Turkey shoots down Russian warplane

[John F]

It's far from clear, from this story, exactly what happened and where. Which is only one aspect of how complicated the Syrian wars are, and how little control the U.S. can have over the fight against the Islamic State. Anyone with quick and easy solutions, especially those who would be our president, should take heed.

Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR and STEVEN ERLANGER
NOV. 24, 2015

MOSCOW — Two big powers supporting different factions in the Syrian civil war clashed with each other on Tuesday when Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian warplane that Turkey said had strayed into its airspace. The tensions immediately took on Cold War overtones when Russia rejected Turkey’s claim and Ankara responded by asking for an emergency NATO meeting, eliciting more Russian anger and ridicule. After the meeting, the NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, called for “calm and de-escalation” and said the allies “stand in solidarity with Turkey.”

It was thought to be the first time a NATO country has shot down a Russian plane in half a century. And while few expect a military escalation, with neither Russia nor NATO wanting to go to war, the incident highlighted the dangers of Russian and NATO combat aircraft operating in the same theater and has soured chances for a diplomatic breakthrough over Syria.

As President François Hollande of France met with President Obama in Washington to urge a closer and more aggressive alliance with Russia against the Islamic State, Turkey’s decision to fire on a Russian warplane attacking targets in Syria has raised tensions between Moscow and NATO and undercut efforts to persuade Russia to drop its support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

Turkey wants Mr. Assad gone, and has allowed its border with Syria to be an easy crossing point for Syrian rebels, including those the West regards as terrorists or radical Islamists; Russia wants to prop up Mr. Assad and his government. While Moscow says it is attacking the Islamic State, for the most part Russian planes and troops have been attacking the Syrian rebels, some of whom are supported by the United States and the West, who most threaten Mr. Assad’s rule. Mr. Obama said again Tuesday that Russian air attacks on moderate opponents of Mr. Assad had only helped him and that they should be directed at the Islamic State.

Mr. Hollande and Mr. Obama clearly hoped that the bombing of a Russian passenger jet over Egypt, claimed by the Islamic State, would cause Moscow to make defeating the jihadists more of a priority than propping up Mr. Assad. But Tuesday’s events will make that a tougher sell, for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wants to be seen as an equal player in the conflict, not beholden to Western policies.

Turkey, especially under the increasingly authoritarian rule of its nationalist president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been fierce in defending its airspace, shooting down Syrian jets that have strayed in the past. Turkey insisted that it issued 10 warnings over a five-minute period to the Russian pilot of the Sukhoi Su-24 to pull away. But Mr. Putin, clearly angry, responded that the Russian jet had never violated Turkish airspace and was shot down over Syria. Speaking in Sochi, he called the downing of the plane a “stab in the back delivered by the accomplices of terrorists,” warning that it would have “serious consequences for Russian-Turkish relations.”..

A United States military spokesman, Col. Steven Warren, confirmed on Tuesday that Turkish pilots had warned the Russian pilot 10 times, but that the Russian jet ignored the warnings. Colonel Warren, speaking from Baghdad to reporters in Washington, also said American officials were analyzing radar track data to determine the precise location of the jet when it was shot down. At the emergency NATO meeting, Turkish officials played recordings of the warnings Turkish F-16 pilots had issued to the Russian aircraft. The Russian pilots did not reply. The Turkish account of the episode was described by several diplomats, who asked not to be identified because they were discussing a closed-door session at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels. After Turkish representatives presented their side of the encounter at the meeting, they received expressions of support for their country’s territorial integrity, according to the diplomats’ account.

The Russian Su-24 that was struck was over the Hatay region of Turkey for about 17 seconds, according to one diplomat who attended the NATO meeting. But the plane re-entered Syrian airspace after being hit and therefore crashed in Syria, the diplomat said.

Tensions between Russia and Turkey had increased lately over Russian bombing of Turkmen tribesmen in northern Syria, whom Turkey regards as under its protection and who are fighting to oust Mr. Assad. Just this week, Turkey summoned the Russian ambassador in Ankara to demand that Moscow stop targeting Turkmen tribesmen in Syria. “It was stressed that the Russian side’s actions were not a fight against terror, but they bombed civilian Turkmen villages, and this could lead to serious consequences,” the Turkish Foreign Ministry said. And so it has. The diplomatic spat may have led directly to Moscow continuing to target the Turkmens on Tuesday, and Turkey’s aggressive response.

