Russo-Turkish war scenarios

[libertycall]

Turks proved in the battle of Galipolli that they can be a force to reckon with , but again anyone has hardly heard about their battles with the russians ...

Shall we talk in more relevant terms about the current capabilities and restraints on both powers rather than discussing the historical ebb and flow? I'd rather not discuss how the Russian Czar once kissed the boot of the Tatar Khan every year, or how the Russians and their allies almost defeated the Ottomans.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

One more thing which Turkey should know, Russia is fighting for Asad, this doesn't mean they will fight for the Kurds. As of now the aims of Kurds and Russians collide for Aleppo, but nothing more. As soon as Aleppo is overcome Kurds and Russians part ways.

 

[jammersat]

Shall we talk in more relevant terms about the current capabilities and restraints on both powers rather than discussing the historical ebb and flow? I'd rather not discuss how the Russian Czar once kissed the boot of the Tatar Khan every year, or how the Russians and their allies almost defeated the Ottomans.

That's an "exception" or what they call rarity , the Ottoman (Turkish) Topal was killed in battle with Safavid turks , but that doesn't mean the safavid turks were stronger than their ottoman brothers , does it?

of course i'm more than eager to discuss the current situation

Russia has Nukes
Turkey has none
so no war will happen

 

[Ankit Kumar]

turkey cannot rely on anybody the pakistan friendship is ovverated - when it comes to india yes we would get 100% support but against russia I doubt it..

India has next to negligible role to play in middle east than to support some humitarian aid which our economy permits.
You can actually count on Pakistan, I think they don't bother that much about their own problems than they do about their birader nations.
For Arabs Turkey needs to assure them that Turkeys victory in Syria is important for them being in power and boom, you will have a lot of equipment at your disposal.
And last thing, if you are not able to get the support of NATO, make sure at least they don't work against you.

As for my personal wish , I would want stability in Syria ( means Asad to stay), as that would mean oil for us. See its not needed to hide our intentions, we need oil and whoever provides us, they are in our good books, and looking at the present senario if Asad goes., the situation becomes like Libya.... our oil options from Syria is gone, but if Asad remain.... we pay money and take oil.

Its simple but very harsh as a human.

Hope the world was a simpler place.

 

[era_shield]

I had hoped that this would be a serious discussion where people would think through the entire scenario from start to finish. Unfortunately, all I'm getting is half-baked nonsense from people who are fanboys of various weapon systems which they think will force one of the most powerful military forces in NATO to sue for peace within a few days. Magically according to their logic the Turkish military would also sit still and wait to be bombed by the Russians.

I'm waiting for people to reply back looking at the following factors:

1. In the event of a Russian intervention against Turkish forces, would the Turks be content to sit back and wait; or would they instead then decide to attack Damascus itself and remove Bashar from power. This would leave Putin with a fait accompli.

2. Would the Turkish people be prepared to tolerate Russian bombing of Turkey knowing that the end-game was a democratic state in Syria which would be allied with Turkey and hostile to the PKK which represents an existential threat to Turkey?

3. Consider this carefully. Vietnam had more bombs dropped on it than dropped by both sides during WW2. Vietnam is vastly smaller and has a lot less population than Turkey.

4. Turkey would have military support from GCC countries. I'm not sure whether this would mean GCC pilots would be willing to fight Russian forces but there are many other roles than direct dogfights.

5. If Iranian ground forces tried to intervene, it is a certainty that the GCC states as well as many others would bomb them.

Now please consider the above and other factors before posting fanboyish nonsense.

Whatever bombing Russia does against Turks it could only do to Turkish forces who step out of Turkish territory and into Syria. If it bombs Turkish soil, NATO would be forced to send it back to the stone age, so that will definitely not happen. That's also why it couldn't retaliate after we shot down their Su-24. They won't risk nuclear war for Syria.

Other scenarios are the ones we should be talking about - for example, if Turkey goes outside of Turkish territory and hits YPG/SAA, will Russia hit back?

 

[jammersat]

One could wonder why there are so many fire extinguishers on such a russian piece of art

 

[TaiShang]

Let us spice things up, shall we? What is a a Russo Turk discussion without Turks and the ever loving Chinese!

@cnleio @Sinan @Daneshmand @TaiShang @xunzi @Kiss_of_the_Dragon @Genesis @Neptune

Balssssssssss Pak will get involved in a suicide pact.

Thanks for tagging me although I would be sitting at the bottom of the expert list when it comes to making comparisons between military systems, doctrines and technological capabilities of the two sides. But I will offer a brief analysis as to how I see the present conflict in the Middle East with Syria at the center.

The problem with this issue is that it is multilayered, rather than being an isolated regional case. If you look at the small spats between, say, China and our neighbor Vietnam, what happens between us stays mostly between us. So, it is manageable as the recent developments and improvement in relations have demonstrated.

The Syrian case, on the other, involves multiple actors. I would classify them as being primary (Russia and the US which can construct and execute independent strategies; and Iran, in a limited way); secondary (proxy with a certain capability to assume a limited independent role, such as Turkey and Qatar [Qatar's contribution is mostly financial]) and proxy (with no chance of being able to act independently such as various terror groups, KSA, Lebanese Hizbullah).

