Russia violates Turkish airspace, Turkey threatens to engage

[The Romulan Republic]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... e-34250018

Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu vowed Monday to take all necessary measures to protect Turkey's borders from violation after a Russian fighter jet entered its airspace over the weekend, prompting Turkey to scramble jets and summon the Russian ambassador in protest.

Russia admitted the plane had entered Turkey "by mistake" and assured Ankara it would not happen again, he said. But a senior U.S. official said the Obama administration does not believe the incursion was an accident, and officials are in urgent talks with allies about what to do.

The official was not authorized to publicly discuss sensitive military matters and spoke on condition of anonymity. In Madrid, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Monday that the U.S. is conferring with Turkish leaders about the infringement.

The incident comes amid Turkish concerns over Russian airstrikes in Syria that have targeted some foreign-backed insurgents. Turkey and Russia also have conflicting positions on the Syrian regime, with Russia backing President Bashar Assad and Turkey insisting on his ouster.

Davutoglu said during an interview with Haber Turk television that NATO-member Turkey would enforce its rules of engagement if its airspace is violated. Those rules call for the treatment of any element approaching the Turkish border from Syria as an enemy.

"The Turkish Armed Forces have their orders," he said. "The necessary will be done even if it's a bird that violates Turkey's border ... Our rules of engagement are clear."

A Foreign Ministry statement said Monday that a Russian warplane entered Turkey's airspace near the town of Yayladagi, in Hatay province on Saturday. Two F-16 jets intercepted the Russian aircraft and forced it to fly back into the Syrian airspace.

Also Monday, Turkey's military said a MIG-29 jet had harassed two Turkish F-16s for five minutes and 40 seconds on Sunday by locking its radar onto them. In a brief statement, the military said the incident occurred while 10 F-16s were patrolling the Turkish-Syrian border. The military said it did not know which country the MIG-29 belonged to.

Turkey summoned the Russian ambassador and demanded that Russia avoid future infringements, the Foreign Ministry statement said. It warned that Russia would be held "responsible for any undesired incident," that may occur. The same message was also relayed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov by telephone.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed solidarity with Turkey and said the situation would be taken up at a meeting later on Monday.

"I call on Russia to fully respect NATO airspace and to avoid escalating tensions with the Alliance," Stoltenberg said. "I urge Russia to take the necessary steps to align its efforts with those of the international community in the fight against ISIL."

Davutoglu told Haber Turk television that Russia assured Turkey that the airspace would not be violated again.

"The information we got from Russia this morning is that it was an incident that occurred by mistake," he said. "They said they are respectful of Turkey's borders and that it would not happen again."

Last week, Turkey issued a joint statement with its allies involved in the U.S.-backed campaign against the Islamic State group asking Moscow to cease attacks on the Syrian opposition and to focus on fighting the IS.

On Sunday, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the Russian airstrikes were unacceptable and a grave mistake that could alienate Moscow in the region.

Russia says the airstrikes that began Wednesday are targeting the Islamic State group and al-Qaida's Syrian affiliate, but at least some of the strikes appear to have hit Western-backed rebel factions.

Pay particularly attention to this part of the article:

"Davutoglu said during an interview with Haber Turk television that NATO-member Turkey would enforce its rules of engagement if its airspace is violated. Those rules call for the treatment of any element approaching the Turkish border from Syria as an enemy."

Does anyone doubt that Russia will probably do this again, and soon?

In short, either Turkey is just blustering and posturing (idiotic and dangerous in its own right), or a NATO member will almost certainly be firing on the Russian military shortly.

Now, the sane thing to do if Turkey wishes to pull the whole world down in flames would be to tell them to fuck off and leave them on their own. They're a worthless, authoritarian ally who's been playing both sides of the war with ISIS anyway from what I've heard. But I expect what we'll actually do is follow them into the abyss if it comes down to it.

Just fuck the Turkish and Russian governments both.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, this shit has gotten so blatant and reckless that I have to wonder if Putin actually wants some apocalyptic war between Russia and the west, if he's so blinded by nationalism that he thinks he'll win and it'll be worth the cost. Or, more likely, he arrogantly assumes that the West is sufficiently weak/afraid of him that they'll back down if he pushes things to the brink. In which case, he could end up killing hundreds of millions by mistake.

