Uh oh:
Turkey shot down a Syrian government warplane on Tuesday over northwest Syria, where fighting has intensified in recent days, bringing Turkish and Russian forces close to direct conflict in the battle over the last swathe of Syria still held by rebels.
Strategypage writes that Turkey sent two combat brigades into Syria for this operation, which is more than earlier reports suggested. That's no invasion force, but it is enough to inflict a sharp blow against the Syrians:
Russia did not confront a major Turkish offensive against Syrian forces seeking to capture all of Idlib province, the last rebel stronghold in Syria. Over the last four days two Turkish brigades crossed into Syria accompanied by artillery, armed UAVs and F-16s. The Turks claim to have destroyed over a hundred Syrian armored vehicles, most of them tanks, along with two Su-24 fighter-bombers, eight helicopters and numerous unarmored vehicles. The Turks claim to have killed or wounded several thousand Syrian troops. Most of the air strikes were carried out by slow, low flying Turkish made armed UAVs using Turkish versions of the U.S. Hellfire missile or lightweight GPS guided bombs. Some F-16s and helicopter gunships were also used. The Turkish offensive took much from the Cold War NATO playbook for war against Russia. The Turks still practice these tactics and in the past often did so with NATO allies, including American forces.
There is much more, including Russian reluctance to fight Turkey, as well as Ukraine and Libya issues.
Note that Iran fired a missile ineffectively at the Turks in Idlib. Does this mean Russia had a hand in this rocket attack on the Turkish-Iranian border?
I discussed the Idlib Escalation recently.
America is demonstrating some support for Turkey with the visit of the US ambassador to the UN going to rebel territory in Idlib. This will include humanitarian aid to cope with refugees (you're welcome Europe) and more:
Beyond the humanitarian aid, the U.S. is still considering ways to support its NATO ally Turkey in that fight. A senior State Department official said last week any U.S. response would not include U.S. troops or Patriot missiles, but [U.S. special envoy James] Jeffrey said Tuesday they are supportive of new ammunition sales for Turkish forces, according to Reuters.
Of course, America isn't going to retaliate for Turkey in response to the losses Turkey endured inside Syria. That makes sense. I said much the same about the Iranian drone attack on the Saudi oil facilities. We can support our friend if they want to retaliate. But it isn't up to us to do that.
This confrontation with Russia is a way to pry Turkey away from the foolish self-destructive summer fling with Russia.
UPDATE: Fighting continues on Wednesday:
Two more Turkish soldiers were killed Wednesday in a Syrian government attack in Syria's northwest, the country's Defense Ministry said, as steady clashes between the two national armies continued to rack up casualties.
This article about the Turkish operation notes that Turkey is stronger than Assad's army.
That is true at the army level. But Turkey sent in two brigades to reinforce whatever was already there. So Turkey has not taken advantage of their strength. Syria appears ready to trade blows at lower levels of troops and count on Russia to constrain Turkey.
Will Turkey send in a corps to really hurt Assad's forces in Idlib and compel Russia to fight Turkey at a disadvantage or push for a ceasefire that leaves Turkey in a better position?
And I just don't see Russia having the advantage over Turkey in a war, as that article assumes. Short of using nukes, what can Russia do to a country that does not border Russia?
But short of a corps, what can Turkey do to stop the Assad offensive that flows around Turkey's observation posts?
The crisis has not been escalated to the point where a major party decides it is in their interest to back down.
UPDATE: So what was I saying about Russia's logistics?
A Reuters analysis of flight data and correspondents' monitoring of shipping in the Bosphorus Strait in northwestern Turkey show Russia began to step up naval and airborne deliveries to Syria on Feb. 28, the day after 34 Turkish soldiers were killed in an air strike in Syria.
That incident prompted concern in Moscow that Turkey might close the Bosphorus to Russian warships and bar Russian military transport planes from using Turkish air space.
Russia can fight with its forces in Syria as long as it doesn't run out of supplies and doesn't need reinforcements or replacements.
UPDATE: Russia and Turkey would like to restore a ceasefire environment:
Erdogan is likely to settle for less than what he aspires to at Thursday's talks. Asked about his expectations, he told reporters Tuesday that the main topic will be to “rapidly achieve a cease-fire in the region.”
Moscow, too, appears keen on restoring some kind of status quo in Idlib.
“We expect to reach a shared view of the cause of the current crisis, its consequences and agree on a set of measures to overcome it,” Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
Assad wouldn't mind if Russia and Turkey fight if it allows Syria to eject Turkey from Idlib province. They don't want to go along with that.
UPDATE: That didn't take long:
The presidents of Russia and Turkey said they reached agreements on a cease-fire to take effect at midnight Thursday in northwestern Syria, where escalating fighting had threatened to put forces from the two countries into a direct military conflict.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also said the deal also envisions setting up a security corridor along a strategic highway in Idlib province.
This will not hold. It will only end when one side wins. The question is how close to the Turkish-Syrian border can Assad go before Turkey decides it will stand and fight.
UPDATE: A late update. Turkey's relatively small intervention really hammered Syria's fragile ground forces.
