BRUSSELS (Reuters) - NATO allies sought on Tuesday to strengthen Turkey's defenses along its Syrian border after the United States withdrew its missile defense battery for modernization, leaving Ankara exposed as Russia intensifies actions in the area.

Germany has also removed its Patriot battery supporting Turkish air defenses on the frontier, leaving Spain as lone NATO ally with Patriots there, and raising strategy questions at a time when Ankara says it faces Russian airspace violations.

"We need to support Turkey," Canada's Foreign Minister Stephane Dion said on arrival in Brussels for meetings with his NATO peers, as offers of ships and aircraft began to trickle in from allies.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will also push for other NATO members to do more to protect Turkey as well as to step up actions in the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State militants in Syria, a senior State Department official said. 

"We have a number of allies who are considering increasing their effort to support Turkish sovereignty and security, but also looking at operations in Syria, adding to what the French have been doing over recent weeks," the official told reporters. "The secretary will make the case that we need even more."

Foreign ministers are expected to formally agree on Tuesday to send more military hardware to Turkey's borders and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said he expected a decisions on a package "within weeks".

NATO deployed its Patriot missiles along the border in January 2013, to shoot down any missiles from Syria's conflict fired into Turkish territory. Ankara had appealed to the alliance to maintain the defenses even before the flare-up of tensions with Russia over airspace violations.

Turkey shot down a Russian bomber in its airspace on Nov. 24, in the first known incident of its kind since the Cold War. 

While the Turkish air force has shown it is capable of intercepting Russian jets on bombing raids in Syria that stray into Turkish airspace, diplomats say sending military support to Turkey is also designed to reassure Ankara and calm tensions.

So far, the United States has moved jets to the Turkish NATO air base Incirlik, while Britain has said it will also send jets to the region. Germany and Denmark are sending ships to the NATO fleet in the eastern Mediterranean.

Seeking to engage with Russia to defeat Islamic State, NATO's Stoltenberg said strengthening the Turkish air defense was not a knee-jerk reaction to the Nov.24 incident. 

"We have decided to address the need to support Turkey before the incident last week," he said. "The focus now should be on how we can de-escalate and how we can calm tensions."

However, diplomats noted that Islamic State does not have an air force that could confront NATO's anti-aircraft deterrents. 

Russia has said it will move a modern air defense system that can hit missiles and aircraft from up to 400 kilometers away to its Syrian base at Latakia.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We did a blind taste test of popular french fries — the winner was clear

Saudi Arabia has issued invitations to 65 Syrian opposition figures to attend a conference in Riyadh to try to unify their positions ahead of proposed Syrian peace talks, Saudi newspapers reported on Tuesday.

Asharq al-Awsat and al-Hayat said no date has yet been set for the Riyadh meeting, but quoted unnamed sources as saying it could take place next week.

Asharq al-Awsat quoted Ahmed Ramadan, a member of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) opposition group, as saying that the Saudi foreign ministry had "invited 65 figures to attend the conference in Riyadh".

He said 20 members of the coalition, which is based outside Syria, had been invited, along with seven from the National Coordination Body, an internal opposition group.

Another 10 to 15 places were allocated to rebel leaders and 20 to 25 to independents, business leaders and religious figures, the paper quoted Ramadan as saying.

Saudi Arabia, a main supporter of opposition groups seeking to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has said it was in contact with them about the conference, which comes after an international agreement to launch talks between the government and the opposition by Jan. 1.

The Riyadh meeting marks an attempt to bring together groups whose disunity has been a long-standing obstacle in seeking a peaceful solution to the nearly five-year conflict that has killed more than 250,000 people and displaced millions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry held talks in Abu Dhabi with United Arab Emirates officials and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last week to discuss ways of bringing the opposition together.

Al-Hayat newspaper quoted NCB co-chairman, Hassan Abdul-Azim, as saying he had sent a list of 22 nominees, including the head of the Kurdish Democratic Union, Saleh Muslim.

Muslim had said earlier last month that Syrian Kurds need political and military representation at the opposition conference in Riyadh.

SEE ALSO: Eye-popping statistic shows how much the US is going it alone in the fight against ISIS

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Animated map shows the spread of ISIS through Iraq and Syria

The United States is deploying a specialized expeditionary targeting force to help Iraq put additional pressure on Islamic State and be positioned to conduct unilateral operations into Syria, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Tuesday.

"These special operators will over time be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture ISIL leaders," Carter told the House Armed Services Committee in prepared remarks, using an acronym for Islamic State.

The expanded role of these special operations forces will include combat, Carter said.

He also emphasized the importance of the international community stepping up to help out in the fight against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS and Daesh).

"The international community … has to step up before another attack like Paris," Carter said. "... We all, let me repeat, all must do more."

Carter noted that Russia must "focus on the right side of this fight" by targeting ISIS in Syria and also said that Turkey and Saudi Arabia should increase its involvement against the terrorist group.

In October, the US announced that it would deploy about 50 special forces commandos to northern Syria to train and advise local ground forces.

(Reuters reporting by Phil Stewart and Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This massive American aircraft carrier is headed to the Persian Gulf to help fight ISIS

If Syrians could pack up and leave, almost half of the population would ditch the country.

About half (46%) of Syrians say they want to leave their country, according to a 2015 Gallup survey.  Nearly as many (43%) say they will likely leave their community within the next year.

Gallup's research on other countries has shown that younger, wealthier, and highly educated people are more likely to want to move. This is not true in Syria, where age, economic status, and education level didn't affect responses to the survey.

These percentages have barely budged since the Syrian conflict started in 2011. More than four million Syrian refugees have already fled to neighboring countries, like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Millions more have been displaced inside their own borders. The desire to leave is more than twice as high than before the war began.

The conflict has also greatly affected happiness in Syria. Syrians rate their happiness at 36 out of 100, the lowest score of any country.

The majority of the Syrians surveyed (39%) say they wish to go to Europe — although no specific country stands out. About one-third (35%) mention countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Other Gallup surveys have shown the US and Canada are top destinations for refugees worldwide, but only 6% of potential Syrian refugees say they want to move to North America.

Inside Syria, the war continues to worsen. For many Syrians, simply finding an escape route may be more important than where they end up.