Edit: Same goes for Turkey, only in reverse (obviously). Like I said, fuck them both.

[Channel72]

Looks to be mostly like a non-issue. Russia essentially apologized, and admitted fault. Putin is likely not interested in bothering Turkey. He just wants to make sure Assad stays in power while pretending to care about destroying ISIS.

[Lord Revan]

Well the thing is that Turkey shouldn't allow Russian military jets to fly in their airspace without premission no country should allow that. Also I'm pretty there was no mistake here the Russia jet was in turkish airspace on purpose.

Russia has doing this sort of thing in finnish airspace several times already, they're trying to remain relevant in global politics by being essentially school yard bullies.

[The Romulan Republic]

I understand that Turkey can't just allow it, but... is it worth potentially fighting a war between NATO and Russia over? I'd say that unless Russia actually fires on Turkey (and I doubt even Putin is stupid enough to do that), no.

Looks to be mostly like a non-issue. Russia essentially apologized, and admitted fault. Putin is likely not interested in bothering Turkey. He just wants to make sure Assad stays in power while pretending to care about destroying ISIS.

Oh please.

So Russia apologized. And maybe it was an accident like Russia says. I hope it was an accident. But I wouldn't trust the Russian government as far as I could kick it.

Russia does this kind of stuff, buzzing people with its planes, all the time. And because they do it all the time, they may think its no big deal. But they're doing it in an actual fucking war zone. And because Turkey has gotten hyper-beligerant over it, it seems a lot more dangerous.

Perhaps I'm being alarmist, but it seems to me that a NATO member threatening to engage the Russian military is a fair cause for alarm.

[K. A. Pital]

Last time I read the news, Turkey itself has used its airforce numerous times to strike at targets in Syria and Iraq, violating the airspace of these nations? Russia did not bomb Turkey, it was an airspace violation FFS. Airspace violations occur all the time. Calm down. The USSR didn't go to war when it shot down the U2 spy plane, it just captured Gary Powers and made the US look like clowns in the UN - that at a time of greater tensions than now. Going to war over airspace violation? Has such a thing even happened in recent history?

[The Romulan Republic]

Last time I read the news, Turkey itself has used its airforce numerous times to strike at targets in Syria and Iraq, violating the airspace of these nations? Russia did not bomb Turkey,

Well no, but they weren't violating Russian airspace, were they?

And at the time, was Russia launching airstrikes in Syria?

it was an airspace violation FFS. Airspace violations occur all the time. Calm down.

When Turkey calms down, I might. They're the ones threatening to attack Russian forces.

The USSR didn't go to war when it shot down the U2 spy plane, it just captured Gary Powers and made the US look like clowns in the UN - that at a time of greater tensions than now. Going to war over airspace violation? Has such a thing even happened in recent history?

I honestly don't know, but its Turkey's PM making the threat of attacking Russian planes. Like I said, tell it to him.

[Channel72]

Oh please.

So Russia apologized. And maybe it was an accident like Russia says. I hope it was an accident. But I wouldn't trust the Russian government as far as I could kick it.

Russia does this kind of stuff, buzzing people with its planes, all the time. And because they do it all the time, they may think its no big deal. But they're doing it in an actual fucking war zone. And because Turkey has gotten hyper-beligerant over it, it seems a lot more dangerous.

Perhaps I'm being alarmist, but it seems to me that a NATO member threatening to engage the Russian military is a fair cause for alarm.

I'm simply saying that I think your assessment of Putin is totally off. He's not some maniac that has delusions of an apocalyptic confrontation with the West. He's not insane - just an asshole. He's basically the Russian Dick Cheney - his interests include both national and private corporate assets.

As for Turkey, it is of little interest to Putin - and he didn't even bomb it or anything, he just violated its airspace, most likely more out of not giving a shit than anything particularly calculated or malevolent. His geopolitical ambitions in that theatre revolve mostly around his Alawite friends in Syria. It is in his interest for Shia Islam and Iranian political power to expand in that region, benefiting Gazprom shareholders. That is all.

