NATO tells Russia to halt Syria air strikes
Source: Politico EU
NATO demanded Monday that Russia stop its air strikes against targets in Syria, days after Moscow began bombing raids that it says are intended to support the Assad government.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement that “Russia’s actions are not contributing to the security and stability of the region,” calling on Russia to “fully respect NATO airspace and to avoid escalating tensions with the Alliance.” Moscow has said it is targeting ISIL in Syria, but U.S.-led allies and Turkish forces say the raids target Syrian government opposition.
Turkish F-16 fighter jets were called into action Saturday after a Russian plane entered Turkish air space near Yayladagi in the southern Hatay region. NATO’s 28 members called the Russian incursion “irresponsible,” and urged Russia “to cease and desist.”
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said that the rules of engagement for Turkish armed forces were clear: Anyone who violates its airspace — “even if it is a flying bird” — will be intercepted.
Read more: http://www.politico.eu/article/nato-tells-russia-to-halt-syria-air-strikes-assad-turkey-stoltenberg/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The Assad government is the internationally recognized government of Syria.
Russia is its long-time ally and has been invited in.
Much as most of us appreciate anybody who's bombing ISIS, NATO and the US have no legal basis for invading Syrian sovereignty (not that Assad is complaining). There is no declaration of war, there is no UN resolution.
Maybe it's NATO who should fuck off out of Syria.
w0nderer
(1,937 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 9, 2015, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)
It's a Putin orgy...you guys put your pants on!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)When Russian aircraft are violating Turkish airspace, NATO has every right to tell Russia to fuck off out of their airspace.
rpannier
(24,328 posts)It doesn't change that Russia can also tell NATO and the US to fuck off over their military campaign as long as it remains in Syria
Especially given that the US, UK, etc regularly violate Syrian airspace
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The US and it's coalition are the ones responsible for the instability in the middle east, and now we accuse Russia?
I guess we need a new enemy now and so Putin has taken the place of Saddam.
These war mongers are slimy bastards. And our Noble peace prize winning president is going along with it.
daleo
(21,317 posts)It's not fair, dammit.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The Russians replied it was a navigation error. Not a WW3 ultimatum, but typical Politico.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)I find it hard to envision Stoltenberg demanding that Russia cease its bombing campaign, which would certainly be met by Putin shrugging his shoulders.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Turkey supports ISIS and wants Assad out. So now they are complaining about anything they can legitimately complain about.
...
Documents and flash drives seized during the Sayyaf raid reportedly revealed links "so clear" and "undeniable" between Turkey and ISIS "that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara," senior Western official familiar with the captured intelligence told the Guardian.
http://www.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Proposed UN Sanctions Do Not Go To Most ISIS Funding from Wealthy Donors
There is broad agreement that "substantial" funds are still reaching ISIS from wealthy elites in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states. As the Pentagon announced yesterday, oil exports now do not account for most of ISIS finances. ISIS is instead depending on donations, “a lot of donations,” according to Rear Admiral John Kirby, spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Further sanctions do not threaten the primary source of finance for the so-called Islamic State (IS), reported to be in excess of $2 billion last year. On Thursday, a UN measure was proposed by Russia that would sanction the trade in oil and stolen antiquities that partially funds ISIS funders. However, according to the NYT, it does not add to the existing list of individuals named for sanctions. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/middleeast/un-prepares-resolution-to-confront-islamic-state-on-oil-and-antiquities.html?_r=0
This spares the US and NATO the difficult task of having to immediately punish most of the same Sunni states with which it has been previously cooperating in prosecuting the war in Syria. The measure discussed on Friday would, however, specifically sanction parties engaged in smuggling oil from ISIS controlled areas, paying ransom, and the sale of stolen antiquities, the latter valued at $35 million last year.
Nobody seems to want to put a finger on exactly how much cash is still flowing to ISIS from wealthy ISIS funders, and who exactly they are. But, everyone agrees that support from the Saudis and Gulf elites continues to be substantial. See, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006
In 2014, Saudi Arabia publicly agreed to clamp down on some donations from its citizens and religious foundations. As a result, most private funding now goes through Qatar. The UN Security Council Resolution 2170 passed last August 15 named only six individual ISIS leaders for direct sanctions. The new measure does not expand that list, but calls for a committee to nominate others for violation of existing UN resolutions.
