Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border | Hacker News Reader

Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border

nytimes.com

112 pointsenesunal181 comments

A bit of context here.

The aircraft, according to the radar tracks the Turks are providing, was only over Turkish airspace for a few minutes at best. So we're not talking about an egregious violation here (egregious being up for interpretation.) The Turks say they warned the craft numerous times including points prior to crossing the border, so they were prepared to shoot it down after seeing it would cross if no course change was taken.

Some might ask what the harm is to Turkey in this case, and my guesses are this:

1. If Turkey didn't take action, then they could set a dangerous precedent by which aircraft were tolerated to violate their airspace, but Turkey would then find it difficult to then crack down after the fact. How deep is a real incursion? At what point do they say "ok, we're really gonna shoot you down now!"

2. The BBC brought up the fact that there are ethnic Turks (Turkmen) living inside Syria, and some of them have been targets of Russian/Syrian bombs. The Turks have been notably irritated at this, and so one could imagine that this gave Turkey an excuse to hit back.

I saw the initial Russian comments as insisting that their plane was downed by a SAM as a real desire to downplay the incident. But now that they're acknowledging it was downed by a Turkish aircraft, it seems they're at least wanting to object harshly. (Edit: That, and Turkish insistence that they did it. Maybe they didn't see the wink?)

I agree with some of the other comments, it's far too early, and even alarmist, to assume that much worse will come up this. A larger conflict is in no one's interests and is in no one's intent.

The distance travelled over Turkish airspace, shown here: https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669098577524822016/ph...

was less than 3km. At Mach 1, that takes less than 9 seconds. It appears to have flown over twice.

The pilots ejected, but were shot dead by Turkmen fighters while they parachuted down: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-34908469

What's the incentive to do this? Isn't it enough to shoot the plane down? Why kill the pilots?

Wouldn't you at least want to interview or ask questions if you just shot them down?

They also hit one of the rescue helicopters with a missile. Shooting down the plane, killing of the pilots in the air (by Turkish assets), ambush of rescue party. This looks like a planed provocation to me. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/us-mideast-syria-c...

>(by Turkish Assets)

Source? Everything I've read says the Syrian Turkmen are certainly allies of Turkey, but not assets.

"..Turkish camps in Syria which the Turkmens are being trained, stating that it still takes place unofficially and in a secret way.[6][7] He added that Turkish Forces are training the Syrian Turks to protect their settlements and to join the fight with Syrian Turkmen Brigades in those secretly located camps. Nuceyfi also gave more information saying that Turkish officials have told that military supplies and weapons will be sent to Turkmens in Iraq and Syria in the near future but he isn't acquainted about the exact amount and date.

Later that day, Turkish 'officials' in Ankara, confirmed the statements of Esil Nuceyfi about the before and the positively promising future of the training of Turkmens both in Iraq and Syria" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Turkmen_Brigades#Brigad... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/1201...

Yes, it's readily acknowledged that Turkish special forces have trained the Turkmen. But that is not the same as the Turkmen fighters being "Turkish Assets", which suggests command over their actions.

It's a very weird stance. So if a country officially trains forces (wouldn't say soldiers) in another country, it isn't like it influences and directs them just a little bit?

I see it like directly comparable to what the US did in most of the significant conflicts ever since the ww2. It didn't say what Osama bin Laden should do (back when he was a "good guy"), but it did give him intel support, training and guns, which is almost the same.

Not saying that the US is unique in this, it's just the most prolific and egregious by far. Turky is just learning from the best.

They're different people. The Turkish air force shot down the plane, but it crashed in Syrian territory and the pilots were allegedly killed by ethnic Turkmen in Syria, who are not under the control of the Turkish government.

Though it's officially not the same, it's practically indistinguishable, because of the feeling of national identity and common purpose.

It's like if you really REALLY wanted to kill someone whom your neighbour also hates, and he bought a gun and just peacefully placed it on a table in front of you without saying a word.

As the article mentions, the Turkmen are people in northern Syria, not Turkey, and have apparently had their villages bombed by the Russian military recently. A pretty strong incentive, I'd say.

I've heard enough stories of Russian planes violating other countries' airspace and not responding to warnings, that I immediately assumed a fairly deep incursion and Russia being clearly at fault, but crossing that tiny sliver of Turkish territory? Technically it's still a violation of airspace, but shooting it down is exceedingly harsh. The only possible conclusion is that Turkey was eager to shoot down a Russian plane.

Not shooting down a plane doesn't have to mean you tolerate airspace violations. You can still complain and stress that this is not okay without shooting anything.

> Not shooting down a plane doesn't have to mean you tolerate airspace violations. You can still complain and stress that this is not okay without shooting anything.

Turkey's been complaining and stressing that this is not okay -- and even threatening that if it didn't stop, they would start shooting down the intruding planes -- for months; the intrusions started at the very beginning of the campaign Russia started in September.

At some point, you have to either impose the consequences you've threatened or reveal yourself to be unwilling to do so, making all your complaining and stressing empty rhetoric.

Mind you, since 2012 Turkey consider their airspace anything 5km south of their border with Syria, thus why they keep complaining of Russia invading their Airspace (even when Russia is fighting rebels inside Syria, they are inside Turkish airspace by Turkey definition).

I think the way to think of it is as a violation of airspace in the context of being belligerents by proxy.

For various reasons (confessional and otherwise)Turkey has been firmly and outspokenly anti-Assad since the early demonstrations and since they evolved into civil war.

Russia has intervened effectively on behalf of the Assad regime. Since the Assad's failure today would almost certainly result in a jihadist Syria, this is not looking so terrible to the rest of Turkey's NATO allies, like France. Turkey is by some (fairly loose) definition engaged in proxy war with Russia.

At the same time Lebanese, Iraqi & Syrian airspaces to their south and east are free-for-alls with 8 national forces bombing as they see fit in Syria. This is probably making Turkey paranoid about their own air space.

I suspect they see/saw this as Russia testing their resolve to defend their border. There have been previous violations and stern warning had been made. There's also the possibility that this is a bad decision made by field officers in the short decision window they had.

>There's also the possibility that this is a bad decision made by field officers in the short decision window they had.

That's an excellent point, and one I think is often missed. These are decisions made by commanders in the field in a short amount of time, with limited information. They have many concerns, worries, and instructions to comply with. What if it was misidentified as a Russian plane? What if they did nothing, and the plane dropped bombs on a Turkish village? There's lots of potential outcomes, limited information, and consequences and repercussions far beyond the event itself. And it's a mistake to think national leaders are involved directly in this process.

To give my personal views for a moment here, this is why it's so important they recognize, that whenever force is involved, regardless of intent, aim, or goal, it's messy, and things like this will occur, without fail. There will be accidents, without fail.

