Turkey shoots down Russian war plane

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

It's about protecting basic human rights and standing up for common decency. It's about choosing to live in the 21st century instead of ignorantly clinging to the social norms of the 11th and advocating for others to do the same. .

 

Well, the thing about human rights is that those are a very volatile thing. They seem to be changing a lot in a relatively short time. Also, what was that about 11th century? Allan Turing disapprovingly stares at you from his grave.

 

So, let me get this straight - all the time everyone is screaming that there's no democracy in Russia, but when it comes down to a highly populist topic of LGBT rights, suddenly everyone says that Russia should go against the democratic procedure and the vox populi?

 

 

 

It's not about deciding things for the Russian people. It's about protecting basic human rights and standing up for common decency.

 

And here I thought that not all people in the world shall share the same ideals and world views. You are very misguided if you think that everyone should be exactly the same.

Edited November 26, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[iNow]

I'll simply point you to an important quote from one of your Russian contemporaries:

 

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” ― Leo Tolstoy

 

...and to another from one of my American ones:

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” ― Samuel Adams

[CharonY]

Well, things are certainly complicated. Russia is basically the only one openly backing Assad, Iran covertly so. In contrast the US and Europe (mostly France and UK) have been supporting the rebels that now are also getting attacked by the Russians. Turkey is a bit in a weird situation and I guess it would require some serious reading (and probably more information that is not available yet) to disentangle all the levels of involvement. For starters, the diplomatic relationship between Turkey and Syria really started to worsen post 2011, resulting in direct support of rebels. Yet, it seems that Turkey is somewhat eager to take more direct measures as they do not want a Kurdish state being carved out from the remains of Syria. And in that context the Turkish dealings with ISIS are more than a bit sketchy, Unfortunately it has clearly become part of a propaganda war which makes current assessments unreliable at best. It will take time until actual information leaks out. I do believe that the oil dealings at least are actually documented.

 

In that context it is probably relevant to highlight that it is not simply a three-party war but has actually a host of smaller factions with various differing allegiances. For example, the al-Nusra Front is an Al Qaeda branch fighting primarily against the Syrian government. They have coordinated with other Syrian rebels (specifically the Free Syrian Army, which actually is not homogeneous, either), but was fighting with ISIS. To make things more complicated defectors from the al Nusra Front have merged with other smaller groups to form the Jaysh al-Jihad, which, in turn allied with ISIS. Or take another islamic group: Jaysh al-Islam, is part of the Islamic front of the rebels. This groups is allegedly supported by Saudi Arabia as a counter to the al-Nusra front and are allied with FSA (which whom they share little ideological similarity).

 

Really, just trying to list the involved parties would take quite a while, and even longer to display who is allied with whom.

Edited November 26, 2015 by CharonY

[pavelcherepan]

Well, things are certainly complicated. Russia is basically the only one openly backing Assad, Iran covertly so. In contrast the US and Europe (mostly France and UK) have been supporting the rebels that now are also getting attacked by the Russians. Turkey is a bit in a weird situation and I guess it would require some serious reading (and probably more information that is not available yet) to disentangle all the levels of involvement. For starters, the diplomatic relationship between Turkey and Syria really started to worsen post 2011, resulting in direct support of rebels. Yet, it seems that Turkey is somewhat eager to take more direct measures as they do not want a Kurdish state being carved out from the remains of Syria. And in that context the Turkish dealings with ISIS are more than a bit sketchy, Unfortunately it has clearly become part of a propaganda war which makes current assessments unreliable at best. It will take time until actual information leaks out. I do believe that the oil dealings at least are actually documented.

 

In that context it is probably relevant to highlight that it is not simply a three-party war but has actually a host of smaller factions with various differing allegiances. For example, the al-Nusra Front is an Al Qaeda branch fighting primarily against the Syrian government. They have coordinated with other Syrian rebels (specifically the Free Syrian Army, which actually is not homogeneous, either), but was fighting with ISIS. To make things more complicated defectors from the al Nusra Front have merged with other smaller groups to form the Jaysh al-Jihad, which, in turn allied with ISIS. Or take another islamic group: Jaysh al-Islam, is part of the Islamic front of the rebels. This groups is allegedly supported by Saudi Arabia as a counter to the al-Nusra front and are allied with FSA (which whom they share little ideological similarity).

 

Really, just trying to list the involved parties would take quite a while, and even longer to display who is allied with whom.

 

Good points. Also, its very important to note that in eastern regions of Syria and northern Iraq the clan system is still dominant, where lot of small groups are more inclined to follow their clan leader rather than any other authority and they can change their allegiance in a blink of an eye towards whichever side seems to offer more to the particular group in question.

 

China, too has its own interests in Syria and has repeatedly blocked UN SC resolutions and is allegedly planning military intervention too.

 

Damn you Middle East! Why do you have to be so complicated?

[waitforufo]

Too bad Obama didn't listen to his own ambassador Robert Ford.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/syrias-moderate-opposition-needs-help-ground-says-former-ambassador

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408

https://news.vice.com/article/its-one-big-conflict-now-former-ambassador-robert-ford-on-the-way-forward-in-syria-and-iraq

 

I'm sure the cowardly professor is still analyzing the situation. Too bad events on the ground move much faster than Obama's cowardly mind.

[iNow]

What, in your opinion, is the proper response right now? If possible, it would help to know how you plan on dealing with what comes next, too. What happens after your response is executed and how do you ensure you haven't made the situation worse / more unstable as a result of whatever you've proposed?

Edited November 26, 2015 by iNow

[DimaMazin]

What, in your opinion, is the proper response right now? If possible, it would help to know how you plan on dealing with what comes next, too. What happens after your response is executed and how do you ensure you haven't made the situation worse / more unstable as a result of whatever you've proposed?

