Turkey Shoots Down Russian Jet

[Dotini]

Nonsense. Where do you get the idea that there is general consensus? That it is abnormal to respond to an armed military aircraft flying uninvited into the airspace of foreign country?

It is in no way in conformity with all known and normal rules of engagement to shoot down a foreign military aircraft that is not threatening and actually flying past and away from your territory, according to a retired NORAD general recently interviewed by FOX news. It would be normal to escort them away. I imagine the rest of NATO is furious with Turkey. Turkey is endangering the peace, should be sanctioned, and their membership in NATO suspended, IMO. They cannot be allowed to provoke conflict on a whim in a fit of pique.

 

[nikkkom]

It is in no way in conformity with all known and normal rules of engagement to shoot down a foreign military aircraft that is not threatening and actually flying past and away from your territory, according to a NORAD general recently interviewed by FOX news. It would be normal to escort them away.

What if these planes violate your airspace *repeatedly*?
What if they outright refuse to talk to your air controllers, as if you are talking to a wall?
What if they do this while bombing people who are ethnically the same as you and whose cause you consider to be just?

 

[nikkkom]

Turkey is endangering the peace, should be sanctioned, and their membership in NATO suspended, IMO. They cannot be allowed to provoke conflict on a whim in a fit of pique.

In your worldview, that right is reserved to Putin, apparently?

 

[Dotini]

What if these planes violate your airspace *repeatedly*?

The general stated that if they did it a thousand times, it would still not justify a shootdown according to the rules of engagement.
Same answer on your question #2.

In the case of #3, do you think such a Turkish provocation and international war dragging NATO into an article 5 conflict with Russia would be justified? No reasonable person should accept this excuse for such an act of madness, IMO.

 

[Dotini]

In your worldview, that right is reserved to Putin, apparently?

Apparently it is reserved to the United States, IMO, but no one else.

 

[nikkkom]

The general stated that if they did it a thousand times, it would still not justify a shootdown according to the rules of engagement.

I imagine Turkey can choose to have its own rules of engagement, they don't have to match US rules.

In the case of #3, do you think such a Turkish provocation and international war dragging NATO into an article 5 conflict with Russia would be justified?

Yes, I think it is. Shooting down of one small plane is not important enough to start a war. Why aren't you mad at *Putin*?

No reasonable person should accept this excuse for such an act of madness, IMO.

The act of madness was shooting down of MH-17.
Letting Russians trample your rights and sovereignty is an act of cowardice.

 

[Dotini]

I imagine Turkey can choose to have its own rules of engagement, they don't have to match US rules.

Balderdash. As a member of NATO, Turkey cannot choose its own rules of engagement.

Your changing the subject ends my responsibility and interest in dealing with you. Please take it up with the moderators.

 

[nikkkom]

Balderdash. As a member of NATO, Turkey cannot choose its own rules of engagement.

The guy named John Kerry happens to disagree with you.

This is an article from October 6, 2015 - before the shoot-down:
http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-warns-retaliate-air-space-violated-103607889.html?nf=1"""
NATO called on Russia to stop air strikes in Syria and warned its violation of Turkish airspace during a raid risked inflaming tensions days after Moscow's military intervention began.

Turkey also warned Moscow over further incursions after its F-16 jets intercepted a Russian fighter that flew through its airspace near the Syrian border at the weekend.

Two Turkish jets were also harassed by an unidentified MIG-29 on the Syrian border according to Turkey's army, which has the second-largest number of troops in NATO after the US.

"Our rules of engagement are clear whoever violates our airspace," Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. "The Turkish Armed Forces are clearly instructed. Even if it is a flying bird, it will be intercepted," he added, while playing down the idea of "a Turkey-Russia crisis".

...

NATO also warned against violating Turkey's airspace, saying in a statement after the meeting that the allies "note the extreme danger of such irresponsible behaviour."

US Secretary of State John Kerry said the incident had risked provoking a serious escalation.

"We're greatly concerned about it because it is precisely the kind of thing that had Turkey responded under its rights could have resulted in a shoot-down," he said.
"""

The key part is "had Turkey responded under its rights". Kerry says that Turkey has a right to shoot down intruders.

 

[rootone]

What if these planes violate your airspace *repeatedly*?
What if they outright refuse to talk to your air controllers, as if you are talking to a wall?
What if they do this while bombing people who are ethnically the same as you and whose cause you consider to be just?

