Turkey has shot down a Russian jet

[Pantone363]

Apparently it violated their air space and ignored repeated warnings.

"Russian president Vladimir Putin has accused the U.S. of being complicit in the destruction of its military jet three days ago - suggesting the Americans knew exactly when and where it was travelling.

In a press conference at the Kremlin yesterday, Putin said the Russians had given prior information to the U.S. of the flight path of the plane - but the U.S. had 'leaked' the information to Turkey."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335625/They-knew-exact-time-exact-place-Putin-accuses-leaking-flight-path-doomed-jet-Turkey-fearsome-anti-aircraft-missiles-roll-Syria.html

French foreign minister suggests that Assad's forces could play a part in the attack on Isis. That is a major step because parties, such as Erdogan, will not want that at all as it legitinises Assad to some extent. I think there will be attempts to stop that, underhand and in the open.

"French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Friday that he could envisage Syrian regime troops taking part in the fight to crush ISIS, AFP reports.

In order to fight ISIS, "there must be two measures: bombings... and ground troops who cannot be ours, but who should be of the [opposition] Free Syrian Army, Sunni Arab forces, and why not regime forces too," Fabius told French radio RTL."

www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/343743#.VlgNOZsnyic

That's a lot of posts, claig!

Yes, because I am trying to get the thread back on track by bringing up points for discussion.

The problem is that it becomes a monologue when one person posts 3x as often as everyone else put together. Its not so much a choice whether to join the discussion than whether to read your speech.

I agree, I want you to post more and add your opinions to mine rather than counting my posts. I want discussion and am only adding points that I think are significant such that Putin has accused the US of possibly leaking the flight path to Turkey according to the Daily Mail and the very significant fact that France is moving away from the previous consensus by saying "why not" allow Assad's forces to be involved in attacks in teh joint attacks on Isis.

'than whether to read your speech'

Skip my posts, lots of people do, just add your points.

Ok, well then here's my limited understanding.

No one actually likes Assad. Everyone knows that if he goes back to having full control of Syria, then the Syrian people will go back to suffering just like they did last time. He completely subdued them.

The reason that Russia supported him when the west was voting on whether to try to bring about his overthrow was because they thought, from a Russian foreign policy perspective, that he's the best of a bad option.

The UK, France, US etc are a bit more committed to democracy etc than Russia and to be honest they are a bit more romantic about it all. They thought the Arab spring was a wonderful idea, full of hope and the dawn of moderate democracy. Now we all know that this is not how it turned out.

Putin thought Assad wasn't great but at least he would keep a lid on any extremist movement that would adversely effect other countries, like Russia.

Now, Russia and the other countries are moving towards a consensus of agreement that Russia was right about Assad. The emerging theory is that its best to join with Assad to quell extremism, and then have an exit plan for Assad. The question is only whether to agree the exit plan up front or not and what to put in its place.

Turkey is just upset that all this is happening without them taking the lead, and yes, because the edges become blurred when you are talking about your next door neighbour. For Turkey it will be the same as it would be in forcing regime change in Austria and pretending that Germany doesn't have any trade or relationship with Austria.

'No one actually likes Assad.'

True most are against him.

Yes, I agree that Russia thinks he is the best of a bad option.

'The UK, France, US etc are a bit more committed to democracy etc than Russia'

I think that is debateable. Putin and Assad himself want elections with the moderate opposition being included in the elections. Assad won the election a few years ago, including in the refugee camps. Assad thinks he will win the election, but if he loses he has said he will step down because his position is that it is up to the Syrian people to decide who leads them in elections rather than the West saying that Assad must go.

'They thought the Arab spring was a wonderful idea, full of hope and the dawn'

That is debateable. Google "colour revolutions", facebook, socail media revolutions etc to see different views such as destabilisation techniques etc.

'Putin thought Assad wasn't great but at least he would keep a lid on any extremist movement that would adversely effect other countries,'

Yes, I agree.

'Now, Russia and the other countries are moving towards a consensus of agreement that Russia was right about Assad. The emerging theory is that its best to join with Assad to quell extremism, and then have an exit plan for Assad. The question is only whether to agree the exit plan up front or not and what to put in its place.'

Some countries are trying to move towards Russia e.g. France, but it is not certain there will be unity on this. Incidents may put a spanner in the woks and end cooperation.

Yes, I think you are right that Turkey is not happy with the way things are going.

"The UK, France, US etc are a bit more committed to democracy etc than Russia".

Let me put it another way, the UK, France, US etc all feel they have to play to the gallery. Their politicians have to appear to want democracy because it would be political suicide to say that you are largely indifferent to it. What the politicians care about is getting re-elected and not going down in history as having been truly awful. What the civil service cares about is creating the best possible environment for the UK in the medium to long term.