The effects of the additional sanctions on oil exports proposed would have its primary impact on crude oil smuggling in and out of Turkey. The majority of ISIS oil revenues are derived through the black market in that country. Last June, at its height, a Turkish opposition MP and other sources estimated the annual oil revenues at $800 million. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/221272-report-isis-oil-production-worth-800m-per-year
If accurate, oil sales was about 40% of the total ISIS operating budget as stated by the group. However, even at its height, petroleum accounted for only a fraction of ISIS funding. Some western estimates placed the IS annual total budget as high as $3 billion. See, http://thehill.com/policy/defense/228465-isis-puts-payments-to-poor-disabled-in-2-billion-budget; http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-news-caliphate-unveils-first-annual-budget-2bn-250m-surplus-war-chest-1481931
The $800 million figure is actually at the top end of the estimates. US sources quoted by CNN last October stated that ISIS oil income was more likely half that figure: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-funding/
Sources familiar with the subject say that ISIS' "burn' rate" -- how much the group spends -- is huge, including salaries, weapons and other expenses. For ISIS' oil sales, sources told CNN, the group probably makes between $1 million and $2 million per day, but probably on the lower end.
Along with everyone else, the returns on ISIS oil are probably a fraction of what they were at the height of world oil prices a year ago. Plus, the US and allies are bombing the group's oil platforms and vehicles. That has cut production and export to the point where US commanders now acknowledged that oil sales aren't the source of most ISIS funds, and that they are coming from donations, "a lot of donations":
“We know that oil revenue is no longer the lead source of their income in dollars,” Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters during a press briefing on Tuesday.
ISIS’ loss of income is compounded by its losses on the battlefield as the group has “lost literally hundreds and hundreds of vehicles that they can’t replace,” Kirby said.
“They’ve got to steal whatever they want to get, and there’s a finite number.”
ISIS is instead depending on “a lot of donations” as one of the main sources of income. “They also have a significant black market program going on,” Kirby said.
That leaves a big hole in the Caliphate's budget - that gets filled by someone.
Imposition of expanded UN sanctions would entail difficulties and costs for the US, particularly with Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the Security Counsel measure is limited, and does not yet show if the world is truly serious about eradicating ISIS.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)While my current focus is the tension between Turkey and Russia, I find it interesting that we seldom see much focus on the Saudis as funders of ISIS.
In the last 10 days the core of the US narrative about ISIS and Assad seems to have fallen apart. An analyst tracked the shift in various State postures about Assad as the Russian offensive gets under way:
http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/international-community%E2%80%99s-position-syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-september-30-2015
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There didn't seem to be an accounting, at least publicly, of Russia and Iran's stakes in the outcome. By ignoring them, our stated policy was aspirational rather than workable. It was intended primarily to placate other regional powers, particularly KSA and Israel, and reflected the desires of the neocons in State and the NSC, not more realistic assessments from the Joint Chiefs and and IC. That is why U.S. policy has not worked.
The thing is, the Saudis assume they own us and the British. To a large degree, that has been the case with the US, and even more so the UK. That is why a more realistic policy cannot be spoken. The fact that the oiliogarchs are walking in lockstep with Israel on this makes expressions of realism a near-taboo in most of the English-speaking world.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Putin just waited for the right opportunity to kick the supports out of the whole thing.
rootProbiscus
(38 posts)Is generally good for the gander isn't it.
Has Mr Assad provided the same threat to any NATO member planes that cross, accidentally or not, into any Syrian airspace?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now Turkey does have an air base close to Syria, and the NATO and the US are using that base:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incirlik_Air_Base#2015_operations_against_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
The problem is the base is still OUTSIDE Syria, and worse has to fly over that part of Syria most loyal to Assad to get to where ISIS is.
Worse Turkey has veto over any targets NATO and the US decides to hit, Russia has no such restriction.
Now, where ISIS is located is while within range of jets from Incirlik Air base, but no one likes flying over hostile territories and that is what the US has to do when it flys over Western Syria. NATO and US planes can avoid that area by staying in Turkish Air Space, but that requires more fuel or less bombs (and takes more time, so targets have time to disappear).
