Russia violates Turkish airspace, Turkey threatens to engage

[Metahive]

"Expansionism"? I don't think Russia is sharp on adding middle eastern territory to its holdings and "self-interest"? Well, d'uh. It's not like this is already the prime motivator for most international adventures.

[LaCroix]

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

Wow... That fits just as well... Who would have though...

And how is Russia "expanding"? They are helping an ally (Syria) in an internal conflict(armed revolt). That's not quite something prohibited by international law.

Aiding an armed uprising (which you may or may not have incited, yourself) against a nation's troops, without a formal declaration of war on said nation, on the other hand...

[Bernkastel]

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.

As far as I'm aware, no one here is under such a delusion. But neither side is acting without ulterior motives that have nothing to do with the needs of the Syrian people. Also, as noted by others, it would be accurate to describe this as aiding an ally (the Assad regime) and thus preserving their influence on Syria. That's hardly unusual.

[K. A. Pital]

For a very long period of post-Soviet malaise Russia had no financial or technical capabilities to come to the aid of its allies. This resulted in the destruction (sometimes violent) of the former Soviet sphere of influence. I think the last straw was Libya. An old client state, which started working with the USSR in the 1980s despite the ideological split over islam's role in an "Arab socialist" society, it was destroyed by Western intervention in a matter of one year - without it the situation looked like Gaddafi and the Libyan army could win the civil war.

I think that's the core moment when Russia started inviting people like this guy:

...and talking about possible intervention. The Ukraine row further complicated relations with the West, leaving Russia with only Iran as a viable military and trade partner in the region (they buy high tech goods, they buy weapons and they oppose Western clients like Saudis and Qatar).

I am not sure why Russia did not act before, because I think Assad has been asking for help for a very long time since the start of the war. Probably it was a calculated decision. Even if Assad wins, he will be indebted to Russia and Iran for the coming years. This means a long-term alliance and long-term presence of Russian forces in Syria.

[The Romulan Republic]

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

Wow... That fits just as well... Who would have though...

So very smug and condescending, despite the fact that you're wrong.

Sigh. I rather anticipated this sort of shit, perhaps because I've seen it before when someone was defending Putin or someone like him.

The reasoning, to use the word loosely, appears to go more or less as follows:

"NATO does it. Therefore, Russia doing the same thing is okay, even though NATO is horrible for doing it."

The illogic and hypocrisy of this doesn't seem to sink in.

Or perhaps you feel that I am defending NATO, so you can score points by pointing out my hypocrisy. If so, for the record, I am not defending NATO's actions or policies. Nor am I condemning them, at least in general. Seriously, read through every God damn post I made in this thread and you will find no argument either way on the rightness of NATO's actions or policies beyond my concern that NATO (Turkey in particular) is being too belligerent in this situation.

Regardless, saying NATO does something dubious does not, to my mind, constitute a defence for Russia doing it.

And how is Russia "expanding"? They are helping an ally (Syria) in an internal conflict(armed revolt). That's not quite something prohibited by international law.

Never said it was illegal, or that they intend to actually annex Syria (though frankly, I think they would before they'd let anyone other than Assad or a similar regime take over).

To be more precise, expansionist in the sense of expanding their power and influence via a proxy at the expense of others. Their are forms of expansion and aggression other than seizing territory.

Aiding an armed uprising (which you may or may not have incited, yourself) against a nation's troops, without a formal declaration of war on said nation, on the other hand...

Again, that you seem to think attacking NATO constitutes a defence of Russia's actions. It doesn't.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but NATO as a whole is not fighting in Syria, correct?

I don't really want to get into the morality of NATO, however. I didn't post this thread to argue weather NATO is good, bad, or a mix of both, I made no argument in defence of NATO and so feel no obligation to defend such a position, and its irrelevant to weather Russia's actions are justified.

But while we're on the subject, while I don't think that NATO (or for that matter the average Russian, however much I loath their government) is entirely without altruism (it is composed, after all, of human beings who are not monsters), I fully acknowledge that their is a major element of self-interest to NATO's actions. That is self-evident. That doesn't make them inherently right or wrong, however, and beyond that, I do not wish to further debate the subject at this time.

[LaCroix]

Oh please. Cut the whining.

You are constantly posting stuff in which NATO claims Russia is agressivley expanding, where Nato claims Russia is on the wrong side, where Nato claims...
You are basically their spokesperson in this forum. And in a "the sky is falling" noncomical way.

There is no expansion. Syria is already in Russia'S sphere of influence. Has been for decades. The only ones trying to expand their influence is the Nato. This is just the first time that Russia is actively definding their allies instead of looking the other way. They have been doing this here for a long time, even though though Assad called for help numerous times. They let Nato play their spiel, and watched. They came to the conclusion that this will lead nowhere, and decided to act. And now Nato is complaining that Russia is suddenly not bending over to take it in the ass, anymore.