What may make matters worse is that those same tribesmen say they shot and killed both Russian pilots as they floated to earth in their parachutes, having apparently ejected safely after the plane was hit by air-to-air missiles. The tribesmen then reportedly destroyed a Russian helicopter with a TOW antitank missile as it tried to rescue the airmen. The Russian Ministry of Defense said late Tuesday that one fighter pilot had been killed by ground fire and that a marine deployed on the search-and-rescue helicopter died but that the rest of the crew had escaped...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world ... plane.html


See also this:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... -maps.html

[Sapphire]

There are at present irreconcilable different objectives as between the Russian and the West (mainly the USA/UK/France) in resolving the situation in Syria.

The "West" wants to see the end of the Assad regime and all the militant factions it deems "extreme" that are opposed to Assad, including especially ISIS.

The Russians want to support Assad and to see the end of all opposing militant factions, including especially ISIS.

There does not seem to be enough common ground here, in my opinion, for any sensible way forward to emerge without major risk of something quite calamitous happening, either by accident or design.

From my perspective in the UK, simply taking a common-sense view of things it seems that the Assad regime is no threat to the West in the military sense, and never has been. The various factions opposed to Assad are a very mixed bunch, some of which are very dangerous and hostile to the West, and the rest (the more "moderate" ones) are largely an unknown quantity.

It would seem that the USA seems to be mainly interested in removing the Assad regime because it (Syria) has never kowtowed to the Washington line, but rather is aligned with Iran, whom the USA clearly dislike because of its previously stated position vis-à-vis Israel.

Meanwhile, the Turks are operating in a highly dangerous manner. Quite apart from the strong rumours that they have been are still are fertive buyers of ISIS oil, the Turkish government's response to the Russian bomber jet was clearly OTT. Furthermore, scenes of the kalashnikov-waving bunch of wild men awaiting the parachutes' landing, and the triumphant scenes on the ground once the pilots had landed apparently dead, should be enough to show what a bunch of utter thugs the USA may appear to have been supporting. "Moderate" rebels? Pull the other one.

For the sake of us all, their membership of NATO should be wound up, with immediate effect. At the very least, someone like Obama should get up pronto and stop these clowns from shooting down doing any further Russian bombers that, at worst, may possibly only have inadvertently strayed a mile or so inside a very narrow finger of Turkish territory, in pursuit of rebels it deems a threat to the Assad regime that Russia supports. The Russians deny any such incursion, but whatever it didn't justify shooting down the plane.

Before any more damage is done to world security, the best way forward would be for the West to throw in its "lot" with the Russians and concentrate exclusively on eliminating all the nasty elements opposed to Assad. Forget all about trying to back so-called "moderate rebels". Let them sink, as something has to "give" in this situation. In any case if ever there was a loony policy this is surely it, and here I blame the USA as much as the Cameron government.

As for how to eliminate ISIS and the rest of all the other similar mad dogs running around loose in Syria, I'm pretty sure that Winston Churchill or Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have needed instruction on how to do it: send for a modern-day "Bomber Harris". ISIS ought to be be history by Xmas this year.

[John F]

From my perspective in the UK, simply taking a common-sense view of things it seems that the Assad regime is no threat to the West in the military sense, and never has been. The various factions opposed to Assad are a very mixed bunch, some of which are very dangerous and hostile to the West, and the rest (the more "moderate" ones) are largely an unknown quantity.

It would seem that the USA seems to be mainly interested in removing the Assad regime because it (Syria) has never kowtowed to the Washington line, but rather is aligned with Iran, whom the USA clearly dislike because of its previously stated position vis-à-vis Israel.

That's not how it looks here in the U.S. It's not our role in the Middle East. We haven't conducted air strikes against our main enemy in the region, Iran, and the sanctions we and other nations imposed were focused on its nuclear weapons program and are to be relieved as Iran keeps its commitments. We have not required or expected Iran to "kowtow to the Washington line" or change its "position vis-à-vis Israel." Nor has the U.S. made any such demands of the Assad regime.

