http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34953505
https://archive.is/y82yl
Do people think it will escalate or is it just going to be angry old men arguing for the next few months?
Also will the Russian sanctions actually harm Russia even further by increasing food price inflation?
Hiroki please reply to me
>>118
mootwo hates you and your off topic replies!
gooooo ruskies!
Russia has too much to lose by committing to open war with Turkey.
Istanbul controls Russia's immediate sea access to the Mediterranean.
Moscow will use the incident to expand the nationalist and patriotic fervor amongst its people. Perhaps even start choking off Turkey's natural gas supply to pressure them.
I don't think this event will lead to WW3.
>>108
It likely won't escalate into actual warfare. Proxy wars are the in-thing these days.
It will definitely raise food prices because of a need to find import substitution sources from other companies that can "meet those standards". It happened with other food stuffs too like from Georgia and Ukraine.
It's going to hurt Turkey more than Russia though.
>OPs have archive links too
God is good. Thank you, based Yuki-tan.
>Also will the Russian sanctions actually harm Russia even further by increasing food price inflation?
Well, sanctions cut both ways. Let us see how it goes.
Can't help but feel the media is blowing this particular story (and most of the plane crash related ones) way out of proportion. Sure it raises some questions but I have yet to see why I should really care.
>>157
>>OPs have archive links too
I added it myself. I think it should be a rule that an archive link should be supplied with the original link. Or have it automated.
>>130
>It's going to hurt Turkey more than Russia though.
Yea with Russia telling people not to go on holiday there I can see turkey suffering a fair bit. Was something like 3 million people a year if I remember right from some article I read.
>>108
Erdrogan is a piece of crap. He isn't saddened the jet was downed he ordered it. The entire country is one corrupt craphole buying oil from Isis and supplying them with arms.
>>190
It's like with how the other countries were hurt more by Russia with cutting off food imports and travel. It raises prices because there has to be more internal production and you're buying from more expensive places, but when you lose a significant portion of one of your major industries, then you get hurt the hardest.
And that's going to make Turkey flex its muscle less in the ME political hegemony game.
>>193
Yeah but Saudi, Israel, and Western nations have supported extremist insurgents including Da'ish in various ways (mostly economic, healthcare, and military respectively).
>>108
>Will it escalate?
Not between Turkey and Russia. The sanctions response is a farce to have President Putin save face. Turkey owns the Black Sea and its allies own enough of the Caspian to contest Russia's missile platforms there.
Even if Russia sees the Assad regime as a critical national security issue, they will not continue to test the Turkish border or those of NATO countries. Turkey probably feels as strongly about its non-isis rebels and any provocation along those lines will quickly cascade into a situation where they have no control. Russia will not risk losing its 90% non-isis air campaign in the rest of Syria.
This is, on the other hand, the start of a wider escalation. After the next US president or sooner, there will be a no-fly zone in Northern Syria that will exist specifically to stop regime and Russian bombings. Turkish aircraft and trigger pullers will feature prominently in that no-fly zone. It would behoove Russia to not over-step now or then.
>Russian sanctions on Russia?
You're right, they will hurt Russia most of all. For now, though, their ghetto-rich on their national surpluses and have about another year (all other things equal) of having their cake.
>>218
>other countries were hurt more by Russia with cutting off food imports and travel
1. The Russian government is much more stupid than its people. Food is still flowing East.
2. Russia's trade balance is highly un-resilient and defined by increasingly diversified raw exports and Russia's pipelines to alternative markets are years from use.
3. Russia doesn't make or export anything that can't be found elsewhere and their share of the market on all things will not have a detrimental impact on prices more widely. (also, see 1. exports will still happen and keep the global price from moving much at all)
>Support for the IS Group
None of the places you mentioned support the group as much as Assad:
1. He gives them electricity
2. He released them from his prisons in a cynical attempt to kill of his revolutionaries
3. He and Russia are not conducting significant offensive operations against the group.
4. He buys their oil
5. He kills their enemies
6. He drives recruits to their cause through indiscriminate and disproportionate unjust, warfare
The US-led coalition against IS, on the other hand, just cut IS Group territory in two.