[Thanas]

Putin has nothing to gain from pissing off the Turks, nothing. I find it very unlikely he will deliberately provoke them.

Heck, as anybody who has read my views on Russia can attest I don't trust Putin at all. But this was a mistake, nothing more.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hope you're right, but if so, its a damn stupid one, and it better not be repeated if the Turkish government is serious in its threats.

[Captain Seafort]

Heck, as anybody who has read my views on Russia can attest I don't trust Putin at all. But this was a mistake, nothing more.

Or he's probing to see what he can get away with. He's found where the Turks have drawn the line, and will use that to set future RoE. To avoid picking a fight with someone, you first have to establish what they define as "picking a fight".

[Sgt_Artyom]

Well the thing is that Turkey shouldn't allow Russian military jets to fly in their airspace without permission no country should allow that. Also I'm pretty there was no mistake here the Russia jet was in turkish airspace on purpose.

Russia has doing this sort of thing in finnish airspace several times already, they're trying to remain relevant in global politics by being essentially school yard bullies.

Would you be alright with Syrian air force jets intercepting aircraft from Western air forces bombing targets within their countries airspace? No one seems to complain when we violate their airspace on a daily basis.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the Syrian Air Force (insofar as it is still capable of flying) would be loyal to Assad. If we're bombing Da'esh, then Assad has no reason to try to stop us. If we're bombing Assad's forces, that is another matter.

But if I were Assad, I wouldn't consider coalition jets bombing Da'esh positions "a violation of my airspace." I'd consider it "hey, Santa Claus is here, and he has a big sack full of exploding coal to dump on my naughtiest enemies!"

Good news all around.

[Grumman]

Well, the Syrian Air Force (insofar as it is still capable of flying) would be loyal to Assad. If we're bombing Da'esh, then Assad has no reason to try to stop us. If we're bombing Assad's forces, that is another matter.

But if I were Assad, I wouldn't consider coalition jets bombing Da'esh positions "a violation of my airspace." I'd consider it "hey, Santa Claus is here, and he has a big sack full of exploding coal to dump on my naughtiest enemies!"

Good news all around.

But if we know that the Syrian government would give us permission, why not get that permission? And if Russia would be glad to have us destroy Assad's enemies, why not work together to destroy ISIL?

[K. A. Pital]

Because asking Syria's government for permission would look like acknowledging it is legitimate, and the US spent the last 10-5 years either completely denying the legitimacy of Baathist regimes or destroying them with direct aggression?

[GuppyShark]

Airspace violations happen all the time - they're ultimately small potatoes. Nobody's going to start a shooting war over a single jet flying too far out of bounds.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the Syrian Air Force (insofar as it is still capable of flying) would be loyal to Assad. If we're bombing Da'esh, then Assad has no reason to try to stop us. If we're bombing Assad's forces, that is another matter.

But if I were Assad, I wouldn't consider coalition jets bombing Da'esh positions "a violation of my airspace." I'd consider it "hey, Santa Claus is here, and he has a big sack full of exploding coal to dump on my naughtiest enemies!"

Good news all around.

But if we know that the Syrian government would give us permission, why not get that permission? And if Russia would be glad to have us destroy Assad's enemies, why not work together to destroy ISIL?

Because asking Syria's government for permission would look like acknowledging it is legitimate, and the US spent the last 10-5 years either completely denying the legitimacy of Baathist regimes or destroying them with direct aggression?

This.

It is, politically speaking, no longer possible for the US to form meaningful partnerships with certain categories* of dictatorship, even when it is to the US's advantage to do so. In the political context of 15-20 years ago I think most of us would have considered this to be a positive change, because the US is frequently and correctly criticized for supporting dictatorial regimes as a convenient buffer against some threat to its interests.

But now we're running into problems of the "greater evil" type and it stops seeming like such a uniformly good deal.

*I said 'certain categories of dictatorship,' not 'all dictatorships.'

[K. A. Pital]

It started when the US chose Pakistani and Saudi Wahhabites to oppose secular authoritarian rule and the Shia influence of Iran. Seemed like a good deal. Saudis were eager to buy arms, as were the Pakistan-supported extremists in Central Asia.