I think this is a fairly known scenarios, that strategists and leaders taught well in advance with all possible and military personnel are trained on. I also read in an article that the order to shot it down came from the turkish president.

> I also read in an article that the order to shot it down came from the turkish president.

Can you link to that article?

I can't remember which source it was was I read different articles from FB trending news, I tried to find it but couldn't, later I'll have another go.

^On larger conflicts, I think it's a real danger.

France is hysterical right now, and I imagine they are considering an "all arms" invasion with Russia at their side. There is growing international support for Kurdish independence. Even Assad might agree to it. This is a Turkish red line. Turkey is still keen to oust Assad. The longer IS & other jihadis can demonstrate unprecedented achievements like capturing and holding territory, the more the danger grow in other ME countries. Russia has lost a civilian airliner to IS & a military jet to Turkey in a few weeks. The combination of successful IS terrorism, daily reports of raids on Jihadi safe houses, and massive refugee migration has made Syria the number 1 political issue everywhere in Europe.

It's all a tinderbox and Turkey just shot down a Russian jet.

And it occurred to me that Russia might have "accidentally" intruded into Turkey's airspace to provoke a reaction to give Russia a pretext to take stronger action in Syria.

I don't know if that even makes sense, but Russia is in the driver's seat. The U.S. is taking a nap.

For 9 seconds.

I don't see how they could have been warning him for 10 minutes if he was over their airspace for nine seconds.

Well they probably were warning him before he hit Turkish airspace

> almost certainly result in a jihadist Syria

What does that even mean?

> I agree with some of the other comments, it's far too early, and even alarmist, to assume that much worse will come up this. A larger conflict is in no one's interests and is in no one's intent.

Putin is not known for his soft heart and willingness to let bygones be bygones.

While I wouldn't characterize him as having a "soft heart" either, I never got the impression that he's so simplistic as to want to retaliate in any situation. The Russians are not stupid.

I don't think for a moment that any side didn't envision this as a possibility. When you're flying sorties, there's going to be accidents. With this many borders involved and a NATO power next door, the risk only became larger. While it's serious, it's not like Russia didn't know these risks beforehand. They saw this possibility before they got involved. Doesn't mean they won't be happy about it, but I guarantee a Turkish response was at least thought about.

> While I wouldn't characterize him as having a "soft heart" either, I never got the impression that he's so simplistic as to want to retaliate in any situation.

Of course not, that's why the Russians initially tried to deescalate by publicly attributing the downing to Syrian rebels, not Turkey; however, now that Turkey has made that impossible (for which, given the recent series of Russian intrusions since the campaign in Syria began, they had pretty strong domestic reasons), the Russian leadership's room to deescalate while maintain an image (particularly a domestic image) of strength is narrowed.

What are the russians going to do? Start a nuclear war over some ego smear? They could have not done that. It's been an issue for months. Unless there will actually be a major conflict now, I think it's the best thing that could have happened. The russians are now in a corner - whatever they do short of going WWII Japan will be a loosing move.

Putin isn't soft, but he also isn't a fool. He's managed to actually conquer and hold territory (Crimea and East Ukraine) in the post-Cold War world through a mixture of rhetoric, propaganda, and timing. Not only that, but he did so while managing a corrupt Russian oligarchy and increasingly unhappy Russian people in the post-Communist era.

Putin is a brilliant tactician. That is why he is in the position he is in. He isn't going to retaliate against NATO for a downed jet, but I am also going to wager that at the end of all the reporting and global discussion about this incident, he will come out looking stronger. That's the kind of leader he is, hate him or love him.

Maybe, but if he retaliates against Turkey NATO get dragged into it because of existing treaties. While Putin may not be the most forgiving of people I don't think he's going to trigger World War III over a single jet getting shot down over someone else's airspace.

Second that motion. The main deal here, is violation of air space, because Turkey is a moderate (by and large, which is debatable) Islamic Muslim state and provocation in the area has RUN terse for decades because of the pro-Russian+Syrian agenda/backing. I don't blame either part, considering how tense Russia is with the Muslim world in the first place - with exception noting Iran, which is Persian (like the emo kid in the class). Just look north to Chechnya and you can easily link/stroke in bits of issue across the region by the suppression and integration attempts with Russian people in that area alone. Regardless, a blip and nobody died. Russia just lost a 500 million dollar investment. Should end fairly quickly.

> A larger conflict is in no one's interests and is in no one's intent.

It never is for most people, for 99.99% of people anywhere, and every war ever fought, was not because most people wanted to. Its always an elite, minority of people which decide they can and do want to send others to war.

Such people are Erdogan, Putin and Obama.

That's not really true. A full-scale war is necessarily conducted by both the state and the nation. Even autocrats need the blessing of the general population to successfully prosecute such a war, otherwise he runs the risk of the people rebelling and shutting down vital infrastructure just when they need it most. You can't have your army in two places at once, quelling the populace and fighting the enemy. Full-scale war intensely taxes everyone's resources. Also soldiers won't fight with the zeal they need to be effective against soldiers defending their homeland unless they really believe in what they're doing.

Hence the general move before and after the two world wars towards more limited war. With a limited war, you have to rely on professional, volunteer soldiers to conduct operations. Many nations conscript, but largely to keep readiness up. It's difficult to conduct the sorts of operations you see in the small-scale military operations of today with a conscript army. These are people with jobs and lives, they just won't be able to give their all.

Big wars only happen after long-term feedback loops of media coverage rousing national anger against other nations make it politically feasible to actually declare war. These wars truly are everybody's affair.

I get your sentiment, but I think the hyperbole undervalues that often wars are popular. Sometimes widely popular. The US's entrance into WWII, the US War for Independence. The US Civil War. These are a handful of cases, but they each had far far higher support than .01% approval.

Currently roughly 75% of Americans support our war against ISIS.

Strangely enough, when I made that comment, Erdogan, Putin and Obama were the people I was referring to.

I don't think for a moment anyone's itching for a war.

I'm the skeptical type, but my take is that the West has never been serious about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic usefulness. There have been indications of this since the bombing campaigns began over a year ago in Iraq, the British flew for weeks without attacking anything, the Kurds reported no help from the air, etc. Add to this all the direct and indirect support IS has been getting in terms of weapon supplies to 'moderates' that end up with them, and particularly the strange ease with which they are able to sell oil and send fighters back and forth across the Turkish border.

So I'm inclined to believe that this incident was staged to further put a spanner in the wheel of real concerted attacks on IS - instead we get Russia and the West staring each other down. Note that the Russian jet did not exactly invade Turkish territory - it crossed a tiny finger of land less than a mile wide extending into Syria - a tiny excuse for such a forceful response.

my take is that the West has never been serious about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic usefulness.