Join the conversation about this story »

KIEV (Reuters) - Russian trade measures against Turkey may give Ukraine a chance to regain its position in the Turkish food market, analyst UkrAgroConsult said on Tuesday.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev approved on Tuesday sanctions against Turkey in retaliation for the downing of a Russian warplane.

Analysts say that Turkey in response may refuse food imports from Russia.

Ukrainian Agriculture Minister Oleksiy Pavlenko has already proposed that Turkey replace Russian food with Ukrainian, saying Kiev could double its export of sunflower oil, wheat and maize to Turkey.

UkrAgroConsult said the share of Ukrainian wheat in the Turkish market has declined by 50 percent over the last five years to only 2.7 percent in the 2014/15 season.

"The similar situation has developed in the maize market. Turkey has cut imports of Ukrainian maize by 75 percent since season 2010/11 preferring supplies from Russia," the consultancy said in a report.

The fact that Turkish government has no plans to reduce imports due to the low quality of their own grain may be beneficial to Ukraine. Turkey needs high-quality wheat to produce flour which it used to ship abroad, the consultancy added.

Ukraine harvested up to 28 million tonnes of wheat this year and plans to export 16.6 million tonnes in the 2015/16 season. It has already exported about 9 million tonnes of wheat so far this season.

UkrAgroConsult said that Ukraine may also easily fully supply Turkey with sunflower oil without any noticeable reduction of shipments to other countries.

The consultancy said Turkey was likely to import about 880,000 tonnes of sunoil this season.

Ukraine plans to produce about 4.7 million tonnes of sunoil this season and its exports could reach 4.28 million tonnes.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best way to clear out a ton of space on your iPhone superfast

If you’ve been paying attention to our coverage of the developing situation in Syria this past week, you know one thing: it’s bad and getting worse by the day. The Russian Bear has been poked, and they’re throwing their best at the problem.

The latest news out of Syria is that Russia has deployed its SA-21 “Growler” (S-400) surface to air missile system and SA-N-20 (S-300FM) “Gargoyle” naval SAM. In addition, its current air order of battle consists of Sukhoi Su-30SM Advanced Flankers and Su-34 Fullbacks.

In the wake of a Turkish shootdown of a Russian Su-24M, it’s clear that Russia has opted to secure the air picture for themselves. So why is this a bad thing?

Double-digit SAMs have long been a nightmare for 4th-Gen fighters. These systems have the ability to target and destroy even small Radar Cross-Section aircraft with almost no real ability to defend against them.

The air-to-air picture isn’t much better. Advanced Flankers bring with them AESA radars, along with Vympel R-27 and R-77 air-to-air missiles. These are not the “turn and run” Iraqis or Syrians in MiG-29As with AA-10A “short-burn” missiles we’re used to fighting in wars past.

As Russian and American relations continue to be strained, the odds of a four-ship of Super Hornets/Vipers/Mud Hens going into Syria unopposed to strike Daesh targets are plummeting. The Russians have made it clear that they have an agenda in Syria, and while that agenda parallels US interests in some ways (in the fight against Daesh, primarily), it varies greatly in others (Russia is fighting against the Free Syrian Army and other anti-Assad rebels).

So what are our options?

Well, as Tyson Wetzel pointed out in this no-nonsense analysis, the only safe answer (for US pilots) involves a much more robust Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) package: F-16CJ Block 50/52 Super Weasels and EA-18G Growlers would be tasked with taking down the Russian IADS. F-22As and F-15Cs would be required to escort strikers, performing Offensive Counter Air sweeps to ensure the strike package can operate in-country. This amounts to a full-up shooting war in the Middle East.

NATO politics aside, Russia has just turned the entire Eastern Mediterranean into a denied, non-permissiveenvironment.

That's a buzz phrase you may have seen before in literature about the F-35 when everyone said “we don’t need that for fighting insurgents,” as they ranted against the F-35’s usefulness. Well, guess what? We do now.

Critics are right in saying the A-10C is superior in CAS in a permissive environment. They can loiter, shoot the awesome The Gun, and strike fear into the hearts of the Daesh fighters all day long. But when it comes to operating in a double-digit SAM MEZ with a muddy air picture? Good luck.

This is exactly what the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II was designed for.

Okay, F-35 haters, before the torches and pitchforks come out, let me provide a bit of background: I just spent two weeks working with a group of very capable Top Gun patch-wearers responsible for the initial training for Navy F-35C pilots. I had the opportunity to sit in on a capabilities brief, crawl around the airplane, and see the aircraft in action firsthand. I’m not reading any of this from a Lockheed-Martin brochure here, and they (still) are not paying us.

Every aircraft has strengths and weaknesses. This aircraft is not going to be the magic bullet in American airpower, contrary to what some might have us believe. But it is still a very capable platform that has made a lot of improvements over previous generations of fighter aircraft. Its technology has also trickled down into those older generations as well, and thankfully so.

One thing that stood out to me in talking to these pilots is the overarching theme that coverage of their jet has been unfair to the point of being downright dishonest. Test reports have been taken completely out of context by people who have no idea what they’re even reading. Problems have been exaggerated for political gain. People have written it off before they’ve even seen it in action — or even seen it in person at all. And I agree.

We’ve applied an old standard to an aircraft that is new in scope on every level. Never before has the Department of Defense tasked a manufacturer with creating an aircraft with 75% commonality over three branches of service and nearly a dozen countries. That’s not just one aircraft — that’s several different fighters sharing one name.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the program has problems.

The F-35B is nearly a disaster. Almost every compromise made for the aircraft across the board can be traced back to the insistence of the Marines to have a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) model. And because of the commonality, the A and C models had to share the pain. Take the B model away and all of these jets are at initial operational capability right now.

The international partners, although great for cost-sharing, have been a thorn in the Air Force’s side as well. With the F-22, Lockheed had to deal with one customer: the US. Even it had its problems, but not to the level the F-35 has had in working Foreign Materiel Sales into such a huge program. And every time there has been a change, they’ve all had to be in on it. How do you say Nightmare in Dutch?

The Navy has gotten away relatively unscathed in the deal. No other countries have ordered the F-35C, and they are only ordering 260 aircraft. Although this is the reason for the increased cost per unit over other variants, it’s the way it should be in my opinion. The Navy is doing it right on both accounts.

