OT - Turkey's Isreal confrontation

[Mohoender]

I have lightly followed that over the past weeks and as much as I don't support either side (having insufficient informations and considering UN ruling to be valid), I find it interesting in relation to T2K. By the way, this is theory only so don't jump to a needless defense of Israel, I'm not accusing of anything. Lets aside the political aspect and focus on the diplomatic-military scenario.

Both countries although not at war, have drifted apart seriously and Ankara obviously considers the situation to be a Casus-Belli. The Turkish government already took different diplomatic measures and now threatens to escort turkish relief ships to Gaza with Turkish Navy ships (probably because Turkey has become an influencial player over the region and because it might desire to strengthen its position).

Turkey being a member of NATO and an ally, I see a positive point to this. If they so, they will probably closely monitor what is in the relief ships and ensure the world that whatever goes through to Gaza is indeed relief materials. I'm also convinced that Israel and Turkey can find a common ground but we'll see. Still when politicians are involved, stupidity is skyrocketing.

Then, the downside comes if things go sour. Insteed of finding some common grounds, both countries remain on their respective position and there are a number of small incidents over the next weeks while more relief ships reach Gaza. Then, acting as it had been trained to do, an Israeli captain goes over its orders and, in a more important incident, damages one of the Turkish ships, killing a number of sailors. Within days, the two countries are at war and Ankara engages in a full scale naval offensive against Israel. Losses, especially in the air and at sea are important for both sides. Several Turkish ships are seriouly damaged while they lose a fairly high number of pilot. Soon, despite air superiority but with the bulk of its navy sunk or having suffered serious damage, Tel Aviv can no longer maintained Gaza's blocus. Increasingly worried for its security, Israel launches a handfull of Jericho missiles (carrying high explosive warheads) at Turkey, hopping for Ankara to back down.

Ankara, however, claiming that it had been attacked in the first place while his ships were on peaceful escort missions and that it is now targeted by strategic weapons of mass-destruction calls on its NATO allies. While the political leadership of NATO (including US) debate the oportunity of intervention...

Ok, I don't think it would bring us to war. I rather believe that other NATO members would turn their back on Turkey while strongly condemning Israel. Still that could have an interesting outcom with NATO effectively weakened (as most members betray their treaty obligation) and seriously switching the balance of power in the region.

Just a fun game idea. Leave it to your commands

[Targan]

It's going to get really interesting once the flotilla reaches what Israel considers to be its territorial waters. The race will be on to find a political solution before it gets to that point. A fascinating situation.

[Mohoender]

It's going to get really interesting once the flotilla reaches what Israel considers to be its territorial waters. The race will be on to find a political solution before it gets to that point. A fascinating situation.

I agree because if it goes out of hand after that, Turkey would be the aggressor. Still, I'm fairly convinced that they will find a solution. In fact, back to RL for a sec, I wouldn't be surprised to have both countries finding an agreement in which Turkey could be allowed to supply Gaza in retrun for a combined checking of cargos by Turkish and Israeli authorities working together.

[95th Rifleman]

Don't forget Egypt and Syria.

Egypt has become very unfriendly to israel since the regime change and there have already been border incidents. If things kick off between Turkey and israel there is a good chance Egypt will become embroiled.

Syria has some serious internal problems, focussing people on an external enemy has always beena tried and tested method of dealing with this. Should Turkey (and/or Egypt) kick off with israel then Syria may get involved just to keep people focussed on an enemy that isn't their own government.

[Mohoender]

I had ruled Syria out because of its internal problems but the point is good. Egypt is uncertain but this could also bring Hezbollah again into the picture.

Another point is the existance of the ECO and relations between Turkey and Iran. So far, Turkey has remained neutral in the disputes between Iran and Israel what if it brakes this neutrality... And, then, Brazil might come into the picture with an heavy diplomatic involvement.

Ah, I love politic-fiction...:D

[Webstral]

A fascinating idea. What unique problems a Turko-Israeli conflict would cause! Given the lack of a land border, a Turko-Israeli War would be a maritime confrontation. In some ways, this makes a shooting war between Turkey and Israel easier to start; since no one would be invading anyone, it would be easier to see the fighting as being between rival fleets and air forces (although we all know better than that).