I agree with the first half of that, but not the second. I think the more likely reason is that there is simply not the political will to pay the necessary price it would cost (mainly in political capital).

Please explain exactly how you think ISIS is strategically useful to the West.

Perhaps not directly to the west unless you count their battles against Syrian government forces. But ISIS is certainly a useful tool in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States proxy war against Iran and Shiites. There's not a terribly wide gap between Salafism and Wahhabism.

Obviously something strange is going on with the Western projection of power in the area. I am a firm believer in the incompetence of the CIA, but surely they wouldn't accidentally let ISIS receive weapons that many times in a row? And in one month of bombing, Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces. The same moderates who always seem to funnel Western arms to ISIS.

So either there is just a tragic level of incompetence by the US, or there is something very strange going on with the US and ISIS.

>Russia has hit 4 times as many strategic ISIS targets, than the entire Western coalition, all while supposedly being more interested in hitting moderate Syrian forces.

Do you have a source for this? The coalition has supposedly flown more than 8,000 strikes(40,000 sorties), hit more than 16,000 targets and spent north of $5bn. I have a very, very tough time believing Russia has quadrupled this effort in the handful of months they've been flying sorties.

I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment. Russia claims to have destroyed 500-1000 oil tankers (that's a huge gap), and the US says 116 tankers. And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left. They only have ~30,000 soldiers, and maybe a few thousand military vehicles. 16,000 military targets would have ground them into proverbial dust. There would be no command centers, no military vehicles, a huge reduction in combat soldiers. So maybe 16,000 bombs (or leaflet canisters) have been dropped, but they certainly haven't hit 16,000 important targets.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/caught-tape-russian...

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-ira...

> I'm just going with the only real strategic targets ISIS has, oil equipment.

This is completely arbitrary nonsense.

> And if the coalition had really hit 16,000 targets, there wouldn't be any ISIS left.

So is this. This also belies a misunderstanding of both the situation and warfare in general.

The key difference between the two parties involved here is that Russian doctrine has exactly zero considerations for collateral damage and civilians. For example, Russian news sources would have you believe one cruise missile "killed 600 terrorists".

This might help clarify why no one thinks the US has been effective against ISIS. Because they haven't.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/23/analysts-ac...

This doesn't convince me that they've been entirely ineffective, but rather makes me believe that those claiming they are completely ineffective don't know what that actually means.

What's the word for when you call something nonsense and and then don't explain why?

And when you point out the "key difference" between the West and Russia, what's your point exactly? If the goal is to not hurt innocents, then the best way to do that would be to go home. The goal is to degrade ISIS's ability to wage war.

Do you understand how doctrine works? Degrading ISIS and avoiding civilian casualties aren't mutually exclusive things.

My point is that if you think the US strikes have been ineffective, is because you don't know what "effective" looks like. You want to see many bombs drop and big explosions with not thought as to what that's actually accomplishing.

The US only recently started targeting Oil trucks and rigs. For over a year, ISIS was making millions of dollars of oil money every month money via Turkey. The US was never serious about degrading ISIS. To me personally, it appeared to be just a time-holding tactic to get rid of old munitions and have a war on the cheap until Obama passed from office and could give the entire mess to his successor.

It was only after the Russians started making the US look incompetent by flying more sorties in a couple of days then the US did in a month, did the US begin to start bombing in earnest.

Even laughable is PBS showing footage of Russian bombing and claiming it to be American. http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/blogs/ombudsman/2015/11/23/bomb...

> It was only after the Russians started making the US look incompetent by flying more sorties in a couple of days then the US did in a month, did the US begin to start bombing in earnest.

Source for this?

I think you've lost sight of the original point. That Russia was degrading ISIS faster than the western coalition.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. I personally doubt it, not because I'm pro-western, but because I don't have faith in Russia's ability to do their due diligence in all facets of conducting war.

ISIS is anti-Iran, anti-Hezbollah/Palestine, and anti-Kurds. This, in turn, pleases Saudi Arabia, Israel/US, and Turkey, in that order.

Please tell me the people in charge aren't that stupid. We've been down this road before. The enemy or our enemy is not our friend.

Anti-Hezbollah (etc...) sounds great until you realize what they want to replace it with.

They aren't. Reality also isn't as simple as a movie plot, unlike what some of the comments here speaking with an assured tone about what's "really" going on would have you believe.

I think the reality is far more banal. The people in charge simply don't care. Until it starts affecting them personally, that is (by killing their friends or threatening their political/financial power).

I'm sorry, I assumed this to be apparent. Well the West is fighting Assad, that is what this whole mess has been about from the beginning. IS is one of the pieces in that fight (in fact probably the most effective one, despite their unsavory character but that has never been a problem for the West in choosing allies).

I think the only real drawback to IS, in strategic terms, is if their violence spills over too much, like it happened recently, but that hasn't been, and probably still isn't, much of a real concern.

I would say this could be a way of seeing it before last week, but between the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels, which is also NATO HQ, being shut down for four days, at this point, the "spilling over" is way worse from an international point of view than Assad (the local syrian population might disagree)

And this is why the "West" is getting closer to the Russian position on Syria.

And this is not good for Turkey, who want Assad gone. And this is probably why a Russian fighter was downed today. This look like an incident, but this is first and foremost a political or diplomatic statement.

It seems dubious to me that Turkey would take action like this unilaterally - the strategic implications are too high. They have to have the rest of NATO on board, IMHO.

I also don't think the ISIS 'spillover' is as much of a concern as indicated, at the higher echelons of Western military and intelligence circles. A cynic might say that it could even have its uses.

France, and especially Paris, is going to lose hundreds of millions of tourism revenue next year, plus an increase of military & police spending, which will increase its deficit.

Holland is going to Moscow and Washington this week to request Putin's help on Syria and form a coalition. If you think that Hollande would have allowed Turkey to shot down a Russian plane today, this is basically the worst time it could have ever happened.

So I don't buy for a second that France would have supported that move, especially this week.

On the other hand, if Turkey wanted to prevent NATO getting closer to Russia, this was a perfect timing.

What other choice does a French politician have except to declare 'all out war' against ISIS, after Paris. What actually comes of it is another thing, so far any response has been particularly muted.

If the overall NATO strategy is that they need ISIS for a bit longer, then France will acquiesce, whether or not Hollande is very upset about it. But of course they will make a spectacle about 'total war', nothing short of that would be acceptable to the public.

This makes no sense. The IS is not really fighting Assad, they are mainly attacking other minorities and especially the Kurds. Turkey could end IS in a few weeks if they really wanted to.

Source are former IS fighters, sorry - its in german & paywalled: https://blendle.com/i/die-zeit/aus-sicht-der-tater/bnl-zeit-...

