Russian warplane downed; Turkey says aircraft violated airspace near border

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with Russia's repeated illegal violation of Turkish airspace? It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Russia's repeated illegal violations of Turkish and the Repeated warnings Russia has received for those illegal violations of its airspace. Are you telling me, Russia's pilots are so incompetent, they don't know where they are? If that is the case, they shouldn't be flying any kind of aircraft, much less a warplane.


As previously pointed out in prior posts, Russia is a serial violator of the airspace of many nations. If you are to be believed, Russia's pilots are incredibly incompetent or their military hardware is grossly antiquated. And if that is the case, then Russia shouldn't be flying warplanes...period!

Oh, then perhaps you can cite the legal justification for that assertion? Supporting rebels isn't a violation of sovereignty. I can sit here in my office and support anyone anywhere without violating the sovereignty of any nation. I know this is difficult for Russians, but I can support Russia's opposition without violation of Russian sovereignty. Dissent and opposition isn't a violation of sovereignty.


Additionally, as you well know, the Assad government isn't universally recognized as the legitimate sovereign Syrian government because the Assad government no longer controls vast portions of the former Syrian state. Syria as it was once known has disintegrated into 27 some fractions each with some land and some control over what was once Syria. and controlled by the Assad dynasty. So for you to assert as you have done that the Assad government, Russia's ally has some degree of sovereignty and legitimacy is more than a little disingenuous


The US, EU and other states recognize the Syrian National Council's legitimacy as the representative of Syrian people.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_Syrian_National_Council

And you have proof of this or is this more of your making stuff up? The West certainly doesn't want Assad to remain in power because the West believes Assad is no longer capable of ruling the country. Gassing folks and barrel bombs aren't exactly conducive to winning friends and influencing people. This mess in Syria began and is attributable to Assad's rule. So it's difficult to see how Assad can continue somehow miraculously unify and rule the country, given the fact the reason it is in such disarray is because of his rule.


The West would prefer a peaceful transition of power rather than war. That's why the West and in particular the US has initiated and led talks with all the involved countries, Arab states, Europe and Russia to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis. So if the West wants war as you assert, well that is just counterfactual. Syria's civil war began long before Western powers became involved.

LOL...well, as usual you assume and ignore much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This has already been discussed at length in this thread.

Assuming it even gets that far. Russia's nuclear hardware is antiquated and very vulnerable. US nuclear capacity doesn't share those vulnerabilities. Your assuming Russia has the capacity to actually launch and deliver nuclear war heads.

Well Putin's back down does show he isn't willing to go that far. The West has always preferred peace to violence. Nuclear war is certainly a possibility at any time, but given Putin's recent retreat, I think nuclear war is less likely now that it was a week ago. Though, I do have long term concerns about his mental health. Megalomania in a dictator is inherently dangerous. Megalomaniacs like Putin engage in very risky behaviors as Putin has done. I suspect we haven't seen the end of Putin's profligacy.

I guess that depends on how you define "only recently". Do you have any proof the US is supplying the Kurds in order to not anger Turkey? Where you not the guy who recently wrote the Turks hated the Kurds? And now you write the US is supplying the Kurds in order to avoid angering the Turks. The point is you are not making any kind of sense and sometimes contradict yourself.


The unfortunate fact for you is the US is already supplying the Kurds and has been for some time. Recently the US went even further by placing special forces inside Syria to work with the Kurdish rebels. So your prior assertion, "Russia's doing that would be in America's interest, since apart from the Syrian army, the Kurds are the only 'boots on the ground' willing to fight ISIS and retake territory.", is clearly wrong. The US is working with the Kurds inside Syria and already has American boots on the ground. And then there is the fact that Russia continues to pay only lip service to attacking ISIS. Russia isn't acting in America's interest. It is acting out the interests of a megalomaniac leader who has dreams of world domination.


'

Yes you are overplaying the Syrian card.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If Russia did that, but Russia hasn't done that. And at this point, but thus far it hasn't. The US has encouraged Russia to fight ISIS, but thus far it has not. Instead, Russia has focused on attacking Assad's opposition rather than ISIS. Russia says one thing, yet does another. The proof is in what Russia does, not what it says. And as previously pointed, the Kurds are not the only "boots on the ground" in Syria. There Free Syrian Army have boots on the ground and US troops now have a presence inside Syria. So the Kurds are clearly not the only boots on the ground in Syria.

Well it isn't a theory it's a fact. The Assad dynasty has ruled Syria for a very long time and Syria has fragmented and crumbled under Assad's rule. That isn't a theory. The Arab Spring didn't gas the Syrian people, Assad did. The Arab Spring didn't drop barrel bombs on innocent women and children, Assad did. Your argument amounts to driving a car while intoxicated and driving it into a pole and then blaming the car for your malfeasance. The argument just doesn't hold up.

Syrian is a mix of strangeness and unusual complex relationships, but that doesn't change the material facts here.