As I mentioned above, the foreign military sales side of the F-35 is a logistical nightmare. Being able to develop your own aircraft without going through Level I-III partners is huge. It cuts down the complication, the fixes, and the costs. It also allows for US-only technology. That’s a big plus.

The second thing I like is that the Navy only ordered 260 of the aircraft. More is not always better. In this case, I agree with the concept.

With these lower numbers, the Navy has made the F-35C an aircraft that is used as a day-one fighter. It’s the quarterback in a much bigger battle space, using its LO and sensors to go where Super Hornets can’t. This allows for more aircraft overall (as long as they Navy can keep their Super Hornets from aging out, and keep buying more, which is another discussion altogether). Because on Day 35 of the war, you need bomb trucks and missile wagons, not stealth fighters penetrating a double-digit SAM MEZ.

So how does that apply today?

The US won’t get into a shooting war with Russia over Syria. We’re not flying enough sorties to warrant it, and right now, our resolve isn’t high enough to risk starting a war. But with the F-35 in-theater, we could effectively continue to attack Daesh.

Low-observability (LO) technology is not the be-all, end-all. It can be defeated. But in a battlespace like Syria, it could help tremendously.

The F-35 has an impressive electronic warfare suite to help defend against what LO can’t do. It has sensors that can detect missile launches and help pilots defend against them. It also has a Synthetic Aperture Radar that can be used to help find targets in-country while keeping tabs on the air picture.

And unlike a B-2A, if detected, it can defend itself against airborne threats. A strike package of F-22s and F-35s is exactly what’s needed in a situation where we want to impose our will without risking a shooting war with testy neighbors in the region.

The Syrian battlespace is a roadmap to the future. I think we’re back to the Cold War days of global superpowers choosing sides, but this time we have a third player that’s enjoying every minute of it in Daesh. Historically permissive environments will give way to very dangerous SAMs and air-to-air threats.

The F-35 is the right aircraft for that job. Very dedicated fighter pilots are working tirelessly to make this aircraft a viable tool in the US arsenal. Once the smoke clears and the politics are put to bed, we’ll start to see that the planners were on the right track, planning for the next war.

The only problem is that the next war is here. And until the F-35 reaches its full combat capability, we’ll have to make do with what we have available to us.

SEE ALSO: This photo shows an extremely unusual 'kill marking' on a US Navy plane

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why aliens might actually exist

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 40 percent of Islamic State's oil revenue has been affected by U.S.-led strikes over the past month, the top U.S. military officer said in testimony to a congressional committee on Tuesday.

"We estimate that approximately 43 percent of the revenue stream that ISIL derives from oil has been affected over the past 30 days," said U.S. General Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, using an acronym for the militant group.

SEE ALSO: PUTIN: Turkey shot down Russian plane to defend ISIS' oil supplies

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What it's like to fly on North Korea's one-star airline

Following the downing of a Russian warplane last week by Turkey, Russia has shown no signs of letting up on its military operations near the Turkish-Syrian border.

Prior to the incident, Moscow ignored calls by Ankara to put an "immediate end" to its airstrikes on Turkmen rebel brigades operating along the border.

The tension culminated in Turkey's decision to down the Su-24 fighter jet, which had been bombing units of Liwa Jabal al-Turkman — an ethnic Turkish group backed by Turkey — at the time it was downed.

Russia insisted the plane had been bombing "terrorists" in the area.

Burned by the incident, Russia deployed an advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile system to the coastal province of Latakia and orderedthat all Russian Su-24s be equipped with air-to-air missiles. Russian warplanes have continued pounding Turkmen rebels — the Turkish aid convoys along the border that supply them — with airstrikes.

These provocative moves are evidently meant as a message to deter Turkish jets from shooting down Russian planes in the future. But Russia has financial and geopolitical interests in keeping its retaliation asymmetrical — specifically, by bombing Turkish-backed rebel groups in Syria while refraining from engaging with Turkey in a military confrontation directly.

Asymmetrical or not, Turkey could feasibly perceive Russia's military build-up along the Turkish-Syrian border as a serious threat and invoke its most valuable trump card: the Turkish Straits. 

The straits, which consist of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmara, and the Bosphorus, are a series of waterways in Turkey connecting the Aegean Sea — and the Mediterranean — to the Black Sea.

Turkey, which has full control over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus under the 1936 Montreux Convention, acts as the the straits' custodian and regulates the passage of naval ships belonging to Black Sea states.

Russia currently depends on the unrestricted access to the straits afforded it under the Montreux Convention. Through the straits, it sends supplies to Syria from its Novorossiysk naval base in the Black Sea to Russian ports in Tartus and Latakia.

Historically, Russian ships have enjoyed unfettered access to the Mediterranean via the straits. Under Montreux, however, Turkey may legally block Russian military vessels from passing through the straits under two conditions: if it is at war with Russia, or if it considers itself to be "threatened with imminent danger of war."

As Aaron Stein, a Turkey expert and nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council told Business Insider on Tuesday, it remains unlikely that Turkey would go as far as to close the straits — even in these tense times. 

"I think this scenario would only kick in a World War II type situation," Stein said in an email. "Turkey will keep the straits open per the convention and its historical practice."

But against the backdrop of Russia's escalating military presence along the Turkey's southern border is Ankara's legal authority, under Article 21 of Montreux, to cut off one of Russia's most vital links to Syria if it feels threatened with war.

Turkey has already reportedly signaled it is willing to take some steps of retaliation with the straits. Leonid Bershidsky, a Bloomberg View columnist, reported on Tuesday that Turkey is "making Russian cargo ships wait for hours before they're allowed to pass through the Bosphorus."

That Russia has continued to target Turkmen villages and rebel brigades along the Turkish-Syrian border, despite Turkey's demands that it stop, would theoretically be enough for Turkey to invoke Article 21.

"It was the targeting of these Turkmen groups, villages, and convoys that led to Turkey summoning the Russian ambassador and demanding a halt to the strikes," The Soufan Group noted on Monday."Less than a week after, Turkey shot down the Russian jet."