The idea of NATO having to choose between siding with Turkey or failing to abide by treaty obligations is a torturous one. I think the core NATO players would be at pains to find some way of preventing that eventuality. If the likes of us can think of the posibility of Israel launching missiles at Turkey, so can the combatants and onlookers. Since in this case an ounce of prevention would be worth a metric ton of cure, the US, UK, and Germany probably would apply as much carrot and stick as possible dilplomatically to keep the Israelis from launching missiles at Turkey.

Of course, the Israelis very well might launch counter-air missions against Turkish air bases from the get-go. History has taught them that an air force destroyed on the ground at the start of the fight is the best enemy air force. One can only imagine the debates occurring at the top levels of Israeli power over this one. How would NATO react to Israeli air strikes against Turkish air bases or naval bases on the second day of a Turko-Israeli War?

[pmulcahy11b]

I don't know; Israel attacking Turkey would be, by treaty, Israel attacking NATO; that would make for a dicey political and military situation. With Turkey attacking Israel first, it might be an incentive for NATO to cut Turkey loose. Interesting!

[Panther Al]

I agree because if it goes out of hand after that, Turkey would be the aggressor. Still, I'm fairly convinced that they will find a solution. In fact, back to RL for a sec, I wouldn't be surprised to have both countries finding an agreement in which Turkey could be allowed to supply Gaza in retrun for a combined checking of cargos by Turkish and Israeli authorities working together.

That would work if Turkey had any reason to be cooperative about things, which they aren't. When the first flotilla was scheduled to head down, Israel offered to offload the ships and deliver them under total supervision of the flotilla organizers - on Israel's dime - and was turned down flat. Even the UN - hardly one to admit Israel was right about anything - said pretty much that they made every effort to prevent what happened from happening, and that the organizers and Turkey was more interested in scoring points than what they was supposed to be there to do.

Modern Turkey isn't the Turkey of a decade ago, or even the previous. Back then it was a modern country with a very west leaning point of view, and who saw no reason not to work with Israel. They called it the 'No Problems" approach. However, fundamentalist sects finally got their act together, and started to organize. Credit being due, these sorts of fundamentalists are remarkably realistic. They know they can't draw Turkey into the 'Mad Mullah' sort of country that Iran is, but they like what they see in it. They also see that there is far too many advantages to keeping its western ties rather then cutting them off as they would like. But what they can do is turn Turkey back to what they on the whole would wish they was: The old Ottoman Empire. As these sorts see it, the middle east is a place where they should have a strong leadership role, and they are not afraid to toss the old No Problems approach out the window. And the examples of the Arab Spring isn't lost on them either. By taking the tack that they have, they got out in front of it, and by various legal and extra-legal means, hammered down the secularist factions in Turkey to impotence. By pushing for hostility towards Israel, they have gotten a massive swell of approval from the masses outside of Turkey, and by reassuring the Turkish population that they remain aligned to the west by public statements (but not private actions) they have kept what support in country that they have developed.

[Mohoender]

Panther, thanks for your intervention. Still, I asked not to drift into political consideration. And to put things honnestly, I don't care about what actual Turkey is or is not compare to Turkey a decade ago.;)

I agree it is always in the background but that's were it should remain.:)

[headquarters]

>Mo - interesting spark point for a T2K scenario.

What does it look like on the spreadsheets?

I know little about both the hypotethical sides naval and aerial capacities. Also I guess special forces operations and missiles might be fielded.

I dont see the ground forces actually engaging in any large scale manner.

Has Israel got a blue water navy? What about Turkey? . I know the Med isnt the fiercest of oceans - so MTBs etc could probably be used for offensive operations outside their intended range.

Any thoughts on the technical side of things ?

[headquarters]

Mo - I just considered something. Israel would not allow any ships to reach Gaza ( It sees the ocean outside Gaza a its territorial waters). The Turkish Naval ships couldnt enter this zone without providing a casus belli by the manouver alone. ( Meaning - not yielding to Israeli instructions once entering these waters would legally give the Israelis justification to start the ladder of ROE escalation.) On the othr hand - Turkish ships - were they to stop outside the Israeli jurisidiction could find themselves in a situation were their compatriots were reporting danger to life and health of crews and passengers due to Israeli actions to stop the convoy. Legal justification to to fire on the Israeli in defence of the lives of their countrymen could be construed.

