Russian military jet downed by Turkey

[Husar]

Fair point, but this mess is still 50% Rusiia.

That fits very well with their similar political leadership, doesn't it?
It's like a clash of two hard-headed conservatives...

Russia has been skimming the edges of NATO airspace since forever. I remember that when the sanctions were raised over the Crimea annexation, Russian bombers flew over the Pacific and reached California. They congratulated the US fighter jets sent to intercept them (it was the 4th of July) and turned back. They were 20 kilometers from US airspace. Putin likes taunting the US like that. This skimming over the edge of enemy airspace was a common drill during the cold war I hear.

Can't imagine anything going wrong, seems like a brilliant plan.

Eh, well, that's a really bad comparison for a number of reasons.
First of all, I'm pretty sure that NATO also operates or exercises somewhere near the Russin border once in a while, the SAC always had planes in the air ready to head to Russia real quick and bomb a city or two. As for real danger, they don't necessarily have to enter enemy airspace if they have cruise missiles.
Secondly, as you say yourself, they fly close to it, they do not necessarily enter it. If we are being so technical about lines, the Russians never seems to cross the line in Europe so what they do is perfectly fine and happening in international airspace.
Thirdly, Syria is a war zone and Europe and the US are not, these Russian visits are almost like games, in 70 years or so I don't remember anything "going wrong" (meanwhile the US lost a nuke or two over its own territory...) and the pilots almost act like friends unless the Euros happen to be super serious.

And lastly, how can you warn someone ten times if it takes them only 7 seconds to fly through?
Yes, it was partially the fault of the Russians for flying through in the first place, but I assume the Turkish pulled the trigger more out of spite than any legitimate safety concerns.

[Myth]

That part about the pilots being almost friends - you made that up didn't you.

I'm no military guy but if I were on duty and I heard the alarm summoning me to mount my F 22 and intercept a russian bomber off the coast of California I sure as hell wouldn't be all daisies and giggles.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think its all about messaging; too bad some people had to die.
Turkey likes looking tough and it plays well in Turkey.
Russia can maintain that the West is dangerous; good thing we are strong and united.

[Husar]

That part about the pilots being almost friends - you made that up didn't you.

I'm no military guy but if I were on duty and I heard the alarm summoning me to mount my F 22 and intercept a russian bomber off the coast of California I sure as hell wouldn't be all daisies and giggles.

I read a report of Russian pilots winking to the NATO pilots and stuff.
Look at this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/po...y-4-intercept/
The most nervous person in all of this is probably the news guy.

For a fighter pilot, such a bomber is probably not an immediate threat, the chance that they actually try to drop off a nuclear load exists mostly in the minds of newspeople and I do not recall that they ever shot one down. Maybe "almost friends" was not the best way to formulate it, but given that they've done this for 70 years it seems more like a tradition of friendly banter. If Russia actually wanted to nuke us, why would they send those old Bear bombers that show up on any radar hours before they arrive and not the most modern ICBMs? I can see why our governments scramble fighters if they come close to the country, but that still doesn't make it a super serious situation, why else would the interceptors fly so close that they can give eachother hand signals?

Of course a lot of "important" people make a big deal out of this to proliferate themselves, sell more papers or get more budget. I'm more scared by Putin saying he aims his ICBMs at Europe than by him sending a post-WW2 bomber to say hello to our interceptor pilots because that can hardly show any serious intentions. They just returned home every single time so far, big deal.

The pilots are so intensely intensed that they whip out their phones and make videos: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/thi...ght-1686827358

And US spy planes seem to get intercepted as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/wo...-air.html?_r=0
At least the Swedish didn't shoot it down immediately...

Looks like both sides are posing a lot, the Russians with planes and the West with sharp words.

[Brenus]

"That part about the pilots being almost friends" One French pilot, long time ago, confirmed it to me. It was "game" between "East" and "West" pilots over the then border between East and West Germany, a kind a corridor where they were testing each others planes and capacities...