>>428
I don't support Assad or Russia either. I know the injustices Assad has committed against Syrians and how Russia, China, and Iran has provided aid to him, but there's no doubt that Turkey and Saudi's direct and still continuous support of insurgents in this proxy-war, the Israel's indirect support of them, and the West's, particularly the US', aid three years ago to about a year ago as well as the current situation in Iraq that the US has been the primary cause for led to this current shitty situation.
>>190
>I added it myself. I think it should be a rule that an archive link should be supplied with the original link. Or have it automated.
This is very sensible. I'll remind every OP to do this and to greentext some notable quotes from the articles. This already should have been on the sticky, honestly.
>>440
>there's no doubt that Turkey and Saudi's direct and still continuous support of insurgents in this proxy-war
First off, no country directs IS. You fundamentally misunderstand the group, if you believe this. Not even al-Qaeda can influence the leadership. I would encourage you to read up on the subject. Will McCant's new book is pretty good at capturing their MO.
As for tacit support, no other country aids and abets the IS group to the degree of Assad. There is a clear difference between IS and Ansar al-Islam and even JaN.
As for 3 years ago, the US was not anywhere near Syria and IS was nothing. Before IS was IS it was AQI and the US totally destroyed the group (in spite of the fact that Assad was funneling them to kill Americans in the Iraq War). As far as 3 years ago I have no idea what you're talking about.
Finally, Iraq was strong and capable when the US left. The CPA gave the government a highly profitable oil operation and an effective army. That Malaki turned one into a Nigerian-tier bureaucracy and the other into a historical arab-tier army has nothing to do with the US.
>>525
Direct and is directly. Not as in control.
The US gave funds to insurgent groups like the FSA, Jahbat an-Nusra, and al-Qaeda some of whose members formed ISIS. Ba'ath party members of Iraq that came from Saddam's forces also are within Da'ish.
>strong and capable
This is clearly false and blaming everything on Maliki is wrong.
>>565
>Direct and is directly. Not as in control
No one does either. They are an apocalyptic death cult that governs with brutality. As I said, the closest anyone comes to aiding them is Assad by giving them the anarchic vacuum they need to thrive.
>insurgent groups defects and Ba'athist constitute the bulk of the IS Group and the US funded those and didn't enable the other so it's the same as supporting the IS Group.
1. At this point IS gets the bulk of its fighters from the areas it controls, not other groups.
2. At every level of their operations there was then and still is significant fighting between the insurgent groups you mentioned and IS.
3. The US never aided al-Qaeda (not even in Afghanistan to fight the Russians).
4. Your case for US aid for IS rests on an assumption of 3 degrees of separation. This is retarded.
5. Ba'ath party members have plenty of non-US reasons to wage half of a sectarian war.
>blaming everything on Maliki is wrong
I don't. I blame him for nothing more than his due. He left Iraq much worse off than it was when he unconstitutionally took control of it. Him along with Assad did IS to themselves.
>clearly false
your logic is questionable
>>108
The Turks needed to shoot down that plane to justify an implementation of a no-fly-zone.
>>635
>3. The US never aided al-Qaeda (not even in Afghanistan to fight the Russians).
I've only just started doing research on this myself, but people like Sibel Edmonds are adamant about CIA funding the Mujahadinn (among other things). Naturally, if you hold the US in good faith you will discredit such testimonials, but it is still a good idea to be suspicious of any country, be it red Russia or free US.
>>673
>justify an implementation of a no-fly-zone.
The Russians and the Assad regime have already done that. Shooting the plane down demonstrates that in the notional case of the implementation of a no-fly zone that the threat of being shot down is credible.