In the UK, everyone wants democracy. But there is a thing called spin and for other countries for political and economic advantage, powerful countries may say they want democracy but not really mean it. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. It all depends what is in it for the powerful. Some non-democracies are bad, some are OK, some leaders are bad, some are good. Tony Blair recommended Assad for a knighthood, now Assad is bad. Things change not only due to the actions of leaders and former allies but due to reasons of interest and advantage. Politics is a dirty business. Erdogan doesn't mess about, but nor does anyone else. What they say is often not what they do. In secret there are sometimes undeclared policies for regime change etc.

Sometimes you can't see the regime changes coming. There are theories that Turkey has actually been singled out for future regime change. No one knows, you can only make guesses by watching what happens. But regime change plans are made years in advance and events are planned and strategies are formulated. That is power, that is politics and everyone and all sides do it. That is human history. The good words are for the birds.

'What the civil service cares about is creating the best possible environment for the UK in the medium to long term.'

Asbolsutely and that is exactly as it should be. We are very lucky to live in a powerful, rich, stable, democratic country. Smaller countries are not so lucky and are often the pawns in the claws of teh great powers and their struggles. It can be terrible for the people affected in all of the machinations and intrigues, but that is human history, how it has always been and always will be.

but that is human history, how it has always been and always will be
Steady on Claig, taking a dim view of human nature is understandable but certain aspects that we see as inherent may be contingent

Who knows how the game might change if we say ....colonise other planets, have access to unlimited resources, live in virtual worlds etc.
Always is a long time, things will happen that we can't begin to envisage from our current viewpoint

(Yes I know I sound like I had too much fairy dust with my coffee )

In the UK, everyone wants democracy. - well...ish. Almost everyone wants democracy in the UK. A large majority want it for other countries too, but I don't think the civil service is amongst them. Its not that they don't want it - its just not their priority.

I suspect that politicians aren't that keen on democracy either. If they were then they would be polling the views of their constituents more often, rather than just voting along party lines. And that's as it should be ... if the mob ruled then everything would be ultra-short term.

'taking a dim view of human nature is understandable but certain aspects that we see as inherent may be contingent'

You are right. It doesn't have to be like that. That is what we are on earth for, to make things better. That is why there are the Corbyns and others who try and do things differently. There are the 1% and there are the 99%. We can change things.

' I don't think the civil service is amongst them'

The civil service are the good guys, they are ordinary people working for a good cause.

The 1% are way above the level of the civil service, they have different motives. The good of the people is often not among their priorities.

'I suspect that politicians aren't that keen on democracy either.'

Bush joked that it would be a helluva lot easier if it was a dictatorship but it isn't. The history of our countries has led to it not being one. We all play a tiny part in that history, we have a tiny voice, nowhere near as big as the 1%, but when you add all our tiny voices up it counts for something.

'And that's as it should be ... if the mob ruled then everything would be ultra-short term.'

Yes, it is all about balance. That is why Trump has been so successful, the people want balance, they want to "clean house".

Mob rule sounds ugly I agree but really it depends on the nature of the mob

If people are educated and leading fulfilled lives they will behave differently to a population kept in ignorance and relative poverty

Dumbed down and stressed we are easier prey for those who would exploit human weakness for personal gain

true - but show me a country where the educated outnumber the ignorant? How many choose to watch question time or the 10pm news versus x factor and I'm a celeb?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with those shows, just that I think there are many people who couldn't name a Labour party policy and don't know who John McDonnell is. (Actually maybe that's not fair because it is hard to name a labour party policy these days!)

One could argue that the educated are a minority because government prefers it that way?

Imagine if all children studied politics and economics, and it was presented in a way that everyone found interesting and relevant

The education system could be seen as a tool which broadly works in the interest of government and large corporations

Bread and circuses
Opiates for the masses
Etc

suzannecaravaggio - you don't need to school to be informed about the world. If it did enter the education curriculum, it would be biased anyway, so people wouldn't so much be aware of politics and economics as brainwashed into accepting only one viewpoint.

However, the point is that mob rule is a bad thing because the mob are dominated by the uneducated, however they got to be that way.

The educated will always outnumber the masses because by definition the "educated" are an elite. It's a relative term.
However, we could expect a minimum standard of education, particularly about politics and history, and ideally about how history relates to modern events. It has certainly taught us to be very very aware of populist outlandish speeches that cater to the most basic instincts and based on conspiracy theories.

Did you mean "The educated will always be outnumbered by the masses...?

Var, you are begging the question

Question being, what if the educational system wasn't a tool for those in power

as it was in Scotland? or in Northern Ireland until about 15 years ago? Both of which enjoyed an education system that was far superior to the English one. However, they also had populations who were motivated because it was harder to get by so getting an education made a big difference.

I don't see how you can get political intereference out of education though whilst schools are paid for by the tax payer?

Yes, var. :)
Ups.

Erdogan seems to be the bad guy today.