That's the situation. Russia has watched, got fed up, and will now take care of the situation and fucking stop isis. While Nato would have watched this stupid war dragging on for a decade or more, and only do token assistance like they do now.

The fact that airplanes do occasionally violate airspaces when engaging targets close to the borders is something that is almost routine. It will happen. All the time. Turkey is probably only upset that the units Russia decided to attack close to their borders were not the Kurdish ones.

[K. A. Pital]

How does aiding a nation's recognized government even constitute "aggression" or "expansion"? I think TRR suffers from a form of illiteracy. Now, you could argue that it is a form of aggression if there was a new government in Syria. But there isn't. ISIS and Army of Conquest, etc. simply are not a government and therefore acting against them is not "expansion". Just as US airstrikes against ISIS are not an expansion into anywhere.

[LaCroix]

I guess his reasoning is that Nato wants Assad out of power and some rebel faction in, and thus, Assad is no longer the head of state.

Oh, and for some reason "democracy", because the most numerous factions right now are Assad and the bigger islamist rebel factions, but the moderate rebels are somehow the legitimate majority, even though they are a minority.

Oh, and Putin equals warmonger who wants to conquer the world in a nuclear war with Nato.

Pick one - he's claiming each in turn during the last few discussions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh please. Cut the whining.

Whining? You mean objecting to your snide illogic and your misrepresenting my position?

You are constantly posting stuff in which NATO claims Russia is agressivley expanding, where Nato claims Russia is on the wrong side, where Nato claims...

The fact that a news source reports on what NATO is saying does not make it pro-NATO. And the fact that I post a source does not mean I agree with everything it says.

I do share some of NATO's concerns about Russia's actions, but that does not mean that I support them in all matters.

You are basically their spokesperson in this forum. And in a "the sky is falling" noncomical way.

That is either an example of supreme lack of comprehension of my position, or a lie (as should be evident from my criticism of NATO and Turkey in particular in the opening fucking post of this thread, dipshit).

I expect you to retract this claim, or I will conclude that it is the latter and proceed accordingly.

I have noted, of late, that a number of people here seem to feel entitled to misrepresent my positions. I am fucking tired of it.

I attempted to clarify what I was actually saying, specifically mentioning past criticisms of NATO I posted in this thread no less, but you decided to respond in this manner regardless.

There is no expansion. Syria is already in Russia'S sphere of influence. Has been for decades. The only ones trying to expand their influence is the Nato.

Perhaps expansion was a poor wording. Russia is definitely looking to increase their involvement and power in the region, however.

This is just the first time that Russia is actively definding their allies instead of looking the other way. They have been doing this here for a long time, even though though Assad called for help numerous times. They let Nato play their spiel, and watched. They came to the conclusion that this will lead nowhere, and decided to act. And now Nato is complaining that Russia is suddenly not bending over to take it in the ass, anymore.

Yeah, Russia is heroically standing up to evil NATO by protecting their ally the butcher. Its also the picture of restraint.

If you are going to call me NATO's spokesperson, I will damn well call you the Kremlin's.

That's the situation. Russia has watched, got fed up, and will now take care of the situation and fucking stop isis.

Yeah, Russia will fix everything. And they're totally their to stop IS (never mind the reports about all the other targets they're attacking).

While Nato would have watched this stupid war dragging on for a decade or more, and only do token assistance like they do now.

Would you have rather seen a massive NATO deployment of ground troops? Answer honestly.

The fact that airplanes do occasionally violate airspaces when engaging targets close to the borders is something that is almost routine. It will happen. All the time. Turkey is probably only upset that the units Russia decided to attack close to their borders were not the Kurdish ones.

It is something that Russia should take pains to avoid so as not to escalate the situation. And considering they have all of Syria to contend with, perhaps they could consider striking targets that are not right by the Turkish border.

As to your shot at Turkey, well, I'm no fan of the Turkish government. In fact, all things considered, I wish we'd kicked them out of NATO for being fucking authoritarian asshats.

[K. A. Pital]

Perhaps expansion was a poor wording. Russia is definitely looking to increase their involvement and power in the region, however.

Which surprisingly constitutes neither aggression nor expansion. Expansion of a country is when it annexes new territories (like Crimea). Expansion of a power bloc is when it gets new member countries (like NATO). Aggression is when you invade a nation's borders with your military forces (like in the East of Ukraine). But of all the words to choose, these are not the ones one can apply to Russia's involvement in Syria.

Its also the picture of restraint.