Now, about how Russia can exploit this:
One possibility is to apply Air space borders control, so Syrian government to issue warning to French, USA and others that game is over within their airspace, and all unauthorised planes will be shot-down. It would give the total upper-hand to Russia and Assad to crush whatever they can.... In the other hand, the bombing campaign is still a plus against ISIL, so, I don't thing they will do it, plus the fact at this moment it would be difficult to enforce.
An other option is to copy Turkey, so to extend protection of border inside the neighboring countries, allowing Russian Airplanes to pursuit aggressors into Iraq, then to protect the ant--ISIL forces against aggression, providing air superiority on Kurdish controlled area, making very difficult for Turkish Air Forces to bomb them, as Turkey violated Iraq's air space in doing so. Provide heavy equipment to PKK, then see results (as reward to Turkmen in Syria). Of cause bomb Turkmen with Air assault planes with heavy fighters protection. Put a little bit of pressure on the other side of Turkey and few Naval training might help.
The third one is I don't know. However Putin has proved with Ukraine he is fast to take advantage of an initially bad situation. One has to remember the French are now in need of him in order to retaliate, so that is a gap within NATO. And US cannot deny France to do so.
So?

[Myth]

How does France need Russia to bomb ISIS?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tajiks are not neither Turkish nor Turkmen in any way at all.

"Tajik" is a Turkic word meaning "non-turk"

Personally, I'm thrilled by this. We need to be less predictable in our actions with Russia. Take down an aircraft every so often, escalate where they expect us to back off. Cause their operations to increase in cost.

Let's see if we can get them to attack a NATO ally and cause an article 5 incident

[rory_20_uk]

Seems unlikely that Turkey would do something like this without the quiet nod of some of its more important allies - who might want to punish Russia for destroying the rebels / freedom fighters that they'd spent a lot of money in creating.

[Husar]

"Tajik" is a Turkic word meaning "non-turk"

Personally, I'm thrilled by this. We need to be less predictable in our actions with Russia. Take down an aircraft every so often, escalate where they expect us to back off. Cause their operations to increase in cost.

Let's see if we can get them to attack a NATO ally and cause an article 5 incident

You and your death wish again...
If you want the cleansing fires of war so bad, why don't you join a militia in the ME or in Ukraine or wherever?
I for one do not look forward to millions of lives being eradicated...

Seems unlikely that Turkey would do something like this without the quiet nod of some of its more important allies - who might want to punish Russia for destroying the rebels / freedom fighters that they'd spent a lot of money in creating.

It's Turkey, they have pride and stuffs.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, it was partially the fault of the Russians for flying through in the first place, but I assume the Turkish pulled the trigger more out of spite than any legitimate safety concerns.

I heard that Erdogan claimed that they first shot down the plane and only then learned it was Russian.

Now, about how Russia can exploit this:
In the other hand, the bombing campaign is still a plus against ISIL, so, I don't thing they will do it, plus the fact at this moment it would be difficult to enforce.

And bomb they did:
https://grasswire.com/story/822/Turkish-Trucks

An other option is to copy Turkey, so to extend protection of border inside the neighboring countries, allowing Russian Airplanes to pursuit aggressors into Iraq, then to protect the ant--ISIL forces against aggression, providing air superiority on Kurdish controlled area, making very difficult for Turkish Air Forces to bomb them, as Turkey violated Iraq's air space in doing so.

... which will mean more likelihood that more Russian planes will be shot down. A very wise move. Another one - no more Turkish chicken for Russians:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...13K3XC20151125

And Turkish stream is put on pause - one wise decision follows another.

However Putin has proved with Ukraine he is fast to take advantage of an initially bad situation.

... and eventually turn this advantage into even a worse situation than it initially was.

[Husar]

I heard that Erdogan claimed that they first shot down the plane and only then learned it was Russian.

So maybe they were hoping it was a US plane because the US don't bomb the evil Kurds?
Or were they hoping for a civilian plane? Does ISIS have an air force now?
What kind of evil were they expecting? UFOs?

[Sarmatian]

Even if they couldn't say it was Russian with certainty, it must have been clear that it was a modern jet not available to any of the local armed groups. Therefore, it could have been only Russian, American or French. I'm pretty sure they knew it wasn't French or American.

Anyway, with S-400 deployed now, Russia checked Turkey. 400km range, with a few of those, they could easily enforce a no fly zone over Syria.

[Fisherking]

@Gilrandir, That is a ball face lie. They knew full well it was Russian. That is saying that the rest of NATO never shared IFF technology with them.

It was a prepositioned ambush, pure and simple. The aid convoy is the same propaganda used by the Russians in your country.

A few people have told me that it is Turkish petulance over the Russian bombing of ISIS oil tanker trucks headed for Turkey. Yes, where else do you think they go to sell it?

