His posts are getting more and more bewildering and confusing. I remember he was extremely upset that Turk soldiers were getting bombed, more so than the fact that Turk soldiers were enabling Jihadists like WTF? Maybe if they weren't colluding with goatfuckers they wouldn't get bombed FFS lol!
Maybe someone thinks a Russian-Turkish war over Syria while the US and Europe cheer on is in any of these 3 country's interests, but I don't.
Except the exact opposite happened, your complaints were for nothing and lacked substance. Meanwhile, the Turkish Def. Minister was publicly talking about causing instability in Russia around that time, alluding to funneling jihadists through the Pankisi Gorge. Either wipe them out in Idlib, or fight them in Chechnya/Dagestan/Ingushetia. In fact the whole exchange between Russia and Turkey has proven a few very valuable things:
1.) NATO is completely incapable of actually protecting it's members. How many times they've shown that their incapable of defending their allies? Georgia, Ukraine, and now Turkey. But then again where supposed to believe Greece and Turkey are military allies too!
2.) NATO formations are absolutely useless without proper air cover. In stark contrast, the Soviets won WW2 while undergoing one of the most hellish aerial onslaughts ever seen.
3.) NATO lacks the proper air defenses and IAD to win beyond all means necessary. Those excecises with Poland, Lativa, Lithuania, and Estonia with major armor formations will mean fuckall when their being eviscerated with MLRS.
It wasn't the Turkish defense minister and he didn't go into such specifics. Unless you have a source?
In fact the Turkish military is still largely Kemalist and it's important to keep good relations with them, while keeping Erdogan at arms length and increasingly restricted in Syria.
Turkey backed down but it could easily have gone the other way. In the end we got a result that Russia and Syria can be happy about, but it was a risky move.
I was quite right about what I said. As a result of the strike that toppled a building onto Turkish troops heads, Russia vacated Idlib airspace and agreed to permit Turkish drones in to take revenge. The Turks took advantage of this to kill well over a hundred SAA and allied militias, Hezbollah and so on, and took out a bunch of tanks, armoured vehicles and equipment.
So where is the plus in all this? At least now there's this new agreement, but maybe it could have been reached by just keeping strikes on the Jihadists. We'll never know.
As for your points:
1). Turkey is the Muslim black sheep of NATO and is hardly valued on the heirarchy as much as the Western European members are. The East European members too. Although no-one in Washington or Brussels will ever admit it. What's more the Turks were in Idlib not as part of a NATO operation, but on their own initiative.
2). So would any armoured formation be. The Turks didn't have proper air defenses; this is the least you could bring. The Soviet armoured forces suffered huge losses to Ju-87s and various German tactical bombers during their retreat in the opening months of Barbarossa; they were constantly harassed from the air. And this was with the technology of 80 years ago. Modern Russian forces without either air cover or mobile air defense systems would probably fare better than Turkish forces; after all Russia has the capability to neutralize NATO's spy satellites and GPS network, has various aerosols and camoflage technologies to better hide their forces from the air, has sophisticated EW and jamming means, and so on - but ultimately, even then they won't fare better by too much. They'll still be targets for enemy aircraft with no capability to defend themselves. Unless Russian missiles and bombs destroy enemy airfields first.
3). The Turks lack it. Although let's be honest, Turkey didn't commit much of their forces into battle. They moved tank formations into Idlib but never attacked with them. The only aircraft they really attacked with were drones, and only then after securing Russian permission. They didn't employ their artillery much, or commit to a mechanized assault - they were purely in a support role for allied Jihadists and had some infantry embedded with them; that's about it.