Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bad News: Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet. Good News: Sierra Leone is Ebola-Free
Turkey has shot down a Russian jet. this was the first time a NATO jet shot down a Russian one since 1952. Those who grasp the gravity of this have broken out in a cold sweat. Yes, it’s as serious as it sounds.
I don’t know exactly what happened, and truly, no one who really does is going to be talking. Given that this is the kind of thing that can — although probably won’t — expose NATO as a paper tiger, crank the current level of geopolitical hysteria up to 11, and even, in extremis, lead to direct superpower conflict, I don’t think it would be helpful for me to opine about what the United States should do, save to say that I hope wisdom prevails, and urge all concerned to back away from the precipice (as if anyone would listen to me).
Here are things others’ have written about this, but Medvedev apart, I don’t think they know more about it than anyone else. They just had deadlines and had to put words on paper.
Putin’s War on Far Too Many Fronts, By Leonid Bershidsky
Has Vladimir Putin finally overreached? The Russian president is confronting several simultaneous crises. Over the weekend, Ukrainian activists blew up high-voltage transmission towers and cut off electricity supplies to Russian-held Crimea. In St. Petersburg, his home city, on Tuesday a column of 600 heavy trucks was crawling toward the city government building to protest tolls on Russian roads (a son of a close Putin friend has a financial interest in the system). And on the Turkey-Syria border, the Turkish air force downed a Russian bomber. …
Ankara defends ISIS, Turkish officials have financial interest in oil trade with group – PM Medvedev
Some Turkish officials have ‘direct financial interest’ in the oil trade with the terrorist group Islamic State, Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev said as he detailed possible Russian retaliation to Turkey’s downing of a Russian warplane in Syria on Tuesday.
“Turkey’s actions are de facto protection of Islamic State,” Medvedev said, calling the group formerly known as ISIS by its new name. “This is no surprise, considering the information we have about direct financial interest of some Turkish officials relating to the supply of oil products refined by plants controlled by ISIS.”
“The reckless and criminal actions of the Turkish authorities… have caused a dangerous escalation of relations between Russia and NATO, which cannot be justified by any interest, including protection of state borders,” Medvedev said.
Will Nato be drawn in? Nato held an emergency meeting of its North Atlantic Council, the alliance’s main decision-making body, at Turkey’s request. Ambassadors from 28 member countries met in Brussels for the briefing and to decide on any further action.
The alliance was expected to attempt to de-escalate tensions over Turkey’s actions, despite strong statements in recent months condemning Russian incursions into member states’ airspace in Europe. “The last thing Nato wants right now is a new conflict with Russia with everything else that’s going on,” Mr Sengupta said. ….
NATO Must Have Turkey’s Back, by Walter Russell Mead:
The rapid deterioration of global order took an ugly turn this morning and we all moved a little closer to the abyss: Two Turkish F-16s have shot down what appears to be a Russian Su-24 bomber near the Syrian border. Two Russian pilots parachuted out of the plane as it went down in flames. One pilot was captured by Turkmen fighters in Latakia province, with early reports indicating the second pilot did not survive the ordeal. Turkey is claiming the bomber was warned ten times about being in Turkish airspace before it was shot down. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has called for a special consultation with Turkey’s NATO allies. …
It’s now critical that Russia not be allowed to intimidate or pressure Turkey over the episode. That means NATO support. Turkey, unlike Georgia and Ukraine, is a full-fledged NATO member, and failing to stand behind it threatens to unravel the alliance. Putin’s number one goal, we must remember, is to break NATO—or at minimum to show that it is a paper tiger. The slow-moving collapse of the political relationship between the other members and Turkey gives him an opening. The lack of trust over ISIS, and the broader disagreements over how to fight the Syrian war, have undermined Turkey’s relationship with its Western allies. But the fundamental element in the divide between the West and Turkey remains the Islamist and increasingly anti-democratic nature of the Turkish government. All this must, for now, be swept aside. If the Kremlin is prepared to engage in a reasonable and cooperative process to determine responsibility for the incident and follow diplomatic precedent and procedures, then we should meet it half-way. But if Moscow attempts to force Turkey into some kind of capitulation, Ankara needs solid backup. …
President Obama sees Syria as a quagmire ready to engulf the United States, and has believed that the less he deals with the Syrian mess the better. Those are reasonable fears, but the longer the war rages unchecked the more dangerous it becomes—and the worse the President’s choices get. Russia, for its part, has long been using Obama’s unwillingness to engage in confrontations as a tool to force American retreat. The Kremlin’s read is that President Obama is so conflict-averse that Russia can engage in behavior that would otherwise be seen as much too risky. Regardless of whether the plane was in Turkish or Russian airspace at the moment of the downing, this incident is typical of a global pattern of Russian planes testing the limits of what is possible and acceptable. Now that this pattern has produced such a clear conflict point, the U.S.—and the West, generally—must not back down.
