime. So, good on us for having such great partners in the fight against Islamic Terrorism that they will commit war crimes while shouting “Allahu Akbar!” Making me completely convinced that the Administration will do a bang up job vetting Syrian refugees for entry into the US.
Is there any rationale for Obama’s ME policies at this point? It can’t even be that he’s doing things for domestic political concerns, as his policies are pretty unpopular at the moment. It’s one random action after another. Yesterday his Administration issues a world-wide travel alert for Americans to be wary of terrorism in public places, today he says that we can’t be afraid of anything because then the terrorists have won. So they won yesterday when his Administration issued that warning, and effectively surrendered? He can’t even keep things rhetorically coherent for a 24 hour period now. A Magic Eight-ball would be doing better than this. “Signs point to bomb the fuck out of the bad guys!” as opposed to giving them warning before the bombing strikes because we’re afraid we might actually, you know, kill some fucking terrorists.
Magic Eight-ball for President.
This isn’t good.
The Turks have been assholes from the start. They’re the ones letting “foreign fighters” in to join ISIS. They are quite likely helping ISIS smuggle oil out. They sat on their hands during the Kobane siege. They regularly bomb the Kurds. And Erdogan is both an Islamist and anti-democratic.
In the map I’m seeing it appears that at worst the Russians were crossing a two mile wide protrusion of Turkish territory. If that’s the case then this was a Turkish overreaction.
And now we’re on the hook backing Turkey? Obama quashed that idea for now in his presser with Hollande. But that doesn’t mean this is the end of it by any means. If Putin retaliates by downing a Turkish plane. . . Well, I’ll be damned if I know. But I for one am not interested in war with Russia on behalf of Turkey.
A lot may hang on what the NSA and CIA have to say about whether this plane was or was not in Turkish air.
Ah, I was hoping there was more distance and plausible deniability from Erdogan. The shooting of the plane itself is a problem of course, but if it had crossed the border I think they can finesse that (heard on NPR that the Turks had forewarned they would shoot any planes that violated their airspace, and that they warned these pilots 10 times….still don’t think they should have shot it down but it seems less of a hair trigger response when you get the backstory.)
The shooting of the pilots as they evacuated though, crosses a whole ‘nother line.
From Obama’s press conference with Hollande:
Also:
He is aware that the Russians are in Syria not to overthrow Assad but to help bolster his government, right? I mean, someone has informed him that this is the official Russian policy? Because it sure sounds like he has no idea that the Russians have entirely different goals in that country than he does.
Also, how moderate is this opposition if they’re committing war crimes while shouting “Allahu Akbar”?
Jim Miklaszewski is reporting that the DoD says the Russians violated Turkish air space – but for perhaps as little as two seconds. So presumably the Turks saw the Russians heading that way, warned them, the Russians ignored the warnings and… boom!
If only Turkey wasn’t in NATO I’d be quietly amused.
My understanding is the Turk rules of engagement include shooting down aircraft within 15k of Turkish territory. I suspect the Russians may disagree with the validity of such a perspective.
I suppose the “good” thing about the Turkmen shooting at the pilot is that the Russians can shift their retaliation from the Turkish government to this bunch on the ground.
Pretty sure this will not inspire Mr. Putin to focus on ISIS alone. The “moderate” rebels – who only moderately shoot at men hanging helpless in parachute harnesses – are likely to take a pretty rough hit. They’re going to want to take an out-of-town trip for the next week or so.
And what does Putin gain from any of this, from being involved? He’s holding onto a naval base of no real strategic value? So far he’s lost a civilian airliner with all aboard, an Su-24, and at least one air force pilot.
Dave, I’m starting to like your “theme park” idea.
Relax Michael. Even Obama isn’t incompetent or craven enough to fight the Turks war…….unless he thinks it will carry Virginia.
Putin gets to demonstrate that Russia keeps its word and stands by its friends. Thisis a long term investment, and it is more important than the bases, which are important, too.
It gives Putin the ability to publicly fume, displaying his strong displeasure with Turkey. That looks good at home. Furthermore, I understand that Russia and Turkey have quite a long history of being each other’s nemesis.
It also tests the bonds of the NATO agreement, specifically the “one-for-all-and-all-for-one” applications of article 5, twisting around in the heads of the curious.
In the meantime, take solace in remembering the sanguine words of our sainted leader — “this is just a set-back.”
Isn’t Russia building a nuclear reactor in Turkey? They sell a lot of gas to Turkey, their second largest customer after Germany. I will be kind of surprised to see this escalate much, though I can see Putin declaring Turkish planes in Syria will be shot down. Don’t really see how this helped Turkey.
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=TUR
While getting Turkey into NATO at the end of WWII was a very good idea, not sure they are still as important to us, or vice versa. Anyway, I am betting that there is some clause in the NATO agreement that can be interpreted as members not needing to support others when they are the aggressor.
Steve
Article 5 is whatever the Allies want it to be:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .”
They me deem no action necessary. They may deem action necessary but not force. They may consider security to have been “restored” by the shooting down of the plane.
I am not sure what all the fuss is about. The Bellman has said that defeating AGW will end terrorism, and he has said it twice. He will surely say it in Paris, and what he tells us three times is true.
At least a mathematician once said so, and if you cannot believe a mathematician, how can you believe AGW.