Russia did not veto the no-fly zone in Libya. Despite its own media being pro-Gaddafi and despite already being aware that Misurata is full of Qatar and KSA-sponsored islamist gangs. Libya was then destroyed and became a failed state. Russia was angered by this, but did not do anything.

[The Romulan Republic]

How does aiding a nation's recognized government even constitute "aggression" or "expansion"?

I've conceded that expansion was not necessarily the best choice of wording I could have used.

Expanding their influence. Is that better?

As to "aggression"- no, intervening, if its at the request of the Syrian government as has been stated to be true in this case, to fight IS (or the rebels, for that matter) is not aggression in and of itself. However, this is clearly part of a larger effort by Russia to expand its power and influence, and Russia certainly has no real defensive need to engage in this war.

But if you like, I will agree that it constitutes neither expansion in a territorial sense nor aggression. Fair?

I think TRR suffers from a form of illiteracy.

A petty and clearly false insult not worth any further response.

Now, you could argue that it is a form of aggression if there was a new government in Syria. But there isn't. ISIS and Army of Conquest, etc. simply are not a government and therefore acting against them is not "expansion".

I sincerely hope you are not implying that I consider IS or anything like it a legitimate government. Because if that is your claim, I will consider it a lie.

Oh, and is this an attempt to lump all Syrian opposition in with IS?

Just as US airstrikes against ISIS are not an expansion into anywhere.

Nice of you to acknowledge that.

I guess his reasoning is that Nato wants Assad out of power and some rebel faction in, and thus, Assad is no longer the head of state.

I have warned you already about attributing positions to me that I do not possess.

I never claimed Assad was no longer head of state, technically speaking (head of the carcass of a state he played a large hand in destroying, at any rate). Even though I truly wish he wasn't and I don't blame any nation that decides they no longer wish to recognize him. Nor did I claim that NATO wanting something makes it so. I can only see this as part of your effort to paint me as NATO's spokesperson to discredit me, and I will no longer grant you the benefit of the doubt as to weather it is the result of ignorance or a lie.

You are a liar, and I demand an immediate retraction of the claims that I am a NATO spokesperson, that I believe Assad is no longer the head of state of Syria, and that I believe Assad is not head of state because NATO opposes him.

Oh, and for some reason "democracy", because the most numerous factions right now are Assad and the bigger islamist rebel factions, but the moderate rebels are somehow the legitimate majority, even though they are a minority.

Again, attributing positions to me that I did not argue in this thread (and in fact have never argued as far as I recall).

I do think a government run by moderates opposed to Assad would be an ideal outcome. No comment on its plausibility or what percentage of the rebels are moderates. In any case, it is not my reason for claiming Assad is not head of state because I never fucking claimed that, you lying dipshit.

Your reasoning seems to be that I don't like the Russian government or what its doing in Syria and I (gasp) post stuff about what NATO is saying because its fucking news, so therefore I must be a stereotypical blind, one-dimensional, neocon, NATO cheerleader. Its bullshit.

Oh, and Putin equals warmonger who wants to conquer the world in a nuclear war with Nato.

I don't know if that's what he wants, but he's sure as hell risking it (to be fair, Turkey is too).

Pick one - he's claiming each in turn during the last few discussions.

Liar.

Edited for accuracy.

[K. A. Pital]

As to "aggression"- no, intervening, if its at the request of the Syrian government as has been stated to be true in this case, to fight IS (or the rebels, for that matter) is not aggression in and of itself. However, this is clearly part of a larger effort by Russia to expand its power and influence, and Russia certainly has no real defensive need to engage in this war.

Russia is not defending itself - it is defending its client state. Surely a concept you can understand? You know, the difference between the 1991 Gulf War where the US was protecting its client, Kuwait - and 2003 invasion of the same nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

As to "aggression"- no, intervening, if its at the request of the Syrian government as has been stated to be true in this case, to fight IS (or the rebels, for that matter) is not aggression in and of itself. However, this is clearly part of a larger effort by Russia to expand its power and influence, and Russia certainly has no real defensive need to engage in this war.

Russia is not defending itself - it is defending its client state. Surely a concept you can understand? You know, the difference between the 1991 Gulf War where the US was protecting its client, Kuwait - and 2003 invasion of the same nation.

Of course.

Let me clarify my position on Russia aiding the Syrian government.

I am not saying it is an act of aggression in and of itself.

I do feel that it is unnecessary for Russia to do it, that its motives and its choice of targets are poor, that its choice of allies/client state leaves a great deal to be desired, and that it is needlessly risking a catastrophic confrontation with NATO.

And to be fair, I would say that at least the last two of those apply to those NATO nations that are intervening in Syria as well, and probably the second one does to some extent too.

