Posted on 11/27/2015 6:31:22 AM PST by Kaslin
Turkey's decision to shoot down a Russian warplane was a provocative and portentous act.
That Sukhoi Su-24, which the Turks say intruded into their air space, crashed and burned -- in Syria. One of the Russian pilots was executed while parachuting to safety. A Russian rescue helicopter was destroyed by rebels using a U.S. TOW missile. A Russian marine was killed.
"A stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists," said Vladimir Putin of the first downing of a Russian warplane by a NATO nation in half a century. Putin has a point, as the Russians are bombing rebels in northwest Syria, some of which are linked to al-Qaida.
As it is impossible to believe Turkish F-16 pilots would fire missiles at a Russian plane without authorization from President Tayyip Recep Erdogan, we must ask: Why did the Turkish autocrat do it?
Why is he risking a clash with Russia?
Answer: Erdogan is probably less outraged by intrusions into his air space than by Putin's success in securing the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, whom Erdogan detests, and by relentless Russian air strikes on Turkmen rebels seeking to overthrow Assad.
Imperiled strategic goals and ethnicity may explain Erdogan. But what does the Turkish president see down at the end of this road?
And what about us? Was the U.S. government aware Turkey might attack Russian planes? Did we give Erdogan a green light to shoot them down?
These are not insignificant questions.
For Turkey is a NATO ally. And if Russia strikes back, there is a possibility Ankara will invoke Article V of NATO and demand that we come in on their side in any fight with Russia.
And Putin was not at all cowed. Twenty-four hours after that plane went down, his planes, ships and artillery were firing on those same Turkmen rebels and their jihadist allies.
Politically, the Turkish attack on the Sukhoi Su-24 has probably aborted plans to have Russia join France and the U.S. in targeting ISIS, a diplomatic reversal of the first order.
Indeed, it now seems clear that in Syria's civil war, Turkey is on the rebel-jihadist side, with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah on the side of the Syrian regime.
But whose side are we on?
As for what strategy and solution President Obama offers, and how exactly he plans to achieve it, it remains an enigma.
Nor is this the end of the alarming news.
According to The Times of Israel, Damascus reports that, on Monday, Israel launched four strikes, killing five Syrian soldiers and eight Hezbollah fighters, and wounding others.
Should Assad or Hezbollah retaliate, this could bring Israel more openly into the Syrian civil war. And if Israel is attacked, the pressure on Washington to join her in attacking the Syrian regime and Hezbollah would become intense.
Yet, should we accede to that pressure, it could bring us into direct conflict with Russia, which is now the fighting ally of the Assad regime.
Something U.S. presidents conscientiously avoided through 45 years of Cold War -- a military clash with Moscow -- could become a real possibility. Does the White House see what is unfolding here?
Elsewhere, yet another Russia-NATO clash may be brewing.
In southern Ukraine, pylons supporting the power lines that deliver electricity to Crimea have been sabotaged, blown up, reportedly by nationalists, shutting off much of the electric power to the peninsula.
Repair crews have been prevented from fixing the pylons by Crimean Tatars, angry at the treatment of their kinfolk in Crimea.
In solidarity with the Tatars, Kiev has declared that trucks carrying goods to Crimea will not be allowed to cross the border.
A state of emergency has been declared in Crimea.
Russia is retaliating, saying it will not buy produce from Ukraine, and may start cutting off gas and coal as winter begins to set in.
Ukraine is as dependent upon Russia for fossil fuels as Crimea is upon Ukraine for electricity. Crimea receives 85 percent of its water and 80 percent of its electricity from Ukraine.
Moreover, Moscow's hopes for a lifting of U.S. and EU sanctions, imposed after the annexation of Crimea, appear to be fading.
Are these events coordinated? Has the U.S. government given a go-ahead to Erdogan to shoot down Russian planes? Has Obama authorized a Ukrainian economic quarantine of Crimea?
For Vladimir Putin is not without options. The Russian Army and pro-Russian rebels in southeast Ukraine could occupy Mariupol on the Black Sea and establish a land bridge to Crimea in two weeks.
In Syria, the Russians, with 4,000 troops, could escalate far more rapidly than either us or our French allies.
As of today, Putin supports U.S.-French attacks on ISIS. But if we follow the Turks and begin aiding the rebels who are attacking the Syrian army, we could find ourselves eyeball to eyeball in a confrontation with Russia, where our NATO allies will be nowhere to be found.
Has anyone thought this through?
Possibly. It is impossible for me to judge. I can say that recently he has spoken of religion and that he seems to maintain a very healthy, clean, decent, reverent lifestyle.
Interesting.
