Russia, to expose NATO in Syria

Russia's military operations in Syria have occupied the world's agenda in recent days. In my column published after Russia's operations, which were alleged to have also targeted Turkmen settlements, I had tried to explain, bringing in different dimensions of the matter, that Russia's operations cannot be interpreted only in the specific context of Syria and that they also have dimensions that concern NATO. The latest developments are of a kind that confirms these assessments of ours.

It is obvious that the dozens of missiles fired from Russian warships operating in the Caspian Sea, passing right under Turkey's nose and striking ISIS targets in Syria, cannot be evaluated merely as a move directed at DAESH elements in Syria. Hence the matter has gone beyond Russia's concern to send a message to Turkey.

In the rivalry between the US and Russia, which for about 10 years have been failing to manage the areas of competition and conflict in Eurasia, these developments are a strong message given to the US and NATO; from NATO's perspective they are undoubtedly an early warning that deserves to be taken very seriously.

Russia, which has attained the capability of carrying out air operations inside Syria whenever and however it wishes thanks to the wrong policies pursued by the US and NATO, is striking targets with missiles from thousands of kilometers away, and this carries meanings beyond intervening against ISIS and supporting the regime in Syria. The first of these, and the one NATO should take most seriously, is that the reaction that some of NATO's missile defense systems would give has in one way or another been measured.

Let us imagine: missiles are fired from the Caspian Sea, and NATO's radar systems at certain locations detect that the missiles have been fired. In all likelihood there is roughly a ten-minute interval between the firing of the missiles and their striking their targets. The targets of the missiles are not known. How does the NATO bureaucracy manage this process? That is, the targets of the missiles fired might not have been DAESH positions but Israel, or the US presence in Iraq, or the large aircraft / warships operating in the Eastern Mediterranean. Had this scenario materialized, we might be debating an irreversible and unforgivable mistake by NATO, whose first and foremost duty is defense, and today the world might be talking about very different and painful things.

In the incident of the missiles that struck DAESH, we in fact lived through a crisis in which NATO's defense strategy was tested and its reflexes were checked. And afterward, following the violations of Turkish airspace by Russian warplanes, there has been no serious reaction other than the statement of the NATO Secretary General that was alleged to be very harsh. Moreover, if the reports that reached the news agencies are true, before the day of the NATO Secretary General's "furious" statement was even over, Russian warplanes blocked US warplanes taking off from Incirlik in Syrian airspace and had their missions canceled.

It may be thought that these developments are unimportant, and there may be attempts to develop certain mechanisms to prevent these unimportant developments from turning into a crisis. For example, a mechanism similar to the bilateral one Russia and Israel have established over the use of Syrian airspace could be set up between the US and Russia as well. Moreover, since the parties are carrying out operations against a legitimate target inside Syria, they may feel the need to use the same subcontractors and may develop certain mechanisms to manage this need. So are we to think that the war in Syria is solely and only directed at DAESH, and is within Syria's borders? Will all problems be resolved once similar coordination mechanisms are formed? The problem has long since gone beyond Syria's borders; this needs to be recognized.

The side of the matter that faces Turkey is in fact also the side that faces NATO. Turkey, using its rights arising from the section of the United Nations Charter concerning the maintenance of international peace and security, is trying to implement a collective defense strategy under the NATO umbrella. The treaty that formed this organization places on all the states party to the organization a responsibility for ensuring the territorial integrity and security of the allied state. Turkey of course has the power to secure its own borders and public security. Since the US, like Turkey, has this power, why might an organization like NATO have been formed? It is clear that the reason for this is to raise the level of deterrence.

So, is NATO a deterrent military organization? NATO's impotence in the face of Russia, confirmed in Syria after Georgia and Ukraine, seems to bring with it the necessity for the organization to review itself.