According to this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18584872), Turkey has invoked Article 4 of NATOs founding treaty. Turkey is also moving troops and equipment to further secure their border. When this was used in 2003, NATO pretty much just bolstered Turkeys defense. Do you think that will happen here, or something more? Less? They’ve already let some stuff slip since the start of this mess, and seem to be smart enough not to want any conflict. When has Article 4 been used before?
Also according to that article, it says Turkey changed its rules of engagement. What types of changes would an incident like this precipitate? Some sort of clause for retaliation or faster response should a similar incident occur?
Why is there any dispute at all over where the plane went down? You would think there would be some sort of radar from any of the countries, or any of the many military ships in the area, or nearby planes, or possibly visual sightings, but no, all we have is a missing plane, a big row, and significantly different stories. So why is the plane missing, in this world of GPS, radar, and who knows what else? Also, would any of the numerous radar sets in the vicinity have picked up a missile, to be able to confirm or deny Turkeys claims?
Something along these lines, I suppose :
Article 4 brings in all NATO members for consultation. In practical terms, it basically means that a threat has been deemed to exist and that the member state is ramping up its defcon level.
I would guess that it gives a heads up if turkey in this case has to pull out of joint exercises and current force deployments with nato specific formations like StanForLant. Some military practical requests like spare parts, fuel and munitions from nato stocks.
I think that one is diplomatic in nature, your letting everyone know your changing your defcon posture, which could lead to hostile actions. Basically telling the syrians that talking about this would be what they call a strong suggestion.
From what i have read, its a congested piece of airspace, where either countries airforces can accidently violate a sovereign airspace. The plane in question was a recon version of the F4 Phantom and may have been taking advantage of an accidental slip.
Turkey claims that they ordered their people out of syrian airspace, when their radar tracked it, so Turkey was guilty, but usually stuff like that is resolved with a diplomatic note, and not by a shoot down.
The plane is not missing, they have recovered wreckage, its the remains of the aircrew thats missing. They found helmets and boots, but no bodies, which may not be possible depending on the speed and angle that they separated from the aircraft.
The question is, has Turkey been routinely spying on syrian defenses in that particular area, and did damascus simply send their own message with the shoot down.
According to this they haven’t recovered the wreckage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18707069
And does anyone have an answer, or at least possible answer to that question? Why would Turkey be spying on Syrian border defenses, and why would they fly into Syria to do that instead of flying high right next to the border or using satellite intel?
Does Turkey have access to satellites?
The greater worry is that, if there are any further hostile moves on the part of Syria, Turkey could invoke Article 5.
Given the overall lack of appetite for military adventures in the ME on the part of most NATO members, it is interesting to speculate what would happen if it did.
Yes, including several earth observation satellites. They’re due to launch an even more powerful one later this year that has the Israelis a little ruffled. Right now they’re buying slots on other nations rockets, but they have a domestic launch scheduled for 2015.
Care to speculate at all? What might cause Turkey to do so? Would they invoke it unless de facto war has already broken out between them?
The only time as far as I know that Article 5 was invoked was as a result of the 9-11 attack, as against Afganistan, essentially to use NATO to engage in regime change because Afganistan was proving dangerous.
If a hostile incident linked to the Syrian government were to occur, Turkey may seek to invoke Article 5 to obtain a consensus for some regime-change - using access to NATO resources. It is to Turkey’s advantage to have a stable and friendly regme in Syria, rather than the current mess. Assuming of course that a stable and friendly regime results from NATO action.
Nitpick , Turkey is not and has never been a contributor to Stanavforlant, and it would be bizarre if they had/did.
As to spying, all nations spy on all other nations, even the good guys.