But all in all - it would be a war of posturing and symbolic victories. Neither country can efficiently oust the enemy regime, and invasion is out of teh question. Also Israel will never lose a war without taking its enemy down with it - the Israelis have enough nukes to make the desert twice as barren

I have lightly followed that over the past weeks and as much as I don't support either side (having insufficient informations and considering UN ruling to be valid), I find it interesting in relation to T2K. By the way, this is theory only so don't jump to a needless defense of Israel, I'm not accusing of anything. Lets aside the political aspect and focus on the diplomatic-military scenario.

Both countries although not at war, have drifted apart seriously and Ankara obviously considers the situation to be a Casus-Belli. The Turkish government already took different diplomatic measures and now threatens to escort turkish relief ships to Gaza with Turkish Navy ships (probably because Turkey has become an influencial player over the region and because it might desire to strengthen its position).

Turkey being a member of NATO and an ally, I see a positive point to this. If they so, they will probably closely monitor what is in the relief ships and ensure the world that whatever goes through to Gaza is indeed relief materials. I'm also convinced that Israel and Turkey can find a common ground but we'll see. Still when politicians are involved, stupidity is skyrocketing.

Then, the downside comes if things go sour. Insteed of finding some common grounds, both countries remain on their respective position and there are a number of small incidents over the next weeks while more relief ships reach Gaza. Then, acting as it had been trained to do, an Israeli captain goes over its orders and, in a more important incident, damages one of the Turkish ships, killing a number of sailors. Within days, the two countries are at war and Ankara engages in a full scale naval offensive against Israel. Losses, especially in the air and at sea are important for both sides. Several Turkish ships are seriouly damaged while they lose a fairly high number of pilot. Soon, despite air superiority but with the bulk of its navy sunk or having suffered serious damage, Tel Aviv can no longer maintained Gaza's blocus. Increasingly worried for its security, Israel launches a handfull of Jericho missiles (carrying high explosive warheads) at Turkey, hopping for Ankara to back down.

Ankara, however, claiming that it had been attacked in the first place while his ships were on peaceful escort missions and that it is now targeted by strategic weapons of mass-destruction calls on its NATO allies. While the political leadership of NATO (including US) debate the oportunity of intervention...

Ok, I don't think it would bring us to war. I rather believe that other NATO members would turn their back on Turkey while strongly condemning Israel. Still that could have an interesting outcom with NATO effectively weakened (as most members betray their treaty obligation) and seriously switching the balance of power in the region.

Just a fun game idea. Leave it to your commands

[Mohoender]

HQ

The Turkish navy (several frigates including OH Perry and Meko 200 as well as support ships and submarines) is of course all powerful when compared to that of Israel (3 Sa'ar 5 covettes, 3 Type 212 submarines and above a dozen Sa'ar 4 missile boats).

Agree land action is out of the question except for Israeli commando operations at sea that can be countered by Turkish counter commando operations.

When it comes to air power, both can have it with Israel having a fair advantage: air bases are closer and well trained F15 pilots is something that lacks Turkey. Turkey has its closest air base in Cyprus but, has we just saw, this is as good as NATO having bases in Sicily to bomb Libya and it works fine.

The issue on territorial waters is indeed valid but debated. Waters in front of the Gaza strip are not Israeli territorial waters. However, authority had been granted to Israel to control these water, as well as the air space under, the Oslo agreement. This provided, however, for a permission ot be given to the Palestinians to go and fish up 20 miles off the coast. As this agreement as been broken by Israel and Israel alone (I don't care if they had a valid point to do it or not), it's legal authority over the water could be contested. The point is simply to know if Ankara would go as far as to sail into these waters. That's all the interest in that situation. Even when putting the political aspects (I mean religious craps from all sides) to the background, it's shadowy enough to conduct to various outcomes and, in that, bears some interesting common points with T2K's beginning.

War should not come but it might from a number of mistakes, lack of efforts and refusal to hear the other side (as pointed out by Panther). I know for the nukes but so far, I have left them out of the picture. I also agree with your statement on Israel not willing to loose but that is equally true for Turkey which has effectively become a dominant regional power and has a GDP growth of 8.2% in 2010 to compare with 1.8% for EU.

At a diplomatic level, the interesting thing is that it occurs now as EU has achieved a major diplomatic victory over Libya under the leadership of France (Sarkozy). Turkey had done almost everything to comply to EU pre-requisite in order to join the Union but it had been kept outside because of France (of course not alone but leading the Anti-Turc movement) and that same Sarkozy in 2007. Therefore, if Turkey has an issue with someone, it could well be with Europe, France and Sarkozy himself. Another thought.