I guess that meant more to them than the Russian Tourist trade. I may have the figures wrong but I heard last year there were like 4 million Russians who visited Turkey. That seems high to me but even if it were 400,000, I figure it might put a dent in the economy.

[Brenus]

"How does France need Russia to bomb ISIS?" I have the feeling that France wants more than bombing...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Even if they couldn't say it was Russian with certainty, it must have been clear that it was a modern jet not available to any of the local armed groups. Therefore, it could have been only Russian, American or French. I'm pretty sure they knew it wasn't French or American.

Anyway, with S-400 deployed now, Russia checked Turkey. 400km range, with a few of those, they could easily enforce a no fly zone over Syria.

The jet in question was a Su-24, the same used by the Syrian Air Force. .

@Gilrandir, That is a ball face lie. They knew full well it was Russian. That is saying that the rest of NATO never shared IFF technology with them.

Russians have been known to routinely fly with their IFF switched off when "buzzing" NATO countries.

Overall I think they probably did no it was Russian and I wouldn't trust Turkey's president half the distance I could throw him, I'm not even sure he's sane, but let's not pretend that it was certain the plane was Russian before it was shot down.

The IFF could have been off, the pilot apparently had the radio off according to the navigator - given that he didn't hear the repeated warnings to turn back.

It was a prepositioned ambush, pure and simple.

There's no reason to suspect this, really. It's possible the Turks took a pot shot at them out of pique but the Americans are backing the Turkish version viz the warnings to it seems unlikely this was a set up. If it was a set up then it was one daring the Russians to be as stupid as possible.

[Kralizec]

I have half a hunch that Turkey intentionally caused this incident, or at least didn't do anything to avoid it.

Most western countries would like to see Assad gone, but consider ISIS to be the bigger priority. For Turkey it's the other way around: they don't particulary like ISIS but think it's paramount to get rid of Assad.

Western countries were once unequivocal that Assad can't stay, but the last few weeks it looked like they would consider budging to make cooperation with Russia possible.

Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.

EDIT: I'm not saying that shooting down the plane itself was wrong. I don't know much about international rules of warfare, but even if the Turkish story is true and they were within their rights this chain of events seems rather convenient for them.

[Fisherking]

There's no reason to suspect this, really. It's possible the Turks took a pot shot at them out of pique but the Americans are backing the Turkish version viz the warnings to it seems unlikely this was a set up. If it was a set up then it was one daring the Russians to be as stupid as possible.

The interchange took 17 seconds. The plane was in Turkish airspace for 6 or 7 seconds. The Turkish pilot would not have fired without high level clearance. He had to just be loitering at the right place at the right time to get a lock on his target, or he shot it down after it left... 10 warnings a lock and a shoot down in less than 20 seconds, with coordination between ground, air, and political contacts. Would you believe it had it been a British Aircraft shot down...or anyone else for that matter?



I don't know that you can say "You are approaching Turkish air space" intelligibly 10 times in 10 seconds.

[I of the Storm]

...

Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.

...

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's within the realm of possibilities that the western allies and Russia come to an understanding about a limited cooperation in the middle east regardless of Turkey's attitude. Not very probable atm, but possible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The interchange took 17 seconds. The plane was in Turkish airspace for 6 or 7 seconds. The Turkish pilot would not have fired without high level clearance. He had to just be loitering at the right place at the right time to get a lock on his target, or he shot it down after it left... 10 warnings a lock and a shoot down in less than 20 seconds, with coordination between ground, air, and political contacts. Would you believe it had it been a British Aircraft shot down...or anyone else for that matter?



I don't know that you can say "You are approaching Turkish air space" intelligibly 10 times in 10 seconds.

Erm, they were warned repeatedly over a period of five minutes. Then they entered Turkish Airspace for seven seconds and a missile was fired.

[Sarmatian]

[QUOTE=Philippus Flavius Homovallumus;2053672372]The jet in question was a Su-24, the same used by the Syrian Air Force. .

Didn't know that. It appears Syria has around 20 of them. Still, the odds are they knew it was Russian.

I have half a hunch that Turkey intentionally caused this incident, or at least didn't do anything to avoid it.

Most western countries would like to see Assad gone, but consider ISIS to be the bigger priority. For Turkey it's the other way around: they don't particulary like ISIS but think it's paramount to get rid of Assad.

Western countries were once unequivocal that Assad can't stay, but the last few weeks it looked like they would consider budging to make cooperation with Russia possible.

Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.

EDIT: I'm not saying that shooting down the plane itself was wrong. I don't know much about international rules of warfare, but even if the Turkish story is true and they were within their rights this chain of events seems rather convenient for them.

All Turkish actions so far have shown that they actually help ISIS. They bombed Kurds who are actively fighting IS. Masses of trucks from IS controlled territory go into Turkey and back with little to no control. They help Turkmens who are allied to Al Nusra...

IS actually helps Turkey achieve all its goals - kill as many Kurds as possible, defeat the Shiites in Syria, break it up and incorporate Turkmen territory into Turkey.


What is interesting is the total lack of outrage over the fate of the Russian pilot. No one from the west dared to criticize Turkmens or Turkey. If that was a French, British or American pilot gunned down by, let's say, pro Russian rebels in Ukraine, there would all kinds of hell breaking loose.

I'm getting sick and tired of the double standards. Charlie Hebdo can easily pull off a page like this after the airliner was shot down in Egypt


Would be interesting if they drew people and buildings getting blown away in Paris attacks, maybe with the caption "Re-modelling of Paris landmarks". If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist.

[Montmorency]

What is interesting is the total lack of outrage over the fate of the Russian pilot. No one from the west dared to criticize Turkmens or Turkey. If that was a French, British or American pilot gunned down by, let's say, pro Russian rebels in Ukraine, there would all kinds of hell breaking loose.

I'm getting sick and tired of the double standards.

That's not a double standard.

Would be interesting if they drew people and buildings getting blown away in Paris attacks, maybe with the caption "Re-modelling of Paris landmarks". If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist.

Oh, please.

[Sarmatian]

That's not a double standard.

No? Okay.

Oh, please.

And that is supposedly similar? One is mocking dead people falling from the sky, and the other is having champagne defiantly? Try harder.

[Montmorency]

Try harder to do what, exactly? You yourself don't seem to be clear on what you are talking about, besides of course the predetermined conclusion that there is some double standard.

[Brenus]

"Would be interesting if they drew people and buildings getting blown away in Paris attacks," They did.



Please, do not mix all terrorists. There are terrorists and terrorists.

I always wanted to see Paris...

About Champagne:

Do you read the title of the magazine?

One more for the road:


Hard enough?

"If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist." Cheap shot, as show with cartoons above.

[Fragony]

I have half a hunch that Turkey intentionally caused this incident, or at least didn't do anything to avoid it.

Most western countries would like to see Assad gone, but consider ISIS to be the bigger priority. For Turkey it's the other way around: they don't particulary like ISIS but think it's paramount to get rid of Assad.

Western countries were once unequivocal that Assad can't stay, but the last few weeks it looked like they would consider budging to make cooperation with Russia possible.

Right now however cooperation between Russia and the western countries seems unthinkable, unless Turkey and Russia manage to straighten this out diplomaticly.

EDIT: I'm not saying that shooting down the plane itself was wrong. I don't know much about international rules of warfare, but even if the Turkish story is true and they were within their rights this chain of events seems rather convenient for them.

Complitated, what is claimed to be Turkish air-territory isn't recognised by the Nato at all. Turkey isn't making friends.

[Sarmatian]

Try harder to do what, exactly? You yourself don't seem to be clear on what you are talking about, besides of course the predetermined conclusion that there is some double standard.

Hard enough?

Cheap shot.

I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash.

All those caricatures have a very clear satirical message. The champagne one says terrorists can't frighten us. That was their objective and they failed. Terrorists and terrorist is a clear allusion to situation in Syria. I always wanted to see Paris one is self explanatory.

That in itself is not much of a problem. There will always be insensitive idiots. What is concerning is the lack of reaction. Just like there wasn't for the gunning down of a pilot. During the first gulf war, two Italian pilots were caught by the Iraqis. They appeared on Iraqi tv, slightly swollen up, and apologized to Iraqi people. There was massive outrage about the inhuman treatment. They were released later, shaken and with a few bruises, but no serious harm.

You may feel it is a cheap shot, but I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then.

[Fragony]

I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash.

All those caricatures have a very clear satirical message. The champagne one says terrorists can't frighten us. That was their objective and they failed. Terrorists and terrorist is a clear allusion to situation in Syria. I always wanted to see Paris one is self explanatory.