See this map:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/83ED/production/_...

Even if the whole IS is not always just fighting Assad, they are deep in the Assad controlled regions too (Assad is in Damascus look how near they are). A lot of "empty" area are the deserts.

This is pretty much the correct answer.

Let ISIL overtake Syria/remove Assad and then 'free' Syria from ISIL and impose freedom.

Not sure that'd go too smoothly especially part b.

This sounds like a 'dog ate my homework' level of logic explanation.

There are some direct proofs (cables from the US ambassador) for the long-term intentions:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/julian-assange-us-israel-planne...

Can you connect the dots form these cables in 2006 to present-day Syria? I can see a connection between them and supporting the Arab Spring in Syria, but I'm drawing a blank on how this translates into actively supporting ISIS.

The arguments here were not the "active support" of ISIS but "that the West has never been serious about hurting IS."

The US ambassador cable is the reflection of the long term interests which actually like the instabilities more (including the conflicts between Sunni and Shia) than the presence of Assad. BTW Assad is kind-of-Shia, and Iran full-Shia. The "rebels," Turkey, ISIS and Saudis are Sunni.

The "indirect support" is the fact that the weapons procured by the West (over Turkey) ended up by ISIS. Not to mention effectively allowing different kinds of financing ISIS.

I agree with all the estimates presented here that now with the events in Europe not everything will continue exactly as it was up to that point.

I don't things are quite so clear cut. Along with the things you mentioned, ISIS gathered much of their materiel from the Iraqi military in its retreat.

Whether they are "serious about hurting IS" seems arbitrarily defined by whoever is posing the question. What we do know is that the coalition has conducted ~40,000 sorties over the past year. That seems pretty "serious" to me, but some people might consider "serious" to only mean ground forces.

I fully agree with the "during the Iraqi forces retreat" part. Who fired Saddam's soldiers and built these new Iraqi forces?

Do you know when the economic sanctions against ISIS where introduced, and when against Assad? Against ISIS, I can find the "Sept. 29, 2015." Isn't it strangely recent?

The bomb strikes are also a good way to show that "something" is done ("we must do something, this is something.") All politicians ordering them like them.

I guess we need to define what "economic sanctions" are against a group like ISIS, which has no formal economic activity with the outside world that we can "sanction" in the traditional sense. I can find in Dec of 2014 the coalition forming and among its stated goals being to disrupt the flow of financing to ISIS:

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

Aside from that, you could consider the coalitions that have formed against ISIS as the "true" sanctions, in a way.

Precisely, end of 2014 "forming with the goal to disrupt," ISIS, that were the "rebels" against "bad Assad" for years before (and vs. the leaked US cable from 2006 planing using Sunni-Shia conflicts against kind-of-Shia Assad).

FWIW, the US was fighting against ISIL in Iraq long before the Syrian conflict. There are also still are rebels fighting against Assad. "Bad" isnt' some slander from the West against Assad, it's objectively true. It's part of what makes the conflict so complicated, neither outcome is good, thought Assad is probably the lesser of two evils in the shorter term.

Compare the state of Iraq before 2003 and after. Most of the deaths before 2003 were induced by the Western sanctions and bombing, probably much less by Saddam.

http://www.thenation.com/article/hard-look-iraq-sanctions/

Look at Iraq now. Also Libya before 2011 and afterwards. The "rebels" in Libya, supported by the West, were again at least sometimes, again "accidentally," al-Qaeda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-swi...

Re "our rebels" in Syria: Al Nusrah wasn't on the list of the terrorist organizations before 2014. ISIS wasn't too, now it's "but we considered them under al-Qaeda."

http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm

Of course it's a mess there, but it's clear that Assad was considered as the main target. Just like Saddam before. Or Gaddafi. Civilians and all the other effects be damned.

I don't see there anything "objectively" righteous.

Selling oil at cheap price

a tiny excuse for such a forceful response

Not exactly. Russian/Syrian jets have been flying sorties in the region for weeks/months. Violating a nation's airspace is a serious offense, even if they just "crossed a tiny finger".

The aircraft has also been previously warned about intrusions.

No, it is not a 'serious' offence demanding payback. It happens all the time between nations. WW3 would have started a long time ago if civilized nations started shooting down each others aircraft that inadvertently or deliberately crossed borders for short periods.

Besides Turkish aircraft violate Greek air space all the time - so it extra-ordinarily hypocritical of them to state that they are guarding their sovereignty. Turkey had deliberately planned this operation with the F16's in the air and even a media team ready to capture the 'action'.

The only reason Turkey does this is because they are a member of NATO. If they weren't, Erdogan wouldn't have the guts to go anywhere near the Russians. Though the Obama administration officially supports Turkey, I don't think the NATO brass is happy about this.

Chinese aircraft violate Indian air space on a regular basis. Our fighter aircraft just gently escort them back, record the violation and sends the same to their designated military contact. It doesn't even make the official news.

No civilized air force shoots down another air force's jets for minor border violations. Ask any air force officer.

http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-buzzes-weakened-greece...

What I remember from the past news Turkey gave few notices to Russia about their planes violating the Turkish airspace. So Russia had it coming for a long time.

Do you have any sources for this? You don't sound so much like the "skeptical" type as the "pre-drawn anti-west conclusions" type.

It's important to clear up what "making a show of it" means. If you want to look like you're doing something big and important to the layperson, you distribute dozens of videos of air-launched cruise missiles and massive volleys of dumb bombs from high altitude, like the Russians have.

If you want to actually degrade ISIS's capabilities, you make literally thousands of precision airstrikes over the course of months.

The Isil-Turkish border has been open and porous for a very long time, at the behest of Turkey.

They have insisted that the Isil-Turkey border remain under control of Isil or Turkey, and that any interference with that arrangement be regarded as a "crossing a red line."

Turkey has been a very important ally for Isil, despite the Turkish authorities clamping down on homegrown anti-government terror cells.

Degrading and ultimately destroying Isil should begin with closing all of its borders with neighbouring nations, an action which the West has been hesitant to do -- a hesitation borne of Turkish intransigence.

This is why the West's response to Isil has been slow and wrought with contradictions and failures.

Simplistic. How precisely do you suggest that Turkey "close" its border? To my knowledge, there is not a magic 30-foot motorized wall, hundreds of miles long, that can simply be winched up into place. Turkey's military certainly isn't large enough to patrol it sufficiently.

1) turkey hates kurds, meaning strong motivation to silently support enemy of them (not calling them outright allies). let them bleed so they are weak and don't dream about kurdistan covering turkish soil.

