Drowsy Emperor

Most probably.

Nah, too much fear of reprisal. Have to bloody someone's nose, and Turkey seems sensitive about the Turkmen in Syria so they pay the price. I think its more of a question of not thinking along those lines in the first place. In the hypothetical situation that Russians nuked Turkey in less than an hour the country would be the future setting of Fallout 5 and the rest of the world would do exactly nothing. The only reaction possible would be to go MAD and the only country that could do that is the USA and the likelihood that they would trigger global nuclear war over a country like Turkey is beyond remote. But the incident is still small in scope and so the reaction should be appropriate, but decisive.

Attractive proposition Here's the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPmmtrMJyHs

OMG they shot parachuting pilots in the air. That's the lowest of the low. Time to find the largest turkmen settlement in the area and reduce it to cinders? I would not want to be them right now.

Naturally, they were camping the area, waiting for the inevitable rescue attempt. Where is this data that they executed the pilots coming from? I think that Turkey has made a costly error here. I have not seen Putin so furious in a long time.

Exactly.

It occurs to me that the timing of this is highly suspicious, just now as Europe and Russia are on the brink of a reconciliation of sorts via the joint action against ISIS. After all, Russian intervention against ISIS has broad support even in European countries, especially after the Paris attacks. Maybe someone doesn't want Russia and Europe to be friends and is willing to leverage their NATO obligations and Turkey as a pawn to do it. Who could that be? (:

Well, there is always a way to profit from someone else's misery. But I'm starting to think that certain US policies are driven by random number generators. I mean, here we are half a decade later and no one can explain what the point of the whole operation was.

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000 Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action. When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't? So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality. Russia was invited to intervene by the legitimate, elected government of Syria. That is the major difference between the Russian and US interventions in Iraq, Yugo etc. If the international framework can be ignored at will then there is nothing wrong with Russia intervening anywhere it pleases. OMG....you actually think Assad was the legitimate leader of Syria, he never had a democratic election but he somehow is legitimate? Its not a matter of what I think, the Syrian government had years of relations with more or less the entire world. It was de facto and de iure accepted as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Up until the point that the west decided to remove Assad. And even then post the 2014. presidential election the number of countries reaffirming their stance that Assad is legitimate (by way of congratulating him on his victory, which is one of the ways a government can be accepted under international law) far outnumbers the few western countries that called the elections a farce. Incidentally, your own government is among those that congratulated Assad on his victory. How does anyone let you discuss politics on air when you know so little of international relations?

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000 Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action. When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't? So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality. Russia was invited to intervene by the legitimate, elected government of Syria. That is the major difference between the Russian and US interventions in Iraq, Yugo etc. If the international framework can be ignored at will then there is nothing wrong with Russia intervening anywhere it pleases.

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000 Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action. When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

Russia isn't going to go nation building in the ruins of Syria and Iraq. They're not that stupid. Ground invasion isn't feasible either, and what purpose would it serve anyway.

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few Turkish army trainers/covert units and such got wiped out in Syria in the Russian bombing campaign. Its common knowledge they're helping anti-assad forces, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to have people on the ground inside Syria. Regardless, an alternate response, that would circumvent a nation wide conflict, would be to place all blame on Erdogan and punish him somehow. He's nearing his expiration date anyway.

Ask the people in Washington why Erdogan was handed power instead of the secular army officers. I'm sure they could give a plausible reason. I think Erdogan presumes Russia is too stretched out by this war and the problems in eastern Ukraine to formulate a strong response, so they're using the opportunity for a sucker punch. The standard protocol for this sort of thing is for domestic jets to tag and escort the offending airplane outside of their airspace. Its "appropriate" to shoot it down if its unmanned, but killing a pilot is a definite step further than either situation and a slap to the face. An appropriate response if one wanted to save face would probably be to cruise missile a Turkish army outpost on the border with Syria and claim it as an accident. A few Turkish soldiers dead and the situation would be more or less rectified. To remind Turkey that there's a price for playing in the big boys club. Every other option is essentially deescalation.

If the Russians nuked Turkey tomorrow, no one in NATO would respond. Not all NATO members are equally critical to the alliance. Moot point though, since there is no real physical arena in which Turkey and Russia could fight a real war. I suppose their navies could clash but neither country can really defeat the other in a worthwhile manner, and the gains of such a victory are at best meager.