Then, so what from I gather, Greece would have been well within it's rights to have downed several Turkish military aircraft venturing inside Greek airspace over the last few years.
(Not that the Greeks could be arsed to even bother, the cost of fueling an interceptor just for escort purposes would be beyond their means)

 

[mheslep]

It is in no way in conformity with all known and normal rules of engagement to shoot down a foreign military aircraft that is not threatening and actually flying past and away from your territory, according to a retired NORAD general recently interviewed by FOX news. It would be normal to escort them away. I imagine the rest of NATO is furious with Turkey. Turkey is endangering the peace, should be sanctioned, and their membership in NATO suspended, IMO. They cannot be allowed to provoke conflict on a whim in a fit of pique.

Many extraordinary claims there.

Having a member nation suspended from NATO is an extraordinary step, likely to threaten the cohesion of the whole. Please provide sources showing that Turkey is not entitled to its own to own rules of engagement. Please demonstrate how it is Turkey that is threatening the peace as opposed to Russia bombing Turkmen in Syria. Please demonstrate why you think that, say, the NATO Baltic states would be furious about a member state attacking a Russia bomber refusing to stay out of its airspace.

 

[mheslep]

Apparently it is reserved to the United States, IMO, but no one else.

Do you really mean to say that endangering world peace is reserved only to the US, with no explanation?

 

[russ_watters]

I really don't see the problem here and it annoys me that the media is portraying this as if Turkey did something wrong and this act endangers NATO. Do they not remember their history? At no time is it ever not an act of war to fly an armed plane over another country's airspace, drive a tank over their land or sail a warship into their waters unless invited. History is replete with examples of countries not at war who tested these limits and got shot at -- including us when one of our U-2 spy planes was shot down over the USSR. It didn't start a war then because we knew that it was illegal for us to be violating their airspace and we knew it was perfectly legal for them to shoot it down.

This situation to me seems exactly as it appears at face value: Russia has been violating Turkey's airspace for months, which is an act of war. Russia has likely been doing it as an overt show of disrespect for NATO. Turkey, as is their right, shot one down. Putin was looking for a line: he found one.

The idea that this could be problematic for NATO - as is being reported in the press - infuriates me. It can only be problematic if we choose not to support our ally when support is required of us. NATO is a meaningless/pointless alliance if we're going to be weak in our reaction to one of our allies being threatened. Heck, maybe that's the line Putin was looking for all along: and he knows Obama's poor history with lines.

 

[rootone]

There is a difference between shooting down an intruder which clearly has a hostile intention, and shooting an intruder who is within the airspace for only a matter of seconds and clearly is not acting with hostile intent towards the owner of the airspace.
Having said that, there no doubt that the intrusion occurred, so strictly within the letter of the law Turkey did not act illegally.
There is however a usual protocol agreed for dealing with incursions which may be provocative, but not an actual threat.
Diplomatic agreements do have their virtues over a shoot first and ask questions later approach.
This protocol is to firstly communicate with the transgressor and warn them, failing any response to that then a radar lock is placed which the intruder will be well aware of, followed by an interceptor tasked with chasing the intruder away.
Only when the intruder fails to exit the airspace promptly after these measures does shooting it down become an option if the usual protocol is being followed.

 

[fargoth]

I wonder how no one here has mentioned how similar this situation is to this one:

In 2012, Ankara accused Syria of shooting down a Turkish F-4 Phantom. That plane crash-landed in the Mediterranean after veering into Syrian airspace. In response, an outraged Erdogan lambasted the Syrian military for acting in haste.

"A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack," he told Parliament at the time.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a difference between shooting down an intruder which clearly has a hostile intention, and shooting an intruder who is within the airspace for only a matter of seconds and clearly is not acting with hostile intent towards the owner of the airspace...
Having said that, there no doubt that the intrusion occurred, so strictly within the letter of the law Turkey did not act illegally.
There is however a usual protocol agreed for dealing with incursions which may be provocative, but not an actual threat.
Diplomatic agreements do have their virtues over a shoot first and ask questions later approach.
This protocol is to firstly communicate with the transgressor and warn them, failing any response to that then a radar lock is placed which the intruder will be well aware of, followed by an interceptor tasked with chasing the intruder away.
Only when the intruder fails to exit the airspace promptly after these measures does shooting it down become an option if the usual protocol is being followed.