When President Obama imposed sanctions against Assad's Syria in 2011, he announced that the purpose was to pressure it "to end its use of violence against its people and begin transitioning to a democratic system that protects the rights of the Syrian people." Assad would long since have been forced from power if not for his army killing many thousands of Syrians, far more than the Islamic State ever has. And you believe we should abandon the anti-Assad rebels, whom we've been backing for years, and instead support Assad and his murderers? Such treachery would not only be morally shameful, it would damage our credibility and therefore our alliances and our standing in the world.

As I understand it, the U.S. puts first the replacement of the Assad regime, since only then will the rebels against him be able and motivated to fight against the Islamic State. We've said repeatedly that we will not provide ground troops, nor will our European allies, but that they must come from "the region"; and since none of the Arab states has lifted a finger against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (they are preoccupied with Yemen instead), that means the Syrian rebels.

We should not and I hope we will not side with Russia in support of the murderous Assad regime. That kind of cynical Realpolitik is not on the table, as far as I know, and it would arouse an outcry from the American people electorate such as you've never heard. From our point of view, it's up to Russia to join us in support of human rights and the possibility of democracy in Syria. I suppose nobody is surprised that Putin's Russia, or anybody's Russia, isn't doing this or likely to. But if they won't yield, and continue to fight for Assad rather than against the Islamic State, then I feel very strongly that we shouldn't yield either, becoming their and Assad's barbaric accomplices against the people of Syria. It's not about "common sense," as you put it, but about basic principles and human values. It's about who we are, or believe we are, or at least want to be.

[jbuck919]

What Russia is doing makes no sense except as a determined effort to remain an equal player on the world power stage. They (to collectivize Putin) haven't learned the lesson of modern democracy, which is that it is possible to exercise god-like power without being a literal dictator with a perverse agenda. But then, as Winston Churchill said, "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

[Sapphire]

When President Obama imposed sanctions against Assad's Syria in 2011, he announced that the purpose was to pressure it "to end its use of violence against its people and begin transitioning to a democratic system that protects the rights of the Syrian people." Assad would long since have been forced from power if not for his army killing many thousands of Syrians, far more than the Islamic State ever has. And you believe we should abandon the anti-Assad rebels, whom we've been backing for years, and instead support Assad and his murderers? Such treachery would not only be morally shameful, it would damage our credibility and therefore our alliances and our standing in the world.

The way many people over this side of the Atlantic (of both liberal and conservative persuasion) now see things rather differs from your rose-tinted view regarding the USA's involvement in this area. The USA's policy of funding and supporting with arms the so-called "moderate" elements in Syria against the Assad regime has been crazy both in design and in effect. Your government has taken a huge gamble that merely providing such support would eventually lead to the emergence of a successful democratic system in Syria. This policy has not worked so far, but on the contrary has been a conspicuous failure, with many weapons having fallen into enemy hands.

It has dawned on many people this side of Atlantic that it was much the same wishful thinking that led your government under Dubya, and the UK's government under Tony Bliar, to invade Iraq for the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein. That escapade, of course, was not only a complete waste of time and cost many unnecessary human lives based on false pretences of WMD etc, but destabilised the region to such an extent that it created the foundations of what has eventually manifested itself in the creation of the monstrosity calling itself ISIL.

Merely by arming a bunch of so-called "moderate" rebels, it actually seems astonishing that anyone could seriously believe that any form of stable democratic structure could ever be formed out of the complex mix of Sunni, Shiva, Christian and various other denominations that form Syrian society. Nevertheless, if you believe that it is still the right path for the USA to follow in Syria, can you clarify where exactly do you draw the line between those groups you consider to be "moderate" rebels, and those you consider to be immoderate?

I can only say that the idea that a workable distinction can be defined seems utterly laughable to me, as they're all rebels, some nastier than others. If you think that the bunch of rebels (Turkmen?) seen behaving in a disgusting manner around the body of the downed Russian pilot yesterday are "moderate" I can only express disbelief and amazement. Can anyone honestly envisage any of these religious nut-cases ever forming part of a stable democratic government in Syria?

