Russian warplane downed; Turkey says aircraft violated airspace near border

I see you continue to project Russian machinations and motivations onto the rest of the world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, a version with subtitles of the video from the Russian helicopter story:

I'm not completely sure, but actually I think no.

I think Erdogan plays his own game, and the US has even already tried to get rid of him, in the usual way of a color revolution. Moreover, Erdogan has even played games with Russia, with a replacement of Southstream (hated and destroyed by the US) by Turkstream. So, he is not simply an US vassal like Merkel and so on.

Ok, there is the argument that the US has played the game with the Turks about these faked warnings, which they claim to have heard. But who knows, the Turks may have really send them into the air, so that they may have been also victims of this fake. And the evidence seems to be that at least some parts of the NATO were really angry about this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Distracted by Shadows

I would ask people to imagine a hearing in the U.S. Congress.

Committee: The foreign power invaded our airspace how many times before Tuesday?

Administration: At least twenty.

Committee: And then they did it again?

Administration: Yes.

Committee: Why did you do nothing?

Administration: We didn't have a plan.

Committee: After twenty violations of our airspace by armed foreign military assets, you didn't have a plan to respond?

Administration: That is correct.

Committee: Why not?​

Or do we want to go back to early October when Turkish F-16s intercepted a Russian jet over Turkish airspace?

The idea that Turkey's response to repeated violation of its airspace by a foreign military might have been pre-planned seems self-evident; when your job is defending the country against foreign military incursions, your job includes planning for the next time something like this happens.

For Russia's part, these airspace violations aren't accidental; Putin's team pre-planned the violation.

As a stand-alone issue, yes, the Turkish response was fast; even as things stand there is a question of whether this escalation was necessary―after all, Putin is infamous as a cheap goon pretending to be an emperor. But there is no question the Russians knew this was not simply a possibility but, rather, an inevitability.

Putin's entrance to the Levantine Theatre has been so graceless and undiplomatic he has only reinforced the validity of the question about whether he's trying to start World War III in order to raise Russia back to imperial glory. Begging a standoff with NATO like this, repeatedly violating Turkish airspace in order to slaughter ethnic Turks, seems a pretty good plan for triggering a crisis.

The challenge for NATO is pretty straightforward: Stay out of Putin's gutter.

To the one, sure, we could easily have appreciated a little more working and playing well with others from Turkey; to the other, we're not certain whether it's fair to expect any working and playing well with others from a bottom-shelf closet case wannabe emperor with bad posture and an even worse suit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I kinda lost count of how many times the good old ruskies invaded Danish airspace this year. Because Denmark's right next door.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL
Someone discovered Netflicks and 1970's James Bond.

 

If one likes James Bond-like stories of rescuing a pilot, I can recommend http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940905000553 with Iranian hero General Suleimani playing the main role.

Beyond this, some conclusions made are worth to be mentioned:

 

​

A classical strawman. Civilized countries have not only a plan for this case, but their pilots have learned this plan many times and know it in all details. And this plan is not "wait near the border until a plane is close enough to the border, so that one can claim later that he has violated it, and then shoot it down". It is also not "If he violates the border for a few seconds, immediately shoot him". Especially not if it is obvious from the situation that the plane does not want to attack the own territory.

The challenge for the NATO is a different one: Return to civilized behavior, as defined by international law, stop to pay and support violent terrorists in other countries.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-isis-terrorists-warplane-analysis

It is interesting to see how much is allowed to write in the NATO press against NATO-member Turkey's connections with the IS.

Starting with the obvious thing, which was never really hidden, that the terrorists have travelled to Syria mainly through Turkey:

Even the oil smuggling business is mentioned:

The "some Turkish officials" is a nice way not to name the son of Erdogan, which is usually named as the big Turkish guy behind this.

And the main political difference is mentioned too: That the Kurds are the main US ally in Syria, while the Turks hate the Kurds and fight them:

But, an interesting hypothesis, maybe the US is quite happy with this? Russia imposes a no-fly zone for the Turks, protecting in this way their allies, the Kurds? Why not?

If one thinks about it - one gives the Turks, initially, some support against Russia's case of violation, so that it thinks it can rely on US support if it hits a Russian plane. But this support by US appears, in reality, zero. Russia is happy with this, it has now a good reason to put S-400 into Syria, and is the end of Turkish dreams about no-fly zones for Assad and the Russians. The US has not even objected to the quite aggressive decision to shot every Turkish plane considered to be a danger - without restricting this to Syrian territory. So that the Turkish no-fly zone seems to extend even into Turkish territory, as far as flying there may seem, for whatever reasons, dangerous for the Russians. On the other hand, Turkey in conflict with Russia is really nice for the US. Southstream through Turkey could be dead, a point which the US would like very much. Seems plausible, at a first look, for the US game.

 

No, the challenge for NATO is to figure out how to deal with a closet-case Russian strongman who would see every one of his countrymen dead before he behaves like a decent human being.

Here's the thing about being a propaganda mouthpiece, Schmelzer: You need to be able to shape reality, not make it up outright.