Except, per previous posts, the US does have "boots on the ground" inside Syria. So right of the bat your assumptions are wrong. Additionally, per previous posts, the US believes that ISIS cannot be rolled back or destroyed if Assad remains in power for all the previously stated and repeated reasons. And the US is currently working with rebel Syrian elements to that effect per previously referenced posts.

Well, most of our support is going to Iraq. But I don't see how that is relevant, and I wouldn't call aerial support "light support". We have had this Kurdish - Turkey spiel before. Turkey dislikes Assad far more than it dislikes any Kurd. That is why Turkey has cooperated with the Kurds to fight Assad and I don't see that changing anytime soon. And contrary to your assertion, the US has been arming and supplying the Kurds and will continue to do so. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-15/u-s-airdrop-in-syria-ends-up-arming-the-kurds


I won't say US policy in the region has been spot on, but balancing the mix of complex relationships isn't an easy task. Syria is a mess and it isn't easy. What is needed, is a Syrian leader who can unify the country and Assad very clearly isn't that leader. Sometimes I think the best thing to do would be for US and allied forces to completely withdraw from Syria and let Mother Russia deal with ISIS and Syria. Mother Russia would then very quickly find Putin has led her into another Afghanistan. And Russia can ill afford another Afghanistan, remember what it did for the old Soviet Union?

Well, it isn't the first time a reporter for The New York Times got it wrong, and it won't be the last. Per the business and economic sources I previously cited, The New York Times got it wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The other possibility for Russia to support the Kurds is to bomb the terrorists near the Kurdish positions. Which is what Russia is actually doing. It bombs now all what goes through the Turkish border, to stop the Turkish support for "moderate" liver-eaters completely, and, in particular, all what goes through the Turkish border part in the North between the two Kurdish parts.

An invitation for the Kurds to attack its weakened enemies. And they already use this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except that isn't what Mother Russia has been doing. Mother Russia and Mother Putin have been giving a lot of lip service to attacking ISIS but very little in the way of actual attacks on ISIS. If Mother Russia actually attacked ISIS positions instead of talking about it the US would be delighted. But that isn't what Russia has done. And by the way, how do you know the diet of those Turkey supports? And who cares if they eat liver? I suppose you have never heard of a dish called pate de foie gras? It's really very good. It's liver. I imagine Putin and a number of Russians also eat liver.

 

joepistole, of course, has forgotten that it was Russia which has started to bomb the oil business of the IS. Yes, this was costly - it was one reason why Turkey has shot the Russian plane, because this was a direct attack against the oil smuggling business of Erdogan's son. But it was, nonetheless, quite successful, destroying ~ 1000 oil tankers controlled by the IS. The US has, after this, also claimed to have started to fight the IS oil business. Claimed, because no video evidence for this is known, so that the US TV has used the Russian videos to illustrate these claimed attacks.

He has also completely ignored that one of the greatest successes of the Syrian army - the end of the siege of the Kuweiris airport - was reached against the IS. And there have been other heavy clashes with the IS, in particular, along the Hanasser highway (successfully finished), the fight for Maheen (successfully finished), and Palmyra (quite good advances).

In fact, what he is doing is to repeat a propaganda claim of the first days, which was wrong even at that time. But at that time there has been, yet, a hope for the West to protect the Western-paid terrorists from Russian bombs. This is no longer actual.

 

Well, Comrade Schmelzer has forgotten how to tell the truth. The US began bombing ISIS's oil long before Mother Russia entered the picture. And as usual, Comrade Schmelzer has no credible evidence to back up his assertions. And Comrade Schmelzer has absolutely no credible evidence that Turkey shot down Mother Russia's warplane for any other reason than that stated by Turkey (i.e. Russia's repeated illegal violations of Turkish airspace). And as usual, Comrade Schmelzer has absolutely no credible evidence Erdogan's son or the Turkish state is involved in smuggling Syrian oil as he has alleged. And as previously proven, Comrade Schmelzer has absolutely no evidence American television stations have misrepresented any Russian videos.

Additionally, Comrade Schmelzer has repeatedly and without question promulgated Russian state propaganda which is routinely broadcast on Russian state owned and controlled television and that includes misrepresenting all Syrian forces who oppose Assad as ISIS. As has been previously pointed out to you, misrepresentation isn't honest and yet both you and the Russian state owned and controlled media sources do it all the time. For all anyone knows, you may be part of the Russian state owned and controlled media. Not every Syrian opposition group is ISIS and it's intellectually dishonest for you and your Mother Russia to misrepresent them as ISIS as you have repeatedly done.

 

If Turkey's goal was to directly intervene in Syria to protect ISIS from Russian airstrikes, how would it make any sense to shoot down just one plane along the Turkish border, after so many others have been allowed to cross over with nothing more than a warning, and the only other significant response to 2 months of bombing has been to increase the rebels' supply of TOW's?