The policy that would seem to have the best chance of success would be for the West and Russia (and Iran) to focus on getting rid ISIL and any other Al Qaeda offshoots, but to leave the Assad regime intact indefinitely. It is none of our business who runs Syria except insofar that they pose a clear and credible threat to our safety. The Assad regime does not pose any such threat. Besides, any policy that also aims to get rid of Assad together with ISIL is clearly not going to pass muster with Russia, so if the West continues its present befuddled policy of fighting both into the future the less likely that ISIL will be defeated, as it will simply weaken the established government's attempts to do the same. In order to achieve this poicy, Turkey's highly dubious role in the whole affair so far needs to be resolved. They should be cut out completely in my opinion as they can't be trusted, since they appear to hate Assad more than they do ISIL.

[John F]

Now you'd like to dismiss the anti-Assad rebels as "so-called moderates," for no reason that you give except perhaps that they are inconvenient to your cynical view of what America's foreign policy objectives and war aims are or should be. Your disbelief is not an argument. And if I may say so, I am and have been rather closer to my country's decision-making than you are.

As for your analogy with Bush's invasion of Iraq, supposedly because of their non-existent weapons of mass destruction, there's no basis in history or fact for the analogy. For one thing, this country isn't going to send 100,000 troops into combat in Syria - against both the Islamic State and Assad's military? That would be madness. Nor are we going to betray the rebels, entailing the consequences I've described and you quote from me, but about which you have nothing to say. Your country may think it none of your business who runs Syria, but my country made it our business four years ago, and so it remains.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, even though it's dead wrong.

As for the irrelevant matter of the pilot of the Russian fighter the Turks shot down, which was on one of many missions to bomb the Turkmen settlements in Syria near the Turkish border, the Turkmens' jubilation at having dispatched just one or two of their unreachable deadly enemies may offend you, but your moral indignation is misplaced. It should be directed at Russia for flying those missions in the first place, not only killing people who never did Russia any harm but putting their own pilots in harm's way. None of that has any bearing on the right of Syrians, including the Turkmens, to resist the oppression of the literally illegitimate Assad government, or to govern themselves.

[Sapphire]

What a lovely world we live in thanks largely to USA meddling in other countries' affairs. All or most of your military efforts in the Middle East (with UK assistance) have wreaked nothing but mayhem all over the place. Nothing seems to have worked with a satisfactory conclusion, either because it was badly misconceived for one reason or another, or badly executed in terms of follow-up. Just look at the chaotic situation you unleashed in Iraq and Libya. As if that's not enough, you're at it again meddling around in Syria.

I'm surprised you appear oblivious to the fact that the Turkish government seems to be rotten to the roots. What have they done to try to defeat ISIL? Nothing that's worth reporting. On the contrary, they have more likely been helping them by allowing cross-border transactions in oil, and turning a blind eye to jihadi movements. And now they're blowing up Russian jets that are no threat to Turkey. You appear to welcome this. I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA gave the order to fire, or at least with prior knowledge, especially after what sounds like a very dodgy warning about the Russian jet "approaching Turkish airspace".

The only country that has done anything serious about really going for ISIL is the Russians, and now France since the wake-up call in Paris. On the contrary, it's very unclear what exactly the USA has achieved in defeating ISIL, despite all the rhetoric from the White House. It would seem very little in fact, no doubt because it's worried that if it attacked ISIL with too much force it would make Assad's chance of survival that much stronger. It seems that Obama's main aim is to bide his time quietly for the remainder of his term.

The whole idea of a democracy is of course alien to many of these competing groups in Syria. But ignoring that, I'm wondering about the implications for Israel if ever a Sunni-dominated government took over in Syria in the democracy you imagine might one day happen, no doubt with a sprinkling of jihadis filling up some of the seats. Things have been very quiet on the Golan Heights since 1973, but things could change on that front if the jihadis get a toehold in a future Syrian government.

The matter of the Russian plane being shot down, to which I referred, is not irrelevant. According to reports, some of the Turkmen brigades work with the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front. The Turkmen brigades aside, several other militia groups in Syria (both the so-called "moderate" groups and some extreme ones) appear to be happy when the occasion suits them to combine their forces against what they perceive to be their common enemy, Assad. At the very least, uncertainties exist about whether there is always any clear demarcation line between "moderates" and the more extreme groups. This being the case, it simply throws the USA's already befuddled policy in this area into yet further depths of incomprehensibility.