2) US-led precision strikes achieved next to nothing, ISIL was strong as before. At one point US boasted that they spend 9 millions of USD daily for these strikes. That means an attempt to bring down organization of a size of state with few plane flights a day and couple of bombs? Not working. Of course I am not a fan of cluster bombing vietnam-style either.

3) it seems to me, and in this I might be wrong that US has higher priority in bringing down Asad rather than ISIL. So similar approach as 1)

4) the simple fact that ISIL is daily trading oil using big oil convoys means either US is completely incompetent to see this & take action (not believing for a second, ac-130/a-10 would squash them in no time), or that russians are much much better than US at surveillance from above (not a chance)

and one could go on and on...

Or you rely on your ability to manipulate the news media to control how the public perception presents your efforts as much larger than they are. Something the USA has used before from the Ghost Army in WW2 to the decades of efforts by the agencies of the intelligence community, both offensive and defensive during the Cold War.

I'm not a conspiracy type or even saying this is what's going on right now in Syria, but based on the past I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be what is actually happening.

And If you really want to actually degrade ISIS's capabilities, you start by bombing their money pipeline - the hundreds of oil trucks making their way to turkey in return for millions of dollars. You know the kind of action, the USAF and its so-called allies didn't do for over a year, until the Russians got into the game and made them look stupid.

Erdogan's son is hand-in-glove with ISIS and any oil bombing affects his business.

Regarding Turkey: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-...

Lets be more precise. It was shot down over Turkey territory (according to information provided by Turkey military).

Of course one could argue that the plane was just taking a shortcut over the small part of Turkey territory. The problem with this is that Turkey has warned Russians on many occasions to not do that. But in my opinion it does not look like there was any threat to Turkey.

In principle the Russians have become very cocky near all NATO borders, and Turks are the least PC NATO member, so one can say that Russians had it coming and it looks like they finally found their equally crazy nemesis. Anyway, the situation is alarming and it is not yet clear how the following actions would unroll.

The first reaction from Putin does not make it look like Russia would admit their fault, but I think that he is rather reserved.

My condolences go to the parents and relatives of the killed pilot.

Edit: Changed two paragraphs, added one more paragraph.

Edit2: It looks like Russians flew over Turkey territory towards their target zone (see the map provided in this thread) and then began to fly in circles over Turkey territory. They were shot at the second entry.

I do not know why Russians choose this route as it does not seem to be the most optimal one.

The length over Turkey territory is about 1500-1600 meters, SU-24 flies up to 360 m/s so it was about minimum 5 seconds flight, but as it was a second entry, I guess it does not matter that much.

Anyway, I think that both sides acted in a very unwise manner.

> Lets be correct. It was shot down over Turkey territory.

How could you possible know enough to admonish people over this? We barely know the facts.

Perhaps the plane never entered Turkish territory. Perhaps only for a few seconds. Maybe it was fired upon when it was already over Syria. Or maybe the rocket hit over Syria.

I agree with you and I changed my comment to address these concerns.

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's amazing how much and how quickly we're getting information about this. I look forward to the Russian proof now, I wonder how it will compare. The Americans no doubt also had something watching the battlefield...

Sovereign territorial borders are no joke, there's no "we're just cutting a corner" when it comes to that line on the map. Particularly with the most recent Turkish national election turning out the way it did [1][0], a more conservative and nationally focused Turkish government would seem more likely to choose to enforce those borders if it thought they were violated.

Much more troubling if it was, indeed, shot down outside of Turkey by mistake.

And in any case, BBC is reporting that "a Turkmen brigade in Syria says [...] shot dead two pilots of the downed Russian jet as they descended with parachutes."[2]

It's concerning that both sides have taken their respective actions. It's only going to exacerbate tenuous relationships with partner nation-states around the Syrian conflict. If Russia reacts aggressively, NATO-ally countries are treaty-bound to respond in support and defense of Turkey.

I really hope both nations see how that increased stress is to no one's benefit and that Russia takes the mature and humble road of deescalation...

0: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21677461-president-erdo...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_general_election,_Nove...

2: http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-middle-east-34908469

To further develop this with respect to my initial comment, there is nothing unusual in Russian pilots behavior (i.e. in connecting corners). They have done it constantly near their direct neighbours and also in Syria.

I do not know why they are doing this i.e. do they do this from ignorance or does it come from their display of disrespect and superiority but I have seen many people to forecast that when they continue to do this with Turkey, it will end up with a shotdown.

It does not follow that I agree with Turkeys actions. I think that it was very irresponsible, but I am not overly surprised either. I just wish that it had not happened.

No, Turkey's own radar readings that it showed to the press (that is being paraded around Twitter right now) shows it was shot in Syrian territory. It flew over a piece of Turkish territory a few km wide, and was well within Syrian airspace when the missile hit.

The fact that it was back in Syrian airspace (if this is true) when the missile hit is, of course, immaterial. If the plane was over Turkish airspace when the missile was fired, Turkey was justified in protecting its airspace.

Is it? Do you have a reference to relevant international laws?

I think that what matters first is when the missile was released and second that it was a recurring entry into Turkey airspace.

I think that both sides acted in a very unwise manner.

Edit: IANAL in international law of such concerns.

Yes, of course. But based on the maps Turkey is showing as 'proof', their case is pretty thin. The Russian plane flew over a strip of land that is barely even visible on a map of Turkey, never mind when flying at 6000m (the reported height) at high speed. The incursion likely lasted a dozen seconds or less. Turkey was obviously looking for the engagement.

This just reinforces what everyone already thinks, that Turkey is helping ISIS.

> This just reinforces what everyone already thinks, that Turkey is helping ISIS.

Turkey is helping some of the people Russia is fighting, but the people Russia is fighting aren't just Daesh, but every entity operating in Syria that isn't Assad's regime.

> It was shot down over Turkey territory.

I can find absolutely no evidence for that at this time. It is possible this is correct but the plane definitely came down inside Syria. A lot will ride on where it was shot down so best not to make any claims that strong without equally strong evidence.

Considering how narrow the Turkish strip of land is, I don't think where the pilot (and wreckage?) ended up means that's where the F-16s actually fired their missile.

Also, these planes travel fast enough that it could be fired upon while in Turkish airspace, but hit while in Syrian airspace. Or it could be hit while in Turkish airspace, but crash in Syrian territory.

It supposedly came down 4 km inside Syrian territory, which is a tiny distance for a supersonic plane, which the Su-24 is.

> It supposedly came down 4 km inside Syrian territory, which is a tiny distance for a supersonic plane, which the Su-24 is.

There is quite a bit of conflicting information about this, some sources say 4, others say 40, some use miles, some kilometers.

Precisely.

> In principle the Russians have become very cocky near all NATO borders

You mean cocky while West placing all those military bases near Russian borders ?

West placing all those military bases near Russian borders ?

