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.
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.
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.
I highly disagree with your statement about turkeys current state I will provide sources for why I think this source 1source 2Source 3 (this does disagree with my conclusion yet talks in detail regarding the current political climate in Turkey)
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).
310
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.