I won't be commenting any further on this topic.

[John F]

Range of Frustrations Reached Boil as Turkey Shot Down Russian Jet
By KEITH BRADSHER
NOV. 25, 2015

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey and Russia promised on Wednesday not to go to war over the downing of a Russian military jet, leaving Turkey’s still-nervous NATO allies and just about everyone else wondering why the country decided to risk such a serious confrontation. The reply from the Turkish government so far has been consistent: Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Though minor airspace violations are fairly common and usually tolerated, Turkey had repeatedly called in Russia’s ambassador to complain about aircraft intrusions and about bombing raids in Syria near the border. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday evening — and a Pentagon spokesman later confirmed — that before a Turkish F-16 shot down the Russian Su-24 jet, Turkish forces had warned the Russian plane 10 times in five minutes to steer away. “I personally was expecting something like this, because in the past months there have been so many incidents like that,” Ismail Demir, Turkey’s undersecretary of national defense, said in an interview. “Our engagement rules were very clear, and any sovereign nation has a right to defend its airspace.”

While that may be true, analysts said Mr. Erdogan had several more nuanced reasons to allow Turkish pilots to open fire. These include his frustration with Russia over a range of issues even beyond Syria, the Gordian knot of figuring out what to do with Syria itself and Turkey’s strong ethnic ties to the Turkmen villages Russia has been bombing lately in the area of the crash.

Turkey has been quietly seething ever since Russia began military operations against Syrian rebels two months ago, wrecking Ankara’s policy of ousting the government of President Bashar al-Assad. The Turks were forced to downgrade their ambitions from the ouster of Mr. Assad to simply maintaining a seat at the negotiating table when the time comes, said Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a nonpartisan research group.

“That would require Turkey-backed rebels to be present in Syria, and I think Turkey was alarmed that Russia’s bombing of positions held by Turkey-backed rebels in northern Syria was hurting their positions and therefore Turkey’s future stakes in Syria,” Mr. Cagaptay said. “So this is also an aggressive Turkey posture in the Syrian civil war to prevent the defeat of Turkey-backed rebels so they can hold onto territory and have a say in the future of Syria.”

But the fate of the particular rebels the Russians were bombing in the mountainous Bayirbucak area where the plane was shot down is more than just a policy matter to the Turks. Mr. Erdogan particularly emphasized the ethnic tie in a speech Tuesday evening, saying, “We strongly condemn attacks focusing on areas inhabited by Bayirbucak Turkmen — we have our relatives, our kin there.”

The Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said as much on Wednesday while dismissing Russia’s explanation that it was fighting a common enemy, the Islamic State. “No one,” he said, “can legitimize attacks on Turkmens in Syria using the pretext of fighting the Islamic State.”..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/world ... r-jet.html

[lennygoran]

The only country that has done anything serious about really going for ISIL is the Russians, and now France since the wake-up call in Paris.

This statement is hard to understand-the Russians are doing more than we have done?-we don't have boots on the ground but they don't either--also our coalition has done much more than Russia. And in terms of total bombs dropped on ISIS we must be way ahead? And what about all the work Iran has done-haven't they fought ISIL more than Russia has--not that I'm a big fan of Iran. Regards, Len

[John F]

The only country that has done anything serious about really going for ISIL is the Russians, and now France since the wake-up call in Paris.

This statement is hard to understand

The Russians have joined the Syrian air force in striking some Islamic State targets, but most of their bombing has been directed against the anti-Assad rebels. For reasons I do not understand, Sapphire is determined to overestimate Russia's anti-ISIL combat actions, which only began two months ago after ISIL brought down a Russian airliner, and underestimate America's, which began in September 2014. Since we've no agreement about the basic facts, I've nothing more to say to him, and he's said he's finished too. Fine with me.

[lennygoran]

The Russians have joined the Syrian air force in striking some Islamic State targets, but most of their bombing has been directed against the anti-Assad rebels. For reasons I do not understand, Sapphire is determined to overestimate Russia's anti-ISIL combat actions, which only began two months ago after ISIL brought down a Russian airliner, and underestimate America's, which began in September 2014. Since we've no agreement about the basic facts, I've nothing more to say to him, and he's said he's finished too. Fine with me.

