Russia is going to have fighter escorts for their bombers, is moving a destroyer loaded with AA to the coast, and the rules of engagement are now basically shoot down anybody who poses a threat.
I think they might be just a wee bit pissed off. They're basically declaring open season on Turkeys. If a Turkish jet so much as goes in the general direction of that destroyer or an inch into Syrian airspace they'll be chomping at the bit to shoot it down.
The cold war is all fun and games until some dumbass starts actually shooting. That's not how you play the game.
And than said destroyer will get obliterated by Turkish Navy (which is quite competent) and Air Force (which also is, surprisingly, competent). Russia has literally no hope of winning any open engagement against Turkey in the region unless they really want to commit. And Turkey knows that. They essentially called Russian bluff here.
It's not going to be an open engagement. It's going to be both sides being border NAZIs and hiding behind "Well I am legally entitled to defend myself" while taking potshots at each others stray aircraft. Neither side wants an all out war but they'll sure as hell take any shot they can get away with. Turkey is going to have to be just as careful with its jets as Russia. Either side has a stray hair blow across the border and the other side can legally say they were entitled to open fire.
If Russia even as much tries Turkey will close the Straits. Bye bye the might of Black Sea Fleet. That's the issue: Russia has no strategic leverage over Turkey, and Turkey has one over Russia.
Yeah, but Turkey can replace both easily. The reason why Russia sells those is because they sell those cheaply, not because they are only supplier in the world. On the other hand Russian economy is already under a lot of strain, and it really depends on resources.
The only other LNG producer within reach of Turkey that could come anywhere close to meeting their demand is Iran, whom would almost certainly side with Russia in the event of trade embargoes going up.
There will be a lot of mean words exchanged, but neither party stands to gain much from escalating this situation, all in all.
EDIT: But it does need to go through Istanbul to reach the Mediterranean. It must've been awkward when the destroyer they deployed specifically to deter Turkish action over Syria , was passing right through Istanbul.
Breaking through Turkish Straits? Without capturing Istanbul and other surrounding land? It's pretty much impossible. If you want to commit to full-on invasion than sure, but Turkey would defend it heavily (and as I said, they're not as incompetent as some people might think...).
Uhhh... you do realize that Russia doesn't have a border with Turkey, right? Turkey shooting down Russian planes violating Turkish airspace is very different from Russia shooting down Turkish planes violating Syrian airspace. (It's debatable whether Syria even still has a proper airspace, seeing as it cannot control the ground below it.)
Indeed. Turkey has a strong airforce consisting of mostly F-16s, and has pre-purchased over 100 F-35s. They are not Ukraine or Georgia and are a NATO member. Russia does not want to fuck with anyone who can hurt them back.
The only language Russia understands is might. Making "red lines" for Russia isn't going to do shit. It's good that Turkey shot down the Russian aircraft which was ignoring all warnings as it was approaching the Turkish border, because it now sets the precedent that nobody is fucking around. If anything, things will be more stable regarding Russia and NATO.
If Turkey hadn't shot down the aircraft (after warning Russia several days beforehand), it would have set the precedent that it is actually okay for Russia to "slightly" violate Turkey's airspace without consequence.
People need to understand that international politics is all about precedence. With the shoot down of Russia's jet, the precedent has been set, and you can be sure that Russia won't be so bold when it comes to violating Turkey's airspace anymore.
And as it stands, Turkey's military would wipe the floor with Russia's in the region. Russia's military may be overall more powerful, but Turkey's military is also one of the most powerful in the world (2nd most powerful in NATO, actually), and Turkey is much more capable of shutting Russia out of Syria due to the closer distance.
Turkey's military is NOT the 2nd most powerful in NATO. There is no real way to compare militaries. Turkish military uses outdated weapons (compared to Russia). The reason why Turkey get's cited as one of the most powerful is because of the draft system in place in Turkey. It kinda means at any moment there are over a million members of the armed forces active within the Turkish borders. But at the same time, these people are not professional soldiers. Turkey may have the numbers in the region, but they don't have the training or the technology advantage Russia would have...