[Targan]

Mo - I just considered something. Israel would not allow any ships to reach Gaza ( It sees the ocean outside Gaza a its territorial waters). The Turkish Naval ships couldnt enter this zone without providing a casus belli by the manouver alone. ( Meaning - not yielding to Israeli instructions once entering these waters would legally give the Israelis justification to start the ladder of ROE escalation.)

That's what I was alluding to in post #2 of this thread.

[Mohoender]

And both of you have a very strong point.;)

[pmulcahy11b]

This whole idea is just devilish! Yum!

[Mohoender]

This whole idea is just devilish! Yum!

It's just a devote worship to our forefather, Franck Chadwick:sacool:

[Panther Al]

And here is what makes this whole thing even more devilish:

To Israel's north (relatively speaking) is Syria. Now, while all indications are that Assad hasn't much more time left before things catch up to him, it isn't totally implausible that he might try to start something with Israel to convince his detractors to focus on the one thing both sides agree on: Bashing Israel. After all, he has tried it a couple of times so far during this rebellion that he is dealing with so far, and while it has failed, he hasn't really tried all that hard either. Also, we can't forget Egypt either. As recent news has shown, the formally safe and secure border to the West is no longer such: Egypt liked receiving all that money from the US to keep the peace, and while I have no doubt the Military Leadership there would love nothing more than to keep that spigot flowing, events are rapidly escalating out of hand, to the point where Israel is beefing up its heavy forces facing Egypt to points not seen since Camp David.

Now, lets fast forward a few... (insert Scooby Doo flashback music)

Turkey decides to break international law and sends warships to break the blockade of Gaza. Shots are fired (We will assume its nothing more than heavy face saving for both parties: Turkey to be able to say they are willing to fight for the Palestinian cause, and the Israeli's to prove they won't be pushed about by anyone - even if its a serious shoot out (One that Turkey won't like the results of) the end result is more or less the same) and Turkey and Hamas scream to the media about the nasty evil Israelis. The Masses in Egypt could very easily force the military to take formal action in "support" of Hamas, actions the Military Leadership might easily feel they have no choice to accede to if for no other reason they like to keep the jobs they have. Assad also jumps in: He will also beat the Palestinian drum, knowing (and this isn't a totally unreasonable point) that he has at least a 50-50 chance of getting those that are currently shooting at him to refrain: after all, he will accuse the rebels in his country of supporting Israel if they continue, and no self respecting Syrian will ever let themselves be accused of *that*.


Which brings up the rather nasty spectre:

You have a strong US-Israeli alliance in all but name on one side.
You have a NATO member on the other - though it will be pointed out that A: Turkey started it, and B: They can always argue that the NATO treaty doesn't apply to the MiddleEast. Something that is technically true, but ambiguous enough to be argued either way, with Turkey providing all the support it can muster, which isn't insignificant.
You have Syria, the very definition of rogue state breaking out the heavy guns.
You have Egypt, a reluctant, but unable to anything but, attacker.

Could be a very nasty little war. I really don't see the Jordanians getting involved: They don't have any burning need to get involved, and the quietly agree with Israel on the whole Palestinian thing anyways.

[Schone23666]

And here is what makes this whole thing even more devilish:

To Israel's north (relatively speaking) is Syria. Now, while all indications are that Assad hasn't much more time left before things catch up to him, it isn't totally implausible that he might try to start something with Israel to convince his detractors to focus on the one thing both sides agree on: Bashing Israel. After all, he has tried it a couple of times so far during this rebellion that he is dealing with so far, and while it has failed, he hasn't really tried all that hard either. Also, we can't forget Egypt either. As recent news has shown, the formally safe and secure border to the West is no longer such: Egypt liked receiving all that money from the US to keep the peace, and while I have no doubt the Military Leadership there would love nothing more than to keep that spigot flowing, events are rapidly escalating out of hand, to the point where Israel is beefing up its heavy forces facing Egypt to points not seen since Camp David.