Your entire position now orbits the demand that Russia has no obligation to respect international boundaries whatsoever.

And when the position is that the entire audience can go fuck itself, the propaganda isn't going to work.

 

is Russophobe a word?

NATO has no obligation to respect international boundaries whatsoever?
We destroy countries on a whim, then leave the people suffering in abject chaos.

 

Which is simply the position of NATO propaganda.

No. Russia does not violate international boundaries. It is in Syria based on an invitation by the government of Syria.

And if its plane is shot down by a Turkish plane over Syrian territory, this is simply aggression, and Russia has the right to retaliate. This includes, of course, also actions over Turkish territory. Of course, only if Russia is right and the plane has not violated the Turkish airspace. Which is what I believe.

That Russia's airplanes did not have such a right before this attack, is not questioned. Russia has, BTW, acknowledged some time ago that such a violation has happened, and explained it with special circumstances (weather). I do not question also that, in principle, a state has the right to shut if some plane violates its border. So, if one believes Turkey, (which I don't), they have had the right to shut the plane. But only as long as it was over Turkish territory, not after it has left it.

My objection was not about the right in itself, but if civilized states would apply this right in such a way. I think, it is clear that states have, by international law, do impose all the laws of the Sharia, or to stone homosexuals or so, this would not be a violation of international law, it would be uncivilized. Similarly, shooting a plane which violated Turkish airspace for, say, 17 seconds, where it is obvious from the claimed trajectory that it will leave the territory in a few seconds, would not be a violation of international law, as long as it is hit over Turkey, but it remains uncivilized behavior.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

The Russia Defense Ministry denied the aircraft ever left Syrian airspace, counter-claiming that Russian Ministry of Defense satellite data showed that the plane was about 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) inside Syrian airspace when it was shot down.[6] According to unnamed United States officials, the aircraft was shot down in Syrian airspace[7]after being in Turkish airspace for two to three seconds.[8]

........................
Does that change the game?
.............
1,000 meters = about 3-4 seconds for the bomber?

 

Well if by "NATO press" you mean the free Western press, then that has already been reported and it has been reported from the very beginning of the conflict. It isn't new news and if you had read the "NATO press", you should know that. It has long been known terrorists and oil flows between Turkey and Syria through a very porous border. But that doesn't make Turkey the culprit you want and need people to believe. Controlling long borders is difficult. The US has been trying to control its Southern borders for sometime now to prevent guns, illicit drugs, and illegal aliens from crossing with limited success. Erdogen is certainly no saint. As Tiassa has pointed out Erdogen and Putin are cut from the same cloth. They are both immoral nationalistic egotistical fools. But none of that changes the fact that for almost 2 years now, Russia has been routinely violating the airspace of NATO countries. None of that changes the fact Turkey was well within international law when it shot down Putin's airplane.

I think you are paid Russian propagandist.

LOL....well here is the problem with that, Turkey's aircraft haven't violated Syrian airspace nor have they even threatened to do so. So what go would it do for Russia to put up a Syrian no fly zone to keep out the Turks? Are you Russians really that paranoid? And that assumes Russia could effectively erect and maintain a no fly zone. The whole notion is stupid. It's more ape like chest pounding to keep Russians docile and subject to Putin's will.

So you know what the US would like do you? Even after being publicly posted in this thread and widely reported, you still are unaware that withing 24 hours of this incident President Obama defended Turkey by stating in a press conference Turkey had every right to defend its airspace. The fact is your post is nonsensical including but not limited to this notion of a Russian imposed no fly zone to keep Turks from flying into Syrian airspace - something they have not done. If Turkey wants to join allied forces fighting ISIS in Syria, they have every right to do so under the previously cited UN resolution which was passed unanimously through the UN Security Council.

If Russia wants to begin a war with NATO, so be it. The world will not be held hostage to a petty dictator. But thus far, Putin has shown no appetite for a hot NATO conflict which he knows he would most certainly lose.

 

Oh, perhaps you can point out the last time NATO countries illegally infringed upon another countries airspace? If you are referring to Afghanistan and Iraq, do you really believe those people are worse off than they were before the US legally invaded those countries under UN sanctions? Afghanistan and Iraq were not destroyed.

 

Well, that is a rather selective reading of you references, don't you think?

This is the part you left out, "According to Turkey, the aircraft was shot down in Turkish airspace, which it violated up to a depth of 2.19 kilometres (1.36 miles) for about 17 seconds, after being warned to change its heading 10 times over a period of five minutes.[4][5] The Turkish government also said that it did not know the nationality of the aircraft at the time of the shooting.[4]

In early October, Turkey and NATO protested against what they saw as Russia's deliberate violations of Turkish airspace.[16][a] The Russian Defence Ministry admitted that a Russian Su-30 aircraft had entered Turkish airspace "for a few seconds" because of bad weather, adding that measures had been taken to prevent a repeat of such incidents.[23][24] From 3–15 October, five discussions between senior ranking officials from Turkey and Russia occurred concerning Turkish rules of engagement and Russian violations of Turkish airspace.[25] On 19 November, Russian Ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov and the Russian military attaché were summoned by Turkey. Russia, criticised by Turkey for having its army operate very close to the Turkish border, in an area inhabited by Syrian Turkmen, free of ISIL or other terrorist groups, was reminded that Turkey's rules of engagement were in place and it would react to any violations of its border security. [/QUOTE]

And "unnamed" sources aren't very credible.