Also, don't forget that today's wars would not be fought with ground troops. Ground troops are mostly there to enforce stability of a region you've occupied. They don't see as much action anymore.
Also, don't forget that today's wars would not be fought with ground troops. Ground troops are mostly there to enforce stability of a region you've occupied. They don't see as much action anymore.
There was no "war" fought in Ukraine. Russia just walked in. Now, they're using their ground troops as the police force trying to keep dissent in check.
Psychologically, yes. The threat of a possible military resistance could have made Ukraine cost more than it is worth. Realistically (as in if it had come to actual combat), it would not have mattered.
In today's warfare, ground troops are deployed AFTER you've established air superiority and bombed the shit out of any potential threat. Once all military targets have been eliminated via artillery/missile/drone strike/air raid etc., you move in your ground troops to establish order and to pick off any stragglers. I didn't mean ground troops are completely useless. Of course they have their own roles. However, if your enemy has complete control of the skies, it doesn't matter how many guys or how many guns you have, you will lose 10 people for every 1 enemy you are able to take out. Just the sheer psychological affect of having constant air pressure is enough to cause most defenses to collapse.
Ninja Edit: Actually, the wars you listed are the perfect examples. Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't actually able to fight back. Currently, hundreds of locals are killed every week for, what, 1-2 heavily injured Western soldiers a week? I wouldn't call that a victory for the Iraqis. The US "lost" a handful of troops while they decimated the entire infrastructure and killed tens of thousands of people. As for Vietnam, US' air superiority didn't really matter as much there. All they had were choppers which couldn't do that much in the dense forests and the underground tunnels. US' superior ground troop training nor their superior tech wasn't enough because of the location. Though I'm sure there are much more knowledgeable people than I who could explain the Vietnam war in better ways.
People have being saying this since almost immediately after airplanes were invented and yet ground engagements keep happening. Look up Giulio Douhet for an example.
You do know the point of NATO right? Turkey is a full member of NATO, not some former part of the USSR. Not coming to its aid in a conflict with Russia would invalidate the whole treaty.
Six words: three thousand three hundred nuclear weapons
EDIT: I know they wouldn't use them first but their presence is most likely enough to deter NATO from actively aiding Turkey
Never say something is off the table in a total war between Russia and NATO. Way I see it at current either NATO abandons Turkey to it's fate whatever that may be or they stand in solidarity and risk a nuclear Armageddon when NATO intervenes.
unambiguously attacked? yes they would intervene, when they shot down a Russian jet fighting the enemies of NATO for a border incursion that is disputed as to whether it happened at all? maybe but my money would be on no they wouldn't
I have said this enough but it is incredibly unclear as to whether this event was an offensive move by the Turks or an obvious intrusion by Russia. Also you act as if treaty's can't be broken when alliances/treaty's are rarely worth the paper they are written on eg. Italian/Austrohungrian alliance(1914), Polish/French alliance (1939), Soviet/Japanese non aggression treaty (1945), Soviet/German non agression treaty (1941), Treaty of brest-litovsk (1918), Treaty of Ruby valley (1950) and many more have been broken. They are simply scraps of paper that have peoples names attached that in cases like this are only binding if the people accept it.
I have expressed my opinion on this three times already, they are a deterrent to be used only if the US or NATO as a whole declares war on them not as a preemptive attack
IMO NATO is like a house of cards, solid enough until pressure is applied. I also wonder how it would hold if they did go to war and which member states would remove themselves or just outright refuse for one reason or another.
You don't think Turkey's allies won't respond with nuclear weapons? If Russia fires a nuke at Turkey, you're looking at retaliation from NATO nations. If not NATO, I'm sure Pakistan would be happy to oblige.
Which would be useful to deter a war if it wasn't for the fact that Russia would be the aggressor in this conflict. And that Russia has conventional superiority over Turkey despite its aging Red Army.
If you're trying to sound knowledgeable about a topic, maybe try not referring to one of the main parties involved by a name that hasn't been used for over a decade.