Thanks for confirming this-I was starting to wonder if I had misinterpreted all the news we watch every day. Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

I won't be commenting any further on this topic.

How convenient.

[Sapphire]

With sincere apologies for my error, I mis-posted the following in the wrong thread earlier today. I am posting it again here, trusting that it doesn't case too much confusion:

I did not intend to return to this discussion but I feel compelled to reply to the suggestion above that the USA alliance, in its bombing raids over Syria, has been more of a serious threat to ISIL than the Russians appear to pose.

I was not simply counting the number of bombs dropped, or the number of sorties, as some people seem so naively feel content with. On this crude reckoning, the USA alliance is no doubt far ahead, because it started so much earlier. However, all of this effort has not been very effective, partly because there are inadequate ground forces to capitalise on the air strikes, and partly because many of the air strikes appear to have been badly targeted having done little harm to the continuing outflow of outflow of oil shipments into Turkey, on which ISIL relies for finance. Indeed, the Turks have probably been buying the oil, thus helping to finance ISIL's continuing exitence and its ongoing atrocities. What's more, some accounts suggest that the Turkish air force has been more focused on bombing the Kurds than it has ISIL. In fact, the Turks have probably made several illegal sorties into Iraq, doing the same kind of thing against the Kurds there too. If anything about this whole venture is absurd, this must surely take top prize.

Overall, the Alliance's campaign in stopping ISIL has hardly been a success so far. At best, it may have placed some restriction on its very rapid growth across vast areas of Syria and Iraq, but none of this has seriously hampered ISIL's ability to hit back hard when it suits it. Where it has fundamentally gone wrong for the Alliance is that it there is no way that bombing alone will not secure victory over ISIL. There needs to be well-coordinated and effective ground forces cover so that areas may be progressively gained back. I'm not saying that this has not happened to some extent, but it seems to have been of very limited success so far. This fact seems to be very well known, and is often cited, but nothing convincing ever seems to be proposed by the Alliance by way of an effective ground force ever emerging. Furthermore, it's most unclear what is assumed to happen with regard to the Assad army of 80,000 troops. Are they presumed to give up fighting for territory simply because a bomb wiped out ISIL in that particular geographical spot?

The Alliance's evident faith in the ragbag "army" of so-called moderates opposed to Assad doing any effective sweep-up operations and consolidation is hugely optimistic. Nobody is sure how many there are, or who exactly they comprise. The policy probably won't work because (i) the various groups are not well co-ordinated, but rather there seems to exist bitter rivalry among several of them, (ii) some of them appear to be untrustworthy as they are reported to have occasional linkages with Al-Qaeda when it suits them, (iii) for some groups they're apparently not interested in forming a democratic structure for the whole of Syria, but rather seek more local autonomy/independence in the areas they currently live. In short, there is no evidence that anything concrete may likely emerge from any of this Alliance bombing activity, other than mere containment if ISIL at the fringes of its already extensive area of occupation.

Because of these factors, it would be hugely optimistic to believe that any lasting peace settlement can be achieved by a continuation of the present policy. The latest attempts to set up a political dialogue across the various factions probably stand little chance of success. The sad fact seems to be that Syria (like so much else of the Middle East) isn't the kind of place where democracy may be expected to work, as there are too many diverse ethnic groups with conflicting aims and religious rivalries etc. Some parts of the West never seem to "get this" but rather continue their misguided efforts at regime change under one guise or another. This happened in Iraq and Libya, and the result was a good deal of regret and chaos. In the UK's HOC discussion yesterday about whether or not the UK should join in the bombing of Syria a number of MPs raised these broad concerns. They would obviously like to see the end of ISIL as soon as possible but can hardly see this being achieved without a clear plan of action on the ground, and political follow-up process, neither of which seems at all promising in the proposals. I share their concerns.

Against this, the Russians, although they started their bombing campaign in Syria much more recently, would appear to have a much better chance of success because they are manifestly doing this in support of the Assad army, reckoned to number some 80,000 troops. It is by this that I meant that only country that is doing anything serious going for ISIL is the Russians. This of course assumes that Turkey doesn't undertake any more sabotage operations. Why Turkey is allowed to remain in NATO baffles me. They are dangerous and should have their wings clipped sharply and very quickly.

