An ambush, not a defensive reaction?

Here’s an opinion on the Turkish/Russian air conflict from Nightwatch, which I believe is the most honest coming from an American source to date:

“NightWatch judges this shoot down was an ambush, not a defensive reaction. The Turks said they provided multiple warnings that the Russians said they did not receive. The Turks did not say that the warnings were acknowledged in any way over a five-minute period. Five minutes is long time in the air for determining whether a violator poses a threat.

The alleged warnings aside, the Turks have been watching Russian air operations for weeks. The Russians have been open about their operations, their target areas and their willingness to make arrangements for avoiding air conflicts.  The Turks knew the Russian aircraft was not targeting Turkey and had a hotline which the Russians said was not used.

The Turks reacted to prior alleged violations without shooting, but with warnings. On their face, those prior incidents could be understood as creating the precedent for not shooting, on which the Russians might have relied. Against that backdrop, the Turks seem to have been waiting for an opportunity to correct any Russian perception of implied permission.

The Turks claim they had the right to shoot, but it was not a smart move. It makes Turkey appear to be providing air support to extreme Islamic terrorists. Russia, the US and the rest of NATO have long known that Turkey has been a primary supporter of the Islamic State since its inception. Now the Turks have acted openly as accomplices to terrorism, especially if the Turkish fighters operated in Syria.

Turkey has instigated a confrontation with Russia that could escalate to a crisis. The Russians will avenge this shoot down. They subscribe to the Israeli doctrine of asymmetric punishment.”

Now, if we find ourselves backing Turkey, which supports the Islamic State and has done everything it can to impede our success in fighting the Islamic State, then NATO ally or not, we should reassess who our friends really are.  Erdogan is an Islamist snake in the grass, that’s my opinion.  Now, if the facts shake out with truth being on the Russian side, should the US continue to bolster Turkey’s version of events?  Shouldn’t we stand up for the truth?  Nightwatch also provided this comment:

“The Russian General Staff said that the target of the Su-24M was a concentration of 1,000 North Caucasus terrorists in the mountains northeast of Latakia. They came through Turkey.”

So, remember when Turkey finally decided to help in the fight against the Islamic State this past summer, instead of focusing on attacking the Islamic State, Turkey started bombing the hell out of the Kurds, not the Islamic State.  If what the Russians state is the truth, then we have a huge credibility problem.  Some ally we have in Turkey…

Note:  Nightwatch is a subscription publication.  For more information click on this link:



Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism

6 responses to “An ambush, not a defensive reaction?

  1. Robert

    Some ally for sure and they can’t be trusted. Neither can our Commander in Chief. For now I am good with leaving the Russians alone with the flypaper and if the Turks ask for NATO, tell them no. Leave Erdogan to sweat it out with his doppleganger Putin. Come January 21, 2017, we can take a fresh look at things…hopefully with an actual American President.

  2. JK

    Much has been made of the supposed Fact that Russia is in no shape to do much “because its tech is junk” compared to all the gee-whizery bells and whistles of the “obvious superiority of US tech” – F-35 anyone? – but I’m *guessing* there’s likely to be some shakies walking the corridors of the Pentagon 24 hours into this.

    (Remember back in 2008 when “nobody saw it coming” the Russians blindsided all the happy-talk what with Georgia about to join NATO?)

    And more recently – how many Arleigh-Burke class DDGs has anybody (US media where are you?) reported conducting ops in the Black Sea?
    And even more recently – why does anybody suppose France, after the recent attacks (from which its attackers certainly had to’ve transited Turkey on their way to the Caucuses to get “kitted up”) and yet – all the [again] happy-talk that France “would surely invoke an Article 5” but, *inexplicably* didn’t?

    Reckon Donald Cook mighta been in the back of everybody’s mind?

    Now hold on here a minute JK – who in the hell is Donald Cook and how could he possibly affect the calculus?

    Well. The first thing the non-Navy reader needs get holt of is, where the name Donald Cook is concerned the correct *personal pronoun* is not He but rather it’s She!

  3. JK

    [Lt. Gen] Hodges acknowledged that US troops are learning from Ukrainians about Russia’s jamming capability, its ranges, types and the ways it has been employed. He has previously described the quality and sophistication of Russian electronic warfare as “eye-watering.”

Leave a Reply to JK Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s