From Turkey's point of view, the incursion has been ongoing for two months and they did exhaust diplomatic channels trying to deal with it and they did try just chasing them away - only to have them keep coming back. This most certainly was not a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach.

 

[russ_watters]

I wonder how no one here has mentioned how similar this situation is to this one:

I hadn't heard about that, so I looked up a non-Russian source for more information about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

 

[fargoth]

I hadn't heard about that, so I looked up a non-Russian source for more information about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2012_interception_of_Turkish_aircraft

Oh, CNN has the quote too:

Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack."

"It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," he said

I like the irony.

 

[krater]

Seems like Syria will be Russia's Vietnam

I thought Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam? Maybe you consider that to fall under history of U.S.S.R.? Does anyone really consider the histories seperate?

There is general consent that the downed plane very briefly did transit a small strip of Turkish airspace

I would find it hard to believe the appearance of this story if at least this much was not true.

There is also general consent that the aircraft posed no threat to Turkey

I don't know what relevance this would actually have. Many nations define border incursion to be on its face an indescriminately threatening act.

according to a retired NORAD general recently interviewed by FOX news

Maybe you are the last person on Earth to not question the motives and agendas held by anyone speaking under the auspice of FOX "news". If so then really, seriously, you need to know that you are the last to hold this world view.

As a member of NATO, Turkey cannot choose its own rules of engagement

Without consulting treaty I would be very surprised should any clause exist which states anything to the effect that potentilally hostile border incursions against a member must be reviewed by some council to determine whether such incursions might be "hostile enough" to merit potential intervention by NATO signitaries.

Think about it. Who the hell would even bother signing such a treaty?

I'm inclined to think that if NATO stood back as Russia took out their frustrations on Ukraine without any major intervention that there will be no stirring of world war coming on the heels of what was probably a misunderstanding gone wrong in a historically unsettled region of the world.

 

[mheslep]

Maybe you are the last person on Earth to not question the motives and agendas...

Does this imply there exists some media organization, somewhere in the world, which should not have its motives and agendas questioned?

 

[Ilja]

Russians know that ISIS is at least a hundred miles to the north-east from that place.

But Russia has never declared it fights only IS. It has declared from the start it fights all terrorists. The guys who have killed the pilot, btw, appear to be Turkish fascists (Gray Wolves).

That Russia destroys the oil smuggling of the IS to Turkey (which the US has tolerated) is important because it looks like a major motivation of Erdogan for shooting down a Russian plane. Last but not least, it is known that Erdogan's son plays a major role in this oil business.

 

[nsaspook]

From Turkey's point of view, the incursion has been ongoing for two months and they did exhaust diplomatic channels trying to deal with it and they did try just chasing them away - only to have them keep coming back. This most certainly was not a "shoot first and ask questions later" approach.

I think Russia assumed the response would be the same as we both did during the cold war where we both could have shot down many aircraft that passed across borders on the remote non-sensitive edges of each country repeatedly but did not because it was a foolhardy thing to do in the big picture. Intentional overflights (for intelligence gathering) of national territories warranted an armed defensive response in sensitive areas like the kamchatka peninsula (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm#HEADING1-12) where we sent in flights knowing they would get shot at (several did with lost crews) during the early COBRA Program. Combat operations near a border state that does not want you there is a invitation to be suckered across the border by the forces on the ground.
Russia IMO due to their arrogance fell into a premeditated bear trap of Turkish design but as Turkey knows now, an upset wounded bear is 100X the problem of a hungry bear in your tent.

 

[rootone]

I think 'foolhardy' is the best description yet.
I have no idea why this happened but it helps nobody, especially Turkey.
They can forget about their ambitions to become an EU member for the next decade at least.

 

[russ_watters]

I think Russia assumed the response would be the same as we both did during the cold war where we both could have shot down many aircraft that passed across borders on the remote non-sensitive edges of each country repeatedly but did not because it was a foolhardy thing to do in the big picture.

So basically if the bear pokes you, repeatedly, you can't do anything about it? Clearly, Turkey disagrees.

Russia IMO due to their arrogance fell into a premeditated bear trap of Turkish design...

How can a clearly identified border and repeated warnings to stay away from it be construed as a "trap"? You sure you didn't accidentally say that backwards and instead mean that the bear was trying to trap the turkey?