Though Russia wants to weaken the Turkmen rebels so that they do not return to central Asia and strike Russia (and so they are less capable of fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces), Erdogan is equally if not more invested in the continued well-being of the Syrian Turkmen, who are ethnically Turkish.

"Erdogan’s determination to create a pan-Turkic sphere of influence is matched by Russia’s to target Syrian Turkmen," the group added. "It is difficult to overstate how much this issue resonates with Turkey’s President Erdogan and his government."

It is also difficult to overstate how important the Turkish straits are to Russia's continued military campaign in Syria.

"The so called Syrian Express deployments of Russian Ropucha and Alligator class landing ships and auxiliaries are vitally important to keep Russian troops inside Syria supplied," Cem Devrim Yaylalı, a Turkish naval analyst, wrote on his blog over the weekend.

"If Russia cannot send its ships through the Turkish Straits for any reason, the Russian soldiers deployed in Syria may find themselves in a very similar position of General Paulus’ Army."

General Paulus was a Nazi commander in World War II who led Germany's drive on Stalingrad beginning in 1942. He and his troops were ultimately forced to surrender after their assistance from Germany's Sixth Army was cut off by strong Soviet Army formations. 

The Germans' defeat at Stalingrad is said to have marked a turning point in the war, leading to the Allies' victory in 1945.

Yaylalı implied that Russia and Russian-backed troops in Syria could suffer the same fate if Russian naval ships are blocked from reaching the eastern Mediterranean and can't re-supply their troops. Given how much pro-regime elements have benefited from Russian weapons and supplies since the war erupted in 2011, it is not an unreasonable prediction.

Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted how keeping its access to the straits — and to Syria — and avoiding a larger-scale conflict with NATO has likely factored in to Russia's decision to keep its retaliation limited and asymmetrical.

"Putin's options are limited," Zilberman said in an email, which is why he is "taking action on the margins/asymmetrically."

"That being said ... the Russian-Turkish relationship is a tinderbox," he added. "The deterioration in the relationship is a loss for both Moscow and Ankara. The egos of Putin and Erdogan may spin any future incident beyond control."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Stadium security prevented one of the bombers from entering with an explosive vest, WSJ reports

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday the Syrian refugee issue will likely be addressed in a must-pass government funding bill this month.

The Republican leader said the spending bill was a "work in progress" but that "the refugee issue is likely to be dealt with in some way" in that legislation, which faces a Dec. 11 deadline for passage by Congress.

McConnell did not say whether the spending bill, needed to avert a government shutdown after Dec. 11, would have language to further tighten controls on Syrians seeking asylum in the United States or instead focus on revising a "visa waiver" program. That program allows travelers from a few dozen countries, many in western Europe, to come to the United States without going through a visa process.

Security experts say loopholes in that program offer greater opportunity for Islamic State militants or others to slip into the country.

The House of Representatives last month passed a bill requiring the director of the FBI and other high-level officials to certify that each Syrian refugee being allowed into the United States presents no security risk.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, said the measure would delay the U.S. program to admit refugees by at least six months and critics of the bill argue it would make the program impossible to administer.

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan; Editing by Do ina Chiacu and Eric Beech)

Join the conversation about this story »

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad claims the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Syria has helped the terror group expand.

While Britain's parliament prepares to debate and then vote on whether to launch air strikes against the jihadists in Syria, Assad has described the US-led coalition leading the bombing as “supporting terrorists.”

Syria’s president also praised Russia and Vladimir Putin, despite accusations that Russian forces have targeted moderate rebels as well as extremists like ISIS.

Speaking to Czech TV, Assad said:

Since the beginning of that (US-led) coalition, if you want to talk about facts, not opinion, since the beginning of that coalition, ISIS has expanded and the recruiting from around the world has increased.

While since the participation of Russia in the same fight, so-called against terrorism, ISIS has been shrinking. And al-Nusra of course and the other terrorist groups.

So this is reality. The facts are telling. When those countries that I mentioned — France, UK, US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and some other — stop supporting those terrorists the next day the situation will be better and in a few months we will have full peace in Syria, definitely. If they stop.

The US-led coalition of 65 countries fighting ISIS has carried out 8,289 airstrikes total as of November 19. Of those strikes, the US was responsible 6,471, The New York Times reports.

In the interview Assad failed to make clear what "facts" he had that showed the US-led coalition bombing had failed to curb the growth of ISIS.

Western leaders have frequently said that Assad must leave power if there is to be lasting peace in Syria but the 50-year-old has once again refused to quit.

“Now in the middle of the war, I’m not going to say I’m leaving for any reason,” he said. “When there’s election, the Syrian people will decide if they want me, I’ll be happy to be president. If they don’t want me, I’ll be happy to leave it. I don’t have any problem.”

Meanwhile in Britain, deputy Labour leader Tom Watson has called on Prime Minister David Cameron to apologise after he told Conservative MPs not to side with “terrorist sympathisers” who oppose air strikes.

Watson said: “The Prime Minister should retract and apologise for these remarks which are disrespectful to those MPs who have a different view to him.”

Join the conversation about this story »

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's top brass on Wednesday accused the Turkish president and his family of personally benefiting from the illegal oil trade with Islamic State militants.

The accusations follow Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane near the Syrian border last week, which has set off an angry spat between the two nations that had developed close economic ties.

Speaking to dozens of foreign military attaches and hundreds of reporters in Moscow, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said Russia has evidence showing that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his family were linked to the IS oil trade.

"President Erdogan and his family are involved in this criminal business," Antonov said. "We know the price of Erdogan's words ... Turkish leaders won't step down and they won't acknowledge anything even if their faces are smeared with the stolen oil."

Antonov claimed that IS militants make $2 billion a year from the illegal oil trade. Lt.-Gen. Sergei Rudskoi of the Russian military's General Staff said Russian airstrikes on the IS oil infrastructure in Syria had halved the militants' profits.

The defense ministry officials showed the journalists what they said were satellite images depicting thousands of trucks carrying oil from IS-occupied areas in Syria and Iraq into Turkey. They did not, however, provide any evidence to back up the claims of personal involvement of Erdogan and his family in the illegal oil trade.

