Will Russia clash with Turkey?

What we have observed over the past week was nothing more than brinkmanship that, left on its course, could have serious consequences

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of duplicity and lying as he asserted that the downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber by a Turkish F-16 fighter on the Syrian border on November 24 was meant to protect Daesh’s (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) oil supply lines into Turkish territory. A livid Erdogan challenged Putin and invited him to prove this claim, as he refused to apologise for the destruction of the bomber — something that the Russian had demanded with gusto.

Short of that, Moscow made known its views: A series of sanctions would be imposed, followed, perhaps, by military strikes as necessary. As both sides embarked on mutual accusations, it was fair to ask whether the two antagonists were willing to forego some of the gains accumulated through their strategic partnership and, equally important, whether they were ready to embark on fresh clashes over Syria. Whether the downing of the Su-24 was a “huge mistake”, as Putin hammered, will long be debated by analysts, although two Belgian astrophysicists at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Dr Tom van Doorsslaere and Dr Giovanni Lapenta, raised serious questions about the official accounts. As reported by Caroline Mortimer in the Independent, the scientists doubted both Turkish and Russian versions of what actually occurred.

Simply stated, the two astrophysicists argued, Ankara’s claim that the plane was in their airspace for 17 seconds could not be true. Since the Su-24 was flying at a speed of 980km/h, it would have crossed the specified airspace in just seven seconds or even less. How could Turkish authorities issue “ten warnings in five minutes” when the jet probably crossed the alleged distance in mere seconds?Under the circumstances, and despite the release of an unverified English-language “recording” by Ankara, it was highly unlikely that warnings were issued to the Russian pilots on this occasion. What remained unclear was whether this broadcast was recorded on this particular occasion or were part of a larger stock of similar exchanges that occurred previously.

Van Doorsslaere and Lapenta were equally critical of Russian authorities, whose claims that the plane made a 90-degree turn after it was hit, or that it tried to avoid Turkish airspace in the first place, were equally dubious. The scientists explained that a relatively light aircraft cannot possibly make a sharp 90 degree turn at 980km/h, if only to respect the laws of mechanics. Such a manoeuvre would brake the plane in flight, which was not the case in this instance, as a video clearly showed it being hit by a missile.

Based on these findings, it was somewhat obvious that both Turkey and Russia were not entirely truthful and while some of these declarations were expected when so much was at stake, why were we witnessing such cavalier declarations?

As difficult as this might be, what we observed throughout the past week was nothing more than brinkmanship that, left on its course, could have serious consequences on everyone.

Lingering suspicion

It is now clear that Moscow believes the Turkish action intended to “wipe out Russian-Turkish relations” that, despite differences over the Syria civil war, had developed quite well in recent years. Russians therefore wondered why Ankara engaged them, which was bound to further complicate ties, especially if suspicions lingered as to who might have pushed Turkey to move with force.

Of course, it is important to remind ourselves that the Russian narrative is concentrated on fighting Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) in Syria, even if the evidence affirmed the opposite, as Moscow turned its guns on opposition troops, which directly helped Damascus regain a certain military momentum. Turkey, for its part, has continued to assist opposition forces and facilitated their movements through the border areas. Turkey is working towards removal of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad from power and to facilitate the rise of what it perceives as “moderate” Islamist factions.

Given this fundamental difference between the two countries — over Daesh and other opposition forces — one can now anticipate strong Russian responses to “put Ankara in its place”. Moscow could indeed supply anti-aircraft missile defence systems to Kurdish fighters — the only ground forces fighting against Daesh today — although that action might escalate the conflict further, especially since Ankara would, in turn, retaliate against any Kurdish gains so close to Turkey.

Under the current circumstances, and while the details of this latest incident are still hidden, there is a great need to defuse tensions and avoid an escalation. It behoves the United Nations Security Council to reject what appears to be a global strategic game from gaining traction and to call for cooler heads to prevail — or accept the consequences of a direct clash.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the forthcoming From Alliance To Union: Challenges Facing Gulf Cooperation Council States In The Twenty-First Century.