 

Well in the real world Schmelzer honesty isn't normally considered propaganda.

Oh, then perhaps you care to explain why many countries have reported repeated violations of their airspace by Russian military vessels? The article below only covers a period of 8 months and is a year old but names 39 separate incidents where Russia has violated the border integrity of another nation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...litary-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html

Except, that isn't what happened.

 

just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it propaganda

bullshit. it does so on a routine basis.

irrelevant

untrue. if the missle was fired when it was still in turkish airspace its valid. missiles take time to reach their target

nope.

no actually it does not. only a lunatic would think that

of course you do. putin could take a shit on the table in front of you tell you its chocolate and you eat it claiming its the best chocolate in the world. your even worse about repeating russian propaganda than billy is about chinese. and at least the chinese are invading people.
something like this was only a matter of time. russia invades people sea and air space with it planes and subs all the time. eventualy someone was going to blow one of them up. russia got what it deserved for being so aggressive.

 

This and That

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

To the one, it depends on which game you are describing; to the other, it's an awfully vague question, anyway.

To wit:

As a stand-alone issue, yes, the Turkish response was fast; even as things stand there is a question of whether this escalation was necessary―after all, Putin is infamous as a cheap goon pretending to be an emperor. But there is no question the Russians knew this was not simply a possibility but, rather, an inevitability.

(#43↑)​

Three to four seconds? No. In and of itself, that does not change the game as I see it. However, if you are referring to a different iteration of the game, or perhaps mean something else by the terms of your question, my current answer could very well be relevant to your inquiry.

† † †​

They would need their money back.

 

Except that most of the 39 incidents listed are indications that the relations between NATO and Ru are actually not optimal, but in no way violations of any border integrity. For example:

• "On 29 September 2014, Latvian forces observed a Russian warship operating 14 miles from Latvian territorial waters; article observes that Russian jets and warships have been detected 173 times near Latvia’s borders as of September."
  
  This is, sorry, nothing at all.
  
• Between 17-27 October, 2014 a major submarine hunt by Swedish authorities was prompted by credible intelligence reports of “underwater activity” in the Stockholm archipelago in Swedish territorial waters. Supreme Commander General Sverker Göranson underlined that Sweden was ready to use “armed force” to bring the vessel to the surface if necessary. Russia issued denials and attempted to ridicule Swedish concerns. The major search operation stopped on Oct. 24.
  
  This proves Swedish paranoia, but nothing else.
  
• On 12 June 2014, Nato fighters intercepted Russian aircraft in international airspace near Latvia.
  
  So what, this is a Russian border violation? There are a lot of similar points in the list.
  
• On 12 April 2014 an unarmed Russian fighter aircraft made 12 passes of the American warship the USS Cook in the Black Sea. Such aggressive behaviour, if repeated by an armed aircraft, could have resulted in the ship commander targeting the aircraft in an act of self-defence.
  
  Of course, this was a well-known case, with an aim, namely to show this ship that they don't have a chance in case of conflict. Because this American warship in the Black Sea - quite far away from the US - i in itself a very aggressive behavior, but at that time, during the crisis of Crimea, there was a clear danger of US starting a war. But let's also note that, on the other hand, even being 50 miles away is considered worth to be listed if done by the Russians:
  
• On 9 May 2014 Russian aircraft approached to within 50 miles of the Californian coast, the closest such Russian military flight since the Cold War.

In other words, this is (1) not at all a list of violations of borders - there are a few of them but only very few. Then, it is, clearly, a one-sided list, made by the NATO side. If the Russians have a similar list, it could be also very long.

Which is also the part which nobody believes.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151125/1030699146/questioning-turkey-airspace-story.html

If you are a paid NATO propagandist, this would be part of the explanation why the NATO, spending much much more than Russia, reaches such miserable results.

They do it all the time to bomb Kurds. And the F16 which has shot the Russian jet has also, shortly after this, violated Syrian airspace.

But they will no longer do it. Point. At least, I have heard yesterday, the Turkish planes are now on the ground.

You obviously don't know how would US support have looked like, given Putin's open declaration that every Turkish plane which is considered dangerous for the Russians will be shut. That would have been a clear statement that, in case that Russia hits a Turkish plane over Turkish territory, this would have been a case for NATO article 5 case. That Turkey has the right to defend its airspace is something Putin could have said too, it is a diplomatic nothing.

If they want to be shut down for violating Syrian territory, they can try out. The UNSC Resolution does not allow violating international law. If Turkey attacks Syria, this will not be a NATO article 5 case. The US has given clear enough signals that they do not care about Turkey.

 

no it wouldn't. NATO forces don't do stupid shit that risks them getting harmed for shits and giggles.