It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia VS. Turkey

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Is Turkey downing a Russian plane going to spark World War 3? I think not. However one of Russia's most respected defense analysts says it will.



So what are the chances that Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to give a brutal response to the downing of Russia’s warplane by Turkish forces? According to Russian defense analysts, the chances are very high.

Despite the fact that Turkey is backed by NATO’s 5th Article, which states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all NATO members, the chances that Putin will unleash a nuclear war over the Tuesday incident are very “likely,” according to Pavel Felgenhauer, Russia’s most respected military analyst.


I don't really know what to make of this, the first thing that comes to mind is fear mongering. We all know Russia can get a little crazy, so maybe this is the straw that broke the camels back.



Felgenhauer said Turkey is seeking to protect a zone in northern Syria controlled by its allies, the Turkmens, while the downing of the Russian jet in the region must prompt Moscow to either accept the zone or “start a war with Turkey,” which means starting a war with NATO.

And the only way Russia could win a war against NATO is by going nuclear, Felgenhauer said.

“It is most likely that it will be war,” said Felgenhauer, as reported by Mirror. “In other words, more fights will follow when Russian planes attack Turkish aircraft in order to protect our [Russia’s] bombers. It is possible that there will be fights between the Russian and Turkish navies at sea.”

Russia’s top defense analyst also warned that Ankara will probably shut down the Bosphorus, and other NATO members will join this conflict, thus unleashing an all-out war with Russia. The Bosphorus is the only way by which Russia’s mighty Black Sea fleet can reach the Mediterranean.

“And in such a conflict Russia has very little chance unless it uses its nuclear weapons,” Felgenhauer warned.


With NATO saying that an attack on any of its' allies is essentially an attack on all of NATO. Fun stuff.

If anything were to happen what do you think the outcome would be? Or, do you think this is just fear mongering?


Source




posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks

UK would not get involved NATO or not.

Camron can barely even get the votes together to bomb ISIS. No way he will get a vote to defend Turkey who are propping up the same terrorists. He could bypass parliament and use his royal prerogative and declare war but that would be political suicide. No PM has used that power in resent times and to do so would have the entire opposition party’s unite against him along with likely half his party. Cant wage a war without the publics support.

France is even worse. After the Paris attacks no way in hell would France ally with turkey to fight Russia. Public would likely revolt.

Thats two out of the three main powers of NATO out.

Leaves only the USA.
Hopefully Obama being the spineless coward that he is will work in the worlds favour and back down.
edit on 25-11-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I think you're mildly optimistic with your analysis there, ewok.

Whilst there is little appetite in Parliament for a fight against IS, he could still win a vote which will come next week. Not that he needs a vote anyway.

As for NATO, there is definitely strong opinion in honouring the aliance. To not do so would shoot our credibility to crap and open a huge can of worms. Recently, much noise has been made of NATO with regards to Ukraine and again, support is strong and loud. Again, no vote required to declare war and once done, he has all the powers at his disposal under the War Powers act and others. No need to worry about "political suicide" then.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Not that I support or want a war, that is. Just laying it out there.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

edit on 25-11-2015 by ARevoltingRevolution because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

As I said he could bypass parlimnet and declare war.

But you honnestly think the UK public would support a war with Russia to protect Turkey who are invloved in some shaddy dealings ? NATO or not Turkey are not exactly clean in all this.
You cant fight a war if the public are not behind it. Unless Camron is going to pick up a gun and go to Turkey and fight the war himself he will be stuck as I dont see many volneteer appearing for this fight.


He will win the ISIS vote sure. And rightfull so and the public would be mostly behind that too.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

Not that I support or want a war, that is. Just laying it out there.


Exactly you dont want a war with russia over Turkey.

Nor do I bet 99% of the UK population and the 1% that do are bat# insane.

You cant fight a war without the public behind you. Nowhere in history has that ever worked.

All the acts and laws in the world wont help if no one wants to fight.
edit on 25-11-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

It doesn't take much to get the public onside. You just scare them into it! A downed uk jet would do the trick provided plastic face gets his resolution... 3rd time lucky eh



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ARevoltingRevolution
a reply to: crazyewok

It doesn't take much to get the public onside. You just scare them into it! A downed uk jet would do the trick provided plastic face gets his resolution... 3rd time lucky eh


Maybe a staged incident would work.

But they have only just got the public scared enough to bomb ISIS. So they have to a complete 180 degree turn around and try and sell us some BS about defending the country buying ISIS oil and going to war with the country attacking ISIS. It would be a hard sell, UK publics dumb but were are not Americans



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I still don't know what the goal is? What the plan is and what side we are benefitting? It seems if we are not prepared to confront Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states on their support for Islamic extremism, both in the Middle East and within our own country there seems little point in going to war and putting young men's lives and bodies at risk. It's very easy to back a war, but as we have seen with our previous we never have effective exit strategies and a coherent plan to deal with the aftermath. I m certainly wary of calling for boots on the ground. I always am when I know it's not me or mine who's boots will be on the ground. I don't like the idea of fighting to the last drop of someone else's blood



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

It worse than that.