>>696
They haven't on the Turkish/Syrian border
>>428
>None of the places you mentioned support the group as much as Assad:
This is false. Why would he ever want to do that? Or even Putin for that matter. A peaceful Syria is froth with business opportunities, namely the Syrian/Iranian pipeline, through which oil could potentially be routed to energy-hungry countries like China or India.
You present an hypothesis that makes no sense.
>>690
>CIA funding the Mujahadinn
The Mujaheddin and al-Qaeda are not the same thing. The US chain of command never aided or knew of any of its allies aiding any Arabs fighting in Afghanistan.
This is clearly stated on the CIA website. Naturally, if you are trusting of individual testimonials then you won't let that that history get in the way of your impressions.
>Good idea to be suspicious
You're not wrong.
>>724
>This is false
It's true that he has more war crimes attributed to him than the IS group. It's true that his casualty list has more enemies of IS and civilians on the fence about IS than IS fighters. It's true that he invited AQI into Syria as part of a 'ratline' to bleed Americans in Iraq. It's true that he buys their oil and gives them electricity.
>Why would he do that?
Because he is cynical and brutal, and he fears moderates more than extremists. A united Syria leaves him with a veto-able minority and he projects his deviousness upon his political enemies.
>A peaceful Syria is froth with business opportunities
I'm afraid this is no longer true. Even before the civil war Syria was overly exposed to oil rents and their fields were seeing diminishing returns. The service sector was only profitable if you were after extending credit to locals. Since the civil war the country has sustained about 2/3rds of a trillion dollars in infrastructural damage.
>pipeline
Why would it need to go through Syria? Syria is not between any power hungry markets and energy exporters. Pre-war Syria was also notoriously corrupt and bad for business. Building a pipeline there would be retarded.
>a hypothesis that makes no sense
Please, ask me questions about what you don't understand or you find implausible. When you lead off with "this is false" you sound like a shill.
>>781
I don't want to sound like a shill, but your one-sidedness is worst than that of the RTdrones in the Syrian Generals on /pol/. I just don't believe for a second that Assad is the monster you paint him to be. Why would anyone do such nonsensical things? You literally state that he takes prisoners just so he can feed them back to the battlefield. You imply that he aids the very groups he antagonizes. And you say that Assad does this things not out of a sense of pragmatism or even a sense of duty but out of cynicism like some kind of cartoon villain.
I'm by no means an expert on this subject or even a well-versed individual and I do seek to learn more about this conflict but your BARRELBOMBS rhetoric is very strange.
>>845
>I said he takes prisoners just so he can feed them back to the battlefield
1. no one takes IS prisoners
2. I'm not the only one that says Assad has let butchers already involved and inclined to join up with terror groups go. There have been MSM reports on this since 2013. The timing of many of the releases fit the MO i'm implying.
>he antagonizes IS
What do you mean by antagonize? He isn't waging any offensives against them and every time more assistance for his regime has come in it has be channeled to the fight against other rebel groups.
>it's pragmatism and duty that drives Assad
Duty to what and to whom? Assad has not governed 2/3rds of Syria for years. Before the war he was using his position to enrich and empower his dynasty, not Syria.
And, he's only pragmatic in the sense that he's ideologically promiscuous in his illiberal pursuits .
>caricature of a cynical cartoon villain
It's ironic you say that. The case of cartoonist Ali Farzat leaves me little doubt about the regime's vileness.
>BARRELBOMBS rhetoric
You sound out of touch. Barrel Bombs were first cited as unjust and contributing to instability in Syria by the UN. In Assad's interview with Charlie Rose, Assad felt it necessary to obfuscate the weapon's effects by saying that they're 'just bombs'. The fact remains that they, along with the chemical weapons he occasionally uses in them, kill more civilians than fighters, and of the fighters killed they are extremely rarely IS.
It should be clear that such improvised bombs are intrinsically indiscriminate, and combined with the fact that they are dropped from ineffective distances makes them a weapon of terror and little else.
I would encourage you to seek out and read the UN Special Commission report on war crimes in the country.
>>845
>I do seek to learn more about the conflict, but...