With the current spiralling bloodbath across ME and Africa, it starts dawning on some people that Wahhabites are not the plucky rebels of our age, and the situation is a tad more complex than Lawrence of Arabia.

I have zero faith in the US. They are greedy, lying, violent and shortsighted imperialists who would find a way to benefit even from a massacre of global proportions. To the US elite, suffering only matters if they can further their objectives by doing something. This calculation has until now always favored Saudis ans their friends. This is very unlikely to change as long as the House of Saud keeps bying US weapons in obscene quantities.

[Grumman]

It is, politically speaking, no longer possible for the US to form meaningful partnerships with certain categories* of dictatorship, even when it is to the US's advantage to do so. In the political context of 15-20 years ago I think most of us would have considered this to be a positive change, because the US is frequently and correctly criticized for supporting dictatorial regimes as a convenient buffer against some threat to its interests.

But now we're running into problems of the "greater evil" type and it stops seeming like such a uniformly good deal.

I would not consider this a positive change, because what we are talking about here is not "not supporting dictatorial regimes." I think there is an important distinction between doing the wrong thing to benefit a dictatorial regime out of realpolitik and doing the right thing that happens to include a dictator among its many beneficiaries. What I am suggesting is that if killing ISIL is worth doing for its own sake (and I think it is), it's also worth crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's.

[The Romulan Republic]

So... looks like Russia did it again. Fortunately Turkey hasn't decided to follow through on its threat to attack. But is anyone surprised if Russia did it again?

ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKCN0S00SX20151006

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian government is looking into an allegation that one of its jets operating in Syria violated Turkish airspace for a second time, the Russian embassy in Ankara said on Tuesday, according to the TASS news agency.

Turkey complained late on Monday that a Russian warplane had violated its airspace on Sunday, the second such breach in three days, prompting Ankara to once again summon Moscow's ambassador.

The first such incursion, on Saturday, prompted the United States and NATO to denounce Russia, and Ankara to threaten to respond, raising the prospect of direct confrontation between the former Cold War adversaries.

"The Turkish foreign ministry summoned our ambassador for the second time on Monday," Igor Mityakov, the Russian embassy's press attached, was quoted as saying. "The Turkish side handed over information linked to a violation of its airspace. The Russian side is checking the data," he said.

The Russian defense ministry said the first incursion had been accidental and that a Su-30 jet had entered Turkish airspace "for a few seconds." It said "necessary measures" had been taken to ensure there would be no repeat of the incident.

Moscow said the Syrian airbase from which Russian planes were flying missions, Khmeimim, was located about 30 kilometers (18.64 miles)from the Turkish border and that its aircraft had to approach it from the north in certain weather conditions.

"The incident was the result of unfavorable weather conditions in the area," the ministry said in a statement on Monday, referring to the first incursion. "So there's no need to look for any conspiracy theories here."

Russia has denied another Turkish assertion that one of its planes locked its radar onto two Turkish fighter jets.

(Reporting by Andrew Osborn and Maria Kiselyova; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

[Elheru Aran]

It's a bad habit of the Russians-- they love doing this kind of thing. Back in the Cold War it happened pretty regularly. Nothing much ever came out of it other than a plane getting shot at every now and then, though.

[Welf]

You know, this shit has gotten so blatant and reckless that I have to wonder if Putin actually wants some apocalyptic war between Russia and the west, if he's so blinded by nationalism that he thinks he'll win and it'll be worth the cost. Or, more likely, he arrogantly assumes that the West is sufficiently weak/afraid of him that they'll back down if he pushes things to the brink. In which case, he could end up killing hundreds of millions by mistake.

Edit: Same goes for Turkey, only in reverse (obviously). Like I said, fuck them both.

As a rule of thumb, every argument that goes "Is Putin so stupid" or "..so insane"" or "..so nationalist" is wrong. Putin knows his shit. And neither Putin nor Erdogan have an interest in starting a war. A few years ago Turkey and Russia were about to start a strategic relationship, and even if they now are at odds they will want to keep an door open for further cooperation. Otherwise Russia will end up with only china as ally, and Turkey will be more dependent on the EU and US.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, NATO has flat-out says its prepared to send troops to defend Turkey if necessary. Not surprising that they are since Turkey's a NATO member, but the fact that the feel the need to reiterate it right now is troubling to me.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le2713802/

NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg said alliance defence ministers on Thursday will consider the implications for NATO’s own security of the “troubling escalation of Russian military activities” in Syria.