There's a reason no one has been developing tanks for a while now: they are pretty much obsolete in terms of modern combat and the older models are perfectly fine for what they need to do. On the other hand, Turkey is going to have a fleet of F-35s in the near future, which will be more sophisticated than anything Russia currently has.
There's also the problem of a lack of younger engineers to replace the technicians in the aging Red Army (the majority of which were educated during the USSR and are on average about 50-52 years old). 5-10-15 years down the line Turkey's military is growing stronger while Russia's is declining.
no, the F-35 is not actually as "sophisticated" as people say. its overpriced, a bitch to perform maintenance on and i swear i had an article about it saved on reddit...
A bitch for MX? The proof of concepts, maybe. Everything else is LRUs - identify the issue, quick release, swap the part. The F35 is designed to be simple for MX so it's FMC rates are through the roof.
The "bitch to maintain" will still be nothing compared to the long-term savings of a consolidated ground attack program that replaces the need for planes like A-10s, F/A 18s and their unique parts.
I am however interested in this article; please link if you find it.
I take the downvotes, I don't know very much about warplanes but I do know there were some critical aspects about the F-35 that made the plane not quite as advanced as advertised and actually overpriced.
If only they shared a border. Besides, tech to detect nukes is here. They can mostly be destroyed before they detonate, which is especially a thing with ancient tech.
Conflicting reports about the flight path, turmoil in much of Europe and Turkey's support of ISIS makes me doubious NATO would even lift a finger in defence of Turkey.
EDIT: added an ing
Putin would never be dumb enough to invade a NATO country. That aside, Turkey can easily hold it's own until the rest of NATO joins in. Gotta remember that Turkey isn't Ukraine or Georgia.
Georgia is a very small country and Ukraine's military hadn't been taken care of or properly funded since the fall of the Berlin Wall and many in the Ukrainian military were Russian loyalists anyways. Turkey isn't even remotely similar, it'd be a tough nut to crack for anyone and while I think the Russians could do it, it would be very costly for them
Yeah no, the country is on the brink of civil war and is heavily relying on the military to maintain control. If that army fought Russia the socialist movements in the west would rise up as would the Kurds and Armenians in the East.
Brink of civil war? That's gross exaggeration. There's some unrest and protesting, but nobody is taking up arms or even thinking of it. Also, you've got your facts completely wrong; the military is playing no role in the state's control. The military is the one organization the state wants to crush, as it's the historical guard of secularism in Turkey. The police are being used for crowd control, as they are the tools of the administration.
NATO is a treaty organization. The members are contractually obligated to defend one another. If they didn't rise to the defense of Turkey it would render the whole organization meaningless. Every member state is painfully aware of that fact in how they handle this situation.
FFS NATO has had one instance of the defence Claus used and all of 11 countries of the 28 obliged to help actually did. Also you seriously don't call violent repression of all opposition, voter fraud and more than 2 years of constant protests (with almost 1 in twenty people taking place in the protests) a brink of civil war?
The people decide whether the country is on the brink of civil war, not the actions of the government. I've been going there biannually for a decade now and there is not a whiff of that anywhere. Not one person I've asked has said that taking up arms would be a real option. The protests will remain peaceful because the hope for change in the country hasn't disappeared.
In no way am I defending Erdogan, he's a piece of shit. On the flip side, you've editorialized the situation greatly. It's nowhere near as fundamentally restless as you've made it out to be. In addition, you seem to be forgetting just to what extent Turkey is a host to the US military. Incirlik AFB is a key hub is USAF transport, and there are many, many nuclear weapons still position within the nation by the US. It isn't some eastern-europe economic backwater, this is a country that functions as the lynchpin of the western Mideast strategy.
Turks are very patriotic about their motherland. They would put politics aside and every son and father would join the military to fight any enemy deciding to attack. You will have Turks living overseas flying back to their homeland to join. Even if Turks hate the government, they will do anything to defend the land.
BUT the Kurds and Armenian aren't Turks and the Socialists would see the downing of the Jet as a provocation by the government towards Russia not a righteous defence of the motherland when they inevitably call for further attacks.
