Russian warplane downed; Turkey says aircraft violated airspace near border

Discussion in 'World Events' started by p-brane, Nov 24, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. FOLZONI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    129
    Greetings, Schmelzer!

    You seem to be getting a lot of flak from some others here. Nevertheless, you are on the right track!

    So have you read Hidden History: the Secret Origins of the First World War by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor? This work reveals how Britain organized WW1 for over 15 years before its outbreak, also creating the Boer War in order to seize the world's largest gold deposits in the Transvaal in order to fund the preparation for the larger war.

    FOLZONI
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Yeah, those crafty Brits...lol...being able to plan a world war 15 years prior its outbreak. That's pretty good. I especially like the part where they planned the arch duke's assassination 15 which led to WWI 15 years prior.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You are lying again. You asserted Russia respects borders. Per my previous reference, clearly Russia doesn't respect the borders of other countries and has a long and documented history of violating the borders of states with its military. You lied. If you have evidence some country has invaded Russia's airspace in equal measure, now is the time to show it. But you can't. Because it doesn't exist. What you are doing is what you have always done, lie. You just make shit up to fit your lie.

    Oh, who is nobody.....consumers of Russian state owned and controlled media? It was your friend's article. He cherry picked his way through the article he referenced. I just showed the portions he left out. Cherry picking isn't intellectually honest. It's dishonest.

    Well, I'm not. Unlike you, I'm not even a propagandist. Truth and honesty aren't propaganda. Unlike Mother Russia, NATO and Western countries don't employ propagandists. There is no need.

    Oh, well if they do it all the time, then perhaps you can provide some evidence from CREDIBLE sources to back that up? But I think we both know you can't. Because that just isn't true.

    Did you now, why don't you send another Russian warplane into Turkish airspace again and see if it its true?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I don't know what you are trying to say or how you think that makes any kind of sense. But the fact is, Obama has backed Turkey in unequivocal terms per my previous post. If Putin attacks Turkey, that will be the last thing he does and the end of Mother Russia.

    LOL...well Turkish aircraft haven't violated anyone's airspace nor have they been shot down. Russia has violated Turkish airspace and its warplane was shot down by the Turks. And Turkey has every right to join the US led coalition in Syria and to conduct air strikes in Syria. Turkey's participation, should it decide to participate in executing UNSC resolutions isn't illegal. Executing a UNSC resolution isn't a violation of international law...oops.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The only party which has violated international law here is Mother Russia. Under Putin's reign Russia has become a serial violator of international law.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Credible for you, that means, from a NATO propaganda source? Why should I care about such "credible" sources?

    But, ok, let's google "Turkey bombs Syrian kurds" and use the first hit, it gives
    Turkey confirms shelling Kurdish fighters in Syria
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34645462

    Is BBC credible enough for a NATO propagandist?
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Akçakale and Tal Abyad may be considered as one town during peace time.

    War confuses humanity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No, unlike in Mother Russia, credible means credible. I think you summed it up nicely when you questioned why you should care about credible sources. You have no use for credible sources. You like to dismiss everything you dislike, that doesn't comport with your arguments, as NATO propaganda; never mind the fact unlike your beloved Russia and the genesis of all your arguement, NATO doesn't have a propaganda arm. It doesn't own and control the press as does your beloved Russia. The truth isn't propaganda. Coming from the former Soviet Union, you still have great difficulty discerning credible truth from Soviet/Russian propaganda.

    With respect to "Turkey confirms shelling", shelling isn't bombing. Contrary to your assertions, Turks are not conducting illegal bombing raids in Syria. Not surprisingly you are being more than a little disingenuous. You are changing the issue. The animosity between the Turks and the Kurds isn't new nor is it secret. The fact is Russia establishing a no fly zone to keep Turkish warplanes inside Turkish airspace is a fiction. It's a ruse to deceive Russians. Putin can't have Russians think he is weak else they might begin thinking for themselves.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  12. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    It makes not much sense to answer some cheap propaganda accusations, but behind this is a more serious question about Russian strategy, and strategy in general. Namely, the conflict between some moral rules and the rules of real life.

    Have you never had the feeling I had during childhood, when, in the film, the bad guy takes the nice lady/child as a hostage "oh, no, again, as usual, the good guy will do completely stupid things like to throw away his weapon"? For me, this was part of the "never believe the media" education. But the moral conflict is, of course, a real one. There are moral rules, and there is the optimal strategy to reach the own interests. And even if your first interest is to save the hostage, it is stupid to throw away your gun. In a quite general sense, the optimal strategy is the symmetric one: tit for tat. Symmetric retaliation.