He sees Christian faith as an important element in the picture of America he hopes to repaint. He’s gone off on molehills like they were mountains (the Starbucks cup kerfuffle) but even his miscalculations have an endearing aspect. He wants to do the right thing but can’t quite find his way there.
“I am surprised Putin did not immediately send a cruise missile to the base where the Turkish planes took off...This shows he is NOT the bloodthirsty maniac the press wants to portray him as.”
I agree, if ANYONE is trying to defuse this stuff it’s Putin. Turkey seems to WANT World War 3 to start, and Putin prefers that not to happen.
I heard Senator Tom Cotton on talk radio trying to explain our policy (i.e., supporting the ‘moderate’ opposition). He was stumbling around and CLEARLY READING TALKING POINTS. The Republicans in the Senate also have NO CLUE as to what’s going on their, but they continue to support it.
...also, back in the days when the Dems ran the Congress, if a Republican IDIOT were taking this country into World War 3, the Democrats would PASS A LAW to stop the President.
Today’s Republicans are TOTALLY CLUELESS.
Travis, you have more insight than our national defense talking heads in the media. ISIS knows they have the entire world on edge waiting for the next attack so your point of an ISIS worldwide offensive is right on the money. Next year could be a very bloody one worldwide.
WW3 will begin in Europe with a massive “Tet Offensive” style coordinated attack.
I have a major essay on it coming out on Monday.
“Tet, Take Two: Islam’s 2016 European Offensive.”
Keep an eye out for it, I’ll post it on FR.
Our current military leadership is lacking big time.
Case in point. Open testimony by Joint Chief of Staff Dempsey: ...we estimate that 25% of rebels are Al Quaeda.
That means in closed door testimony that number was closer to 40%. And as a member of the military he went along with the arming of those terrorists.
Sadly, we can no longer count on aspects of our military to do the right thing; nor can we rely solely on them to protect us.
A sad state of affairs indeed. And the Uni-Party politicians that supported that policy...McCain/Lindsy/Chuckster et al...not in jail for violating the Patriot Act.
If we wait for these people and their allies to do the right thing....WE'RE DOOMED...WE'LL NEVER MAKE IT...WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! (Glum).
JMFPOO
It has Obama written all over it, imo.
As for other NATO countries helping us, that has becoming increasingly a joke as NATO has expanded to include small countries that offer little but ground space. Even the use of ground space in a real war is questionable. As soon as something is required of them they will turn tail and betray the agreement. Many joined in the same way “refugees’ come to the U.S.: to get the benefits, not the liabilities.
NATO was what? Five? Six major Western nations bordering the Warsaw pact. Now, every gangster regime in the world is being invited in to agitate the Russians. Eventually, one is going to start something we really don't want to finish.
NATO should have dissolved in 1991 or so.
Doesn't he mean "Tartars"? Aren't "tatars" one of the vittles Granny fixes for Jethro?
“We have no permanent allies, we have no permanent enemies,
we only have permanent interests” - Palmerston
It is perfectly evident to many here that Russia is acting in a way which furthers the interests of our people, our nation, and our religion. Should this cease to be so, the support you detect for Putin would undoubtedly vanish.
For the record, it was the the Prime Minister Davutoglu who said he ordered the shoot down, not Erdogan.
Can’t wait to read it. I fear what you’re saying is true. ISIS and other radical Muslim groups know Europe, America, and all of the western world are filled with spineless leaders. It’s gonna be a horrific 2016. I just hope this country makes the right choice in the presidential election to give us some flicker of hope.
Crimean Tatars
Crimean Tatars are a Turkic ethnic group that formed in the Crimean Peninsula in the 13th-17th centuries, primarily from the Turkic tribes that moved to the land that is now known as Crimea in Eastern Europe from the Asian steppes beginning in the 10th century, with contributions from the pre-Cuman population of Crimea. Crimean Tatars constituted the majority of Crimea's population from the time of its ethnogenesis until mid-19th century, and the relative largest ethnic population until the end of 19th century. Almost immediately after the liberation of Crimea, in May 1944, the USSR State Defense Committee ordered the removal of a majority of the Tatar population from Crimea, including the families of Crimean Tatars serving in the Soviet Army - in trains and boxcars to Central Asia, primarily to Uzbekistan. Starting in 1967, some were allowed to return to Crimea, and in 1989 the USSR Parliament condemned the removal of Crimean Tatars from their motherland as inhumane and lawless.
Tartar is an alternative spelling
Steak tartare is a meat dish made from ground raw beef
Here is a recipe for it by Emeril Lagasse
Interstitial surveillance video of one of the attackers using a pump gun. Apparently he couldn’t get it to function. Vid is too grainy to confirm if it’s the same model.
L
Looking forward to it.
L
Thanks!
“Taters” was what George Boomer Scott called his home runs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.