Propaganda doesn't feed people. More economic sanctions.

Russian regions are losing people.

[CharonY]

 

Good points. Also, its very important to note that in eastern regions of Syria and northern Iraq the clan system is still dominant, where lot of small groups are more inclined to follow their clan leader rather than any other authority and they can change their allegiance in a blink of an eye towards whichever side seems to offer more to the particular group in question.

 

China, too has its own interests in Syria and has repeatedly blocked UN SC resolutions and is allegedly planning military intervention too.

 

Damn you Middle East! Why do you have to be so complicated?

 

Well, we have touched on a number of reasons, but the influence of specific local groups is also tied to infrastructure (or lack thereof) and quite large socioeconomic differences. In the Middle East we find some of the most modern cities in the world as well as remote villages that have little or no idea what the current government is. As such it is a bit silly to refer to the Middle East as I just did. Other effects including destabilization by internal and external forces were also already mentioned. Unfortunately religious groups are generally already at least semi-organized and are in a better position to utilize these disruptions than democratic forces, it seems. The need to hold groups with vastly diverse ideology together.

Saudi Arabia is a prime example. They have draconic laws including clearly mysogynist ones. From that point of view it appears that the government would support suppression of women. At the same time Kind Abdullah had introduced reforms and heavily promoted education. Another element that I have seen is heavy financial supports for students who want to get a foreign education (independent of gender). I.e. they can get full living expenses and tuition paid by the government if accepted by a foreign university. This does not paint a picture of government that actually wants to suppress women. Ironically some of the restrictions on female rights are supported by females due to cultural as well as religious reasons. Thus, the various seemingly contradicting policies are indicative of a balancing act to maintain power in diverse society.

Same could be said about the state sponsoring of Wahhabsim as an attempt to externalize radicalism.

 

With regard to China, that is going to be weird. China has always proclaimed non-involvement in internal affairs. Yet terrorism would be something they are very worried about. If they get involved ISIS would be likeliest target and they would have a difficult in coordinating with the Russians against rebels, as that would undermine their stance. If that was the case they would be pretty much the only part exclusively focused on ISIS.

 

Also, I read in a an article yesterday that Turkey actually changed its rules of engagement after their plane got shot down in Syria. As an answer they changed the rules of engagement by treating all military movements over the Syrian border as hostile. Now an audio recording of warnings has been released, whereas the rescued navigator denies that.

[waitforufo]

What, in your opinion, is the proper response right now? If possible, it would help to know how you plan on dealing with what comes next, too. What happens after your response is executed and how do you ensure you haven't made the situation worse / more unstable as a result of whatever you've proposed?

My post was about the many missed opportunities of the cowardly professor. His own ambassador said that all the moderate opposition in Syria needed at the start was ammunition and money. But that was too big a leap for the cowardly professor. Then he showed the big yellow stripe running down his back when he wouldn't even back up his own red line on chemical weapons use. Now he chastises those resisting the refuges that his policies, or lack there of, brought about. The guy is a baffoon when it comes to foreign policy. All Obama had to do was negotiate a status for forces agreement leaving 30000 troops in Iraq, as his generals recommended, and we wouldn't even have ISIS.

 

What should we do right now? Obama has backed us in to quite the corner. At this point all we can do is wait for Russia to get it's S-400 missile system deployed in Syria. The Russians clearly stated that they would shoot down any aircraft regardless of the airspace they occupy if they felt they were a threat to Russian aircraft or troops. By that statement Russia is annexing quite a bit of Turkish air space. I doubt many Turkish pilots will stay in their own airspace when the S-400 missile system locks on them or turns on the illuminator of the 48N6DM long range missile. If the turks are foolish enough to show a little bravado they will be shot down creating a NATO crisis that the cowardly professor just doesn't have the backbone for. Putin know this.

Edited November 27, 2015 by waitforufo

[Ophiolite]

If I were to adopt the same rhetorical techniques you employ, waitforufo, I would seek to display your character as ignorant, arrogant and foolish. However, you are doing such a fine job of this yourself I see no need to act.

[Endy0816]

On the plus side it only seems to cause everyone else to become further entrenched in opposition.

 

Almost comically over the top. Yes, someone who stands in front of a group and attempts to teach them something is really a skairdy cat... Right...

 

 

Anyhow, there's the patriot missile system that Turkey could be hoping to bring back into play. As far as the strategic situation goes they are forcing Putin to react, rather than act for a change. We'll see how the game of chicken goes.

[DimaMazin]

My post was about the many missed opportunities of the cowardly professor. His own ambassador said that all the moderate opposition in Syria needed at the start was ammunition and money. But that was too big a leap for the cowardly professor. Then he showed the big yellow stripe running down his back when he wouldn't even back up his own red line on chemical weapons use. Now he chastises those resisting the refuges that his policies, or lack there of, brought about. The guy is a baffoon when it comes to foreign policy. All Obama had to do was negotiate a status for forces agreement leaving 30000 troops in Iraq, as his generals recommended, and we wouldn't even have ISIS.

 

What should we do right now? Obama has backed us in to quite the corner. At this point all we can do is wait for Russia to get it's S-400 missile system deployed in Syria. The Russians clearly stated that they would shoot down any aircraft regardless of the airspace they occupy if they felt they were a threat to Russian aircraft or troops. By that statement Russia is annexing quite a bit of Turkish air space. I doubt many Turkish pilots will stay in their own airspace when the S-400 missile system locks on them or turns on the illuminator of the 48N6DM long range missile. If the turks are foolish enough to show a little bravado they will be shot down creating a NATO crisis that the cowardly professor just doesn't have the backbone for. Putin know this.

NATO can defeat Russians in Syria. Russia is weaker in Crimea due to participation in Syrian war.