My intuition is that both powers will climb down, though. Just a gut feeling based on experience. In the absence of detailed insight about what’s really happening in today’s NATO emergency meetings, the Kremlin, and the Palace, my best guess is that we’ll see a lot of bluster — perhaps for a while, and even perhaps for years — but I don’t think the Fourth World War just began. To say much more would only be contributing to a lot of poorly- or half-informed speculation, so I won’t.
If you’ve been reading about this elsewhere and have any questions about what you’re reading, I might be able to help you sort out who some of the players are and what theories are more apt to be true and why. So feel free to ask. But basically, we won’t really know what’s happening now until the archives are open many years from now. (Or absent that, from a Wikileaks document dump, of which I would of course disapprove — even though, as a journalist, historian, and someone who like all of us would be affected by these events if they spin further out of control, I’d give anything to read what our diplomats and analysts are really thinking right now.)
This is obviously serious, and you would be right to be afraid (and in my view, right to be a lot more afraid than you should be by the relocation of vetted Syrian refugees). A direct NATO-Russian conflict has long been one of the world’s worst nightmares. ISIS is a terrifying nuisance to the West; but Russia, by virtue of the weapons it already has — not “might have,” nor “will inevitably seek” — can destroy our civilization tomorrow, through malice, or, much more likely, miscalculation. And vice-versa, of course. Russian patterns or testing our defenses and will, its aggression, and its salami tactics on the borders of NATO are by now a highly proven pattern and pose — bring on the cliché — a genuinely existential threat to the post war security order. By this, I mean that the relatively stable and prosperous postwar order in which we grew up might well disappear if this keeps up.
I don’t think the odds of this are so high that we should be shrieking and panicking (not that this has ever helped a thing), but I do think they’re high enough that if you’re not feeling a bit sick to your stomach, you’re either totally unflappable or in a bit of denial.
But it does no good to feel sick, unless you’re one of the people with the power to effect this, and I’m not. And if you are, you shouldn’t be talking about it on Ricochet, so put down the Internet and get back to work, please.
Given this depressing news, I thought it would be a good day to remind you that not everything in the world is headed straight for hell.
Twenty-two months after the Ebola outbreak began, Sierra Leone is free of the disease.* Sierra Leone was among the three West African countries hit hardest by the deadliest Ebola epidemic in history. It lasted 22 months and killed more than 11,300 people. Guinea — where the epidemic originated — also had good news; its last known Ebola patient has recovered, and if no new cases are reported, it too will soon be declared Ebola-free.
*Almost. As I wrote this, it was reported that a 15-year-old boy died of Ebola in Liberia — less than three months after the country was declared free of the virus. Given that there were 8,704 laboratory-confirmed cases in the year up to November 24, 2015, this shouldn’t diminish our sense that we have cause for great celebration. This kind of celebration, in fact:
Congratulations, Sierra Leone.
Published in Foreign Policy, General
Given the past tendency towards calls for bellicosity with little real hope of success, this is a good thought.
Europe is unable and unwilling to defend itself. Repeat: Europe is unable and unwilling to defend itself. REPEAT: EUROPE IS UNABLE AND UNWILLING TO DEFEND ITSELF.
We should plan accordingly. Aside from the occasional rally and call to arms after something bad happens, Europe quickly settles into the post Madrid train bombing siesta, manana mindset.
NATO was created to defend the US by dragging a bunch of war weary, fearful and at the time dependent states into a network of defense that allowed the US to forward deploy ground forces. The thinking being that we needed to contain communism.
Today we face a different kind of enemy that Europe willingly invites into its borders (Islamic workers) or has made itself economically dependent upon (Russian gas).