 

[nsaspook]

So basically if the bear pokes you, repeatedly, you can't do anything about it? Clearly, Turkey disagrees.

How can a clearly identified border and repeated warnings to stay away from it be construed as a "trap"? You sure you didn't accidentally say that backwards and instead mean that the bear was trying to trap the turkey?

All I know is that Russia now has fighter escorts, anti-aircraft missile systems and ships off the coast that they didn't have before in response this stupid attack so yes, they've taken advantage of it. The Russia fly missions close to the Turkish border because that's where the people they want to bomb are. There is little about this that says they were trying to get shot at by Turkey but there is plenty that says Turkey over-reacted and their over-reaction might cost them dearly.

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/euro...rkey-changing-syria-game-151129172933416.html

 

[mheslep]

Another angle (speculation) on the Russia - Turkey hostilities is the possibility that via repeated incursions Russia was attempting to grab the Hatay Province from Turkey and (re)make it Syrian. Putin's Russia has a recent history of annexing territory by bits and pieces. Frequent incursions of Turkish airspace would be an important first step another annexation in the ME. Such a move, if successful, would have made Russia an important power broker in the ME.

Edit: googling shows a former US Ambassador to Turkey made a similar speculation after the first Russian overflight in Oct:

...So can one conclude that the overflight was deliberate? A means of warning Turkey that if it does not behave on the Syrian issue, where it is deeply at odds with Russia and Assad, it might pay a high price one day? Perhaps. What one can say with more certainty is that a rational military organization, knowing the history, would have given special warnings to its pilots and radar controllers to not violate Hatay airspace, in part to avoid generating articles like this one suspecting the worst. At minimum, it seems unlikely that such warnings were given. More broadly, as Putin scrambles the deck with force in the Middle East, as he has done in Eastern Europe since 2008, the international community can no longer exclude any motivation for his actions.

 

[mheslep]

The Russia fly missions close to the Turkish border

That's misleading. Russia has been flying *into* Turkey, repeatedly, since early October.

 

[rootone]

That may be true, I don;t know.
But it is true that Erdogan expressed outrage when a Syrian jet shot down a Turkish one that just briefly entered Syrian territory,
and that Turkish intrusions of recognised Greek airspace are more or less a routine daily occurence.

 

[Jarvis323]

I think Russia has some advantage in the resulting propaganda battle that follows. It's easier for Putin to earn international support when it's Turkey that is projected as one of the main countries opposing Russia.

And if Putin really has evidence proving ISIS oil is being sold in Turkey, that puts Turkey under enormous scrutiny. The issue will be thrust into view as the Russia-Turkey conflict becomes a popular story in the news media. This may be a situation where Turkey would much prefer to continue their Syria related efforts further under the media radar. This incident makes that very difficult, and subsequently reduces their effectiveness.

 

[Ilja]

You all behave as if there really was an airspace violation this time. The official claim from the Russian side is that there was none.

There has been some violations in the past, and have been admitted and explained. So, it seems, Turkey was thinking that now it can do what it likes, shoot a plane, and claim that it has violated the airspace, NATO media will believe it because Turkey is NATO.

But if one lies, one should at least lie in a consistent, believable way. Turkey did not. It claims that the Russian plane was some 17 seconds in Turkey, and has traveled a distance there such that the resulting velocity would be stall velocity for this plane. And, even more, what about the many warnings given during 5 min? What is the meaning of a warning if the plane is on Syrian territory? Giving a warning because he travels in direction to the border? Nonsense, because if one believes the Turkish map, then 5 min before it was not even flying into the direction of the Turkish border.

 

[russ_watters]

But it is true that Erdogan expressed outrage when a Syrian jet shot down a Turkish one that just briefly entered Syrian territory,
and that Turkish intrusions of recognised Greek airspace are more or less a routine daily occurence.

Not that it's relevant, but I'd like to see some details/citation of that second claim -- and not from a Russian source. At face value that sounds like it should be a pretty big deal, which makes it highly unlikely to be true as stated. I'm guessing there is an occupied or disputed territory involved...

 

[russ_watters]

You all behave as if there really was an airspace violation this time. The official claim from the Russian side is that there was none.

Right, and Russia would never lie, would they? The flight record provided by Russia, with its 90 degree turn as the plane was hit, seems highly unlikely and the fact that previous incursions are apparently not in dispute makes the Turkish narrative more plausible: If Russia is violating Turkish airspace regularly, why would Turkey shoot down a plane that didn't violate their airspace instead of one of the many that did?