    The unfortunate side effect is that this strategy is not at all optimal in the informational or moral warfare. Because tit for tat is symmetric. And it is, therefore, difficult to decide who is the good guy and who is the bad one. So, to present the good guy in the film as the winner in this informational warfare, he responds asymmetrically, throws away his gun, but, fortunately, because God (the regisseur) is on his side, he wins anyway. In reality, the peaceful, asymmetric reaction would be simply stupid.

    So, I think, there is no way out. Once the only strategy which allows to survive an aggression is a tit for tat, you have to live with this, even if this makes the informational warfare difficult, because the bad guys and the good guys behave symmetrically, and this allows the bad guys to claim they are the good guys.

    What we have seen in the Ukrainian crisis was such a symmetric tit for tat strategy of the Russians. The NATO has escalated, with warships in the Black Sea, starting air patrols near the NATO borders (which are, in the Baltic, also Russian borders) with weapons ready. Russia has responded more or less symmetrically, also with more air patrols near the borders (which include, of course, also Kaliningrad). In the large, the Crimea can be seen also as a more or less symmetric response to Kosovo, where the US has started a war against Serbia to get Kosovo as a colony (formally, an independent state, de facto ruled by a local drug mafia gang, with a very large US base inside). There are differences (bombs on Belgrads vs. not a single dead, no referendum vs. a referendum), but in some aspects - that it is legal for a territory to separate - there is symmetry.

    But, of course, this symmetry make the game easy for propagandists of the bad guys. The "tit for tat" reaction would be amoral, if it would not be a reaction for the tat. Thus, by denying the original aggression, one can easily present the good guy as the bad guy.

    What can a neutral observer do, to find out who is the good guy, and who is the bad guy? It is not as easy as in the film, where the good guy always throws away his gun after the bad guy taking a hostage. What I think is, first of all, to hear above sides, without believing any. And, after this, simply ignoring all the symmetrical things.

    And this is what I personally do with claims of border violations by various aircrafts.

    Now about something completely different - how Turkey provides weapons to terrorists.

    1.) There was some innocent humanitarian organization, IHH, which somehow has made some humanitarian support from Turkey to some moderate, hm, opposition. Probably with some error in the coordination, because Turkish police controlled the humanitarian thing and found this:

    2.) This was, somehow, already forgotten, the police has stopped the investigations, everything was fine. But it happened that, somehow, after the Turks have shot a Russian airplane, Russia has somehow decided to bomb, in retaliation, a Turkish humanitarian mission, naming it a delivery of weapons to terrorists. And the guys from the IHH were running around crying about the evil Russians. Somehow they missed the point and preferred not to show what innocent things have been inside the trucks, but so what, it was obviously a humanitarian truck from the IHH.

    3.) Unfortunately, some Russian blogger, somehow, was also a fan of Turkish videos or so, and somehow remembered the video above, and used it to support the Russian idea that this could have been a weapon delivery to terrorists.

    4.) After this, the humanitarian providers of help for the poor people of Syria somehow disappeared, the IHH declared that some of his guys were there only by accident, but have not provided the trucks, and nobody knows who owns the destroyed trucks.

    5.) Even worse, the Turkish state now remembered this video too, and started a process against the journalists which have made the video. Not for distributing lies, but for espionage.

    6.) And now comes the most strange thing. This story made it into the Western media: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/76ce...nalists-face-jail-over-arms-smuggling-reports http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-11/pressefreiheit-tuerkei-jouralisten-gefaengnis-can-duendar

    Yurasumy interprets this as a declaration that Erdogan is fair game.

    And I tend to think this may be correct. One should not forget, there already was a color revolution attempt in Turkey, and, of course, also with NATO media support, like http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/...s-Angst-vor-einer-demokratischen-Tuerkei.html
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    And you seriously think any of that makes sense?
     
  14. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    ...as if ISIS oil wasn't enough for Erdoğan's son, well his lies brought his country agony and pain to come.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Schmelzer likes this.
  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,003
    Not for you, of course. This answer was written not for you. The same holds for the following, it will also not make sense for you. BTW, fullquotes are considered as an easy way to identify idiots in the net.

    I simply follow another concept how to establish credibility.

