Meanwhile, in Syria

[ArmorPierce]

A nation has the inherent right to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of its borders. If a nation is unable to maintain sovereignty of its borders, it has de facto ceded it.

An unresponsive heavily armed air craft, or even an unarmed air craft, is a major threat. Why would there be different treatment from a group of heavily armed men entering the borders where the other side is a war torn nation? Is it far fetched to believe that Turkey does not want war planes flying over its borders?

There is a huge fucking difference between having a right and using it in a responsible manner. Adults know that. Turkey does not. If Germany had shot down every plane that intruded on their airspace during the cold war there would have been a lot more casualties. If East Germany had done the same, it would have had the same result.

I am not somebody who is particularly sympathetic to Putin or Russia. But this is complete irresponsible bullshit on the part of Turkey.

EDIT: And it is just the latest link in that huge shit Turkey has taken on its allies and neighbours.

Turkey has not fired on every aircraft that intruded on its air space. This has been an repeated event that turkey had warned against. They issued 10 warnings to the incoming aircraft which did not respond to communications. The us military spokesperson had confirmed this. Why should turkey be burdened with the risk of an heavily armed unidentified aircraft entering its borders from a war torn nation? Turkey does not cede the right to its territory because it benefits other nations for them to do so.

This event should be reviewed objectively and in isolation regardless of what they may or may not have done in the past. To do otherwise is is to risk a witch hunt where anything they do is used to shame them regardless of merit or consistency of actions from other parties. Throwing stones from glass houses come to mind.

the question to ask Is the policy consistent in what we expect per conventions and rules of war concerning air space violation. Reviewing past incidents, the answer is yes.

[Thanas]

Turkey has not fired on every aircraft that intruded on its air space. This has been an repeated event that turkey had warned against. They issued 10 warnings to the incoming aircraft which did not respond to communications.

Yeah, ten warnings in..in a very small timeframe.

This event should be reviewed objectively and in isolation regardless of what they may or may not have done in the past.

Turkey has not fired on every aircraft that intruded on its air space.

Uh-huh. Bullshit again. There is a large pattern of Turkey being either criminal, stupid or both at the same time. This is absolutely relevant.

the question to ask Is the policy consistent in what we expect per conventions and rules of war concerning air space violation. Reviewing past incidents, the answer is yes.

No, it is not. In fact, the default reaction to somebody entering your airspace is NOT to shoot them down. It is to escort them out or force them to land. The Swiss did so because they had been bombed and were bombed during the war. Not the case here either.

[ArmorPierce]

The default reaction is to escort them down if they are responding to communications. The Russian aircraft did not respond for whatever reason and continued on its trajectory.

I just posted a link where Russian aircraft did violate their air space, they did not for, but they used a warning that they would in the future.

Well turkey had every right to maintain its sovereignty. Obama has supported their right to do so too with this event. Personal belief that they should allow other nations to violate their air space does not make it a valid belief.

Why should turkey wait until it is bombed to respond to violations to its air space? Perhaps that's why they don't allow foreign aircraft in their airspace. They don't want to be bombed.

[Zwinmar]

I can see Russia pulling the same brinksmanship that has happened in the past. I use that word deliberately because that is the way it seems to be going.

[Patroklos]

Turkey has not fired on every aircraft that intruded on its air space. This has been an repeated event that turkey had warned against. They issued 10 warnings to the incoming aircraft which did not respond to communications. The us military spokesperson had confirmed this. Why should turkey be burdened with the risk of an heavily armed unidentified aircraft entering its borders from a war torn nation? Turkey does not cede the right to its territory because it benefits other nations for them to do so.

Because they didn't think it was the Independence Day saucer ship. They knew exactly what the plane was and what it was doing there, which means they knew it was not going to attack them and posed a threat in no way deserving of deadly force. ESPECIALLY since they know the consequences of their dick waving is creating actual hostile tensions with Russia as well as all the follow on effects of giving Russia a free hand for escalation in Syria on Assad's side.