We need to be cautious. Russia is a member of the ISIS coalition and the only reason this happened was because they are indeed heavily invested in there bombing campaign We must recognize the Russian contribution and accept this accident, I am hoping Russia will send ground troops into the ISIS territories so we can finally end this godforsaken war that exists in this benighted land where Western troops are not liked yet are expected to intervene I dont want the West to lose anymore troops but the Russians are angry and they are new to the overall conflict so it makes sense they send the required infantry If Russia sent there its own troops, then there is high change that Syria and Iraq then become part of Russian Federation. And I am not sure if that is what anybody even Russians want. 1. Russia isn't going to be sending ground troops. Their goal is to force a peace process and keep Assad in power, not to retake the country for him. 2. Syria and Iraq becoming part of RF? What? How does that work?

I don't think Russia will respond, but the act definitely deserves a response. Turkey should start paying a price for supporting ISIS.

What the **** has this thread turned into

They're defensive about ISIS because they see themselves as the underdog and the jihadis as their champions. The west has spent a lot of time bombing the **** out of the middle east, they know they're outmatched militarily and see themselves as the victim (which they often are). Logically from that point of view the jihadis are the sole few brave enough to strike back against western oppression a.k.a heroes, but since they can't openly state that in Paris or Rome so they do the next best thing which is to either say nothing or justify ISIS in some way.

You can expect the same outcome for as long as there are individuals who believe enough in Islam. And unlike the Soviet Union and its Baader-Meinhof types, jihadis of their era, you will not see Islam wither away in a few decades. At least for as long as the great majority of the masses that comprise the faith are inevitably poor (therefore difficult to seduce with a middle class hedonistic lifestyle), and in a constant state of population expansion (which ensures they stay relatively poor). And if the native population of Europe continues the trend of shrinking birth rates and importation of low wage workers from Islamic countries that they cannot successfully assimilate (as has been proven repeatedly) then the problem will last until a tipping point of some sort is reached. The problem is not the odd terrorist attack or in Islam itself, its the lack of a stable European identity that goes beyond "let's keep our wealthy status quo ad inifinitum". If Europeans knew who they were, positioning vis-a-vis Islam or any other entity would be much easier. The position of the great majority of muslims versus Europeans is fundamentally one of enmity based in religion. You can think what you like of that attitude, but its clear and logical. The position of Europe versus Islam is to ignore this aspect of muslim identity, create a separate category for the most combative ones ("extremists") thereby sweeping the problem under the rug and essentially pretending that nothing is happening. The European "solution" of expecting them all to become little secular Frenchmen and Germans, singing La Marseillaise and reading Goethe was a bit... presumptuous... to begin with. Truth to be told I can't blame them for not wanting to read Goethe And yeah. We had plenty examples in history. Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome etc. With Rome being the best example as it ell to religious turmoils and barabrian invasions Its more akin to christianity taking over Rome than anything else. The clash of a culturally unfocused and weak civilization with a monotheistic religion of the underdogs, but bizarrely, without the Roman oppression and a much more combative opponent. Blindly copying USA's "melting pot" model doesn't work in the EU because European countries simply don't have USA's vicious police control and a very focused upper class, that although lacking in real culture, still has a very clear idea of what its doing and how to achieve it. When the upper circles in the US felt threatened by anything from the workers movement to the black panthers they identified the threat and dealt with it mercilessly from the very start. Every single method was legitimate and used, right down to assassination, or using the army to intervene on the other side of the world. The EU refuses to recognize the threat and develop means of dealing with it and therefore is only there to pick up the pieces when something like this happens.