    For Paddoboy, the mainstream is credible, whatever he claims. For you, NATO propaganda media are credible, whatever they claim.

    I do not have such a list of credible sources, which I believe whatever they write. For me, there are no a priori credible sources. The mass media are liars by definition. Ok, to be fair, only 99%. In the net, one also would be stupid to believe everything. Roughly, they are not all liars, only 95%. So the problem appears: How to identify the 5% (resp. 1%)?

    First of all, I rely here on quite neutral criteria. First of all, the accurate presentation of the position of the other side. To identify who is "the own side" and "the other side" is almost always easy, such an animal like a neutral source is almost non-existent. But there are big differences between sources, on above sides. And I have no problem at all with accepting a source which honestly presents the arguments of one side, without distorting the positiion of the other side very much. Unavoidably, it will be at least a little bit distorted. But there is a very big difference between an unavoidable distortion of the enemies position and total distortion, or complete lies, about the enemy. And this difference can be made, if one also reads the sources of the enemy.

    The second possibility to judge about the reliability of a source is the test of time. You need a little memory about what has been said by the source some days ago, and to compare it with what is known toady. A similar source is how the source writes about what the enemy has reached. Say, in a war, unavoidably above sides are, however small, at least sometimes successful. Now, there is a big difference: Does one write about this, however small, success of the enemy, or not.

    For example, http://www.almasdarnews.com/ is quite obviously pro-Syrian, but writes about successful operations of the terrorists too. It even uses more or less neutral language, so the organizations participating in the attack have their own names. Instead, the government agency SANA does not write about successes of the terrorists. I have not found them to lie about own successes yet, but if some terrorist source claims a success, forget about reading SANA. This does not make SANA completely useless - if they write they have taken some village, this seems reliable. If, instead, say, a Ukrainian source claims some military success, say, having killed a Novorussian leader, ignore it, you don't even have to care about him, he is fine.

    The result of my strategy is a set of very different sources. All of them considered to be worth to read them. This in no way means they are considered reliable in itself. It means worth to read them. And, then, taking into account on which side they are, what are their known weaknesses and prejudices, and what was the reliability of their claims and predictions in the past, I decide if this information is reliable or not.

    This is more or less what a professional journalist would have to do, in an ideal world where the journalist's job would be to investigate what is truth and to write about it. IOW, this is a difficult job. It would be preferable if one could leave this job to professionals. Unfortunately, the professional journalists today are nothing but presstitutes. You cannot believe them. If you want to know the truth, you have to become, essentially, a professtional journalist yourself. And for nothing, because nobody will pay you for finding out the truth.

    Such is life.
     
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    It was probably an initial assumption, based on the idea that Syrian rebels had brought the plane down and that ground fire would be their only means to do it.

    The Turkish F-16s used air to air missiles.
     
    Schmelzer likes this.
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    The Turkmen in Syria are Turkish surrogates, armed and protected by Turkey in much the same way that the Ukrainian rebels are by Russia. They claim to have 10,000 fighting men (almost certainly an exaggeration) and their stated plan is to sweep south through Latakia and Tartus along the Syrian coast. Right now, they are only about 25 miles from Latakia and represent the most urgent threat to that city, where Russia's base is located. So the Russians had obvious reasons to engage them.

    On Friday November 20, the Turkish foreign minister summoned the Russian ambassador to Ankara in and demanded that Russia stop bombing the Turkmen. The Russians were told Russian operations would have "serious consequences". The Russians continued their operations and four days later, the Russian jet was shot down. The whole thing had was pre-planned by Turkey and wasn't a primarily response to an airspace incursion at all. Cutting across a tiny sliver of Turkish territory for 17 seconds just gave Ankara an excuse.

    I don't think that NATO has any desire to be dragged by the Turks into what could become a nuclear war.

    Russia isn't going to nuke Ankara.

    But Russia will probably continue attacking Turkey's Syrian surrogates, in hopes of degrading their ability to attack Latakia. And Russia is likely to start arming and supporting the Syrian Kurds. There's nothing that the Turks want less than an armed Kurdish statelet along their border in Syria, allied with their own domestic Kurdish PKK who they positively hate.

    Russia's doing that would arguably be in America's interest, since apart from the Syrian army, the Kurds are the only 'boots on the ground' in Syria willing to fight ISIS and retake territory.