He said NATO is ready to deploy forces, if needed, to defend alliance member Turkey.

On Wednesday, Russian warships fired cruise missiles in the first combined air-and-ground assault with Syrian government troops since Moscow began its military campaign in the country last week.

Over the weekend, Turkey reported back-to-back violations of its airspace by Russian warplanes.

U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter and his counterparts from the 27 other NATO nations had already been scheduled to meet Thursday in Brussels.

Stoltenberg told reporters the meeting will receive an update from its military commanders on the situation in Syria, as well as Afghanistan.

“In Syria, we have seen a troubling escalation of Russian military activities,” Stoltenberg said. “We will assess the latest developments and their implications for the security of the alliance. This is particularly relevant in view of the recent violations of NATO’s airspace by Russian aircraft.”

NATO on Monday issued a statement demanding that the violations cease. Russia called its penetration of Turkish airspace a minor incident that was unintentional. Stoltenberg had already brushed off the Russian explanation.


“NATO is able and ready to defend all allies, including Turkey, against any threat,” the secretary-general said Thursday. He said NATO had already increased “our capacity, our ability, our preparedness to deploy forces, including to the south, including in Turkey, if needed.”

“We are constantly assessing the situation also with the Turkish government,” Stoltenberg said, adding that he would be meeting later Thursday with Turkish Defence Minister Mehmet Vecdi Gonul.

British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon accused Russia of acting chiefly in Syria not to attack the Islamic State terrorist organization but to shore up the beleaguered government of President Bashar al-Assad, thus making a serious situation “much more dangerous.” NATO officials have expressed fears there could be an encounter, accidental or otherwise, between Russian planes and air forces of the U.S.-led coalition attacking Islamic State in Syria.

“We’ll be meeting today to see what we can do to de-escalate this crisis particularly in terms of air safety,” Fallon said as he arrived at NATO headquarters. “We’ll be calling on Russia specifically to stop propping up the Assad regime, to use their own (air) crews constructively to stop Assad bombing his own civilians.”

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said Russia must recognize that if it targets opposition groups in Syria that are fighting Islamic State, “Russia will strengthen IS and this can be neither in the Russian interest, nor in our interest.”

The defence ministers’ meeting, their first since June, is also expected to approve ongoing efforts to retool NATO to meet a daunting array of contemporary security threats. Decisions expected include approval for two new NATO headquarters units in Hungary and Slovakia to enhance their defences and speed the deployment of reinforcements sent by other alliance nations, and changes in the beefed-up NATO Response Force to, in Stoltenberg’s words, make it “bigger, faster and more capable.”

“We are facing many challenges from many different directions,” Stoltenberg said. “Conflict, instability and insecurity.”

“We will assess what we have to do to adapt NATO to current and future challenges,” he said—including cyberattacks and the mix of conventional and unconventional tactics commonly known as hybrid warfare.

[LaCroix]

Which means that they will help Turkey if Russia invades. Surprise. That's what NATO is about. And also what Russia won't do. They are fighting rebel armies in Syria, on invitation of the acting government. They don't care about invading Turkey.
This is just grandstanding rhetoric trying to bully Russia into attacking the side NATO prefers to win. Or keeping out and watching millions die and flee, like under the current NATO strategy.

Which will not work, Russia will steamroll everything resisting them, and restore Assad.
When all is done, this declaration will then be brought out to show how this daring speech (and NATO) has stopped Russia from invading Europe like locusts.

[The Romulan Republic]

Since the link doesn't work (goes to the Globe and Mail but the specific page doesn't show), let me try again:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e26713802/

Anyway, you may be right that NATO will not use force over a provocation more minor than an outright invasion. I don't know, but I hope that's the case.

However, whatever you think of NATO, you should not delude yourself that Russia's actions or motives are anything other than self-interested expansionism here.