You can expect the same outcome for as long as there are individuals who believe enough in Islam. And unlike the Soviet Union and its Baader-Meinhof types, jihadis of their era, you will not see Islam wither away in a few decades. At least for as long as the great majority of the masses that comprise the faith are inevitably poor (therefore difficult to seduce with a middle class hedonistic lifestyle), and in a constant state of population expansion (which ensures they stay relatively poor). And if the native population of Europe continues the trend of shrinking birth rates and importation of low wage workers from Islamic countries that they cannot successfully assimilate (as has been proven repeatedly) then the problem will last until a tipping point of some sort is reached. The problem is not the odd terrorist attack or in Islam itself, its the lack of a stable European identity that goes beyond "let's keep our wealthy status quo ad inifinitum". If Europeans knew who they were, positioning vis-a-vis Islam or any other entity would be much easier. The position of the great majority of muslims versus Europeans is fundamentally one of enmity based in religion. You can think what you like of that attitude, but its clear and logical. The position of Europe versus Islam is to ignore this aspect of muslim identity, create a separate category for the most combative ones ("extremists") thereby sweeping the problem under the rug and essentially pretending that nothing is happening. The European "solution" of expecting them all to become little secular Frenchmen and Germans, singing La Marseillaise and reading Goethe was a bit... presumptuous... to begin with.

What a bizarre thing to say. You do realize that the legal framework that allows for refugees to flow en masse to other countries without fear of being persecuted or immediately turned back was developed as a direct result of WWII, right? Not to mention the fact that during WWII, there weren't that many places to flee towards, it's called a world war for a reason. And, oh, the levels of mobilization reached meant that conscription was at a level unseen before or since, thankfully. This was not the best and bravest gallantly fighting the good fight as much as it was an entire generation of men being thrown into the industrial meat grinder of WWII because there was simply no escaping it. Many others just accepted the fact that their countries had surrendered and tried to make the best of a ****ty situation under German rule. And while we're discussing history: Germanic tribes pushed into a declining Roman Empire in large numbers because their lands were being overrun by the Huns. So yeah, basically war is bad news and if you're smart you'll try to avoid it as best you can. On the other hand, I hear disposable heroes are always in high demand... You'r wrong. Much of WWII was a genuine ideological conflict, particularly on the Eastern front. Many young men threw themselves into the war, because they explicitly believed it a was a fight worth fighting, whatever their concrete reason was (for Hitler or against Nazism, protection of the "motherland" etc.). There was a lot of genuine zeal, even in the face of death. Even post WW1 german writers like Ernst Junger show no regrets for fighting even though he was personally wounded fourteen times and watched many of his friends and comrades die. He wrote Storm of Steel, and from what I read of it, he was proud of the fight to the end. And while we're on the subject of zeal, It is precisely this inability to concieve that ideas may be worth dying for or killing for, a result of Europe's war on religion, the nation state and any other form of belief modern man can attach value to (that great postmodern relativism) that impedes your (as in western) understanding of political Islam. Shuffling it all away as a socio-economic problem, some "extremists" being bonkers or whatever is a sort of willful stupidity and blindness that would be comical to watch from the sidelines if the results weren't so catastrophic. Islam is not going to accept the status of "one of many ineffectual religions we have in our society", like in the ridiculous American model. If you believe then it is the only religion, much as Christianity was in its own heyday, and it will fight for that status everyone else be damned. That's the nature of belief - only a closet atheist/secularist can profess to belong to a religion that explicitly considers itself the only valid one, while stating that "they're all equal" at the same time. That's illogical at best, schizophrenia at worst.

People did mourn for Russia, people left flowers at the consulate here. But Kenya and Lebanon are places where people rightly or wrongly see violence as the background. Beirut was a synonym with a warzone not long ago. Paris also had heavy media coverage due to the place it took place, nastiness of it (similar to the Mumbai attacks in terms of coverage) and social media. I doubt Lebanese or Kenyans or Iraqis really give much of a crap when Westerners die. Besides, if there is an outpouring of grief for anyone that dies en masse, fatigue or some mental trauma is inevitable Beirut in the 70's.... look no further than how the women are dressed. Before the Israelis screwed the Palestinians, and Palestinians screwed up Lebanon.

Heh, yeah... http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/video-surfaces-making-threats-against-muslims-in-quebec As for the Turkish fans booing that, eh, I guess they think Europeans dislike them and didn't care when a bunch of them got blown up a while ago. There was a time when Turkey aspired more to be like European countries and abandoned much of its islamic heritage, but ever since the US helped Erdogan to power (even if they may not like him much now) he's done a 180 and orientated Turkey toward the muslim world, inching toward a quasi fundamentalist state. Once Turks realized that the process of joining the EU isn't going anywhere they didn't have much to turn to either. Regrettable, but frankly, no one really wants to see Turkey in the EU anyway, at least no one in the Balkans.