Category Archives: Military

Military, NATO, Russia

NATO intercepts of Russian aircraft have significantly increased…

NATO/RUSSIA

Photograph taken over Baltic airspace by RAF Typhoon pilots, intercepting Russian Mikoyan MiG-31 aircraft on 24 July 2015 during a NATO patrol.

Photograph taken over Baltic airspace by RAF Typhoon pilots, intercepting Russian Mikoyan MiG-31 aircraft on 24 July 2015 during a NATO patrol.

AMID a sharp rise in geopolitical tensions in Europe and Asia, many of the world’s powers have reported a surge in airspace violations where aircraft are scrambled to intercept foreign warplanes. No more so than within NATO where members were forced to conduct more than 500 scrambles over Europe in 2014 – a fourfold increase on the previous year.

Nearly 85% of these NATO scrambles were to intercept Russian aircraft. This year alone, there have been more than 300 scrambles to date. Not since the end of the cold war has the West witnessed such high numbers.

Russia has also alleged that NATO sorties near its borders more than doubled last year. NATO responded by calling the claim ‘deliberately vague’.

Despite the increase in interceptions, NATO will be halving the number of aircraft used in its Baltic air-policing mission later this year. Several incidents reveal there is a risk of escalation because of the sheer volume of incidents arising.

A scramble doesn’t necessarily imply a breach of sovereign airspace or military aviation rules. In most cases, it was deemed there had been no breach. During 2014, there were 10 incursions by Russian aircraft into airspace belonging to NATO members. Eight of these were over islands belonging to Estonia, and the others were into Norwegian and Polish airspace in March and April respectively (and both lasted seconds).

Russian aircraft did briefly enter airspace belonging to Finland, which is not a NATO member, on 26 June. Sweden has reported nine incursions into its airspace so far this year, with the country’s airspace being breached 12 times in 2014.

It is difficult to establish exactly what motivates Russia or to know for certain if these events were provocations, a test of alertness or other factors.

But what isn’t in doubt is the increase in Russian activity. In comparison with current levels of activity, there were, for example, only seven Russian incursions into Estonian airspace between 2006 and 2013.

Russian manoeuvres have also included several more provocative, albeit isolated, incidents. These have included aircraft flying several times over military ships and Russian bombers taking unconventional paths in proximity to US and British airspace. According to Russia, though, this has all been driven by an increase in the activities of ‘NATO countries and their partners’ that have freely encroached on its airspace.

Russia insists that its air force flights, which consist mostly of training sorties in international airspace, needed to be seen within the context of a ‘drastic increase in the activity of foreign reconnaissance and combat planes near Russian borders’.

Russia insists that NATO carried out more than 3,000 tactical aviation sorties near Russian borders in 2014, more than double the previous year. NATO patrols over Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia increased 3.5 times.

However, a spokesperson at NATO’s Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe, said that Russia is regularly using disinformation and propaganda to confuse the public regarding current events. The source acknowledged: ‘Scrambles are launched in response to Russian activity. The sole aim is to preserve the integrity of NATO European airspace and to safeguard NATO nations from air attacks.’ Also acknowledged was the fact that NATO had increased the numbers of surveillance flights in recent months, but that those flights had remained ‘hundreds of kilometres from Russia’s borders’.

Despite the increasing frequency of interceptions with Russian aircrafts, NATO will be scaling back the number of the Baltic patrolling mission’s aircraft to eight this autumn, from 16. Prior to events in Ukraine, the patrolling and surveillance mission consisted of four aircraft. NATO insists the reduction was appropriate to the scale of the task.

It is also important to understand that there are mitigating factors at play in the surge of airspace incursions. National aviation boundaries are tight in Eastern Europe, and the Ukraine conflict has heightened political and military sensitivities.

The single biggest reason for the huge increase in the number of scrambles is because Russian aircraft often do not abide by international conventions. Russian military aircraft often keep their transponders switched off and, as a result, cannot be identified by air traffic controllers. The practice is dangerous and could cause a mid-air collision. The Russian military does not share their flight plans, either.

In an analysis by the European Leadership Network (ELN) of 66 incidents, one of the three ‘high risk’ incidents recorded between March 2014 and March 2015 involved a near-collision between a Scandinavian airline 737 with 132 passengers taking off from Copenhagen and a Russian reconnaissance aircraft. This was due to the latter not broadcasting its position or squawking a code from its transponder.

The Russian government said: ‘Russian pilots are training under strict orders to follow the requirements of international and national laws and rules. The flights take place over uninhabited areas, mostly open seas, without violating the state borders. Russian aircraft are constantly shadowed by NATO fighters. Russia respects all international and national restrictions imposed on such activities, and will do so in the future.’