The Turkish president has denied Turkey's involvement in oil trade with the IS, and said repeatedly that he would resign if Russia proves its accusations.

Meanwhile, in Cyprus, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he would agree to meet with his Turkish counterpart this week to hear Turkey's explanations on the downing of the Russian air force jet. Lavrov said he would meet Mevlut Cavusoglu on the sidelines of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe meeting of foreign ministers in Belgrade, the Serbian capital.

"We will meet with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs, we will hear what he has to say," Lavrov said after talks with his Cypriot counterpart in Nicosia.

Lavrov said he spoke to Cavusoglu the day after the Russian aircraft was shot down, but heard only what Turkey had already stated publicly and "just some excuses."

The meeting could offer a way to de-escalate a growing crisis between Russia and Turkey.

Turkey insists the Russian plane violated its airspace despite numerous warnings it issued to the Russian pilots and has said it won't apologize for the downing, which killed a Russian pilot. A Russian marine also died trying to retrieve a second pilot.

Russia claims Turkey shot down its plane to protect what President Vladimir Putin has described as Turkish profiteering from the IS oil trade. Russia has imposed sanctions against Turkish products in retaliation for the downing.

Lavrov said his country's aim is to ensure that the "overflow" of terrorist threats in Turkey don't make their way into Russia.

SEE ALSO: Erdogan has a trump card against Putin that would transform the Syrian war

Join the conversation about this story »

SEE ALSO: 'UNPRECEDENTED': New report paints a worrisome picture of ISIS in America

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is why US aircraft carriers are a force to be reckoned with

Videos believed to have come from Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, document the gruesome practice of militants throwing men they suspect of being gay off rooftops.

Daniel Halaby, 26, is a gay activist from Syria who said he narrowly escaped being killed by the terrorist group. Daniel Halaby is a pseudonym the activist uses to protect his identity.

"The biggest catastrophe for gays was the arrival of ISIS. It was also a turning point in the methods of killing," Halaby said. "This is a very cowardly act because they are killing an unarmed person who has nothing, and most gays love peace, and love the people around them. This is a brutal and savage act."

Halaby was outed by a childhood friend who was radicalized by ISIS. In 2013, when ISIS  threatened to take the city of Aleppo, Halaby learned that his name was on a list of people that ISIS demanded be turned over to them.

He fled to Turkey, and now works as an activist keeping track of the horrific acts committed against gay men by ISIS.

"What breaks my heart most is that I feel helpless and cannot do anything to help those gays being killed," he said.

Story and editing by Andrew Fowler

INSIDER is on Facebook: Follow us here

SEE ALSO: A Syrian refugee describes the hellish journey to Europe with a 25-day-old daughter

Join the conversation about this story »

Turkey's downing of a Russian jet throws the dangers of Moscow’s intervention in Syria into sharp relief.

While the Russian and Turkish Presidents trade insults and display their competitive machismo, the world faces the prospect of a military crisis between Russia and NATO.

Although we do not yet know what Russia’s response will be, we can safely assume that it will not increase the prospects of peace and stability in Syria.

Cooler heads should put a stop to this escalatory spiral now.

The United States should take immediate efforts not only to stop further conflict between Ankara and Moscow, but also to forge significantly greater cooperation between Russia and the US-led anti-ISIS coalition. In so doing, Washington can both prevent incidents such as this one from recurring, and more effectively address the Syrian civil war and the fight against extremists there.

The proxy war that dare not speak its name

Notwithstanding the joint diplomatic efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, this incident actually fits into a pattern: The United States and its allies on the one hand, and Russia and its allies on the other have for months been engaged in a tit-for-tat proxy war in Syria.

Despite the handshakes in Vienna, on the battlefield the United States and its allies, including Turkey, seem to consider Russia an adversary, with several steps taken to counter Russia’s intervention directly, including a major increase in the provision of anti-tank missiles to rebel groups. One such missile reportedly hit a Russian helicopter involved in the mission to rescue the downed pilots, killing a Russian marine.

Moscow has clearly been eager — almost to the point of desperation — for more cooperation with Washington and its coalition partners. Ever since the Russian bombing began, the Kremlin has been twisting itself in knots to engage the United States on Syria: Everything from a proposal to send a Prime Minister Medvedev-led inter-agency delegation to Washington for talks; a bid for enhanced military negotiations; and various ideas for deeper intelligence sharing.

President Vladimir Putin, not someone known for a supplicant’s pose, has repeated his openness to enhanced cooperation with the United States over Syria like a mantra for almost two months — and he continues to do so, despite being consistently spurned by the Obama administration.

That spurning is certainly morally and politically justified. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea are brazenly illegal acts. Its intervention in support of a Syrian regime that is slaughtering its own people on a nearly daily basis lacks any conceivable moral justification. But in Syria, there is perhaps a higher moral and strategic calling—stopping further ISIS attacks, ending the war and the killing, reducing the flow of refugees, and avoiding a dangerous escalation toward a great power war. Those goals will require cooperation with Russia.

Current US policy — escalating a proxy war by countering Russia’s moves on the ground, and conditioning cooperation on counter-ISIS strategy with progress in Vienna — rests on an assumption that Russia will eventually abandon its long-held positions on Syria and adopt US ones, either due to setbacks on the battlefield or out of its desire to join up with the Western anti-ISIS alliance.

Similar efforts to change Russia’s calculus have been ongoing for over three years now. There has been precious little to show for them. Far from responding to pressure on the battlefield by compromising, Russia has doubled down in its support and escalated the struggle at every juncture.

Working towards a compromise

A new approach is necessary. This approach would have two simultaneous elements.

First, the United States and Russia would agree to set aside the issue of Assad in their bilateral relations and at the Vienna talks, declaring themselves neutral on the issue of his role in the political transition. Such a step would actually represent a return to the letter of the June 2012 Geneva Communiqué; since then, both countries’ positions have in fact departed from that compromise. 

Returning to it would mean that the future leadership of the country will be determined by a process of negotiation among the various Syrian parties, with outside powers playing only a mediating role. US and Russian neutrality on this issue in the Vienna talks might not immediately produce an agreement — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the various Syrian groups would continue to struggle over this and other contentious issues — but without it an agreement would be impossible.

