The incident couldn’t have come at a worse time for efforts to negotiate a joint approach to the campaign against Islamic State in Syria
The dangerous skies over Syria have now earned their reputation. On November 24 2015, the Turkish foreign ministry confirmed that its forces had shot down a fighter aircraft on the Turkish border with Syria. The Russian foreign ministry confirmed soon afterwards that it has lost an SU-24 over Syria.
The situation remains tense: two pilots were filmed ejecting from the stricken aircraft; one is reported to be in the hands of pro-Turkish Turkmen rebels along the border but the fate of the other is unknown – early reports from Reuters said it had video of the second pilot seemingly dead on the ground.
BREAKING: Video sent by Syrian rebel group to Reuters claims to show Russian pilot immobile on ground, official from group says he is dead
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) November 24, 2015
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, is understood to have cancelled a planned trip to Turkey and NATO announced there would be a meeting of its North Atlantic Council in Brussels to discuss the shootdown.
— Dean (@deanofsurrey) November 24, 2015
How might this escalate?
This comes at a time, following the Paris attacks, when the US and its Western allies had been reaching a tentative agreement with Russia to solve the previous impasse over a possible transition of power in Syria. Turkey and other Sunni Middle Eastern states are ranged against the Assad regime and not happy at the prospect of a deal that would leave him in power – even if only on a temporary basis. Iran and Russia have been keen to see their Syrian ally remain in power, although Russia has been coming around to the idea of a transition but has steadfastly argued that it is imperative to defeat Islamic State militarily first.
After the Paris attacks, France was swift to act against IS and NATO has appeared to accept that the first priority is to act against the terrorist group, leaving the Assad question for the time being. Will that common ground be lost over the downing of the SU-24?
It is important to keep in mind that while shooting another country’s plane down could be see as an act of war, it has rarely precipitated a larger conflict. The last time a NATO member shot down a, then Soviet, fighter aircraft (MiG-15) was in 1953, destroyed by the United States (US) during the height of the early Cold War tension and towards the stalemate that would end the Korean War.
Many NATO fighter aircraft were shot down during the 1950s – though this tailed off as the Cold War became less war and more hot air. But the prospect for such an event is always greater when you have adversaries in the sky together. NATO and Russia both had planes in the sky over the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s – happily they avoided the sort of incident which threatens to set the old adversaries at loggerheads once again.
When Russia began flying over Syria in August 2015, there was considerable anxiety over how to maintain a safe theatre, at least in the air, for manned and unmanned aircraft. By early October, both the Turkish and US governments were stating that there was concern over Russia’s violation of Turkish airspace and the bombing of pro-Turkish and pro-Western rebel forces.
At the time Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said:
NATO has issued a stern ultimatum … We cannot endure it. Some steps that we do not desire are being taken. It is not suitable for Turkey to accept them. This is also beyond the principles of NATO.
Russia’s foreign ministry responded with the assurance that any violation of Turkish airspace had been accidental and would be prevented in the future. Afterwards the US secretary of state John Kerry said that: “it is precisely the kind of thing that, had Turkey responded under its rights, could have resulted in a shootdown”. He said there was increasing evidence that Russia is violating Turkey’s territorial sovereignty.
Rules of engagement
Where does this leave Russia’s relationship with Turkey and NATO? The Russian government has been quick to avoid calling this incident a Turkish act of aggression. The Turkish government meanwhile stated that its aircraft had warned the Russian Su-24 ten times before taking action.
No longer is there a NATO-Russia Council where Russia could have become more operationally engaged to avoid such events, whether accidental or otherwise. However, NATO and Russia established a hotline in May 2015 which will be useful in making sure that Russian and NATO heads remain cool as we discover what happened and more about the state of the Russian pilots.
There is a clear problem here in the larger conflict. Turkey is against the continuation of the Basher al-Assad regime and has its own forces and rebel groups in Syria to help topple the regime. Russia’s entry into the war may make Western leaders more acquiescent in allowing Assad to remain in power for longer if not for too long. Russia and Iran, not to mention Hezbollah, are against removing Assad from power.
The rules of engagement should have prevented a Russian fighter aircraft from further violating Turkish airspace – but of course we do not know how often this has happened or if the pilots were just unlucky the Turkish F16s were in the same vicinity.
Cool heads needed
The worry is that this event marks a transition in the rules of what some have referred to as the New Cold War. Already we have seen where RAF fighter aircraft have locked on to and been cleared for firing on hostile Russian aircraft in the Middle East.
Will this escalate? Are we likely to see more fighter aircraft downed – for whatever reasons – with the possibility of further conflict? This is the main concern – especially as Russian aircraft and submarines continue to violate national airspaces. And then there is NATO’s continued testing of Russian radar along the Russian border and Arctic Ocean which is not exactly helping relations.
As long as Russia and Turkey are able to work this out between themselves without calling on NATO, it is likely that Russia will simply navigate more carefully, rather than triggering a further deterioration of the war which has claimed enough victims already.
Professor of International Security, Director of Centre for War and Technology, University of Bath