    Russia is Turkey's largest export market and hundreds of thousands of Russian tourists visit Turkey each year.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
    Schmelzer likes this.
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The Turkmen have absolutely nothing to do with Russia's repeated illegal incursions into Turkish airspace. Further, it is no secret Turkey opposes Russia's Syrian stooge, Bashar al-Assad. Further, you have absolutely no evidence which connects Turkey's support of the Turkmen to Russia's repeated illegal invasions of Turkish airspace. Was Turkey's response deliberate? Indeed it was. Turkey didn't accidentally shoot down Russia's warplane. Turkey didn't lure Russia into violating its airspace. As previously proven in prior posts, Turkey repeatedly warned Russia about its illegal penetration of Turkish airspace, and Russia repeatedly ignored Turkey's repeated warnings.

    I don't think anyone in the West wants war. But they won't roll over and play dead either, and they will defend the NATO alliance. If the world should have learned anything from WWII, it should have learned that when confronted with fascist megalomaniacs, appeasement isn't a winning strategy.

    Of course it isn't. That's why I wrote Russia's response options are limited. A nuclear attack would most certainly put an end Putin and 140 million Russians. Further, in order to launch any sort of military attack Russia would need to either to first invade other countries in order to get to Turkey or launch an amphibious assault and Russia has no amphibious assault capabilities. Russia has never launched an amphibious assault nor are its troops trained to do so. Russia lacks the trained troops and the needed hardware to launch an amphibious assault.

    That isn't anything new. Russia would have done those things regardless. However, I seriously doubt Russia will begin supplying Syrian Kurds. The Kurds are already being supplied by the US. And I think you are overplaying the Kurdish card. The relationship between the Kurds and Turkey has changed. In recent years they have begun cooperating with each other in order to fight a common enemy, Russia's Assad. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ders-to-fight-Isil-in-Kobane-in-pictures.html

    That's very laughable. Russia isn't acting in American interests. The US opposes Assad because Assad's governance or lack thereof is responsible for the current Syrian mess. Russia supports Assad, probably because Syria is the one and only place in the world where Russia has a Russian military base on foreign soil and even though it is strategically worthless, it strokes Putin's megalomania.

    Putin has paid lip service to attacking ISIS, but that's about it. Russia has a habit of saying one thing and doing another. When Putin begins attacking ISIS in earnest and stops attacking forces aligned against Assad, then and only then can Russia be construed as acting in the interests of the US and in the larger interests of the world.

    And as previously pointed out, the Kurds oppose Assad's government. So it's difficult to see how the Kurds would switch sides in order to appease Russia and that would benefit the US, especially when you consider the fact the Kurds are already being supplied by the US.

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-against-Assad-s-forces-in-Syria-monitor.html

    Except that isn't true. Russia isn't Turkey's largest export market. Although it is true that Turkey is a popular vacation spot for Russians. Turkey's largest Russian dependence is natural gas. But natural gas is a doubled edged sword for Mother Russia. Russia is just as dependent upon its natural gas exports to Turkey. If Russia uses natural gas as a weapon, the repercussions could extend far beyond Turkey and have some very severe long-term setbacks for Russia's petroleum exports and Russia is very dependent upon its petroleum exports. So if Mother Russia wants to put another 45 caliber hole it its foot, so be it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Turkey

    Any economic sanction Russia imposes will have and equal if not greater adverse impact on Mother Russia. Russia's recession has been far greater than had been forecast, and recently analysts and financial institutions have downgraded Russia's economic outlook. Most are now predicting Russia will remain in recession throughout 2016. And those outlooks are based on data provided by the Russian government.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/world-bank-downgrades-russias-economic-outlook-1443609118
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL...yes they are and your posts have well demonstrated that fact.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Gibberish is a clear and indisputable sign of either ignorance and mental atrophy or deceit.

    Well in the West credibility is established through honesty, not the disingenuous fabrication and outright lies of which you are so fond. The West isn't anything like Mother Russia.

    What you do is recite Russia state propaganda and fill in the holes with fabrications. You are not honest.
     
  20. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    How little you know, G.I. Joe. They will swallow Amerika's surfers like great white shark.

     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL....I'm sure American surfers and sun bathers everywhere live in fear of Russian hovercraft.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Russia was certainly planning to add amphibious assault capabilities to their military. But they shot that wad when they invaded Ukraine and France cancelled the amphibious assault ships it was building for Mother Russia. It's a bit curious as to why Russia wanted amphibious assault ships when they don't even have a blue water navy. They could really only use them in the Black Sea. And since no one has any intention of invading Mother Russia, it's all a bit curious as to why Mother Russia would even want amphibious assault vessels.