Second, putting this issue aside in the Vienna talks should allow Moscow and Washington to focus on what they do agree on in Syria, namely the anti-ISIS struggle. The United States and Russia are not in a position to join each other’s anti-ISIS coalition, particularly since Russia’s contains the Assad regime. But they could serve as inter-coalition liaisons, attempting to find common ground between the coalitions on issues of targeting, military strategy, de-confliction and broader counter-ISIS and counter-extremism efforts in Syria and beyond.

At best, such an effort might allow for a much more effective anti-ISIS effort; at worst, it would offer a more counterterrorism-focused channel for the United States to make the case to the Russian military to modify its approach to the conflict and for all relevant militaries to maintain the kind of regular communication that can prevent incidents like Tuesday’s clash.

Deepening engagement, however distasteful, with Russia on Syria must be seen as a necessary — even if not sufficient  —step in bringing the nightmare there to an end; in preventing further terrorist attacks like those in Paris, Sinai, and Beirut; and in avoiding inadvertent escalation. It will not eliminate differences with Moscow, particularly on issues like Ukraine.

But the other options available to the United States—countering Russia on the battlefield or doing nothing while hoping that President Erdoğan and President Putin can remain calm—will almost certainly make the situation in Syria worse, and could well lead to a much bigger calamity. 

SEE ALSO: 5 huge myths about Russia's military intervention in Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This 3-minute animation will change your perception of time

The French are embracing a different style of warfare than that of the U.S.—one that embraces limited, yet practical, objectives. 

The U.S. goes in big with shock and awe, throwing massive amounts of troops, air power, and ordnance at an enemy, with few exceptions.

Unlike their American allies, the French go in accepting their limitations. They don’t have a large army, endless wealth, or clouds of overhead cover in the form of drones and tactical aircraft. 

The French method is to drop in only a small number of troops—between a couple dozen and a couple hundred—with tenuous supply lines and little hope of medevac, the focus seemingly to simply “f*** s*** up.”

In March 2007, the French went into the Central African Republic to respond to rebel attacks on French positions. The French response was to send in a small force of commandos and airborne troops, supported by a handful of attack helicopters and tactical fighters.

They used these same strategies when they went into Mali in January 2013 to counter the Islamist militia Ansar Dine, and had only several hundred troops throughout the entire country with very limited logistics.

The French focus on pragmatic mission objectives, driven by what they realistically can achieve. They believe in limited goals, demanded by their limited resources. One thing is for certain: When the French decide to go after a Third-World enemy, they go at them and don’t stop until they have f***** that opponent up to their Gallic satisfaction.

Does the U.S. have anything to learn from the French? Possibly. But there are U.S. special operations units that are trained and prepared for such operations, in particular U.S. Army Special Forces, possibly MARSOC, and to a lesser extent, U.S. Army Rangers, depending on the duration of such operations. 

Africa has long been an area suited to such operations. Certain areas of the Middle East might provide similar opportunities. It will be interesting to watch both France and the U.S. as they conduct future operations.

SEE ALSO: How to stop the US and Russia's proxy war in Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's the gargantuan aircraft carrier France sent to fight ISIS

Hanna Bohman has been fighting ISIS in Syria on and off for most of 2015, and she hasn't been impressed.

She said that as fighters, the Islamic State militants have "mostly been a disappointment."

"Their numbers don't seem that big and they're eager to run away," she told INSIDER in an email. "I suspect most of the experienced fighters have been consolidated in Mosul and Raqqa, and that's where the big fights will be."

She said that ISIS has successfully made themselves seem bigger and scarier than they are in reality through social media.

Although the group recently claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks that killed hundreds in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, and Ankara and over the Sinai Peninsula, its promise of statehood is quickly diminishing, The New York Times reports.

"They're not some giant, holy juggernaut of ultimate damnation for unbelievers," she said. "They're just a bunch of filthy, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging pigs who run away at the first sign of resistance. Really nothing more than a thorn in the side."

Video editing by Adam Banicki.

A former Canadian model who's also known as Tiger Sun, Bohman, 46, is one of dozens of Westerners who have joined up with Kurdish nationalist groups to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. She was personally inspired to fight after watching an ISIS propaganda video featuring a Canadian who had gone to fight with the jihadists, she told the Daily Mail.

After recovering from a near-fatal motorcycle accident last year, Bohman, who had no prior combat experience, left Vancouver for Iraq in March. She joined up with the YPJ, the female fighting battalion of the People's Protection Unit, a Kurdish nationalist fighting force.

Joining the YPJ was easy, she said, much easier than one would expect traveling from the West into the middle of war would be. Upon arriving in Iraq, she stayed in a safe house for a few days before taking a boat across the Tigris River into northeastern Syria.

She then received very brief training and was assigned to her first unit, though it didn't see much action. Her role consisted mostly of watching over territory, and the only real threat was being the target of a suicide truck, according to Bohman. But once she transferred to a more experienced unit, she began to see fighting almost instantly.

"That's where I was first shot at by a sniper while walking from the outhouse to our quarters," she said. "We were a mobile [unit], so we moved around quite a bit and were part of a large offensive south of Til Temir."

The most intense fighting she experienced was in the next unit she was a part of, albeit for a brief two days in June. Just one hour after joining the brigade, a German who was fighting with the group said they would be going to the front.

"It was a small group of six westerners and I was the only woman... but all of us, including the commander, were itching for a fight, so we went a bit rogue," she said. "We became lost trying to find the front and thought we had accidentally pushed into Daesh country when we started seeing dead people lying on the roads. The drivers were frantically calling for help on their phones and radios, and the tension was the highest I've ever felt as we had no idea where Daesh was."

The group made a "mad retreat" to get their bearings. The following morning, the six were ordered to take the city of Til Abyad, a northern Syrian city near the Turkish border that had been under ISIS's control. Bohman, who posts videos of her endeavors with the YPJ on YouTube, uploaded a video prior to the start of the mission.

She laughed at how absurd it seemed.

"Six of us against what was supposed to be more than 100 Daesh, but nonetheless, we jumped into a tank and off we went," she said.

As they closed in on the battle, her unit met up with 12 Kurds who were already in position near a bridge leading into the city.

The Kurds would have to take that bridge in order to take the city.