Standard
Britain, Government, Islamic State, Military, NATO, Politics, Turkey, United States

Warplanes pound Islamic State as Turkey enters the fight…

ISLAMIC STATE

Turkish F-16s carried out airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

Turkish F-16s carried out airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

Turkish warplanes pounded Islamic State targets in Syria and police have detained hundreds of suspected militants across Turkey – a clear sign that Ankara may have shed its hesitancy in taking a front-line role against jihadist fighters in Syria and Iraq.

Turkey has long been a reluctant partner in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State, and has emphasised (more) the need to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Turkey also insists that Syrian Kurdish forces pose a grave security threat.

The attacks on Islamic State targets inside Syria, however, and the early morning raids across 13 provinces at home are among its most robust and forceful operations yet. It is believed that Turkey has moved to a position of ‘active defence’ rather than its previous ‘passive strategy’.

Turkey acted within hours after Washington confirmed that Ankara had agreed to let U.S. fighter jets launch air strikes from a base near the Syrian border, dropping its earlier refusal to allow manned American bombing raids from there. A Turkish government official said: ‘We can’t say this is the beginning of a military campaign, but certainly the policy will be more involved, active and more engaged… But action won’t likely be taken unprompted.’

Turkey has faced increasing insecurity along its 900-km (560-mile) border with Syria. A cross-border firefight last week between the Turkish army and Islamic State, which has seized large areas of Syria and Iraq, left one militant and one soldier dead.

Three F-16 fighter jets then took off from a base in Diyarbakir, southeast Turkey, and hit two Islamic State bases and one ‘assembly point’ before returning to base.

A study of the terrain and region suggests that Turkish fighter jets may not have crossed the Syrian border during the operation.  Rather, air strikes may have happened from Turkish airspace near the Turkish town of Kilis.

The attacks are the first time that Turkey has bombed Islamic State in Syria. The aim of the strikes could also be to help rebels on the ground control areas near the border instead of Kurdish forces (who were also targeted).

Turkey has suffered a wave of violence in its largely Kurdish southeast after a suspected Islamic State suicide bombing killed 32 people, many of them Kurds, in the town of Suruc on the Syrian border last week.

Police rounded up more than 250 people in raids against suspected Islamic State and Kurdish militants in the raids which followed. The government in Turkey says it is determined to fight all ‘terrorist groups’ equally.

Helicopters and more than 5,000 officers, including special forces, were deployed in the operation. Anti-terror police raided more than 100 locations across Istanbul alone.

It is understood that last week’s air strikes and action against terrorist groups were steps taken as preventative measures against a possible attack against Turkey from within or from outside. Turkey has repeatedly said it would take any ‘necessary measures’ to protect itself from attack by both Islamic State and Kurdish militants.

U.S. defence officials said that Turkey has agreed to allow manned U.S. planes to launch air strikes against Islamic State militants from an air base at Incirlik, close to the Syrian border. U.S. drones are already launched from the base. The U.S. and Turkey are working together to stem the flow of foreign fighters and secure Turkey’s border.

The ability to fly manned bombing raids out of Incirlik against targets in nearby Syria could be a big advantage. Such flights have had to fly mainly from the Gulf.

Turkey’s stance has frustrated some of its NATO allies, including the United States and Britain, whose priority is fighting Islamic State rather than Assad. The allies have urged Turkey to do more to prevent its border being used as a conduit to Syria by foreign jihadists.

  • 27 July 2015

An extraordinary meeting of NATO is to be held in Brussels tomorrow, Tuesday 28 July, following Turkey’s request to discuss the escalating violence caused by the crisis in Syria. The meeting was invoked under Article 4 of the NATO treaty.

The treaty allows any one of the alliance’s 28 member states to request assistance when they consider ‘their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened.’

A statement issued by Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General, read: ‘Turkey requested the meeting in view of the seriousness of the situation after the heinous terrorist attacks in recent days, and also to inform Allies of the measures it is taking.

NATO Allies follow developments very closely and stand in solidarity with Turkey.’

The request comes as Turkey continued its airstrikes against Islamic State extremists in Syria and a widening of its anti-terror campaign to hit Kurdish militant targets inside Iraq. It is understood that Ankara is seeking the deployment of a surveillance aircraft because of the issues it is having along its border.

The basis for the request is that use of surveillance aircraft will help to create safe zones inside Syria with the Turkish border being policed by a military presence (presumably from NATO and members of the US-led coalition).

Article 4 has been invoked on numerous previous occasions. Turkey called meetings in 2003 and 2012, and was put into effect by Poland in 2014.

The escalation in military activity by Turkey comes after a spate of terrorist incidents, the most notable after a suspected IS suicide bomber killed 32 people, some of them Kurds, in the border town of Suruc. Trouble then flared in the mainly Kurdish southeast, with the rebel Kurdistan Workers Party or PKK killing two police officers, claiming it was retaliation for the suicide attack.

Washington has backed Turkey’s airstrikes against the PKK, saying: ‘It has a right to defend itself’.