When a country shoots down a single trespassing plane over its own territory, that's usually intended as a friendly warning not to pay anymore unannounced visits.

 

Some boring repetitions of the primitive lies ignored

Nonsense. Russia was never focussed on IS, it has no interest to present them all as IS, and Russian media have emphasized that the NATO propaganda tries to whitewash all the other "moderate" headcutters.

Of course, the "moderate" terrorists are presented as ugly fundamentalist terrorists, head-cutters and liver-eaters (the guy who has presented himself eating the liver of a murdered Syrian soldier was FSA at that time, what he is now, dead, IS or Al Qaida or whatever I don't know). But the propagandistic point of this was to show that the US supports evil terrorists, and its request to "fight only against the IS" is only a defense of these other evil terrorists. Which Russia is fighting too, and with full engagement.

The guy who has claimed that his group has murdered the pilots was presented not as IS, but as a Turkish Nazi (Gray Wolves). And the main enemy - the terrorists from former Soviet territories, Russian speaking and dangerous for Russia itself as well as for its environment - fights only in part in the IS, in part also in other groups, and especially in Latakia.

What I have presented above as IS (around Kuweiris, Maheen, Palmyra) is IS according to all sources I have seen. If you have other sources, present them. Without doubt, there are also many sources which do not care who is who in the long list of participants, but I rely on sources which care, like http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-tiger-forces-capture-the-aqulah-farms-in-east-aleppo/ which lists near Kuweiris on the other side only IS, but starts with "The Islamist rebels of the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra”, Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham, Harakat Nouriddeen Al-Zinki, and Liwaa Suqour Al-Sham ..." describing in http://www.almasdarnews.com/article...id-to-capture-al-aziziyah-in-southern-aleppo/ a fight in Southern Aleppo 100 km away from it.

 

two cents...
It seems that the strategy Russia is using is:

• No point attacking IS as a priority using air strikes ( human shields every where and ineffective)
• Create an environment so that boots on the ground can tackle IS directly.
• To do so means supporting the Syrian Government generally and prioritize on generating an environment so that "Syrian Gov. Boots" on the ground can achieve something.

If the above is indeed Russia strategy then all the recent activity makes sense. IMO

any ways a recent report by some scientists saying that both Turkey and Russia are lying.
01/12/2015
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicists-show-both-russia-and-turkey-were-lying-about-downed-jet

 

America has a new radar system that can see where every plane is located all of the time. So why don't they just show the direction and location of the Russian jet to either prove Russia is lying or Turkey is. Here is information about the system.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...-nato/&usg=AFQjCNHWeS5iakKKFRQiIZ36lYrxtGyAKA

 

Because it does not show where the missile was fired or where the plane was hit.

 

But it can show whether Turkey's claim that the Russian aircraft violated it's air space or not?

 

Yes, but I don't think that's in question.

 

I don't think it's relevant. No matter the evidence neither side will admit culpability. What is known is Russia habitually violates the airspace of other nations, including Turkey.

This time Russia got its fingers slapped. Obama has told Putin and Erdogan to put a cap on it. Dragging this out doesn't benefit anyone but ISIS. It's long past time to begin acting like big boys.

 

What the world can prove is that the Russian plane violated Turkeys air space.
What the world can not prove adequately is where exactly the the plane was damaged.
so we are left with one solid proof and everything else is up for grabs.
I would think normally under these circumstances, the benefit of the doubt would go to Turkey if as cosmictraveler suggests full knowledge of the flight paths was available.

 

News of the day in this question: Now Syria seems to have quite officially S-300. And it is expected that it will declare, (or has already decleared) in short time, that it will shut all unidentified airforce over Syria. It will, of course, allow the US coalition to bomb IS - after coordination.

 

and now Putin believes he has evidence to support the charge that Turkey's Erdogan and his family have been stealing oil from Iraq and Syria and trading with ISIL. Potentially alleging any arrangements that the West may have with Turkey over ISIL a complete sham. ( fraud)
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...esents-Evidence-Of-Turkey-ISIS-Oil-Trade.html

For Erdogan to say that he is not implicated in large quantities of oil "violating" his borders is ludicrous...

 

You mean Assad may have nominal control of said S-300 system. And it matters little what Assad may or may not declare with respect to this new Russian bauble. As previously pointed out to you, Assad is no longer recognized as legitimate by Europe, the US, Canada and many other countries.

If Assad or his Russian friends try to use it against coalition forces or shoot down Turkish aircraft it will rather quickly become rubble.

 

If Putin's allegations against Turkey Leadership etc are indeed evidenced properly Turkey has managed to shoot itself down...
( they just need to follow the money trail and all will be revealed I guess)

 

(wild guess du jour)
If indeed Putin is correct:
Both the USA and Russia have satellite data showing oil truck convoys going from ISIL controlled Syria through Turkey:
But:
That's classified data.
(in this game, ain't nobody wants to show their cards)