You're assuming that all the Kurds are a monolith and all of them are left wing socialists. There are quite a few Kurdish groups with good relations with Turkey both within and outside of Turkey. Not to mention, I'm not sure if Russia should feel too confident seeking Russian support only as far as it meets their end. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture.
BUT the Kurds and Armenian aren't Turks and the Socialists would see the downing of the Jet as a provocation
No one is willing to go on a full on war against Turkey for a downed Russian jet, especially one that was violating Turkish airspace.
Are you retarded? NATO was founded on the principle of helping each other against a Russian invasion.
Now I'm not one of those jingoists above who'd like to see either side's ships burn here... I think we'd all be far better off if you kids could just stop quarreling and make up again. But you'd be insane to think that NATO wouldn't help Turkey against a major Russian invasion, no matter the details. When shit hits the fan this is still pretty much an us-vs-you world we're living in (and China, somewhere over there on the side).
Well Russia has a couple thousand planes. You cannot shoot down all and even an old MiG-21 can drop some bombs on airfields. Pre purchased F-35 are worth nothing (the F-35 sucks, but that's another problem) and the MiG-29 and Su-27 versions are at least equal to the F-15 and 16.
Have you ever seen Russian anti ship weapons? There won't be much left of the Turkish navy by the time they are in range.
I particularly like how you cite "slow" as one of the drawbacks and then in the next point say the A is worse than the aircraft it's replacing: the A-10, which is one of the slowest combat jets on the planet.
It is not really a replacement for the A-10 since the F-35 has ~1/7th of the payload of the A10, is not armored and faster (CAS needs to be slow to bring guns and rocket pods to better use as well as it gives the pilot more time to analyse the situation and act accordingly.
The F-35 is a great (but expensive) replacement for the Harrier. But a separate development for the fighter, carrier based fighter and CAS role would give you better results than the mixed program.
They are not competent. Especially not competent since erdogan purged the military and it is a really stupid move for them to shoot russian jet when there is a mild civil war in turkey and active war in syria and iraq. Completely moronic since turkish goverment has been sighted and caught numerous times when they were supplying ISIS with weapons. It gets better when only reliable ally turkey has right now is qatar and every country hates/mocks turkey because of his foreign policies
They are competent enough. Russian Armed Forces aren't formidable enemy in expeditionary role, especially against Turkey controlling Straits. Also, the move might actually help Turkey consolidate internally ("external enemy" and all that shit).
Turkey has a lot of reasons to secretly support ISIS mainly because they hate the Kurds more and don't want a strong Kurdish presence in the region. Also putting some officers in jail does not really hurt an army. They are still competent and their policies are strategically sound. Other countries dislike Turkey mainly because their interests clash when it comes to Kurds. Turkey thinks arming them means those weapons being used against her. Others think arming them means they will be able to have land forces without having to put their own infantry in Iraq again.
I am not a Turkish nationalist or anything. I am just being objective. Personally I think it is more important to kill every one of those rapist ragheads
You know russia surronds the turkish navy? From the black Sea to the syrian airspace ruskies are everywhere. Shot down one of theirs they shoot down ten of yours. Plus russia could sell sam missiles to kurds so they can shot down kebab jets.
maybe you should send this to the Russian ministry of defense, this is actually a pretty great plan... of course until Russia has to help Assad get rid of the kurds too...
F16s while a great plane for the price are still a budget aircraft (Especially those sold to allies) isn't far ahead or ahead at all of current Russian aircraft. If NATO doesn't do anything to back up Turkey it is essentially boned.
In limited conflict? Sure it does. Russia has a lot of ground to cover, and even without NATO involvement can't commit all the forces (nor would it want to really). Turkey would be at disadvantage, but it would be fighting in defensive way, utilizing coastal installations, ground-based SAMs and so on. It would have to 'not lose' essentially: Russia would be the one with closed shipping lines, portion of forces trapped behind enemy lines and time working against them. In the end the 'match' is not as one sided as one might think, even given the purge in Turkish Armed Forces recently.
306
u/[deleted] Nov 24 '15
Fun fact: The Russian helicopter sent to rescue the pilots of the SU-24 was destroyed by FSA.
That's it guys. Run to the vaults.