Is that fair?

[LaCroix]

The fact that a news source reports on what NATO is saying does not make it pro-NATO. And the fact that I post a source does not mean I agree with everything it says.

Nato says that they are ready to deploy troops in turkey, have increased their capacity to deploy troops, because : “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."

Short - Nato completely overreacts about a relatively small thing like accidental airspace violations, all but threatening war, you still are defending them as the reasonable party, saying the Russians (who were acting reasonable by apologizing, immediately) should take care not to escalate the situation. Sorry - if that is being bipartisan, then I'm certainly not getting it.

Let me clarify my position on Russia aiding the Syrian government.
I am not saying it is an act of aggression in and of itself.

Well, it took only 3 people to correct your initial statement for you to suddenly 'clarify' it from "expansionism" to this.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nato says that they are ready to deploy troops in turkey, have increased their capacity to deploy troops, because : “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."

Short - Nato completely overreacts about a relatively small thing like accidental airspace violations, all but threatening war, you still are defending them as the reasonable party, saying the Russians (who were acting reasonable by apologizing, immediately) should take care not to escalate the situation. Sorry - if that is being bipartisan, then I'm certainly not getting it.

What a pile of putrid horse shit.

None of this addresses the fact that posting news referring to NATO's position does not make me pro-NATO, as you claimed.

As to "being bipartisan", I've never hidden my dislike for Russia's government. However, I am quite willing to criticize NATO as well, your bullshit to the contrary.

My very first post in this thread included this:

"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."

Exactly where, in that, was I treating NATO as "reasonable"?

Well, it took only 3 people to correct your initial statement for you to suddenly 'clarify' it from "expansionism" to this.

First, you're conflating my use of "expansionism" and my use of "aggression"- while similar, they are not synonymous terms.

Also, I fully acknowledge that referring to Russia's actions as expansionism was a poor way to describe the situation. Translation: I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, I acknowledged it (and rather quickly at that). I thought that was what mature people did when they screwed up, your insinuations that I am lying aside.

Edit: If you are going to continue overlooking what I have actually said so you can peddle a straw man, I see little reason to even bother with this discussion any more.

I would also like to see you prove your assertion (stated as if it is objective fact) that the airspace violations were accidents. And no, "Russia said so" doesn't qualify.

[K. A. Pital]

I do feel that it is unnecessary for Russia to do it, that its motives and its choice of targets are poor, that its choice of allies/client state leaves a great deal to be desired, and that it is needlessly risking a catastrophic confrontation with NATO.

This is a more reasonable position. I am not sure there is a big risk of catastrophic confrontation. As for being unnecessary... How many client states should Russia abandon? It stopped economic support of Cuba. The latter is turning to the US. It left Gaddafi's Libya. Now Libya is destroyed, a failed state. It left Iraq - despite all the protests in 2003. At this point one might as well wonder if Russia's claims of support are worth the paper they are written on.

[LaCroix]

And this was your second.

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.

All the time, not a single notion of Nato should just keep their fucking fingers out of it when somebody is finally dealing with the mess they caused. In your second post, your immediate assumption was that Russia is doing it on purpose, intending to cause a huge (nuclear)war by getting turkey to shoot at their planes, and using this as a casus belli to invade Turkey (because only this would result in a Nato article 5).

In permanently condemning Russia, even when they are being the more reasonable part, yes, you are treating the Nato as the reasonable party.

And yes, I am calling you out for your apology you made about your prior statements being nothing but "chicken little" comments aimed to paint Russia as a huge agressor against the rest of the world, while at the same time calling me out for mocking your recent spree of "Russia will do xxx, nuclear war in 3..2..1" posting.

[LaCroix]

I would also like to see you prove your assertion (stated as if it is objective fact) that the airspace violations were accidents. And no, "Russia said so" doesn't qualify.

You, yourself, have posted their statement explaining that the airbase they operate from is 30km south from the Turkish border. That's nothing for a jet fighter. And as stated, some weather conditions are forcing them to approach from the north. Accidents are an easy explanation for it. And russia apologized immediately.

Turkey was the one threatening and blustering, so I'm rather inclined to listen to the ones being reaonable than the ones who are not.

Now, I would like to see the proof supporting your theory that Russia was doing it on purpose. I'd be surprised if it was anything beyond "Putin is crazy" or "It's their thing".


I on the other had, am waiting for what happens if Turkey wants to make another sortie to bomb the Kurds, and is called out for violating Syrian airspace.

[LaCroix]

Come to think of it, I think this is the reason why Nato are condemning Russia finally responding to Assad's plea for help.

They can't bomb Assad troops, anymore.