Lastly, I do wish that some people on the Forum would not be constantly making newspaper links to support their arguments. To me it is a very lazy way of trying to make a point, or to respond to a point made by others. I can seldom be bothered to read any of these links.

[John F]

I'm not reading Sapphire's posts on this topic any longer, it's a waste of time, but I've copied this here from another thread:

The Russians, although they started their bombing campaign in Syria much more recently, would appear to have a much better chance of success because they are manifestly doing this in support of the Assad army, reckoned to number some 80,000 troops. It is by this that I meant that only country that is doing anything serious going for ISIL is the Russians.

You're the one who's naive, and illogical too. You back off from your previous erroneous claim that the Russians actually are attacking ISIL more than we are, to the wishful thinking that they "would appear to have a much better chance of success" by supporting Assad's army. But the primary war aim of Assad army has not been to defeat ISIL but to crush the rebellion against Assad. By joining them instead of us, the Russians too are attacking the rebels, such as the Turkmens - it's their bombing campaign against this anti-Assad group that led to the Russian fighter getting into Turkish air space and being shot down.

Show me hard numbers of actual strikes against ISIL targets by Syrian and Russian forces, and their effectiveness. I've looked into that and they are both few in number and trivial in effect compared with what the U.S.-led coalition has been doing for more than a year.

If the Russians really were serious about attacking ISIL, they would instead have joined the coalition whose primary war aim this is - not Assad's army but the U.S. et al. And now they have kind of halfway made a gesture in that direction, offering to coordinate their activities in Syria with those of France, and thereby indirectly with those of the U.S. and its other allies. Whether this will amount to effective action or merely keep their fighter planes from shooting each other down, remains to be seen. So far it's just talk, and we don't yet know how the talk will translate into action or how effective that action will be.

You'd have done better to refrain from commenting further on this topic, as you said yesterday you would, until you have some actual evidence to show - not just dubious speculation motivated (it would seem) more by anti-U.S. feelings than by any actual facts.

[Sapphire]

I'm not reading Sapphire's posts on this topic any longer, it's a waste of time, but I've copied this here from another thread:

etc

Oh dear, I appear to have disturbed your, dare I say, rose-tinted view of things.

In reply to your various points above, you certainly seem to be very highly selective in what you choose to comment upon. This of course is in line with classic forum tradition, so I'm not surprised

I have not backed off in my view that the Russian approach seems far more likely to be successful than a continuation of largely un-coordinated bombing activity that has characterised the USA alliance approach thus far. Whilst many bombs have been dropped, it hasn't achieved much, and nor is ever likely to do so unless there are effective ground forces to mop up any gains. This is where the USA approach has signally failed.

What about the fact that your government's real aims are not just the defeat of ISIL but, as you openly admit, to bring about regime change in Syria? When is the USA going to stop interfering in the domestic politics of other countries in this way.

Why hasn't the USA bombing campaign achieved a stop to the shipments of ISIL oil shipments to Turkey? We never hear anything about this, and yet there are reports of long lines of lorries carrying oil in that direction on a regular basis.

What has the USA done to stop Turkey bombing the Kurds? These people are under constant threat of attack by Turkey. The Kurds are excellent fighters, and if only their talents could be better harnessed with proper military backing it's reckoned by some observers that they would stand a good chance of seeing off ISIS quite quickly. The Kurds hate ISIL's guts, so there would no risk of double-crossing, unlike the situation with some of the other militias that the USA seems to have faith in. By turning a blind eye to all this harrassment of the Kurds, the USA seems more keen on appeasing Turkey than in defeating ISIL. Here one wonders whether the USA has just been just toying with ISIL, hoping that by leaving this ghastly outfit largely intact it may achieve the USA's main aim of getting rid of Assad.

What about this so-called "army" of 70,000 of so-called "moderate rebels", that you have such faith in. Don't make me laugh.

I'm also losing track of who the USA wants to bomb next. First it was Assad, then it was ISIL, now it might appear to be any hapless Russian jets and helicopters (thanks to the Turkish airforce from information probably supplied by the CIA). It will be soon be bombing itself at this rate.