This event should be reviewed objectively and in isolation regardless of what they may or may not have done in the past. To do otherwise is is to risk a witch hunt where anything they do is used to shame them regardless of merit or consistency of actions from other parties. Throwing stones from glass houses come to mind.

That is abject stupidity. If that were the norm the world would have ended in nuclear holocaust long ago. In this case, however, viewing it in isolation still doesn't make a kill order the most reasonable decision.

the question to ask Is the policy consistent in what we expect per conventions and rules of war concerning air space violation. Reviewing past incidents, the answer is yes.

What percentage of airspace violations are met with deadly force? Very very few so it it far from the norm. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

Why should turkey wait until it is bombed to respond to violations to its air space? Perhaps that's why they don't allow foreign aircraft in their airspace. They don't want to be bombed.

1.) There is zero, I repeat ZERO, evidence that this was the case. There is zero, I repeat ZERO, motive for either Russia to want to bomb Turkey or for Turkey to expect Russia to bomb Turkey. Only a fucking idiot would thing otherwise and indeed Turkey does and did not think this. They knew full well that plane posed no threat to them, they shot it down for other reasons.

2.) Has Turkey had a recent spat with its neighbors leading to modern aircraft bombing them? No? So why exactly should a nation state attack be anywhere near the top of their list of possible reasons this is happening? If Turkey's motive is to not be bombed by Russia shooting down that plane in no way furthered that end.

[madd0ct0r]

I can see how turkey benefits from maintaining the status quo and disrupting the unprecedented cooperation is a high risk way to for them to continue that.

What would need to change for them to benefit from Syria at peace more than they do from the status quo?

[ArmorPierce]

Being adjacent to a hostile border should make turkey more vigilant and wary of unidentified aircraft violating it's airspace, not the other way around as is being suggested by some. It's ridiculous to suggest that they should be aware of this and as such treat it with assumption that it is a harmless mistake.

Is the violation most likely nothing more than a mistake, yes. That said, what's stopping that mistake in resulting in the pilot mistakenly firing on the wrong target.

Firing on the wrong target had happened in the past. Do we recall the doctors without borders hospital that was attacked in Afghanistan. Why should turkey risk allowing something like that occurring from foreign agents?

[Patroklos]

Being adjacent to a hostile border should make turkey more vigilant and wary of unidentified aircraft violating it's airspace, not the other way around as is being suggested by some. It's ridiculous to suggest that they should be aware of this and as such treat it with assumption that it is a harmless mistake.

Why? Has any faction belligerent to them been know to opperate 600+ knot attack jets?

Generally vigilant yes. And of the Russians to boot because they know they are bombing targets near their border and that will lead to things like inadvertent border crossings. Being mindful of such actions so you can log evidence and protest is not the same thing as being vigilant of a fantasy invasion by Russia. Vigilant, however, /= shoot things down.

And lets not pretend Turkey has no means to punish Russia short of killing their pilots. Take a quick look at a map of the Black Sea.

For consistency I would be very angry with my (US) government if they shot down one of those Russian bears probing our airspace for any reason given current circumstances.

Is the violation most likely nothing more than a mistake, yes. That said, what's stopping that mistake in resulting in the pilot mistakenly firing on the wrong target.

AWACS controllers and their ground based brethren can tell if aircraft is in an attack profile or not. Its why the US doesn't shoot down every Iranian P-3 that flies over its aircraft carriers. Its why China doesn't shoot down our P-3s when we buzz them. Yes, that's not a territorial issue there but both WOULD shoot the other down if they thought they posed a threat. The point being, knowing what an aircraft is up to via radar tracks is a thing and its done often.

But I like that you just admitted it was "most likely a mistake." Given the stakes involved here reacting to the least likely circumstance is stupidity.

Firing on the wrong target had happened in the past. Do we recall the doctors without borders hospital that was attacked in Afghanistan. Why should turkey risk allowing something like that occurring from foreign agents?

Because we are talking about nation state warfare, stirring up the current #1 world crisis spot even more, and all for zero tangible benefit to Turkey.