You mean Russian neighbours trying their best to prepare against growing Russian threat (by what I mean direct official threats, massive military training operations near borders, increased forces near borders)?

The West, when we talk about Western Europe, has constantly reduced their military by dismantling their tank armies, reducing their air force and not keeping their navy up to date with the mantra that Russia is not the enemy any more while Russia has done the opposite. I think you are just not being honest here.

Edit: I do not claim that Russians are the only ones who have become too cocky, but definitely not Russian neighbours.

PS. I wish that there is no need in the world to discuss these matters here or anywhere else.

> growing Russian threat

I see the western propaganda is still hard at work here. This allegedly growing threat just keeps growing every year and escalated to what ? While the wars mentioned in the article of this post was made by the west.

The Western EU armies have been reduced only by turning them into a joke - they're active nowadays as NATO forces for abowe mentioned oil wars, while outer EU states can't keep the EU border intact and are flooded by people of unknown origin - until they arrive at their destination.

This allegedly growing threat just keeps growing every year and escalated to what

I personally would hope that it would not escalate to anything but I think that your trying to ridicule it without any base.

When there is growing threat from one side, then the opposing side (in the reasonable world) would try to counter the threat. In such way this game can continue indefinitely.

I see the western propaganda is still hard at work here.

I would like to hear your list of media sources (local and not local) that you consider to be non biased and in attempt to be honest. I am not sarcastic with this i.e. it is an actual request.

Please, tell Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe about how the Russian thread is an invention of the western media. I'm sure the Russian military support in the Donbass is also just an invention by CNN, right?

> The West, when we talk about Western Europe, has constantly reduced their military by dismantling their tank armies, reducing their air force and not keeping their navy up to date with the mantra that Russia is not the enemy any more while Russia has done the opposite. I think you are just not being honest here.

They have both been doing the exact same provocative things.

According to the radar image released by Turkey, the aircraft passed over a strip of Turkey airspace around 2km wide.

Apparently they gave the russian 10 warnings. That doesn't add up.

> the aircraft passed over a strip of Turkey airspace around 2km wide.

As in, it flew over 2km of Turkish airspace?

At 2000 km/h ground speed, that would take 3.6 seconds. Perhaps 5 times as much if it was going as slow as possible.

Turkey started warning the Russian plane before it had crossed the border:

"In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15 kilometers or less away from the border"

Which is absurd, Turkey have zero rights to declare a no fly zone and shoot down planes in Syria.

This isn't the first time either, they shot down plenty SyAF fighters and helicopters over Syria, it's just that nobody in the West cares.

Actually, Turkey has every right to defend its airspace, under international law.

... and they did it in a very stupid way. I am damn sure that during 10 years of occupation of Iraq, US air force came numerous times within 15km distance from Iranian border, yet they didn't attack a single time.

There had been several incidents on Syria border, Turkey warned both Syria (and downed their helicopters and airplanes before) and Russia that it is very serious about this.

Russians got cocky.

No one ever has "rights" to declare no fly zones, but countries sure love to declare them.

Besides, it's never about "rights", it's about having and willing to use the force necessary to enforce no fly zones.

How so - if the radar image is correct, the plane flew over the strip in Turkey twice, giving them quite a bit of time before and after the first pass to give warnings ?

It does add up, if you read the article more closely. The warnings were issued when the plane was approaching Turkish airspace. The article clearly states this.

Hopefully the pilot made it though as a parachute was observed - http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151124102631-rus... (from this article: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/world/gallery/turkey-syria...)

He was shot dead in his parachute and the rescue team was fired on.

The Russians did it only to provoke and to test the response times of the Turks, just like NATO does every day to other countries. This is not something you shoot down a jet for. Turkey just took a shot at getting back at the Russians for what they are doing in Syria.

Nothing of importance will come out of this. Russia helped down a commercial jet last year and what happened then? Noting.

One difference is that it was clearly distinguishable military action.

The second difference is that the pilots were killed by ground forces on Syrian territory - this is equal to the killing of POWs. The rescue copter was also shot at.

Turkey has shown lots of military and secret service activity trying to establish its regional power status. For a minor airspace violation during border clashes from a supersonic aircraft the ."In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times." http://m.sputniknews.com/europe/20151009/1028274796/greece-t... Abdulah

Gul Turkish Prime Minister in 2012:It is routine for jet fighters to sometimes fly in and out over [national] borders... when you consider their speed over the sea," he added. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18562210

Also Turkey has armed islamist groups in that border area and then denied it http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0O61L220150521

And threatened anybody assisting the Syrian Kurds, the only ground force that is fighting ISIS except Assad. Turkish military policy goes way beyond its borders.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-says-turkey-may-hit...

There was map on https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/3tyj1r/the_unusual... of "The unusual route taken by two Russian Tu-160 bombers on their way to Syria," where Russian jets circle all the way around Europe to get to Syria.

I wonder if this was one of those flights.

https://i.imgur.com/iARdJtM.jpg

The plane came down in Syria, no info about where it was before then or where the plane was shot as far as I know. Not looking very good for Turkey with info available at this moment, if the plane had come down inside the Turkish borders they'd have a much stronger story.

The conflict is becoming extremely complex, all parties hate IS, but some more than others and some offer clandestine support and quite a few parties hate each other as well. Turkmenes, Assad, Russia, Turkey, the Kurds, IS are fighting there each with their own relationship with all the other parties and that's just one small fragment of the zone, and Turkey is part of NATO to make things even more complex.

I am not afraid of escalation between Nato and Russia, but the future of Syria will need a full cooperation of all parties involved, and today we took a step in the wrong direction.

EU needs the help of Turkey to host refugee camp on its territory, and at the same time, could be helped by Russian air force.

However,Turkey and Russia have totally opposite goals regarding Assad. So this is likely going to get worse, before getting better.

The news now is that the Turkmenes shot the pilots coming down on their parachutes.

There is already a big sense of alarm on social media (particularly along new EU/NATO countries) that this can lead up to new confrontation between Russia and NATO. I would like to think that Russia is not going to start attacking Turkey or any other NATO country just because one plane was brought down near Syria. Thoughts?

Russia's initial reaction was to place the blame on insurgents and not Turkey. Even after Turkey claimed responsibility, Russia essentially said: "Are you sure? We really think it was the rebels. Hint. Hint." [1]

So that's pretty telling. Russia showed a willingness to sweep this under the table but Turkey wouldn't let them.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-je...

"President Putin is reportedly readying a statement. On Russian state television, there was little discussion of the Turkish claim they had shot the plane down, with anchors and analysts speculating that the Su-24 could have been shot down by rebels with anti-aircraft weapons. This chimes with the Russian Defence Ministry’s claim that the plane was shot down from the ground, but completely contradicts the Turkish statement that an F-16 from its airforce shot the plane down."