The PKK has been fighting Turkey for autonomy since 1984, and has been classified as a terrorist organisation by Ankara.

Statement issued by the National Security Council in Washington.

Statement issued by the National Security Council in Washington.

  • 28 July 2015

The setting up of ‘humanitarian safe zones’ across Turkey’s borders with Syria is something that has been discussed at length by Ankara and Washington, but prior to today’s NATO meeting in Brussels had not been finalised.

Although U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters control most of the 565-mile boundary between the two countries, Islamic State occupies a stretch which is some 60 miles long.

The creation of a buffer zone could open up a safe haven for thousands of Syrians who have been displaced by the crisis, but it would require air cover which would no doubt come from the US-led coalition.

Ground forces to hold and protect it would have to come from local contingents, or from a land deployment by members of the coalition – or Turkey itself.

The Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), the armed wing of the Kurdish Democratic Party (PYD), urged the Turkish government to halt attacks against Kurdish fighters inside Syria, after shells injured several people including Kurdish villagers outside an Islamic State-held town. Turkey has denied making these attacks. Kurdish fighters claimed their positions had come under ‘heavy tank fire’.

More than 1,000 people have been detained in a crackdown on militants in Turkey – with Islamic State, the PKK and the leftist DHKP-C among the groups targeted.

  • 29 July 2015

. Turkey has the second-largest army in the NATO alliance.

. At the NATO meeting in Brussels some European nations expressed concern that Mr Erdogan is using the opportunity to bomb Kurdish groups he brands a threat to the integrity of the Turkish state, but which enjoy some sympathy in the West.

. What has been called for is a ‘proportionate use of military force’. But how will that be defined?

. The Allies said that Turkey’s decision to hit the PKK camps in Iraq at the weekend was justified.

. Germany urged Turkey to respect the principle of proportionality.

. Stoltenberg defended NATO’s “limited role in the fight against Islamic State”.

. He argued that the alliance was already active in combating terrorism across the Mediterranean, in Afghanistan, in Jordan and Iraq.

. Turkey did not invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

. Mr Edogan said that Turkey is exercising its right to defend itself and will exercise this right until the end. He also said that there could be a duty for NATO, and asks that NATO to be prepared for this.

. The United States made some concessions and has pledged to work with Turkey to create a safe zone inside Syria for displaced persons.

Kurds Map

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Islamic State, Military, Syria, United States

British pilots used in bombing missions over Syria…

SYRIA

Intro: Action that has never received Parliament’s approval. Ministers accused of ‘deceiving the public’

An RAF Tornado at the end of one of its missions. Aircraft which shortly could be used against Islamic State targets in Syria.

An RAF Tornado at the end of one of its missions. Aircraft which shortly could be used against Islamic State targets in Syria.

British pilots will continue to fly U.S. fighter jets to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria despite not having the approval of Parliament.

Ministers have been accused of ‘deceiving the public’ after it has emerged that at least three Royal Navy pilots have been targeting and killing IS fighters in the war-torn country. MPs voted against military action there in September 2013.

The Government insists it ‘had always known a handful of UK military personnel were involved in air strikes’ against jihadists in Syria, but this was acceptable because they were embedded with the U.S. military.

The Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, says this is standard practice, and ISIL (Islamic State in the Levant) has to be defeated. Admitting that we don’t have parliamentary authority at the moment to carry out air strikes in Syria, he refers to the fact that the Americans do and that they have been doing that to ‘keep us all safe’.

On the question as to whether British pilots would continue their role, Mr Fallon said: ‘Exchanges between allies are absolutely routine – there aren’t a huge number of them, but they help, of course, with interoperability with our key allies.’

Mr Fallon said he would not seek approval of Parliament because this was different from British fighter jets conducting air strikes.

He added that when – not if – British military strikes began in Syria, he would seek approval.

David Cameron was also aware that RAF pilots were taking part in bombing sorties over Syria, but did not tell Parliament. Political opponents have accused the Prime Minister of withholding vital information and called for him to make a statement to the House of Commons.

Some have warned that the missions will lead to ‘mission creep’ and perceive that our involvement will lead to a greater involvement with added pressure for ground troops.

MPs specifically voted against military action in 2013 and air strikes there remain a controversial issue. British fighter jets are dropping heavy payloads on IS militants in Iraq, but they are only allowed to fly spy planes over Syria. The RAF’s sentinel aircraft has been performing that function. But the issue of RAF pilots being used in air strikes without the requisite parliamentary approval could be seen as being a breach of trust with the British people.

The U.S. has been conducting bombing raids over Syria since last September. It deployed its aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson shortly afterwards, along with a squadron of Super Hornet fighter jets. It has now emerged that at least three British fighter pilots were flying the aircraft.

Wearing US overalls but with British badges and insignia, they would have been flying over Syria from last October until Spring, when the carrier returned to the United States.

 

 

Standard