[Grumman]

Turkey has not fired on every aircraft that intruded on its air space. This has been an repeated event that turkey had warned against. They issued 10 warnings to the incoming aircraft which did not respond to communications. The us military spokesperson had confirmed this. Why should turkey be burdened with the risk of an heavily armed unidentified aircraft entering its borders from a war torn nation? Turkey does not cede the right to its territory because it benefits other nations for them to do so.

Because they didn't think it was the Independence Day saucer ship. They knew exactly what the plane was and what it was doing there, which means they knew it was not going to attack them and posed a threat in no way deserving of deadly force.

They knew it was there to kill people. If Turkey doesn't want those people killed, don't you think they have the right to refuse access to their airspace for that purpose?

[Patroklos]

It was never in Turkey to kill people, but I take your point regarding why it was in Syria. In answer, do you think this will cause Russia to kill more or less of the people Turkey doesn't want being attacked? Russia doesn't even have to pretend to give a shit about what Turkey wants diplomatically or otherwise now. They have a free hand to snub them and escalate at will.

Certain factions already saw Russia as the realistic actor while the West twiddled its thumbs while navel gazing about the whole thing. Now the West is actively shooting down jets of an ISIS enemy? I am not saying that is an entirely accurate picture, but for the audiences that matter to Russia its gold.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/putin-respo ... -1.2673348