I thought that was rather interesting as well. It was only till Putin got on the air that they acknowledged it was a Turkish F-16.

There's differing opinions here on what the best course is to take on IS, though the one thing Russia and the west seem to agree on is that the Syrian state needs to be reestablished. Bombs from the air won't defeat IS; only a functional state will.

Russia is betting that Assad is Syria's best chance, and so they're bombing rebels. The west is betting the rebels are better in place to rule Syria, and so they're bombing IS to keep them off the rebels, but more importantly, giving the rebels a bit of air cover (no-fly zone or not, the Syrian Air Force is not about to test the presence of western aircraft over Syrian territory. The west simply needs to "be there".)

Russia is not keen on seeing their man in Syria (and by extension, their only base west of the Bosperous) vanish, though they seem to be conceding a bit in that they've acknowledged he could go in a managed transition. I dunno what impact this event will have on any of this.

Putin came out and strongly condemned the strikes and implied it would have serious consequences for already-strained Turkish-Russian relations.

In reality I don't think it will change much, but Putin needs to keep up face with his population.

I wonder why Putin is trying to give Turkey an exit out of responsibility. Is he still trying to pull them out of the NATO fold? Or is Germany still stringing Turkey along for the possibility of an EU/EC membership?

Because Putin doesn't want to see tensions rise and have the situation go out of his control. There's nothing for him to gain by blaming Turkey or be pushed into a direct confrontation with NATO. I mean, he seems to enjoy pushing NATO & the EU's buttons. But he tends to do so when he feels like he has control over the situation.

Blaming the rebels would bolster his plans in Syria and probably make it an easier sell. Might have been best for Turkey to also allow the rebels to be blamed. The Kremlin would still get Turkey's message loud and clear, but there wouldn't be any public conflict with unpredictable consequences.

Because deescalation is the wise choice. Anyway the Turkey of today is not the country that was accepted in NATO. Which complicates stuff immensely.

Turkey is a rogue state now, with very fast islamisation going on that is protected by the NATO treaties. Bad combination.

> I wonder why Putin is trying to give Turkey an exit out of responsibility.

Because doing so would allow Putin to look strong against those who did the shooting down by redoubling efforts in Syria against the rebels, while that doesn't work if Turkey is seen to be the one that did the shoot down. Putin doesn't want to give Turkey an out so much as Putin wants to give Putin an out.

Russia has other, non-military means of "attacking" Turkey. For example, but cutting off the gas pipelines in the winter ("technical difficulties").

Sort of like how the Saudis created a glut of oil to drive the price down and crash the Russian economy, no?

That's one possible explanation... Although it seems unlikely that they could actually do that, their share of oil exports is high, but not that high. Even if they could, they have better reasons than hurting Russia - such as simply driving down the price of oil to hurt green technology and fracking investments. There's of course also the abundance of oil coming from the US, and the slowdown in China...

There are also in the process of crashing their own economy, which even to reach strategic goal does not seem wise.

Falling oil prices and a a costly campaign in Yemen seems to be a bad combination.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/2167440...

Social media can do a horrible job of being alarmist when it comes to news of this sort.

But I thought we all got realistic when we all died of ebola after dying in the oil-filled Gulf of Mexico after that avian swine flu that was doing the rounds after the entire economic system fell of the rails a decade after comedy died on 9/11.

Yes, I'd prefer cat photos and self referential reports on such by CNN, WAPO, NYT et al……

According to the article NATO is holding an emergency meeting in brussels so I wouldn't say this is a story hyped up by social media. It's a sign that things are getting very messy and have major potential for escalation.

You're probably right. But folks remember Franz Ferdinand. Caution is merited

I get your point, but it's frankly a bit silly. We're nowhere near the political tension and arms-race that enabled WWI. This is decontextualization ad absurdum.

A lot of people disagree and believe the middle east is very much like pre WWI Balkans with great powers sleepwalking with a sense of long peace. Don't very me wrong... this is a different time. But caution is merited because everything can burn up in the snap of a finger. Thats rhe lesson learned exactly 100 yrs ago. Cant take peace for granted

>But caution is merited because everything can burn up in the snap of a finger. Thats rhe lesson learned exactly 100 yrs ago. Cant take peace for granted

Yes, but that's very different from implying that there's been an arms race that could set off a war between major superpowers. You're confusing the destabilization of a large region with a world war.

To be clear: the former is very worrying, it's just very different from the latter.

The Serbian national aspirations were not initially global in scope

What does the hit Scottish rock band have to do with this? ;)

I would like to think that Russia is not going to start attacking Turkey or any other NATO country just because one plane was brought down near Syria.

You're likely right. My guess is that they'll find ways to put more pressure on Turkey aside from threatening direct confrontation.

This is a bad incident, but I do not believe that a major war is about to break out; this isn't the cold war anymore, and the major powers are actively avoiding war with each other because neither can bear the consequences of such a war. If you read the article, you will see that even Putin is treating this as a one-off event that occurred as a result of poor coordination between the parties ostensibly united in attacking ISIS.

The Russian anger is focused largely at Turkey, who is the ally nobody wants to have in the fight against ISIS... it's no secret that the Turkish MIT (intelligence agency) has been caught transferring weapons directly to radical Sunni groups near the border while killing Kurds whenever possible. I think the overarching idea of this incident is that everyone knew that an accident would happen eventually, and so a mature response is to take steps to increase coordination rather than saber rattle about a downed aircraft. A complication is that the Russian pilot who survived the crash was captured by rebels; I assume Russia will deal with this swiftly.

Russia probably isn't going to do anything other than tighten their adherence to the borders. They can't afford to start up with Turkey and NATO at large, but Putin is sure going to make it sound like he would.

The next time a Russian plane observes a Turkish fighter plane approaching, it will be more motivated to react, it can be faster on the trigger, and then it's one NATO plane down, and then the NATO can escalate etc.

On another side, the area where "IS free to operate" is still huge:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/83ED/production/_...

On the third side: Turkey doesn't like that Russia bombs also the Turkmens in Syria in the areas controlled by the rebels.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-caught-b...

"Ömer Abdullah, commander of the Turkmen Sultan Abdülhamit Brigade called on Turkey’s government to intervene to halt the month-long offensive, the Cihan news agency reported.

“We are trying to survive under unbearable brutality and we need Turkey’s help,” Abdullah said. “Every day our Turkmen brothers are dying. We expect the government to support us … Why are we left alone?”

Abdullah said his forces were under attack from the Syrian army, Hezbollah and Iranian forces. “I don’t understand why our Muslim brothers remain silent. We need all kinds of support. It’s impossible to survive under such heavy bombardment,” he said.