If things go the way of the OP we would be fighting FOR the likes of Saudi Arabia



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to: crazyewok

Cameron and co are good with 180 turns.... It's all they do, Why do you think Osborn looks so dizzy (that or it's the sniff) Jokes aside it depends weather Russia has been the end game all along or weather they just wanted rid of Assad and its all gone tits from there.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
That depends.....

If Turkey Invokes article 4 and 5, it definitely could be....




Under Article 4, any member state can convene a meeting of NATO members to "consult" when it feels its independence or security are threatened. In practice, it has rarely been used and sends a strong political symbol to the greater world that NATO is concerned about a particular situation. Article 5 is known as the "one-for-all and all-for-one" article, the keystone of NATO as an organization. It states that an "armed attack" against one member is an attack against all and sets in motion the possibility of collective self-defense.


yet another reason IMHO for the U.S to get the hell out of the UN
edit on 11/25/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I think you under estimate the ability of the British Government when it comes to banging the drum - we've been sucked into conflicts before with little public support. The Second World War happened with very little backing - in fact, it is why we appeased Hitler for so long, because of an over-whelming anti-war movement during the 1930's.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Russia will reply in kind with subterfuge. These arms depots, oil pipelines, factories and other secure infrastructure facilities that explode or have fires suddenly, some with casualties are not just accidents. They are covert ops utilizing local assets (intelligence agencies are involved on every side) to inflict and equal monetary loss and letting separatists (PKK) and barbarian regimes (ISIS) take the credit. Its funny because Russia can now just blame it on ISIS when they use their CIA equivalent to pay PKK sympathizers to hit vulnerable targets within Turkey.

And it will likely happen, but only enough damage to compensate for the price of the jet, its fuel, the munitions, and the insurance for the pilots families. This is how states wage proxy war directly to each other. Hopefully Russia's Air Force will now enforce stricter rules of engagement and respect for borders on their pilots. It was an unnecessary gamble that cost two pilots their lives, and ended up saving many daesh terrorists.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



Two points...

Firstly, a country cannot leave the UN. It needs to be expelled. Even if the US refused to participate, the UNSC could pass binding resolutions in your absence.

Secondly, even if the US left the UN, Turkey invoking article 5 of the NATO Treaty would still leave you obligated, considering that NATO and the UN are separate entities.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: crazyewok

I think you under estimate the ability of the British Government when it comes to banging the drum - we've been sucked into conflicts before with little public support. The Second World War happened with very little backing - in fact, it is why we appeased Hitler for so long, because of an over-whelming anti-war movement during the 1930's.



I dunno.

The X-box generation I dont think could be moblised as easly into a total war footing.

Small scale combats roles maybe but all out war with Russia? I have my doubts.

Plus unlike WW2 this time we will be on the wrong side morally. Though to be fair I dont even see a "right" side wither.
edit on 25-11-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
We didn't go to war over a myriad of other incidences in the past fifty years, why would this one be any different?

Turkey is, for better or for worse, a NATO member. That brings with it certain obligations.

There are 28 member nations in NATO. How many would be in the direct path of a resurgent Russia? If Turkey isn't supported, in this unlikely event, what message does that send NATO members like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic? Not a good one, I dare say.

...and the message to the Russians, should they be inclined to move west, again I doubt this...but?

Again, not a good one from our perspective. ...a very interesting one in the bears den, however.

Not a fan of Turkey. But the alternative of not following through with our support could lead to horrible issues in the future.

Having said all that? I don't think Russia is going to take the risk.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
In reality, what can Russia do?

Russia doesn't have the navy to threaten Turkey in the area. They don't have the air force with legs to threaten Turkey over Turkey or locally over Syria. They don't have the ability to move an army to touch Turkey. Turkey can block the Bosphorus and hinder Russia's ability to do anything in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Critically, Russia does not have the ability or will to awaken NATO.

Russia needs to back down and concentrate on killing off ISIS rather than picking on proxy forces supported by e.g. Turkey. The Turkmen have been at the receiving end of Assad's brutality for decades so are a legitimate opposition. Turkey has indicated that they are perfectly capable of pushing the bully back into the chair and the bully can do sod all about.

That's the reality.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
If Turkey isn't supported, in this unlikely event, what message does that send NATO members like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic? Not a good one, I dare say.


But they are not directly or indirectly supporting terrorist groups.

That’s the difference.

Turkey at the very least are guilty by inaction on there borders.

If they want to be in NATO then they should be obliged to keep a clean house.

I really don’t want to see millions of lives thrown away and possibly my country (and me!) nuked to save the arses of government that rife with corruption and indirectly responsible for the mess going in Syria. Certainly not worth my blood!

Being in a defence alliance should bring certain obligations and one should be not allowing your citziens to fund and support terrorists.
edit on 25-11-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join