What is the meaning of a warning if the plane is on Syrian territory? Giving a warning because he travels in direction to the border? Nonsense...

Yes, that's exactly what the standard practice is: when a plane is flying toward your border, you warn them not to cross.

 

[Ilja]

Right, and Russia would never lie, would they?

How is this relevant? Just to inform you, there is the German verb "türken", with the meaning to fudge. So, to rely on prejudices about honesty in a Russia vs. Turkey issue does not sound like a good idea.

And, BTW, once you want, for whatever reasons, that one should not use Russian sources, I would prefer if you would never use NATO sources.

If Russia is violating Turkish airspace regularly, why would Turkey shoot down a plane that didn't violate their airspace instead of one of the many that did?

Out of frustration - Russia was destroying not only the Turkish-supported "moderate" terrorists, but, more importantly, the oil smuggling business between IS and Turkey, a source of income for Erdogan's family (his son is named here).

Yes, that's exactly what the standard practice is: when a plane is flying toward your border, you warn them not to cross.

And this is not very plausible, if the own map, even if combined with the own claims about the velocities (and even more if with much higher realistic expectations) shows that 5 min before they were not even moving into the direction of the border.

 

[russ_watters]

How is this relevant?

Don't be selectively naive and hypocritical. Credibility is always important and you ignored my analysis of the competing claims, then made your own credibility claim.

And, BTW, once you want, for whatever reasons, that one should not use Russian sources, I would prefer if you would never use NATO sources.

Again: don't be selectively naive: you can't possibly be unaware that Russian media is state controlled and western media is not. More to the point, you are not permitted to decide for yourself what constitutes a quality source on this site and you are obligated to follow the rules.

Out of frustration...

That does not address what you were replying to or alter its logic -- unless there is something else you are trying to imply without saying: do you mean to imply the shoot down was accidental?

And this is not very plausible, if the own map, even if combined with the own claims about the velocities (and even more if with much higher realistic expectations) shows that 5 min before they were not even moving into the direction of the border.

You are arguing about the periphery of the key fact, without actually contradicting it. Even if all of what you are saying about Turkey's narrative were true (and clearly much is not), it wouldn't change the key fact that the Russian plane illegally overflew Turkish airspace. I'm not interested in arguing the timing/location of the warnings: it doesn't make the illegal incursion go away.

 

[Ilja]

Again: don't be selectively naive: you can't possibly be unaware that Russian media is state controlled and western media is not. More to the point, you are not permitted to decide for yourself what constitutes a quality source on this site and you are obligated to follow the rules.

Ok, this is the end of the discussion about the quality of the sources.

Just to finish this: Who owns some media is irrelevant, because the discussion was about official statements of the governments of above sides. Then, there are some state-owned media in Russia (as well as, say, in Germany or Britain) but not all.

do you mean to imply the shoot down was accidental?

Of course not. It was a stab in the back committed by accomplices of terrorists. Here I completely agree with Putin, as quoted by BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34913173 owned by the British state, once you do not believe any Russian sources, state-owned or private.

You are arguing about the periphery of the key fact, without actually contradicting it. Even if all of what you are saying about Turkey's narrative were true (and clearly much is not), it wouldn't change the key fact that the Russian plane illegally overflew Turkish airspace.

If all of this is true, it means the Turkish version is a lie. And if one of the two sides has been caught lying, it is the normal reaction is to believe the other side.

What kind of arguments could be used in a discussion with people who do not show this straightforward reaction is something I don't know.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, this is the end of the discussion about the quality of the sources.

Fair enough - I'm willing to let your Greece claims drop, but do not bring it up again without additional information and proper sources.

Of course not. [Not a mistake]

Then you still have not provided an alternative. So again: there is no reason why Turkey would shoot down a plane that did not violate their airspace when they have had options to shoot ones down that did.

If all of this is true, it means the Turkish version is a lie. And if one of the two sides has been caught lying, it is the normal reaction is to believe the other side.

Both versions contain a number of separate but related claims: some may be totally true, some totally false, some partly true. Neither side has presented a narrative that is likely to be either 100% true or 100% false. But anyway, when your own rebuttal states that there was an incursion there is no way to twist that into there being no incursion. Claiming that the time was 7s instead of 17, even if true, does not make 7=0.