    I think it has more to do with Putin's megalomania than anything else. Somebody needs to tell the lad he is writing checks Mother Russia can't cash.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  22. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    You are using Ukrainian Nazi propaganda. Did you not notice the advanced stealth features in the exterior design? Russia only needs a few such ships and they can occupy anywhere in the world, even Statue of Liberty. Plus Russia doesn't even need to occupy the statue, they can just destroy it with advanced generation nuclear weapons that Obama can't stop.

    Amerika has secret island bases in the Atlantic that are going to used for an attack on Venezuela and Cuba with "good terrorists", only Russia has capability to stop them. Also there is CIA Al Qaeda vacationing on Black Sea, so we need to take them out.

    I think he watched Saving Private Ryan a few times and thinks naval landings and operations are still conducted the same way 70 years later. Gotta watch out for all those mines, machine guns and concrete pillboxes in case the naval cannons don't hit 'em.
     
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Except that the Turkmen militias that Turkey is arming and supporting are located near the Turkish border. Aircraft conducting airstrikes at them run the risk of accidentally crossing the frontier.

    As far as 'illegality' goes, by supporting its Turkmen rebels Turkey is violating the soverignty of Syria and the Russians are there at the invitation of that government.

    They certainly want war that overthrows Assad (creating another Middle-East power vacuum) as long as the war has minimal cost to them and no repercussions in their own domestic politics (hence the cry, "no boots on the ground"). So they fight by using local surrogates, much as Russia does in eastern Ukraine. Obviously the West doesn't want war with Russia that might threaten to go nuclear. So Turkey's little fit of anger in downing the Russian jet themselves and not having some Syrian Islamist militia do it creates a dangerous situation in which a NATO member and Russia are in direct military confrontation, that I'm sure that isn't welcome in Western capitals.

    Only if the US nuked Russia, and if we did that, Russia would nuke the US. There goes Barack Hussein Obama and 300 million Americans.

    Of course, a full-scale nuclear war and the accompanying nuclear winter would end all the talk about 'global warming'...

    But sure, neither side wants to risk that. I don't see nuclear war as a likely possibility at this point.

    Only recently, and not very abundantly, since we don't want to anger the Turks. The Russians could easily provide them with advisors and heavy weaponry that Turkey doesn't want them to have.

    I'm not playing any cards, I'm just pointing out one of Russia's options. (It isn't even my idea, the possibility was suggested in the NY Times a couple of days ago.)

    Russia building up the military capabilities of the Syrian Kurds would be in the interest of anyone whose primary interest is rolling back ISIS, since the Syrian Kurds represent the only 'boots on the ground' in Syria, apart from the Syrian army, who actually seem wiling to fight ISIS on the ground and retake territory from them.

    That's one theory. More realistically, one could blame the current Syrian mess on the 'Arab Spring' uprising that initiated this civil war and on all the myriad of rebel groups (and their foreign supporters) that continue to keep it going.

    The Syrian Kurds seem to have an understanding with the Syrian government where each one doesn't attack the other. There are several Syrian military bases in far northeastern Syria in al Qamishli and al Hasakah that the Kurds don't attack, and the Syrian army doesn't interfere with Kurdish control of the adjoining towns. In fact, the bases might be major channels distributing arms from Syrian army stocks to the YPG.

    Assuming that Obama and his administration really are interested in rolling back ISIS as opposed to overthrowing Assad (which is what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are interested in) and assuming that they are serious about "no US boots on the ground", then we are going to have to find local ground forces able and willing to retake territory from ISIS. The only two significant forces in Syria that show any intrest in doing that are the YPG and the Syrian army.

    Not really. Most of our support is going to the Iraqi Kurds, who are politically distinct from the Syrian Kurds. (And we limit what we supply to the Iraqi Kurds, denying them the heavy weaponry that they need.) Turkey absolutely hates the Syrian Kurds, who are associated with the Kurdish PKK inside Turkey which has a long history of fighting the Turkish military and launching terrorist attacks inside Turkey in the name of Kurdish independence. Since arming the Syrian YPG would essentially mean arming the PKK, Turkey has been very hostile to the whole idea of arming them and the US has henceforth deferred to Turkey.

    The New York Times seems to think that it is.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/26/world/europe/ap-eu-russia-turkey-business-ties.html?_r=0
     

Share This Page