MOSCOW -- Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered state-of-the art air defence missile systems to be deployed at a Russian air base in Syria following the downing of one of its warplanes by Turkey, a move that raised the threat of a military confrontation between the NATO member and Moscow.
The S-400 missile systems will be sent to the Hemeimeem air base in Syria's coastal province of Latakia, about 50 kilometres south of the border with Turkey. The systems have a range up to 400 kilometres and are capable of targeting Turkish jets with deadly precision. If Russia shot down a Turkish plane, Turkey could proclaim itself under attack and call for military assistance from its NATO allies.
Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber on Tuesday, saying it crossed into its airspace from Syria despite repeated warnings. One of its two pilots was killed by militants after bailing out, while his crewmate was rescued by Syrian army commandos and delivered in good condition to the Russian base early Wednesday.
RELATED STORIES
French Parliament debates extending airstrikes in Syria against Islamic State
Turkey shoots down Russian jet; Putin warns of 'significant consequences'
UN chief calls for de-escalation of tensions after Russian plane shot down
PHOTOS
Russian plane shot down by Turkey
This frame grab from video shows smoke from a Russian warplane after crashing on a hill as seen from Hatay province, Turkey on Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2015. (Haberturk TV)
Putin said the Russian plane remained in Syria's skies when it was shot down. He described Turkey's action as a "crime" and a "stab in the back," warning of serious consequences.
He said a warning from the Russian Foreign Ministry for Russians not to visit Turkey was needed "because we can't exclude some other incidents following what happened yesterday and our citizens in Turkey could be in significant danger."
Speaking in televised comments from the base, the surviving navigator of the downed plane, Capt. Konstantin Murakhtin denied that their jet has veered into Turkey's airspace "even for a single second." He also rejected the Turkey's claim that it has issued repeated warnings to the Russian crew before shooting down the plane.
"There have been no warnings whatsoever," said Murakhtin, adding that he wants to keep flying missions from the base "to pay them back for my commander."
On Wednesday, the Russian leader ordered the military to deploy the S-400s to Hemeimeem and take other measures that "should be sufficient to ensure flight safety."
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said Wednesday that the Russian missile cruiser Moskva already has moved closer to shore to protect the Russian aircraft flying missions near Syria's border with Turkey with its long-range Fort air defence system.
"It will be ready to destroy any aerial target posing a potential danger to our aircraft," Shoigu said at a meeting with military officials.
He also said that from now on all Russian bombers will be escorted by fighters on their combat missions in Syria. He said that his ministry has severed all contacts with the Turkish military.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who cancelled his planned trip to Turkey after the incident, described the shooting down of the Russian plane as a "planned provocation."
He said the Turkish action came after Russian planes successfully targeted oil infrastructure used by the Islamic State group, alleging that Turkey benefited from the oil trade.
Lavrov also said that Turkish territory was used by "terrorists" to prepare attacks in other countries, but offered no details. He said that Russia "has no intention to go to war with Turkey," but added that Moscow will re-consider its ties with Ankara.
Some leading Russian tourist agencies already have suspended the sales of tour packages to Turkey. Nearly 4.5 million Russians visited Turkey last year, second only to German tourists.
Some Russian lawmakers suggested that Moscow should crack down on Turkish companies in Russia, but Lavrov said that "we don't want to artificially create problems for Turkish producers and exporters, who aren't responsible for what has happened." Still, he added that "we can't but react to what has happened."
Russia was the biggest source of Turkish imports last year, worth $25 billion, which mostly accounted for Russian gas supplies.
Most Turkish exports to Russia are textiles and food. Although Turkish food exports have not been covered by the Russian food embargo, they fell by 40 per cent in January-September this year compared to a year ago.
The Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a written statement that Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and Lavrov agreed to a meeting "in the coming days," during a telephone conversation Wednesday, but Lavrov said he has no such plans.
Turkey informed the United Nations that two Russian planes disregarded warnings and violated Turkish airspace "to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds."
Lavrov shrugged off the Turkish argument that it had no choice but to shoot down the plane, pointing at the 2012 downing of a Turkish warplane by Syria in its airspace. He said Ankara argued in that case that a brief incursion wasn't reason to shoot down its jet. He also pointed at routine violations of Greece's airspace by Turkish combat planes.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Wednesday that his country doesn't wish to escalate tensions with Russia.
Speaking at an Organization of Islamic Cooperation economy meeting in Istanbul, Erdogan said that Turkey favours "peace, dialogue and diplomacy." He defended his country's move to shoot down the plane saying: "No one should expect Turkey to stay silent to border violations or the violation of its rights."
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also sought to ease tensions, calling Russia Turkey's "friend and neighbour" and insisting relations cannot be "sacrificed to accidents of communication."
In a sign of the tensions, protesters in Moscow hurled eggs and stones at the Turkish Embassy, breaking windows in the compound. Police cleared the area and made some arrests shortly after the protest began.
Davutoglu told his party's lawmakers on Wednesday that Turkey didn't know the nationality of the plane that was brought down on Tuesday until Moscow announced it was Russian.
He said Russia was warned on several occasions that Turkey would take action in case its border is violated, in line with its military rules of engagement.
Davutoglu also said Russia is an "important partner and tops the list of countries with which we have shown great sensitivity in building ties."
The Turkish prime minister, however, criticized Russian and Syrian operations in Syria's Turkmen region, saying there is "not one single" presence of the Islamic State group there. Davutoglu demanded that operations there stop immediately.
Associated Press writers Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow, Suzan Fraser in Ankara and Zeina Karam in Beirut contributed to this report.

So, escalation it is, I guess.

[Purple]

So, escalation it is, I guess.

You are starting to sound like cosmicalstorm...

[Crazedwraith]

What would you call uncompromising rhetoric and moving additional forces into the region as then?

[Purple]

What would you call uncompromising rhetoric and moving additional forces into the region as then?

Putin putting up a show to appease his voter base and avoid losing face for doing nothing.
WW3 did not start when the Soviet Union tried to park atomic bombs off the coast of Florida. It sure as hell won't start over an aircraft shot down by the turks.

[The Romulan Republic]

So, escalation it is, I guess.

You are starting to sound like cosmicalstorm...

Considering that he is, as I recall, a blatantly anti-Muslim, anti-refugee bigot... no.

Cheap shot, and a dishonest one, lacking in any real substance.

[Purple]

Considering that he is, as I recall, a blatantly anti-Muslim, anti-refugee bigot... no.

Cheap shot, and a dishonest one, lacking in any real substance.