ISIS has a good idea of NATO and US air Capacity, and that the best way to defeat it, is by hitting hard and quick so that any fighting is over before Jets can take off from Incirlik and hit them,. The Russians are that much closer, so quicker to respond.
Incirlik is about 115 miles from Aleppo, 184 miles from Homs, and 262 miles from Damascus.
Modern Jets take about five minutes to warm up, due to the electronics. 600 mph speed (Crusing speed, as oppose to combat speed), means it take about 15 minutes to fly to Aleppo, 20 minutes to get to Homs, and 25 minutes to get to Damasus (Please note this is in addition to the five minutes to warm up the electronics). As you notice as you get away from Incirlik, the more time before the jets can get to the target, The Russians, being just outside these areas can hit those areas in under 10 minutes and that includes the five minutes to warm up their own electronics.
Yes, NATO and the US are mad not only that the Russians have intervened, but being inside Syria, they can respond quicker then US jets to any request for a bombing mission. Worse, the Russians can hit something and return to base before any NATO or US Plane could get into the same area to PREVENT any Russian strikes,. This is the real frustration for NATO and the US, not the Russians flying over Turkish Air Space, but that the Russians can do more, quicker then any NATO or US Plane.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Russia continues to feed the perception that they are out of control, murderous.
http://toinformistoinfluence.com/2015/10/04/russia-kills-2488-people-in-one-day-in-syria/
happyslug
(14,779 posts)First a statement in the cite:
There is no source, no citation and no verification. Dr. Panarin’s reporting has notoriously been high by a factor of ten.
Thus we may be talking about 562 people, and that can be explained by the 19 BMPs and 13 Armored Personal Carriers, each carry 10-12 men, thus together (32 vehicles) would add up to 320 men. Command Centers and Communication centers tend to have a high concentration of personal, but are often the same thing, thus 100 for each command and training centers would be a good estimate. The Magazines, communication and fuel storage centers all tied in with the Command Centers and training centers, thus the 11 command centers and Five training centers we can assume 100 for each, thus 1600 men in those units (Total with the losses in the vehicles 1930 men).
Thus before we look at the other things hit we are already beyond the reduction by a factor of 10 to compensate for the over estimate by a factor of 10 the Article itself claims.
Thus the Article itself questions the 5000 plus people killed by the Russians, Thus we have no idea of how effective the Russians have been.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)of the politics and effectiveness of air strikes in Syria. This deserves a far wider audience. Puts a lot into perspective.
DU is still a worthwhile read thanks to sound analysis like this.
Thank you.
delrem
(9,688 posts)I hear Turkey, which has long facilitated IS at the border, is going after the Kurdish armies which are battling IS, rather than going after IS. Using IS and this war as cover. And Turkey and the US and Israel don't like Russia battling IS in Syria. Again, using IS and this war as cover.
There's something of deja vu happening here.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And NATO has every right to shoot down any Russian war plane that violates Turkey's airspace.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Russia has armed planes flying into Syria. They better make sure they stay clear of NATO airspace. Unless they want to start World War 3.
rpannier
(24,328 posts)The US and their allies regularly fly over Syrian airspace without Syrian approval
Is it okay for the Russians to down US, British and other planes if the Syrian gov't asks them to do so?
Belligerent fools everywhere these days.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Rules are for the little guy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)inside Syria, instead of just feigned outrage.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)
It would be a belligerent act for Turkey to actually shoot down an intruding foreign aircraft.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)You are correct, of course. The standard response to an aircraft incursion is to intercept, warn, and escort. Without a declared war, the use of force is supposed to be limited to aircraft that fail to respond, that make no efforts to leave the airspace or that make hostile gestures toward defending aircraft. It is not an act of war to have troops unintentionally cross a border (believe it or not, it happens ALL THE TIME). It IS an act of war to open fire on them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)What safety and stability? Syria has turned into a bloodbath, with everyone else in the world standing around placing bets on their favorite gladiators. The nation is currently a war torn battlefield run by despots and religious zealots...it's not like it can get much worse.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Russia is attacking the rebels (not necessarily terrorists) in order to keep their dictator ally in power. That's not beneficial for Syria who's people will continue to resist and fight and their government. Most countries in that region (and practically the entire western world) says Assad needs to go.