Turkey’s National Intelligence Organisation (MIT) was accused of involvement in clandestine arms shipments to Turkmen forces earlier this year.

Cumhuriyet newspaper published a report on arms smuggling on 29 May that included images of weapons allegedly carried by trucks operated by MIT. Mehmet Şandır, a former Nationalist Movement party MP, told Today’s Zaman newspaper that Turkmens were facing ethnic cleansing in northern Syria."

"motivated to react"-like turning away from the Turkish border at full afterburner? Alarmism and freaking out doesn't do anyone any good.

See the map of the bombings (the post above). There is a huge bombing activity near the Turkish border. "Turning away from the border" would mean stop such operations. It's obvious that Turkey intentionally overreacts. See also honestcoyote's comment here.

With all due respect, nothing except our own opinions are "obvious" at this time.

See other comments here, the plane was obviously only some seconds over Turkey and therefore already flying out of territory. It's an ambush-kind of attack. But Turkey can surely still claim it protected its territory.

> See other comments here, the plane was obviously only some seconds over Turkey and therefore already flying out of territory.

This was not an isolated incident, many incursions have occurred since Russia started its operations in Syria, and Turkey has warned, repeatedly, that if aerial incursions continued, it would result in planes being shot down. It seems to me Russia has been deliberately sending a message by the continued incursions, and that Turkey has responded to that message in exactly the way it said it would (and the only way possible other than accept that it will become a vassal of Russia.)

"the only way possible other than accept that it will become a vassal of Russia."

So a few seconds of a flight by a plane from a country supposedly on the same side against the ISIS, over the few km of the territory, is equal to becoming a vassal of a said country. So the only way possible is shooting the plane. Thanks for explaining your view.

> So a few seconds of a flight by a plane from a country supposedly on the same side against the ISIS, over the few km of the territory, is equal to becoming a vassal of a said country.

No, the "few seconds" and the relationship to Daesh are irrelevant.

The continued incursions into sovereign territory by a country which has engaged in such incursions without permission and been publicly threatened with force if it does not cease means that.

(Anyway, Russia is attacking opponents of the Assad regime, not just Daesh, including non-Daesh forces which are supported by Turkey. That the set of entities Turkey opposes in Syria and the set Russia opposes overlap because both include Daesh does not mean that they are on the same side.)

I very much doubt it's in the Russian rules of engagement to fire on NATO aircraft over third-party territory.

But it is in NATO rules of engagement to fire on Russian aircraft over third-party territory? Obviously there is some kind of willfulness for the escalation and the tolerance levels are never infinite.

That NATO fired on a Russian aircraft over third-party territory is not a fact. Turkey has offered evidence that the Russian aircraft was over a thin sliver of Turkish territory.

The map here:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/06EE/production/_...

And according to the Google Maps, it was cca 3 km crossed during the whole flight, which means the plane was effectively just some seconds over what's considered Turkey and obviously flying out of the territory.

I agree with your parent statement that there is a Turkish willfulness to escalate. Flying over sovereign territory for 2 seconds, with a clear exist trajectory, isn't usually considered attack worthy. But it is not unlikely that this was Turkey taking what it considered a legitimate attack as revenge for Russian attacks on ethnic Turks in Syria.

When you think of recent Turkey, you must think of this weeks: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cBRSfdAvsDQ

to help put the context.

CNN Türk English has a flight analysis diagram they claim was provided to them by military sources, claiming the Russian jet encroached on Turkish airspace:

https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669096544650600448

[The same diagram on Twitter Verified @CNN_Türk: https://twitter.com/cnnturk/status/669105783729180672 ]

The distance between borders at that point is 2 - 3km across (measured via Google Maps), which would be a few seconds of travel time. Russia claims the jet never even entered Turkish airspace. Following the red line, it seems to have crashed in Syrian airspace, not Turkish territory.

I was about to link to this next tweet as an example of the 3km border-to-border measurement, until I noticed... this is the only tweet this account has posted. Which rather undermines its own credibility & makes me wonder how much of a social media propaganda fight is also occurring right now:

https://twitter.com/Pere08331980/status/669106359355461633

And only three years ago:

Turkey’s president said Saturday that his country would do “whatever is necessary” in response to the downing of a Turkish military jet by Syria, adding a new complication to the tense relationship between the former allies split by Turkey’s support for Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the government.

“It is not possible to cover over a thing like this,” said President Abdullah Gul of Turkey, according to the Anatolia news agency. “Whatever is necessary will no doubt be done.”

Syria said Friday that its military forces had shot down a Turkish jet that had entered its airspace just off the Syrian coast. But Mr. Gul said Saturday that while the exact route of the plane had not yet been confirmed, _it was routine for military jets flying at high speeds to briefly cross into another country’s airspace_, and that the jet’s presence over Syrian territory was not intended as a hostile act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/world/middleeast/turkey-pr...

Might seem like a stupid question, but I don't know how serious this is: I have a flight on Thursday via Turkishairlines and landing in Istanbul for a few hours. Is this an act that can trigger war between the two countries? What could possibly go wrong (more than an airjet down) here?

Open war between Russia and Turkey would be defacto war with the United States and the rest of NATO due to Article 5 of the NATO charter.

That doesn't really answer your question but hopefully gives some context.

It really depends if the rest of NATO will go to war over Turkey. I fibd that...perhaps not so likely

> It really depends if the rest of NATO will go to war over Turkey. I fibd that...perhaps not so likely

Failure to do so -- particular against Russia -- would have fairly catastrophic consequences for NATO's credibility, and therefore for relations between the core of NATO and its Eastern European members and partners.

I would be inclined to agree.....but the treaty is pretty ironclad as long as Turkey is a full member. Which they have been since 1952.

Treaties are hardly sacrosanct, and its not as if the current Turkish government is universally liked within NATO.

> its not as if the current Turkish government is universally liked within NATO.

Credibility as a bulwark against Russia with Eastern European NATO members and partners, OTOH, is probably universally liked within NATO, and sacrificing one without sacrificing the other would be quite tricky.

I'm pretty sure you can phone your embassy for advice like that.

2 people were killed for trespassing. Sickening, IMHO.

Stepping over an invisible line has much bigger consequences if you are piloting a powerful military aircraft and acting as agents of the foreign and non-friendly state.

They were piloting an SU-24 ground attack aircraft. It is not unlikely that it had just finished and was about to continue attacks on areas with ethnic Turks. And certainly the aircraft had participated in attacks on moderate Syrians (whatever that means) which are allied with Turkey.

On the other hand, I'm sure Turkey would argue that they used the minimum force necessary to remove a repetitive trespasser from their sovereign territory.

The turkey finally gets his revenge just before Thanksgiving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com