Now, lets fast forward a few... (insert Scooby Doo flashback music)

Turkey decides to break international law and sends warships to break the blockade of Gaza. Shots are fired (We will assume its nothing more than heavy face saving for both parties: Turkey to be able to say they are willing to fight for the Palestinian cause, and the Israeli's to prove they won't be pushed about by anyone - even if its a serious shoot out (One that Turkey won't like the results of) the end result is more or less the same) and Turkey and Hamas scream to the media about the nasty evil Israelis. The Masses in Egypt could very easily force the military to take formal action in "support" of Hamas, actions the Military Leadership might easily feel they have no choice to accede to if for no other reason they like to keep the jobs they have. Assad also jumps in: He will also beat the Palestinian drum, knowing (and this isn't a totally unreasonable point) that he has at least a 50-50 chance of getting those that are currently shooting at him to refrain: after all, he will accuse the rebels in his country of supporting Israel if they continue, and no self respecting Syrian will ever let themselves be accused of *that*.


Which brings up the rather nasty spectre:

You have a strong US-Israeli alliance in all but name on one side.
You have a NATO member on the other - though it will be pointed out that A: Turkey started it, and B: They can always argue that the NATO treaty doesn't apply to the MiddleEast. Something that is technically true, but ambiguous enough to be argued either way, with Turkey providing all the support it can muster, which isn't insignificant.
You have Syria, the very definition of rogue state breaking out the heavy guns.
You have Egypt, a reluctant, but unable to anything but, attacker.

Could be a very nasty little war. I really don't see the Jordanians getting involved: They don't have any burning need to get involved, and the quietly agree with Israel on the whole Palestinian thing anyways.



Unfortunately you raise some very potentially real and serious points here. It's another set of reasons why so many Israelis are now buying up European, and I suspect, American passports. There are any number of things that can go wrong in a potential confrontation in the the near future, and I suspect the Israelis feel things are dangerously coming to a head.

[Mohoender]

Hello Panther

I like your approach and it's well imagined. Then, I just think there are two details that are not entirely accurate.

If Turkey claims anything it will be toward the Palestinian people suffering and it would probably not even mention Hamas. As you pointed out, the Turks are smart enough to be quite subtle.

The other thing concerns the NATO treaty. Altough you are right about it concerning Europe and North America, article 6, include the Mediterranean Sea. Article 1, however, could become a major problem for Turkey.

[Panther Al]

True Mo: But since Gaza is run by Hamas in toto, Turkey has already (If quietly) come out as a supporter of Hamas. Yes, they are smart enough not to advertise that fact, but it is one none the less - and everyone knows it, even if they have been polite enough not to say anything about it. Turkey's problem when it comes to them being NATO, is twofold:

One: They started the fight, since they are breaking the blockade even after being informed its a legit one.

And Two: Gaza is, after all, run by a known terrorist organization.

I would like to think (though I will not place money since there is a rather nasty streak of bash Israel coursing though parts of Europe ATM) those two conditions will be all the excuse, coupled with Art 1, for the rest of NATO to wash their hands of the whole mess, and tell Turkey, "Your bed, you sleep in it."


Any way you shake it, it would be a awful mess down that way.

[Mohoender]

Entirely agree with you especially about the mess. What is equally interesting about all this comes from the fact that we almost don't get one single public media report on it.

I agree that the blockade had been ruled as legal by the UN and it's a major fact.

The other major fact comes from the previous raid which was conducted 80 miles away from the coast of Israel, 190 miles away from Gaza. Then, legaly speaking Turkey has much valid ground to its position (despite Israel having equally valid ground) and I confess that I support it. I wouldn't expect my government to act otherwise.

Israel as a legal right to protect itself and a real need to do so (especially against Hamas)
Israel Navy, as any navy, can intervene whenever it wants in International waters against piracy, suspected piracy or to enforce a declared blockade (this is the weakest point but we have done the same repeatedly; therefore, yes). If there is no casualties, the result is: go back to your place, sea you next time. If casualties result from it, it becomes a bit more tricky.
Again, Israel has a right to enforce its blocus but not with a disproportionate use of force and not against international rules.

So far, Turkey has favored diplomacy for over a year.

By acting in international waters and killing 9 Turks, the Israeli commando has commited a fault (I don't think Israel or its people). Then, the Israeli government (which is now weak) in turn commited another fault by blindly supporting this mistake of a single military commander. The Turks whatever their attitude and intentions (revealed or not) were respecting international law by not having any firearm onboard. They acted violently, no doubt. Was it stupid, no doubt either. Still, the answer from the Israeli commando was one of pure military incompetence and poor planning. They had real reason to expect resistance by force and no reason to expect armed resistance. Obviously, they lacked the real means to incapacitate their oponents. If it had resulted in 1 or to people killed, it would have been acceptable. However, the result can compare to brutal russian interventions as in Beslan.

