Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Astute Article on the Turkey/Russia Kerfuffle 44

Journal by smittyoneeach
A Necessary Conversation

The clash between the Turkish Air Force and Russia is dangerous because it violates the first rule of proxy warfare which is principals don't fight principals. The whole point of proxy warfare is that only the seconds are allowed to cross swords. The duelists are forbidden from engaging each other directly, a convention intended to limit the scope of war.

Read the whole thing.
We mostly discuss international politics as though it were chess, when it really tends more toward of a mafia-driven, mezcal-drenched poker match with arbitrary players every hand.
The ME isn't really "sides" as much as it's a garbled graph problem. Every node is connected, more or less, to every other.
Thus, the principles chosen as a framework for how to react to the current crisis are the least squishy conversation one can have.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Astute Article on the Turkey/Russia Kerfuffle More

Astute Article on the Turkey/Russia Kerfuffle

Comments Filter:
  • I don't think Turkey really is a "principal" in this conflict, rather they are a pawn. Russia is undoubtedly a "principal". Turkey is a pawn that is being manipulated by the EU and the US. Arguably the bigger problem here is that Russia doesn't have many pawns to use in this conflict, so they have to go in themselves to protect their own interests.

    Syria is undoubtedly not a pawn at this point as they are already a failed state. Syria is actually the treasure at this point that the principals are fig
    • In the broader global picture, Turkey certainly isn't China or the U.S. Or even India.
      Within the scope of Syria, Turkey is a major regional power, supporting their Turkmen allies, as the article points out.

      • Within the scope of Syria, Turkey is a major regional power, supporting their Turkmen allies, as the article points out.

        Sure, but the Turkmen don't seem to aspire to take over all of Syria - and indeed many are known for avoiding engagements against the Syrian army. It would seem that at most the Syrian Turkmen just want to be able to retain the parts of Syrian where they have lived for the past several centuries. This seems to make it hard to really say that Turkey has strong interests in Syria as a whole (aside from preventing ISIS from taking over the whole place).

        • Turkey has substantial security interest in Syria. Those Kurds are a major nuisance in Turkey's east. Then there is the oil profit to consider, and whatever Iran is up to.

          • Turkey likes having it three different ways. They like getting half-price oil from ISIS (so they are financially supporting ISIS), they like everyone bombing everyone in Syria (making them relatively stronger), and they like being able to hide behind NATO for a stupid excuse for shooting down a Russian bomber and getting away with it (makes them look big-n-tough domestically).

            Those million refugees in Turkey have paid a total of $1.5 billion euros to get into Turkey. And now they complain that they're stuc

            • Sorry, it's not just oil [middleeasteye.net]. And any discussion of "human rights violations" is just not on the table [reuters.com].

              Bidness is bidness! And we don't want the Russians moving in even if we quit buying the oil. We are doing what Iraq did to Kuwait when they booked outta there, attempting to "salt the earth"...

            • Your analysis doesn't mention the need to preclude the birth of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq, which would just lead to agitation in the East of Turkey.
              Turks are also Sunni Muslims, and the flexing of Shi'ite Iran in Syria is not a welcome thing.
              People in the West underestimate the significance of both the ethnic and religious tensions in the Middle East. Hydrocarbons, while seriously important, aren't the only dimension to the problem.

              • People in the West underestimate the significance of both the ethnic and religious tensions in the Middle East.

                No, there are not. They are effectively exploiting them, steering them in any direction they want. Regardless of all the tensions, they are clients, damn good ones, we can hardly make and ship the bombs and bullets fast enough. Just read the invoice. Math truly is a universal language.

                The significance of both the ethnic and religious tensions be damned. The only logical "failure" here is in contain

                • The significance of both the ethnic and religious tensions be damned. The only logical "failure" here is in containment to the region.

                  Well, now: I feel there may be a few inputs that you're not evaluating clearly here. You can't merely ignore the ethnic/religious dimension. It matters to the people at large, even if, at the ruling class level, such are merely buttons to press.
                  And the cost of "containment" may end up being orders of magnitude higher than you realize. DoD contractors are salivating even as you speak.

                  • did I need to tag that?

                    Apparently so...

                    • So, what is our point here? We seem to be dancing around Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly and carry a big stick" dictum.

                    • Let's see, what's my point. How 'bout 3 billion euros [itv.com]? You're right, the Turks got some juice...

                    • Ah, the Danegeld.

                    • Yeah, okay.. but you're still ignoring the beast with that religious stuff:

                      You can't merely ignore the ethnic/religious dimension. It matters to the people at large, even if, at the ruling class level, such are merely buttons to press.

                      Ethic/religious is the button because it matters to the people at large. That is the exploit. That is what makes it so reliable for your "ruling class", who could not possibly give a damn about what matters to the people at large, only that it can produce a reaction with a single broadcast. We are witnessing it's effectiveness right now.

                    • So who is the bigger fool, then: (a) the one who worships power as a ruling class twit while here under the sun, jetting off to Paris to whinge on about global anthropogenic non-constant climate warming change, or (b) the one who focuses on finding some joy in life, while keeping the soul minimally tainted, in view of the hereafter?

                    • It doesn't matter who the bigger fool is. The perception is personal. I can do 'b' in view of the here and now. The "hereafter" will take care of itself.

                      to whinge on about global anthropogenic non-constant climate warming change

                      And your partisanship still stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. I figure that part is a troll, amiright?

                    • And your partisanship still stands out like the proverbial sore thumb. I figure that part is a troll, amiright?

                      Sure, troll, but riddle me this, Batman: are you trying to claim AGW, itself, is somehow non-partisan?