"We spent the rest of the day fighting for that bridge, which was also the last time a sniper would take a shot at me, the bullet passing so close over my head I felt it," she said. "We held the bridge over night while reinforcements arrived, and the next day they took the city, which by now had mostly been abandoned by Daesh."

She briefly returned to Canada after the battle, stricken by malnutrition after having lost almost 30 pounds since joining the YPJ.But almost as soon as she returned to Vancouver, she was itching to get back to the fight in Rojava, the name given to what is considered Western Kurdistan. She went back in early September and remains with the YPJ today.

But contrary to popular belief, life in Syria isn't all about fighting, she explained. About "95%" of her time is spent sleeping, eating, cleaning, socializing, or being on guard.

"It's not what people expect," she said. "We're not constantly locked in a life or death battle with bullets and mortars flying back and forth."

Another misconception is that the real fight is against ISIS, she said.

"The real enemy is who Daesh works for," she said, claiming that it's really "Turkey's genocidal [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan... who will eventually turn Turkey into a dictatorship while trying to kill off the Kurds."

Claims that Turkey supported the Islamic State go back more than a year, and it's well-known that the Turkish government views the rise of Kurdish nationalism as a bigger threat to its security than the rise of ISIS.

After the Turkish military shot down a Russian plane last week, Russian leaders claimed that they have proof that Erdogan's own family was involved in smuggling ISIS oil into Turkey. Erdogan said he would resign if that claim was proven true, and insists that his regime is working to diminish the threat of ISIS in the region. US officials said their NATO allies have been "great" in the fight against the Islamic State.

According to Bohman, Westerners who left their countries and bypassed their governments to fight ISIS are what has inspired her most since joining the YPJ.

"There aren't many of us, but we represent a genuine concern for humanity," she said. "We believe in doing the right thing, in stopping evil, and helping the helpless. We are the tip of a sword made up of people from all around the world who will no longer wait for their governments to fail again. We are [bringing] the change we want to see."

SEE ALSO: Drone footage shows what more than a year of war has done to an airport in Ukraine

INSIDER is on Facebook: Follow us here

Join the conversation about this story »

British lawmakers on Wednesday voted 397-223 to join the US and other nations in a bombing campaign against ISIS (also known as the Islamic State) in Syria.

The vote came directly after Hilary Benn, the UK Labour Party's shadow foreign secretary, Conservative Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond called "one of the greatest speeches" in the British House of Commons' history.

In the speech, Benn broke with his party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and called for the UK to extend its airstrikes to Syria.

"We have a moral and practical duty to extend to Syria the acts we are now taking in Iraq," Benn told the Commons, addressing his party directly.

"We are here faced by fascists," he said of ISIS. "Not just their calculated brutality but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this Chamber tonight and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt."

"And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated and it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists were just one part of the international brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco," Benn continued.

"It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It’s why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice and my view, Mr. Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria, and that is why I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion tonight."

Mutliple members of parliament (MPs) said that Benn's speech had swayed them in the final hour of a more-than 10-hour debate on whether the UK should extend its airstrikes to Syria. The UK has been bombing ISIS targets in Iraq as part of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition since last year.

Prime Minister David Cameron had urged lawmakers to back extending the air strikes to Syria.

One MP, Stella Creasey, wrote on Twitter that "Hilary Benn's speech has persuaded me that fascism must be defeated. I will hold public meeting on Sunday to discuss." 

"Hilary Benn's wind up speech in Syria debate one of the very best I have heard in the last 32 years really powerful heard in total silence," Conservative MP Nicholas Soames, tweeted.

"Very, very powerful & moral speech from @hilarybennmp - MPs from all sides & with different views on #Syria join in clapping as he finishes,"wrote Labour party MP Yvette Cooper.

Another MP, Angela Smith, described the speech as "moving" and "immensely powerful," and said Labour MPs were moved to tears by the speech,  the Daily Mirror reported.

Listen to the full speech below, or read the full text here.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Obama won't send troops into Syria to destroy ISIS

In the days of empire, Britain was a force to be reckoned with. Coalitions of the willing were an unnecessary nicety. Britain’s opinion mattered, both in Europe and further afield. The current situation in Syria shows how far Britain has moved from that position.

David Cameron, prime minister of a majority government, had to carefully time his parliamentary vote on airstrikes over Syria in order to win. And to do so, he had to rely on the support of dissenters from the main opposition party. These are hardly the actions of the leader of a great world power.

That’s really because Britain is no longer a great power; it is a medium size power. That’s not something for it to be ashamed of, but something it, as a nation, struggles to accept.

The mirage of great power status is a comfort blanket to cling to in an uncertain world, but the truth is Britain’s voice has stopped being a roar. Intervening in Syria under a delusion of grandeur has long-term implications both nationally and internationally.

Big ambition, small budget

Superpowers are usually easy to identify because of their sheer dominance on the world stage. A great power, on the other hand, can be more difficult to define. They lack the dominance of the superpower but they exert power in other ways to differentiate themselves from less powerful nations.

That dominance can be shown in a variety of ways, but the outcome is usually the same. The purpose of power, after all, is to ensure its holder gets its own way. The powerful nation either needs to be able to offer a large benefit (such as money) to its supporters or wield a large punishment to mete out to its detractors. The larger the carrot or the stick (or both), the more powerful the nation will be.

Britain’s economic position has been overtaken so it pursues military prowess to exert power. Irrespective of how the UK is perceived overseas, governments of all parties have long believed that Britain needs to have a military befitting a great power – even if the dwindling military budget is closer to what might be expected for a medium size power.

Britain, like many nations, historically used its military power not only to defend itself from aggressors, but to pursue benefits overseas. It has taken control of nations, forced rulers and governments to adopt a pro-British line and generally ensured that Britain benefited wherever possible.

The enduring willingness to intervene militarily (and the prominent role British prime ministers tend to take on the international stage) demonstrates that the political elite wishes to maintain the appearance of great power status. But this requires a large, strong, well-trained, well-resourced, mobile force.

While the abilities and commitment of the British forces have never been in question, there have been numerous issues raised over the commitment of successive governments to adequately fund the armed forces. This came into sharp focus during the Iraq war, when the government was repeatedly accused of not properly supplying the British troops with the equipment they needed.