According to International Law and according to the dangerous situation that has arose in International waters over that part of the Mediterranean, The Turkish Navy has the duty to provide escort to Turkish ships and can do it up to 12 nautic miles off the coast of Israel. I strongly doubt that Turkey even think of entering Israel's Territorial waters within these 12 nautic miles off Israel's coast.

However, if it provides escort to its civillian ships up to 13-15 miles off the coast of Israel, Turkey remains in its right but we have reached a situation that is explosive for the least. If the Israel Navy still attempt to intervene before the civilian ship effectively reaches its territorial waters it would then have commited an act of war against another country and against a member of NATO. If the Turks fire first, they would have commited that act of war. Israel can still claim they were enforcing the blocus but Turkey can equally claim it was protecting its citizens.

My take is that it will be resolved without a shot being fired but my Twilight sickness sees in it the seeds of a potential international conflict.

One last thing. It is interesting to note that neither Turkey nor Israel have signed the UN convention on International waters.

[Graebarde]

First it is difficult if not impossible to exclude politics from this scenario, as military action is just an extension of political action. That said, it's a nasty situation. One wild card that has not been mentioned that I can detect is the Iranian warships in the east Med.

[Mohoender]

I don't think they are still there and I believe they are relatively irrelevant. However, I think I mentioned the relation existing between Turkey and Iran, through the RCO.

[Lundgren]

The legality situation of the blockade can at best be described as "contested", and the NATO members seems to be quite split on how they are showing support.

Reading up a bit on the different opinions and different interpretations can give quite a few options for an interesting scenario.

If one wants to create a Twilight scenario out of it; then one option could be to escalate it, without open conflict, to where NATO breaks apart. Add to the scenario that the world oil reserves turn out to be even less than expected, and we can have a war where EU, US, Russia and China start to fight each other for the Middle eastern oil.

[headquarters]

Agood read - if you havent read it. And utterly essential T2K litterature.

In the book the war is started by the clumsy posturing of the armed forces in a poltically unstable situation. A shot gone awry ( AAM actually) ends up killing a few more Pact auxilliaries than can be tolerated by that side-and promptly shooting erupts in a an unstoppable chaos.

I could see this sort of thing leading to that scenario - but I cant really see Iran or Syria actually getting in thight with Turkey on it. They will of course try to make whatever gain they can from the situation -but Damascus or Teheran dont want the Israeli airfrorce to slap`em around too much. The US and other NATO partners will not letthis get to far out of hand I imagine.( Giving concessions and threathening in no uncertain terms more or less)

But to try and make a hypotthetical spark fly and ignite the contrafactual powderkeg-

Possibly the Israelis have learned from the last flotilla of activists and have another tactic and better capacity at hand. That way the 9 deaths that occurred last time will not happen again. On the other hand, it doesnt take more than one commando with a 9 mm sidearm cornered by an angry mob of knife toteing activists to turn a ships deck into a slaughterhouse.

Or worse - damaging a ship making casualties in the high 2 figures. ( To be nasty - if I were a Machiavellian type I would have the Palestinians see to this with a covert op to try to set things off and blame Israel. Or maybe a right wing Israeli group that welcome the war a few nicely placed bombs and some cameramen to record the people being burnt alive/drowning should do it).

Either way the death toll and the proximity of Turkish assets lead to shooting. Maybe Turkey press on further than anyone had believed - conducting some sort of spectacular op that leave the Israelis rattled.

Nato on the sidelines urging both parties to "show restraint".

Syria /Assad sees a way out of his predicament by marshalling the nation to war - and promptly strikes to get a big response from Israel.

In turn ( no matter the outcome of these two wars - and you know Israel isnt going to loose) the situation turns the middle east on to a path of cooperation against the west to a degree not known hithertho. Popular uprisings etc happen bringing other nations into the fold of this anti western league.

In the same period shocking news of dwindling oil reserves bring the end of the petro economy up close in the forseeable future. New major economies in the east scramble to get their deals in.

Having the oil sold to the far east doesnt actually help US or EU economy and things look a bit bleak.

In this enviroment the big boys - US and China start facing off over the resources.

Russia ( mint with resources) starts reestablishing itself as player on the highest tier.
______________

Just a quick of the top of my head thing to try to postulate how it could park off.