That in itself is not much of a problem. There will always be insensitive idiots. What is concerning is the lack of reaction. Just like there wasn't for the gunning down of a pilot. During the first gulf war, two Italian pilots were caught by the Iraqis. They appeared on Iraqi tv, slightly swollen up, and apologized to Iraqi people. There was massive outrage about the inhuman treatment. They were released later, shaken and with a few bruises, but no serious harm.

You may feel it is a cheap shot, but I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then.

I don't really like them either but you have the right to find it offensive. I don't mind it all that much when satire is pretty brutal.

[Husar]

"If any non-western satirical magazine pulled off something like that, everyone from the cartoonist to the head of state of that country would be labelled a terrorist." Cheap shot, as show with cartoons above.

Not that I can read French very well, but they all make fun of the terrorists it seems, the one Sarmatian linked made fun of the Russians, who were the victims in that case...
Not comparable at all, comparable would be someone making a joke with the people who jumped out of the burning twin towers...

Oh, also:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.n...c6b9935eca5560

[Brenus]

"I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash." Because there is none, but nor in the caricature you linked. The text says "Daesh, the Russian air force intensified their bombing", with a terrorist under the fall of plane's parts and one passenger (still alive).
So, the bombing of the Russian airliner was a "answer" to the Russian bombing. Nobody can deny this, as no one can deny that the Paris' slaughter is an answer to France foreign policy.
But, this said, where the caricature is making fun of people who die? I think the one with the champagne going out by the bullet holes much more "offensive" to potential victims than parts of plane falling on the head of a terrorist (which can as well be seen as a warning, see Putin's speech).
And it was, or it was as I read it, a kind of warning. Asymmetric war is not fun, so, really, do we think they will stay under bombing without reacting where and when they can? And actually, it is a question that the French are asking their several leaders who started bombing other countries thinking, perhaps, it was not war...
In order to "read" this kind of cartoon, you first have to stop to think it is to be for fun. It is for politic. You are not supposed to laugh, but to think.
As I explained before, we, French, grow-up with this kind of caricatures. We grow-up with comics which we call "bandes dessinées" and some are all but comic. Do you really think that Asterix is really about the roman conquest of Gaul?
This is what is translated as "comic" in English

1st World war

This one is about the Triangle Trade, Slavery
So, when you see a french caricature, you have first to remember it is not for comic effect, and for French.

"I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then." They are dead, so... The killers had a point? (I know, that is a cheap shot as well).

[Myth]

"I haven't seen a single picture that is remotely comparable to making fun of people who died in a plane crash." Because there is none, but nor in the caricature you linked. The text says "Daesh, the Russian air force intensified their bombing", with a terrorist under the fall of plane's parts and one passenger (still alive).
So, the bombing of the Russian airliner was a "answer" to the Russian bombing. Nobody can deny this, as no one can deny that the Paris' slaughter is an answer to France foreign policy.
But, this said, where the caricature is making fun of people who die? I think the one with the champagne going out by the bullet holes much more "offensive" to potential victims than parts of plane falling on the head of a terrorist (which can as well be seen as a warning, see Putin's speech).
And it was, or it was as I read it, a kind of warning. Asymmetric war is not fun, so, really, do we think they will stay under bombing without reacting where and when they can? And actually, it is a question that the French are asking their several leaders who started bombing other countries thinking, perhaps, it was not war...
In order to "read" this kind of cartoon, you first have to stop to think it is to be for fun. It is for politic. You are not supposed to laugh, but to think.
As I explained before, we, French, grow-up with this kind of caricatures. We grow-up with comics which we call "bandes dessinées" and some are all but comic. Do you really think that Asterix is really about the roman conquest of Gaul?
This is what is translated as "comic" in English

1st World war

This one is about the Triangle Trade, Slavery
So, when you see a french caricature, you have first to remember it is not for comic effect, and for French.

"I personally feel ashamed now to have been Charlie back then." They are dead, so... The killers had a point? (I know, that is a cheap shot as well).

Wait, Asterix is politicized? I only watched it as a kid. Now if you tell me that Pif et Hercule is not about a dog and a cat i'd be really flabberghasted.

In other news, Erdogan stated that if a Turkish jet was shot down by Russian SAM sites when flying over Syria it would be considered an act of aggression and that there would be "appropriate responce" that would "not be negotiated".

This guy really wants a KGB assassin to send him to Allah and his 72 virgins.