The only people backing Assad is Russia and Iran. And that's the side you are cheerleading for?
We are seeing how well the 'moderate' rebels are doing in Libya
It's such a lovely paradise with freedom, security, democracy...
Really fast tale of the tape
Moderate Commander (and guy who got millions of dollars in US Aid and Weapons) Syrian Revolutionary Front Jamal Maarouf said he was working with and coordinating with Al-Nusra Front (aka Al-Qaeda in Syria). That was money well spent
Col. Okaidi, Senior Commander of a moderate rebel group was filmed in an interview saying My relationship with the brothers in ISIL is good... I communicate almost daily with brothers in ISIL... the relationship is good, even brotherly."
When General Austin was asked how many Pentagon trained fighters remained, he said, “We’re talking four or five,” General Lloyd J. Austin III told the Senate Armed Services Committee. General Austin is the U.S. military operations in the Middle East and South Asia
Fighters with Division 30, the “moderate” rebel division favoured by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. According to a statement from al-Nusra which I have yet to see denied anywhere, "...the new group from Division 30 that entered yesterday hands over all of its weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra after being granted safe passage."
Yes... Assad is the bad person in this war.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Well, you have to ignore a significant fraction of the Syrian population. At the beginning of this, he had about a third of the population, another third wanted him gone, and the other third wanted political change, but not mass violence.
I imagine by now, most everybody in Syria would be happy just to achieve a ceasefire.
Assad is NOT going to be overthrown by force--the Russians and Iranians will see to that--but I think this ends a few years down the road with a transitional government and Assad on his way to exile in Moscow or Tehran. He should be going to the Hague, but I bet he doesn't.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)"'Avoiding Extradition' appearing next fall on the Travel Channel."
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)There is no plausible scenario in which modern, secular, friendly rebels with a healthy respect for human rights can win and hold Syria. Of the dozens of armies currently fighting in Syria, only a handful fit that description, and they control relatively tiny amounts of land. Even worse, they're losing territory to both IS and the government.
There are five plausible scenarios for Syria's future:
1) Assad wins. We know his track record. He's a relatively benign dictator as long as the people aren't rebelling. He's downright progressive when compared to his neighbors on minority rights issues, he generally follows his nations laws and constitution, and he has already agreed to step down in another seven years.
2) Al Nusra wins. Yeah, they're religious nutjobs who like to throw gay men off tall buildings, and but at least they're homegrown Syrian nutjobs. Which makes them better than...
3) IS wins. The whole region is fucked. War for decades. Expect hits on Israel, which will make the conflict go nuclear.
4) Syria fragments into multiple countries. The IS is one of them, Assad gets to control another. Al Nusra yet another. Yay, we get to experience 1, 2, and 3 at the same time.
5) Anarchy. See: Afghanistan. The war never really ends and just drags on. Genocides against minority groups continue. The destruction of the region continues. There are no winners here.
Of those 5 options, #1 is looking pretty damned good right now. I'd prefer a scenario in which Syria became an open, free, democratic society, but that's simply not plausible given the actual condition of Syria today. Assad is simply the least awful of the remaining options.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Is that who you are rooting for?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)ROME — Russia and the United States tentatively agreed Tuesday to resume talks on how to prevent conflicts between their warplanes in the skies over Syria, even as concerns mounted about the potential for a broader confrontation in the Middle East between the two powers.
After days of complaints from U.S. and NATO officials about a lack of cooperation and risky maneuvers by Russian warplanes, Russia’s Defense Ministry offered to hold another round of discussions with the Pentagon on avoiding a midair disaster or a hostile encounter involving their fighter jets, drones and other aircraft over Syria.
The tone expressed by both sides remained distrustful, however, as they labored to agree on when to meet and accused each other of blocking progress. The dispute has escalated in recent days as Russia has ramped up its bombing campaign in Syria, further congesting a war zone that was already crowded with a dizzying array of foreign forces.
Russian warplanes based in Syria have twice violated the airspace of neighboring Turkey, a NATO member, adding to concerns about the potential for an inadvertent collision or confrontation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-secretary-general-rejects-russian-claims-turkish-air-incursions-were-accidental/2015/10/06/8f2a2c42-6c0c-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Should be called the "Expense" department.