Europe is lost. Leave them be. We need a defense posture. Perhaps it can begin at Britain, but Britain must remain united and show a willingness to defend itself.
Belgium is a failed state – a jihad exporter. France mostly gone despite the temporary outrage. Germany wracked with guilt. Italy inebriated. Holland and Denmark tethered to a crumbling EU. The rest – carefree, resigned, frustrated, or scared.
There might be a higher chance for a collision with an asteroid or finding another “earth” in the universe.
This is highly unlikely to happen. Think about it. Think.
Motivation. Means. Method.
Means: Russian weapons are not what you think they are. They look OK. Perform somewhat OK. But reliability and advanced technology – not so much. Good, but not great. Some better than others. But these guys still use dumb bombs and their cruise missiles are highly unreliable. Their ICBM’s … maybe OK. Their submarine launched missiles? Accuracy? Maybe.
Method: They could never mount a “sneak” attack, let alone try one. It is too big a gamble before you consider the massive amounts of radiation introduced to the atmosphere. Who wins again?
Motivation: If you are going to launch an attack, a mutually assured destruction attack, and the outcome is highly uncertain for you, what kind of motivation do you need?
Conflation. That is the biggest risk. We should not conflate a lot of words into a fear of something that might not exist. Go watch the movie “Monsters Inc.”
According to the General Staff, Turkey’s airspace has been violated 114 times so far this year — but each instance was quickly resolved peacefully. So I don’t think the choice was “fail to resolve this peacefully” or “fall under the Russian thumb.”
The first political statement after something like this would normally come from the prime minister’s office, not the president’s. This came from Erdoğan’s. Many understood this to mean that his “presidential system” is now a de facto reality; and he’s certainly surrounded himself with yes-men as advisors. He’s rather hot-headed, as we all know, and probably either made this decision impulsively, or as a mirror-image of Putin’s strategy: to see just how far he could go and get away with it. (Both of them will do that until they find the answer.)
Really, equally disgusting — Putin shouldn’t have been killing Turkmen (they’re not ISIS); and Erdoğan shouldn’t have been seeing if he might have a chance of dragging NATO into his war (or humiliating the very alliance upon which he relies). I’d say, “They deserve each other,” but of course they’re not the ones who will be hurt: ordinary civilians will be. And people like my friends who live in Turkey.
You defend your borders, or you won’t have any.
I thought both we and Russia had a nuclear MAD response hardened and ready to go?
Doesn’t time that it takes both sides to mobilize and shoot reduce the safety?
If I see you starting to move assets into place I have to either race you to “ready” or try to defuse by demonstrably not mobilizing. If it is a race to “ready” doesn’t the first exploit the advantage by firing?
Something very similar happened in slow motion in the lead up to the Great War. The rival powers had to mobilize before the intent of the others was clear because of the time required. Once mobilized against a mobilizing opponent it only makes sense to strike.
As much as I dislike Russia, from all the years growing up during the Cold War, I have at least as much antipathy towards Turkey. I can not let go of Turkey’s last minute renege on overflight and port usage at the start of the second Iraq war. Then there is always Erdogan’s Islamist views, turning the country away from the secular government of Ataturk back to an Islamist nation, using the West to it’s advantage, but doing little to actually be a western civilization entity. What was once a very hopeful bridge between Israel and and majority Muslim country has now devolved into a swamp of bad intentions and enmity. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Obama actually took to supporting Turkey (even though I realize they may actually be in the right in this particular instance) just because Turkey is not a friend of the USA. Our President is much more comfortable supporting our enemies than our friends. It’s got to be a tough decision for him in this case, as neither of these countries is our friend.
Putin probably won’t move directly against Turkey, but the rebels that do have Erdogan’s support can count on getting a pasting in the very near future. Erdogan needs to show restraint when that happens.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now that is funny.
As you say, Russia has been testing our defenses. It conducted one test too many, and found a place where it went a bit too far. The results of this test have given it some information it didn’t have before.
I wouldn’t put it past Obama and the EU to mess it all up, of course, and make a bad situation worse.
I suppose the bad thing about this is that it can give Putin a bit of a black eye back home where he has convinced people he can do no wrong in foreign affairs. Not that that’s bad. In itself that’s good. But Putin might be tempted not to leave it at that, and that’s where it could get dangerous.