                    • The phenomenon is real, doesn't matter why, we just have to adapt, technically the issue is trivial, and, like it or not, it is global. The argument (and your attempt to milk it) is the distraction. I guess you can't help yourself. Work on the war bullshit and your battling empires first. And look at the cockroaches your politics are drawing out.

                    • "The phenomenon is real". OK. "Climate is constant," said No One. Ever.

                      The argument (and your attempt to milk it) is the distraction.

                      Well, if you're going to stand here and get milked like damn_registrars by these Progressive idiots, I really don't see the difference between you.

                    • *ho-hum* d_r and you are just playing mouthpieces for your tribes. Again you revert to the charade. You too, worship power as a ruling class twit while here under the sun, jetting off to Paris to whinge on about *who is a terrorist*. Which one of you is more decadent? If I wanna go to Paris, it'll be in a canoe. Go 'head and start the party without me...

                    • it'll be in a canoe

                      Of course I would never refuse the offer of speedier more civilized accommodations.

                    • Well, now, if you're not Amish or living in Papua New Guinea in a jungle, you have to understand that your aloof stance makes your butt look big.

                    • A canoe is what I can afford. *Involuntary* Amish... Think I'll stay home at look at a postcard.

                    • Yep. Grim economic times, indeed.

                    • Not really. Nothing has to be grim

                    • Well, from a secular point it is. But spiritually speaking, the world was ever a wash.

                    • I don't know what you're talking about. Life is fine, with or without *jetting off to Paris*...

                    • Of course you refuse to understand what I'm talking about. Gotta keep those eyes closed. ;-)

                    • Oookay....

                    • You may recognize this spiel as mostly the same as your own.

                    • Not even close, but I'll give you an 'E' for effort.

                    • No, look: all you do is spout some ersatz Zen crap, trying to sound erudite in the contradictions. Because 'up' is the new 'down'.

                    • I'll have to accept whatever you say. I don't understand a thing.

                    • See, now, that right there is precisely what I'm talking about with my jaw wired shut.

                    • :-) Pretty easy in a text forum.

  • So they are both violating the rules of proxy warfare. US involvement does not. (I'm not quite sure if that is ironic) Since after World War I, all of North Africa and the Middle East has been under constant proxy warfare by those two principals. They are ones with the most to gain/lose, pretty much the only ones. We don't need no steenking Middle East. But when the UK makes the call, guess who picks up? The US is their hired gun, mercenaries. US "foreign policy" is the UK's foreign policy, but still the w

    • The real escalation comes from that place that nobody can touch.

      Israel, Iran, or Saudi Arabia?

      "Mafia driven", gangsterism is an excellent description (another mark of, ugh!, progress on your part, or is the wife subbing for you today?).

      Gosh. Thanks. As though the intersection of organizational behavior and politics is mysterious or something.

      The article is working off of press releases (as all the papers do), not intelligence, or any other knowledge of what really is taking place

      Well, sure. And yet the countries, actors, and goals aren't exactly new or unknown. So the "intelligence" angle is substantially tactical.

      • Israel, Iran, or Saudi Arabia?

        C'mon, man, you're losing it... Those are all proxies... Though I would admit that Israel's special relationship is similar to the US/French one, kind of incestuous. And Mr. Kissinger is getting more squeeze than Franklin.

        Gosh. Thanks. As though the intersection of organizational behavior and politics is mysterious or something.

        Well, you are known to put your favorite human role models and affiliations above the fray... So seeing that come from you was a bit of a surprise.

        My main quibble with the article is that it fails to report of the business of terrorism. There are no good guys in this fight. Business is be

        • Israel, Iran, or Saudi Arabia?

          C'mon, man, you're losing it...

          It's as though you're trying to claim that the overall graph problem of international relations is somehow a rooted tree structure.

          you are known to put your favorite human role models and affiliations above the fray...

          Really? Whom?

          fails to report of the business of terrorism

          Of course it's a business. The various "failed" states, e.g. North Korea, all perform their functions in the ecosystem.
          But to call the question purely a business problem is to oversimplify. You're lopping off some important parts of human irrationality that contribute to the overall hairball.

          • They are regional powers under heavy outside influence in the battle of empires. It's a lot like a fixed boxing match. Instead of fomenting warfare for profit, making regional conflicts in to an ongoing global war, the empires should be isolating the area with a weapons/trade embargo, but the wealth/power is just too tempting, and Europe just isn't ready to do without the convenient resources, and letting the Russians grow fat on them is out of the question. Better to burn the whole place down. The destabil

            • "the battle of empires" OK, whom do you think is truly "Imperial" today? The Chinese. . .the Russians. . .the United States?

              letting the Russians grow fat on them is out of the question. Better to burn the whole place down. The destabilization efforts are for that purpose. Not even 15 years ago, tourists were able to visit Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc in relative safety.

              So, you place no stock whatsoever in *any* of the Sunni/Shi'ite tension, Iran as a regional hegemon, the House of Saud wanting to keep the Iranians at bay?

              The various "failed" states, e.g. North Korea, all perform their functions in the ecosystem.

              A totally nonsensical post. North Korea, et al are client states, proxies.

              Want to walk that back? Client states "perform their functions in the ecosystem"; trafficking in persons, dope smuggling [wikipedia.org], what have you.

              • Orwell's map is succinct and accurate enough for me. Maybe a bit more so with a line running down the Urals dividing Eurasia. The *Four Families* who send out their buttonmen to expand their territories. It is gangsterism.

                So, you place no stock whatsoever in *any* of the Sunni/Shi'ite tension

                What makes you say that? This is an old exploit to be directed by the outsiders in the favored direction, hence "disputed territory". And what's "funny" is that both sides are funding/arming both sides. Remember, the ob

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close