I did not mean to offend. I was merely trying to point out that lately you've made a number of posts that make it sound as if you are seriously scared of WW3 or something. And I find the whole proposition extraordinarily funny. It reminded me of CS and his chicken little OMG the world's going to end stuff. So I tried to link the two into a snide remark.

[The Romulan Republic]

Considering that he is, as I recall, a blatantly anti-Muslim, anti-refugee bigot... no.

Cheap shot, and a dishonest one, lacking in any real substance.

I did not mean to offend. I was merely trying to point out that lately you've made a number of posts that make it sound as if you are seriously scared of WW3 or something. Sort of like CS and his chicken little OMG the world's going to end stuff. And I find the whole proposition extraordinarily funny.

Am I scared? Yeah. I'll admit that.

I don't know what's going to happen, but I know that even a 1 in 100 chance of modern civilization crashing in ruins is something to get a little twitchy about.

Put it this way: how many close calls have we had? Are you comfortable with assuming that we will always get lucky again?

Maybe we dodged the bullet this time. Do we dodge it the time after that? And the time after that? And the time after that?

[Crazedwraith]

What would you call uncompromising rhetoric and moving additional forces into the region as then?

Putin putting up a show to appease his voter base and avoid losing face for doing nothing.
WW3 did not start when the Soviet Union tried to park atomic bombs off the coast of Florida. It sure as hell won't start over an aircraft shot down by the turks.

And yet, moving extra forces into an area can still be accurately described as escalation. Even if it is also a show for the masses.

Although WWIII is an extremely unlikely result, games of brinkmanship can easily go wrong.

[Purple]

Am I scared? Yeah. I'll admit that.

Don't be. Nobody is stupid enough to start WW3 over this. And even if they do being scared is not going to do anything but help make the time you do have left worse. That's my way of thinking about it anyway.

I don't know what's going to happen, but I know that even a 1 in 100 chance of modern civilization crashing in ruins is something to get a little twitchy about.

I really don't think it's that high. Like I would not even call it 1 in a million. Even if the worst happens and the turks and Russians start shooting at one another we are looking at Korea and not WW3 unless the Russians actually invade turkish ground. And that's not likely to happen in this day and age if for no other reason than because the great and small powers have learned the art of sponsoring terrorists to do that job for them.

Put it this way: how many close calls have we had? Are you comfortable with assuming that we will always get lucky again?

Maybe we dodged the bullet this time. Do we dodge it the time after that? And the time after that? And the time after that?

If history has taught us anything its that no matter how close the call nobody wants to end the world. And as long as that holds true there will always be a peaceful resolution. WW3 did not start when Soviet pilots shot at Americans in Korea. It did not start when they tried to park atomic missiles off the coast of Florida. It sure as hell won't start over this.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't be. Nobody is stupid enough to start WW3 over this. And even if they do being scared is not going to do anything but help make the time you do have left worse. That's my way of thinking about it anyway.

That I disagree with. Not just the assumption that it won't happen, but that their's no point being scared about it.

If people are scared of something, they'll hopefully take steps to address that fear. Weather its considering what to do to maximize their chances of survival in the event of a nuclear war or voting for politicians less likely to start one (if you think this sort of thing hasn't factored into my support for Bernie Sanders, you're mistaken).

In any case, fear isn't entirely a choice. Its not something one can simply flick on and off. Its an instinctive response to a perceived threat.

I really don't think it's that high. Like I would not even call it 1 in a million. Even if the worst happens and the turks and Russians start shooting at one another we are looking at Korea and not WW3 unless the Russians actually invade turkish ground. And that's not likely to happen in this day and age if for no other reason than because the great and small powers have learned the art of sponsoring terrorists to do that job for them.

Huh. Not sure I would have pegged you as an optimist.

Though point taken about the use of proxies.

If history has taught us anything its that no matter how close the call nobody wants to end the world. And as long as that holds true there will always be a peaceful resolution. WW3 did not start when Soviet pilots shot at Americans in Korea. It did not start when they tried to park atomic missiles off the coast of Florida. It sure as hell won't start over this.

