It’s a … creative theory held by a lot of people. They used the exact same bad weather excuse that the Russians used 2 days before. Get it?
ok. The whole idea with retaliating on an uninvolved third part is probably easier to understand for an American.
Turkish and Greek jets engaged in tense jockeying after Turkey violated Greek airspace
Since Russia doesn’t want to get into a war with NATO, their retaliation might take the form of bombing the shit out of the anti-Assad forces in Syria who are most closely allied with the west. If so, wouldn’t establishing a no-fly zone, as many Presidential candidates are calling for, present a significant risk of a direct conflict with Russia?
The US President has the US military bombing ISIS. He famously (or infamously) walked to the brink of attacking Assad but backed away, and that hasn’t happened. So whatever the policy should be or whatever various talking heads on TV may say, the actual policy is demonstrably anti-ISIS first featuring lethal force; anti-Assad is definitely a weaker theme, consisting basically of words only, plus very limited help to non-ISIS anti-Assad forces.
US policy toward the Kurds has some element of contradiction. The semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurds are perhaps the closest non-Western ally in the US fight against ISIS such as it is, and Kurdish fighters in Syria have also been directly supported by US airstrikes in battles with ISIS. But the US tries to take a more neutral stance as it relates to Turkey v the Kurds.
The other important point is that ISIS really isn’t the only effective opposition to Assad, despite relative lack of US support for non-ISIS anti-Assad forces in its stated anti-Assad policy. Russia was hardly attacking ISIS at all prior to the airliner downing in the Sinai and it’s not clear that will really change permanently. Russia, Iran and Syria share at least an interim goal to defeat non-ISIS anti-Assad forces (that’s who the downed Su-24 was operating against for example, not much ISIS presence in that area). If they can do that, they can present the West with choice of either support Assad or de facto support ISIS. Or support a semi-status quo regime in Syria which maintains Russian and Iranian influence, or else de facto support ISIS; Russia and Iran might be willing to throw Assad himself under the bus at some point in a future negotiation.
But besides PR or face saving aspects related to the airliner downing, Putin still has no real reason in the strategic terms to go after ISIS. He does have a reason to support Assad and combat anti-Assad forces other than ISIS. In fact it’s interesting to consider how a blow up with Turkey might serve Putin’s interest in turning the page from intense Russian public interest in ISIS. Perhaps a coincidence.
See, now that’s an example.
You should read up a bit or even read the complete articles that you link. Saying Armenia is an uninvolved third party kinda glosses over the fact that
(from your earlier linked article)
Also, I am not American.
Your earlier link also contained this …creative theory:
Read past the title, dude.
That doesn’t matter to me. There is no reason to think the Russian fighter had hostile intent towards any Turkish asset.
Yeah, a horrible miscalculation resulted in ending Putin’s shunning by the West, the recapturing of much Syrian territory previously lost to the rebels and the reminder to all that Russia will not be ignored in the Middle East. Obama is the one who miscalculated as is usual with him in foreign policy matters.
GOOOOOO Team ASSAD! Give me an ‘A’! Give me an ‘S’! Give me another ‘S’! Give me another ‘A’! Give me a ‘D’! What’s that spell! ASSAD! YEH!!!
So what should Obama have done that he didn’t do, and what would Russia have done in response?
One of the pilot is apparently dead, status of the other unknown last I checked.
Entirely likely. The various factions in the Syrian war do not seem to be following Geneva conventions. The use of poison gas vs. civilians last year should have been a tip-off for that. There’s also such charming things as beheading folks, mass murder, sexual and other slavery, and burning prisoners alive. I don’t it’s “fury over Russia being in Syria” so much as this a very brutal, no-rules conflict in general.
That’s bullshit. They intended to kill those guys as they descended.
To be fair, Russia is not the only nation to have shot down a civilian airliner.
Denounce, renounce, and condemn.
He should have sent in troops! Oh, wait, it’s a quagmire when American troops invade, and only a glorious victory when Russia does it.
Make a strong speech about being stabbed in the back! Oh, wait, it’s only scary when Putin says that. Obama is weak when he talks about ultimatums.
Build an international coalition! Oh, wait, that’s only a real thing when someone thinks the Saudis are snuggling up to Putin. Otherwise it’s just more ways for the Saudis and others to show America’s weakness that we can’t go it alone.
I know! Announce a process beginning with an international conference to plan for Syria’s future without Assad! No, that too is a problem - when Russia announces this, it’s a game-changer that shows how Russia is flexing its diplomatic muscle. When Kerry announces exactly the same plan, it makes no sense and proves that Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing.
It just occurred to me.
Obama needs to score five goals in hockey with nobody allowed to check him, judo chop a few kids, and ride a horse with no shirt on. That will solve everything. Maybe he should oppress some gays while he’s at it.
Theres an excellent Article here on Ars Technica pointing out that due to differences between GLONASS and GPS accuracy its possible that both Turkey and Russia believed that they in the right. Eg that the pilot really believed he was in Syria and the Turkish military really believed the plane was in Turkey.
Also Turkey just four days ago warned Russia to quit bombing Turkmen villages inside Syria but near the border:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-russia-idUSKCN0T91MO20151120#tjJu2WZo2KF1Ci5d.97
My personal opinion is that I hope NATO firmly tells Turkey that if they want to pick fights to protect their assets inside Syria they are on their own, article 5 does not apply. So yeah, Turkey is free to launch missiles at Russian jets that stray too close to the border if they wish. Just don’t drag NATO into it if Russia retaliates.
Well, let’s think about this. Russia is still subject to sanctions and quasi-pariah status over its Ukraine intervention. So far Russia’s involvement in Syria has earned it a bunch of dead Russian tourists to Egypt and an embarrassing incident with Turkey, but not much else. Worse for Putin, he’s pretty much stuck throwing good money after bad no matter how long it takes to achieve an outcome perceived as favorable to Russia, even as his economy’s in the shitter and he’s overstretched by other commitments; either that, or he simply cries “uncle” at some point and acquiesces in a less favorable outcome, to the great detriment of his domestic prestige. Frankly, the only person having a worse hair day than Assad in all of this is Putin.
I find it surprising the general consensus here is that we should Erdogan.
He’s a lying, autocratic piece of trash. (Just like Putin). Why should we not think he had ulterior motives in shooting down a Russian plane?
This is the perfect power play for a guy who doesn’t really give a shit about the US, Russia, or ISIS. This distraction will let him continue to fight the Kurds–the only enemy he really cares about, while the rest of the world quibbles.
They can shoot down one plane you think they could repel a serious bombing strike?
Well, again, Turkey has a pretty capable air force. They build their own F16’s, and many of their older airframes such as the F4 have been updated.
I’d say they have enough of a chance at repelling a bombing strike to make Russia consider whether it would be worth it. However, I think that if they were on their own against Russia in a long conflict, Russia’s quantity would probably wear away at their quality.
Will Britain then be sending a light brigade?