I presume this means that the first 113 times, the Russian planes quickly left Turkey’s airspace when challenged. Or at least before they got to ten warnings.
The critical points are these:
–
I doubt Putin is eager to test NATO. But that confrontation might not begin by his decision.
There are weapons that are on alert. The belief is that they are of sufficient quantity as to discourage a de-capitation first strike.
They are probably not enough to ensure MAD.
Instugator’s dictum goes thus,
New START limits each side to 1550 deployed warheads.
Edited to change #4 to 3.
…I hope wisdom prevails…
And wouldn’t that be a change.
It’s worth remembering that the US had a treaty obligation to defend Ukraine from Russia (or the USSR, at least). And Obama pulled planned defenses from Eastern Europe. The bonds of alliance are already weakened, if not broken.
Failing to honor NATO protection of a non-European state whose membership was always controversial (though geographically well deserved) might not be such a big difference.
The upside of a NATO war with Russia would be motivation for European governments to get serious about their borders. But there would likely be less liberating changes to their domestic policies as well.
This is my unrealistically hopeful outcome:
I looked at the google map for the area in question. Some thoughts – the flight path of the Russian aircraft looks like an orbit – if they were American I would suggest an on-call Close Air Support orbit (known as XCAS). No airspace planner in their right mind sets up an orbit within 4 miles of an international border. period.
No Air-to-Ground pilot with any sense whatsoever sets up an orbit that close to an international border, particularly if he thinks he is going to have to attack a target near the border. We think what our egress path has to be if we are called to release weapons and adjust our attack path accordingly.
I have no sympathy for the Russians in this instance.
Well thought out.
But was Assad, brutal scum that he is, ever really the core problem? I doubt removing him from the picture would lead to stability in Syria. And the modern West is ideologically incapable of conquest.
Is it certain that Turkish air controllers and Russian pilots are all capable of communication?
Are there non-verbal standards of communication that would not require them to speak the same language? Is an armed escort easy to distinguish, within seconds, from hostile jet fighters?
I think we’d have to install a military dictatorship and create some sort of long-term treaty involving all the coalition members, including Russia. That would likely involve an occupation for a significant time but at least it would be a truly international effort, ideally led by Europe and Russia.
English is the international standard for air traffic control. All aircraft are equipped with radios that simultaneously listen on “Guard” frequency (either 243.0 or 121.5).
Additionally, there are internationally agreed upon non-verbal signals for intercepted v intercepting aircraft.
So yes.
Of course all the charting and calculations are dependent upon the assumption that the Russian military navigation systems were working properly and they are a disciplined force. And once again, they do not carry “smart” bombs so they have to maneuver in different ways from different angles to get their dumb payloads on target. That is a reason they have to fly so many more sorties to remove a target.
Instugator – the Russians have been turning off their transponders. The tracking of their flight paths is being done with radar only and there is no way to fix identity other than path, speed, altitude, location and visual confirmation.
People, lets not over analyze this. NATO is not going to get involved. Europe has not defended its border nor has it erected an effective internal security apparatus. The Europeans are long on indignation and short on vigilance.
NATO was never a European security treaty. It was a treaty to protect the US by tying us to a bunch of states that could not defend themselves and placing them under our nuclear umbrella.
The activiation of Article 5 after 9/11 was a big mistake:
• First, the was not direct warfare against the US that NATO was going to stop with a few fighter planes flying over Maryland.
• Second, the Europeans did not agree with most of the steps we took to erect a firewall to prevent the attacks from happening again (they detested the passenger lists and eventually refused to keep supplying them, they resisted eavesdropping, monitoring data, and metadata collection – though the French are starting to do this, the rest of Europe resists [with the exception of Britain]).
• And finally, and most importantly, the Europeans are just not stalwart about anything. They suffer from Social Welfare Deficit Disorder. After a week or two, they go back to thinking about their 6 weeks of vacation, 37 1/2 hour work weeks, and where they are going to “spa” this year. These nations have worked diligently to destroy their cultural identities in the name of mult-culturalism. There is no strong loyalty to the states nor the EU. It is all a big scheme to get money and avoid paying taxes. You have to keep focusing on the redistribution (corporate, farm, banking, small business, start-up, green, personal welfare) or you will fall behind. That is what distracts them the most: Worrying about keeping their benefits, personal and business welfare.