I'm not asking you to trust me I'm asking you to learn for yourself and realize that what you're saying are Syrian regime active measures.
Ask yourself, if you really trust what you think you know about Assad? Where did that information come from? Was it some place like RT?
It's true that he was popular once, but few would disagree that he's much more than a warlord today.
>>707
All I said was that in the event of a no-fly zone this incident would give actors considering violating it food for though.
>>956
>>964
Yay for comment boxes.
>Assad's interview with Charlie Rose
I actually saw that, funnily enough, and I distinctly remember Rose's insistence on barrel bombs, soundbitting the heck out of it. That was actually the very first thing that aroused my suspicion, since the interview was far from neutral and most of the questions were unfair or propagandistic. Assad left me with a good enough impression. I don't think he's a hero or any such nonsense, but I was left with the impression that the man was shouldering a responsibility.
>Ask yourself, if you really trust what you think you know about Assad?
I don't regard him neither positively nor negatively, the same way I don't care about Obama or Putin or any other political figureheads. For my limited understanding, I feel that Assad a necessary evil, much like Gaddafi was in Libya. What I do trust, however, is logic and the wise teachings of capitalism: the story of a man embarking in a self-destructive crusade against his own people makes less sense than the story of a political leader that had to do some morally ambiguous things and some stupid things in order to guaranty his country's prosperity.
I thank you, though, for our exchange. It's a nice change of pace from the imbecilic RToddlers on /pol/.
>>1062
>Rose's concern that improvised bombs killing tens of thousands of civilians was disingenuous
I think you're being irrationally cynical.
>My impression was that Rose was nothing but a propagandist and out to defame Assad
>Assad left me with the impression that he was a good guy and trustworthy
Were those impressions sufficient for you to reject critical interpretations and evidence as nonfactual propaganda?
I don't want to continue to harp on Barrel Bombs; it seems to be a trigger for you and since this thread is about Turkey and Russia we should consider redirecting our tangent to trusting that the nation of Turkey is THE malicious actor in the conflict, only after IS.
>I accept the evil of Assad without caring about him, knowing about the situation, or having any normative ethical framework.
>I trust Assad and his allies are not only rational actors but are acting in the interest of a greater good.
>I trust Qaddafi would have also done the right thing
>Assad is not on a self-destructive crusade against his own people [like you say] he is acting in Syria's interest and in the interest of prosperity
You got all this from an impression from a single interview? I'm not saying that he's a cartoon villain. I'm not saying that actors opposed to him can do no wrong. I'm not even saying that he doesn't believe that what he's doing is in his own self interest.
1. I'm saying that he's acting in his individual and his sectarian interest, not in Syria's.
2. I'm saying that he cannot not be trusted to contain terrorism when he uses terrorist methods.
3. I'm saying that projecting your sense of rationality and capitalism (self interest) upon him implies psychological bias. Primary sources are only as good as your ability to understand the MO of everyone concerned, (including yourself) and not just one person (Charlie Rose).
4. You should have higher standards for the quality and quantity of the information you believe.
>>1196
>2. I'm saying that he cannot not be trusted to contain terrorism when he uses terrorist methods.
Like the US?
>>1210
>Like the US?
Only if you accept radical left-wing definitions of terrorism.
If Putin is genuinely pissed off at Turkey enough to want them to suffer, all he has to do is arm Kurds to the teeth and watch the country eat itself alive.
>>108
Its hilarious how Erdogan is suddenly saddened about it.
But only after Putin took a shit on him with the tourism blocks.
Angry men arguing and Sanctions, but I doubt it will escalate into any sort of real conflict. First world country's nowadays don't fight each other directly. They fight each other through proxy wars with other third world country's, or economically.
>>2004
>If Putin is genuinely pissed off at Turkey enough to want them to suffer, all he has to do is arm Kurds to the teeth and watch the country eat itself alive.
Kurds can't hurt Turkey nearly as bad as Chechins can hurt Russia. This would be a game Putin would want to play.