Comparing Russia and Turkey, for this reason, is problematic, because only recently Turkey has shown interest to play an assertive secondary role. That, in my opinion, started with the shooting down of the Russian fighter jet. Then, it culminated with the cross border bombing of the YPG-PYD military units operating in Syria in tandem with the US and Russia. But Turkey could go only so far as an actor seeking more independent secondary role.

Turkey got caught unprepared because it was operating more confidently as a limited secondary under the US supervision. But, when the US and Russian sides appeared to reach a sort of consensus on how to handle the proxies and limited proxies on the ground, then, Turkey was forced to accept a Syria policy that is squarely against its very sectarian and emotional Syria strategy that it started with five years ago.

Now, if we agreed that a war between Russia and Turkey would only start within the context of the Syrian issue, then, I do not see a war between the two countries simply because Turkey is not positioned to be a major player in the whole multilateral setting. Its assumed assertive secondary role already created so much problems. If Turkey ever attempted to change and challenge this setting, that would no longer be a Turkey-Russia issue and Turkey would find itself terribly isolated (if it could be isolated more than it already is; that's another matter).

The conclusion is, it is impossible to have an isolated armed conflict between Turkey and Russia. And, the setting of the entire Syrian issue shows that it is multilateral with every actor assuming some roles. Turkey would be punished if it stepped out of the line that was determined for it five years ago as a limited secondary.

You can see this from the reaction of the US and other major powers (P5, to begin with) that remained deaf to and unconvinced from Turkey's accusations on PYD-YPG organization for the terrible bombing in Ankara. This is despite the fact that Turkey's Foreign ministry called the represenatives of the P5 plus Germany and briefed them soon after the explosion.

Turkey is not a game maker and won't ever be a game changer. If it reverts to the limited secondary role (on either side), then it can grab some benefits. Otherwise, it will be the only country (second to Syria, perhaps) to be most badly hurt in this big geopolitical game.

Think about it. Jordan is home to some good 2 million Syrian refugees, but, it has not suffered 10% of what Turkey has over the past few months especially after it changed its Syria strategy to one of limited engagement as a proxy on the aftermath of the brutal murder of its pilots by the Islamic State. Why is the Turkish border with Syria so problematic? It is because of Turkey itself.

Turkey will not be an exception if it keeps thinking it can play a primary role. Primary role will stay only in the words of the emotional President and Prime Minister, who at times talk like an excited televangelist. Russia knows this. The US knows this. I think other sane countries know it, too. Only Turkey seems to be seized in a fit of anger and irrational/erratic behavior. That's self-destructive.

 

[surya kiran]

Thanks for tagging me although I would be sitting at the bottom of the expert list when it comes to making comparisons between military systems, doctrines and technological capabilities of the two sides. But I will offer a brief analysis as to how I see the present conflict in the Middle East with Syria at the center.

The problem with this issue is that it is multilayered, rather than being an isolated regional case. If you look at the small spats between, say, China and our neighbor Vietnam, what happens between us stays mostly between us. So, it is manageable as the recent developments and improvement in relations have demonstrated.

The Syrian case, on the other, involves multiple actors. I would classify them as being primary (Russia and the US which can construct and execute independent strategies; and Iran, in a limited way); secondary (proxy with a certain capability to assume a limited independent role, such as Turkey and Qatar [Qatar's contribution is mostly financial]) and proxy (with no chance of being able to act independently such as various terror groups, KSA, Lebanese Hizbullah).

Comparing Russia and Turkey, for this reason, is problematic, because only recently Turkey has shown interest to play an assertive secondary role. That, in my opinion, started with the shooting down of the Russian fighter jet. Then, it culminated with the cross border bombing of the YPG-PYD military units operating in Syria in tandem with the US and Russia. But Turkey could go only so far as an actor seeking more independent secondary role.

Turkey got caught unprepared because it was operating more confidently as a proxy under the US supervision. But, when the US and Russian sides appeared to reach a sort of consensus on how to handle the proxies on the ground, then, Turkey was forced to a Syria policy that is squarely against its very sectarian and emotional Syria strategy that it started with five years ago.

Now, if we agreed that a war between Russia and Turkey would only start within the context of the Syrian issue, then, I do not see a war between the two countries simply because Turkey is not positioned to be a major player in the whole multilateral setting. Its assumed secondary role already created so much problems. If Turkey ever attempted to change and challenge this setting, that would no longer be a Turkey-Russia issue and Turkey would find itself terribly isolated (if it could be isolated more than it already is; that's another matter).

The conclusion is, it is impossible to have an isolated armed conflict between Turkey and Russia. And, the setting of the entire Syrian issue shows that it is multilateral with every actor assuming some roles. Turkey would be punished if it stepped out of the line that was determined for it five years ago as a proxy.

You can see this from the reaction of the US and other major powers (P5, to begin with) that remained deaf to and unconvinced from Turkey's accusations on PYD-YPG organization for the terrible bombing in Ankara. This is despite the fact that Turkey's Foreign ministry called the represenatives of the P5 plus Germany and briefed them soon after the explosion.