If you want to see the where the US is heading – see France. If you want to see where France is heading – see Belgium.
Yes, he is and was. For every civilian killed by ISIS, Assad kills seven. Islamist militants are actually only responsible for a fraction of the civilian deaths in Syria. ISIS would have no traction or recruiting power were it not for his barrel bombing, chemical weapons, torture chambers, and savagery. ISIS makes it more public, but there’s no doubt that he’s responsible for more death:
This will give you nightmares, but it’s fine reporting from my friend Adam — who I trust — about Assad’s torture hospitals and the documentation of the war crimes that were smuggled out of them.
One reason our policy has been such a failure is that the groups we’re trying to work with don’t want to be subject to the limit we’ve insisted on imposing upon them: that they only fight ISIS, not Assad. To them, Assad is the core problem and the cause of ISIS, so they’ve been unwilling to fight on our limited terms — which we’ve limited, presumably, for fear that 1) they won’t be able to defeat ISIS, and thus we need Assad; and 2) Assad is Russia’s client, and we don’t want to step on Russia’s toes.
Removing him from the picture would help, although it would require much more than that to create stability: It will take a commitment on the order of rebuilding Europe. But so long as Assad stays, the place will be a jihadi magnet. We (people who follow Syria closely) have been saying (screaming) this since 2011.
But I also understand the logic that we can’t afford the risk of a direct conflict with Russia. This being the case, the policy of encouraging any kind of uprising was deeply immoral, as has been the policy of encouraging and supporting the FSA and other elements whom we wish to take out ISIS but not Assad: We’ve more or less condemned them to death from Assad, the IRGC-Quds force, ISIS, or Russia.
I believe the Obama Admistration foolishly believed that Assad would topple quickly, like Mubarak and Ben Ali, and encouraged the uprising on this basis. But had he known anything about the region, he would have known that neither Russia nor Iran would permit that to happen. And I believe his subsequent desultory air campaign has been in response to domestic pressure to “do something” — but without using ground forces and thus incurring American casualities. But he must know, unless he’s really surrounded himself with advisors who won’t give it to him straight, which is entirely possible — that this won’t achieve the results we need; in fact, unless he opts for using air force simply to flatten the entire country (which we could, but which would hardly serve any humanitarian end, and would only spread the belief that Americans are genocidal monsters who must be fought everywhere even further — because it would be true), he’ll just strengthen ISIS’s will to resist: This is what the Germans achieved, after all, with the Blitz. If you merely infuriate people, you motivate them to fight harder. You have to actually kill them to make them stop fighting.
I’d read somewhere that Russia might be relying on Syrian maps that show a different border, primarily the disputed Hatay province is shown as part of Syria.
I’ve been involved in planning ISR missions and an orbits within 10 nmi of a border required higher authorization than the standard approving official. Operations near borders were of great concern.
There was also a report a few days ago about a Russian bombing mission that took off from northern Russia, flew around Scandinavia, Great Britain, and through the Strait of Gibraltar; launched cruise missiles from the Mediterranean; continued over Syria, Iraq, and Iran; and returned to Russia through the Caspian Sea.
“Russia might be relying on Syrian maps that show a different border”
Again, this is Russia. They don’t do 10 nm. They go where they go. They don’t care. They are not looking for engagement or border incursions, but their enemies are nestled right on the Turkish border for obvious reasons. And, they need different flight tactics when dropping “dumb” bombs. They are interested in killing their enemies first. Collateral damage and border incursions are not a major concern. Turkey might be engaged the next time they try to shoot down a plane. The Russians are not worried this will escalate because not even Turkey wants war.
The US applies ROE that are very confining, but our weapons systems give us some greater flexibility, to a point. Plus, in tight situations we use drones. Drones have no chutes.
Wow. If true, that’s a situation rife with opportunities for unplanned incidents.
Stories of Russian operatives infiltrating its North European neighbors and kidnapping Scandinavian citizens for interrogation haven’t made the headlines in months now. Have those incidents/rumors stopped or have American media lost interest?
American Thinker October 2014 gave the clue to what would clean up Ebola in Sierra Leone and elsewhere:
Not sure what the worry is. If it comes to a shooting war Russia can take Turkey about any time it wants.
Alex Trebeck:
What is the Crimean War?
During Russian Thanksgiving, Turkey shoots you.