I'm not only concerned about someone sitting down and deliberately deciding to start World War III.

I'm concerned about people making mistakes in a chaotic situation, or even gradually escalating things until it gets to the point where neither side feels they can back off and they have nowhere left to go but war.

If things always played out the way people wanted, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

[Broomstick]

If history has taught us anything its that no matter how close the call nobody wants to end the world.

I disagree.

Now, the US and Russia don't want to end the world, just as the US and USSR did not - and that is why, despite provocations, accidents, miscommunication and a lot of other horseshit the Cold War never became WWIII. It is correct that the vast majority of people and nations do not want to trigger a world war.

However, there ARE people who want the world as we know it to end. ISIS, for example, has an apocalyptic view and WANTS to bring on the final battle between Muslim and not-Muslim. Fortunately, none of the death-seeker groups have become even a regional power, much less a major or superpower, but don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone is going to be as survival and self-interest oriented as happened in the 20th Century.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. We are really, really lucky none of those nut jobs has managed to get their hands on a nuke yet.

Then their's Kim Jong Un. I wonder how much of their insanity the North Korean government believes and how much is just posturing.

[Thanas]

Being adjacent to a hostile border should make turkey more vigilant and wary of unidentified aircraft violating it's airspace, not the other way around as is being suggested by some. It's ridiculous to suggest that they should be aware of this and as such treat it with assumption that it is a harmless mistake.

So wait, when Turkish jets are regularly violating Greek airspace or disputed territories, you would actually be in favor of the Greeks shooting them down? Because after all, Turkey has fought an actual war against Greece in recent memory. Thus, Turkey actually poses more of a threat to Greece than Russia does to Turkey.

Is the violation most likely nothing more than a mistake, yes. That said, what's stopping that mistake in resulting in the pilot mistakenly firing on the wrong target.

You know, those F-16s the Turks used to shoot them down? Guess what they can also be used for.

Firing on the wrong target had happened in the past. Do we recall the doctors without borders hospital that was attacked in Afghanistan. Why should turkey risk allowing something like that occurring from foreign agents?

Because I presume the turks are not idiots and can tell when a jet is in an attack profile. Are you saying Turkey is unable to do that?

[Patroklos]

WW3 did not start when the Soviet Union tried to park atomic bombs off the coast of Florida. It sure as hell won't start over an aircraft shot down by the turks.

The list of possible results are not WWIII or nothing.

[ArmorPierce]

So wait, when Turkish jets are regularly violating Greek airspace or disputed territories, you would actually be in favor of the Greeks shooting them down? Because after all, Turkey has fought an actual war against Greece in recent memory. Thus, Turkey actually poses more of a threat to Greece than Russia does to Turkey

given similar situation, yes I'm in favor of that. Why would I not be? I am not a Turkish nationalist. I am pro objectivity, anti hypocrisy, and anti demonizing other people to strengthen and justify actions.

When did turkey fight a war against Greece in recent memory? In the 1920s when Greece invaded under support of western countries? That's just about as recent as ww1. By the way the main reason that turkey did not end up a tin pot dictator puppet state like its Arab neighbors is because they did not simply do as they were told by Western nations. nationalists took control and did what was best for themselves.

Is the violation most likely nothing more than a mistake, yes. That said, what's stopping that mistake in resulting in the pilot mistakenly firing on the wrong target.

You know, those F-16s the Turks used to shoot them down? Guess what they can also be used for

I have no clue where you're going with this. They can be used fora number of things.

Firing on the wrong target had happened in the past. Do we recall the doctors without borders hospital that was attacked in Afghanistan. Why should turkey risk allowing something like that occurring from foreign agents?

Because I presume the turks are not idiots and can tell when a jet is in an attack profile. Are you saying Turkey is unable to do that?

[/quote]

They don't want foreign heavily armed air craft to cross their borders, they have every right not maintain their sovereignty and integrity of their border. They don't need to be in a position to distinguish between attack pattern or not. They have issued warnings for prior transgressions and issued warnings prior to engaging.