Turkey is not a game maker and won't ever be a game changer. If it reverts to the proxy role (on either side), then it can grab some benefits. Otherwise, it will be the only country (second to Syria, perhaps) to be most badly hurt in this big geopolitical game.

Think about it. Jordan is home to some good 2 million Syrian refugees, but, it has not suffered 10% of what Turkey has over the past few months especially after it changed its Syria strategy to one of limited engagement as a proxy on the aftermath of the brutal murder of its pilots by the Islamic State.

Turkey will not be an exception if it keeps thinking it can play a primary role. Primary role will stay only in the words of the emotional President and Prime Minister, who at times talk like an excited televangelist. Russia knows this. The US knows this. I think other sane countries know it, too. Only Turkey seems to be seized in a fit of anger and irrational/erratic behavior. That's self-destructive.

That is probably one of the best analysis I have read on this topic. Thanks for that.

 

[mustafa erkan]

War between big coutries is not a video game.If it is, USA and Israel have been hit Iran a few years ago when Iran was much weaker.Iran has no border with them this means US can hit and they cant give direct responses to Americans land.Only can attack to American bases with missiles at 2500 km range.Iran airforce cant stand against US and they have limitless air attack capability.İn reality a war is calculation of what you will gain and what you will lose.
Russia is at our range and our army is not joke.Its comic to think Turkey will give up in a conventional war against Russia.If someone thinks he doesnt recognize Turks.

 

[Timur]

One could wonder why there are so many fire extinguishers on such a russian piece of art

then make shure that they draw the art proper and not into iran as their cruise missles wich "landed" in iran

 

[jammersat]

then make shure that they draw the art proper and not into iran as their cruise missles wich "landed" in iran

That's a funny joke indeed , but far from the truth , the russian are using their old ammo , like israel does over gaza, so that in the cover they can modernize their military

then make shure that they draw the art proper and not into iran as their cruise missles wich "landed" in iran

That's a funny joke indeed , but far from the truth , the russian are using their old ammo , like israel does over gaza, so that in the cover they can modernize their military

 

[era_shield]

Why is the Turkish border with Syria so problematic? It is because of Turkey itself.

Wrong. The reason is the PKK/YPG, which is on that border. That's the big difference between Turkey and Jordan. The fact that you seem to have missed this critical fact discredits your entire analysis.

You did get this part right though: -

I would be sitting at the bottom of the expert list when it comes to making comparisons

 

[Scavenger]

Does turkey have anything that reaches moscow?

Turkey does have CM's ranging over 1000 kms in very limited quantities. But that won't be any big advantage for them.

Russia has SAM system's second to none in the world. While their S-400's are in limited numbers and deployed around the more sensitive areas, their S-300's are aplenty. Odds are all their missiles will be shot out of the sky.

Perhaps if Turkey had more Ballistic Missiles, they would be able to go after forward bases. The S-400 has anti-IRBM functions, but as I said, currently they are few in numbers and so are deployed in more sensitive places - like Moscow, and thus cannot protect forward military bases. So Turkey would still not be able to hit Moscow with BM's, but more tactical targets.

Russia does have the industrial ability to ramp up production if needed though.

any direct conflcit between tow side will drag the world into a world war which every side will try to avoid

Nope. World war by definition must involve the majority of the world. Or at the very least all the Tier 1 powers and majority of Tier 2 powers.

China would not be involved directly, neither would India.

Of the 10 biggest countries in the world - you can take a guess which ones would not be involved.
Apart from these, small countries like the "more Muslim than Arab" Pakistanis would not be involved either. For once they have showed some backbone and said no to fighting other's wars.

 

[libertycall]

I've repeated this multiple times but there appears to be some misunderstanding. I'm not asking for your views on the Turkish government, or whether you think war is likely or not likely. Let me try and force you into a war scenario.

1. After several weeks of relentless PKK attacks, and under massive Turkish public pressure the Turkish government has decided enough and enough and that its survival is at stake.

2. It decides that the only way to prevent the splintering of Turkish territory is to invade Syria and take out the PKK terrorist sanctuaries in that country.

3. The Turkish government decides that it will attempt to seize a limited area unless it comes under attack from the Russian occupation forces in Syria; then it will push on and take out Bashar and all his supporters.

For the purposes of this exercise Turkey has zero NATO support. It has some limited air-support from Arab powers. It has complete diplomatic support from all the Sunni Muslim countries.

BEGIN.

 

[Serpentine]

5. If Iranian ground forces tried to intervene, it is a certainty that the GCC states as well as many others would bomb them.

Is this a joke or what? Why should Iranian ground forces participate in a Russo-Turkish war? And about GCC, we have seen all their might in Yemen, and they are losing against an army of poor people with Ak-47s and small rockets. And honestly, you think GCC dares to touch Iran without seeing their main cities burned to ground? Let me assure you, this is a war that will have no winner. And Iran and Turkey would never go to war. Our borders are among the oldest in the world and despite huge differences on Syria, leaders are not stupid to declare war on each other.