Cuts have been slowed in the short term but it is clear that in military terms, Britain is not a great power. It is simply not able to push its own agenda militarily overseas without the aid of other nations. In this latest case, it is making significant noise about joining the coalition fighting Islamic State in Syria, but it is questionable whether it will really make a real difference.

A partner nation

While the government and the public would balk at the categorization of Britain as a medium size power, there is clearly already some recognition of the limitations of Britain’s influence overseas. The plan for intervention in Syria is evidence of that.

We are seeing Britain becoming more collaborative in its activities. Long gone are the days of unilateral action. Instead, as with many medium size powers, Britain is being forced to negotiate with both international allies and enemies in order to achieve its goals.

This co-operation is necessary for Britain but it also enables the collaborating nations to create a sense of international legitimacy.

The unpopularity of the Iraq war, and the fallout from the Blair era have made the British public more reluctant to put boots on the ground in pursuit of enemies, Islamic State included. This has meant that the expense of war has, for a short while, been avoided (something that we would expect to see in medium sized powers).

Even now as it looks set to stray into Syria, it does so as part of an alliance. Britain is already acting in a way that we might expect of medium-sized nations – avoiding war and building alliances to push its international agenda.

Why it matters

Britain continues to cling to the label of great power. Some would argue that there is no harm in allowing this to continue. British pride remains intact, while the limitations of Britain’s position are quietly managed under the guise of international co-operation and collegiality.

However, there is a danger here. By failing to recognize a drop in status, the British public and the political elite allow themselves to believe that they have the ability to independently go to war, either economically or militarily, if necessary to protect their interests.

While it is true that Britain can contribute to action, Britain cannot lead that action and certainly cannot unilaterally act to push its own agenda. By failing to admit this, Britain remains vulnerable to another Blair-style era of action, where practicality is overshadowed by morality and the desire “to do the right thing”. While action may be needed to protect the innocent, Britain cannot allow past ambitions to outstrip its means.

(Victoria Honeyman is a lecturer in British Politics at the University of Leeds.)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We did a blind taste test of popular french fries — the winner was clear

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A Texas state agency sued the U.S. State Department, a relief agency and others in federal court on Wednesday seeking to block the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the state, where a relief agency plans to bring Syrians within a week.

The International Rescue Committee is set to relocate two Syrian refugee families to Texas in the coming days despite a threat from state officials that such a move would be reckless and would be met with a cut in funding for the agency.

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission sued, asking the U.S. District Court in Dallas for an immediate restraining order and a hearing by Dec. 9 for an injunction that would prevent resettlement. It is also asking refugees not to be resettled until then.

The suit names U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the U.S. State Department and others as defendants. Texas is seeking an injunction to halt the resettlement because the state contends the defendants are violating their "statutory duty to consult with the State in advance of placing refugees in Texas."

The International Rescue Committee was not immediately available for comment.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said: "The point of this lawsuit is not about specific refugees, it is about protecting Texans by ensuring that the federal government fulfills its obligation to properly vet the refugees and cooperate and consult with the state."

After the Paris attacks in November, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, was one of the first of more than 30 U.S. governors seeking to block the resettlement of Syrians into their states.

Abbott has said he was concerned that U.S. security screening is ineffective and could allow people with ties to terrorism to be admitted. U.S. officials have described the vetting process for Syrian refugees as long and extensive.

Multiple federal government security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation participate in the screening process of refugees, which can take 18-24 months, according to the State Department.

Refugee advocates have said the governors have no legal power to exclude entry based on a person's nationality to anyone in the United States legally.

They have also argued that the governors, mostly Republicans, are targeting those who are overwhelmingly victims rather than perpetrators of violence in Syria.

Texas has housed 180 Syrian refugees since Syria's civil war began in 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz in Austin and Lisa Maria Garza in Dallas; Editing by Chris Reese and David Gregorio)

Join the conversation about this story »

SNP member and Britain's youngest MP Mhairi Black has vowed to "never forget the noise" of the cheering of British politicians as they voted in favour of bombing Syria. 

After a debate that lasted over 10 hours, from 11:30 a.m to 10 p.m on Wednesday, MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of David Cameron's plans to extend air strikes targeting ISIS into Syria.

Posting on Twitter, Black said: "Very dark night in parliament. Will never forget the noise of some Labour and Tory cheering together at the idea of bombs falling."

"Cannot believe that the so-called 'opposition' summing up is the same as the Government summing up. Incredible," she also commented.

MPs broke into laughter after the House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, made a comment unrelated to the conflict. “Order, we come now to the petition,” said Bercow, but many viewers thought the minutes following a debate on the bombing of Syria was not the time for lighthearted jokes. 

Author Craig Stone tweeted: "Air strikes approved, and the house erupts into laughter. Stay classy, politics."

His tweet has since been retweeted over 2,500 times.

Within hours of the final vote, RAF jets were deployed to Syria, striking six targets in the Omar oil field under ISIS control. Defence secretary Michael Fallon said the first attacks struck "a very real blow at the oil, and the revenue on which the Daesh terrorists depend." 

Black, 21, had been a staunch opposition of the government's proposals to carry out airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. In the hours running up to the debate, she had taken part in a "stop the war" rally outside parliament, reassuring hundreds of protestors that there are politicians that stand with them, according to The Huffington Post.

The result of the vote was clear, as 397 MP's voted in favour of airstrikes and just 223 voted against, meaning a majority of 174 won. The result came after 10-and-a-half hours of parliamentary debate.

The reaction online to the historical vote has largely been one of dismay.

The case for bombing Syria is suddenly looking clear: pic.twitter.com/aJGoy8iWYG

— Stephen Fry (@stephenfry) December 1, 2015

As I send my child safely off to school, bombs my taxes pay for will be raining down on others' children. Damn this Government. #SyriaVote

— Sharon Gathercole (@Sharonwifey) December 3, 2015

No money for education. No money for the NHS. No money for low income homes. No money for key public services. Money for war. #SyriaVote

— Anjelo Disons (@AnjeloDisons) December 3, 2015

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's why Obama won't send troops into Syria to destroy ISIS