News Why Did Turkey Shoot Down a Russian Jet Near the Syria Border?

[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.

 

[rootone]

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...

Here is an official list of incidents on file, and this is just recently, just for the past month.
Directly from the Greek military, not some RT or whatever site.
http://www.geetha.mil.gr/en/violati...ments-of-air-traffic-regulations-icao-en.html

 

[Ilja]

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

It's not that I'm unable to find NATO propaganda sources (once you prefer them) for Turkish violations of Greek airspace.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc...rspace-over-2000-times-last-year-infographic/

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.

Simple revenge. You have shot my oil trucks (ok, officially IS oil trucks, but they sell it very cheap, so 50% of the profit is mine) and my soldiers (ok, officially "moderate opposition", but I pay them, give them weapons, many of them are Turks) with your jets, so I will shoot your jets.

After this, nobody will question our claim that it has violated Turkish airspace, our shot will be fully supported by NATO, and after a nice precedent you will never fly again near the border, because we will shot your plains whenever they appear there, and you will not shoot back because US is behind us.

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.

You don't understand the logic of a rebuttal? Assume that your claims are true. Then we derive a contradiction, in this case even several: 1.) Jet flying at stall speed, 2.) Jet was warned at a time when it was not even flying in direction of the border. It follows, the claims are not true. The aim of such a rebuttal is not that much to find out which part of the claim is wrong, it is sufficient to show that some part of it is wrong. What follows is that Turkey is lying.

The rebuttal becomes, of course, even stronger, if one can show that the claims contain even two lies. The plane flying at stall speed being one, the problem is if the claim about the warnings during 5 min is wrong independently. To show such an independence, one has to make sure that the falsification does not depend on the first wrong claim. It appears that map is sufficient, to have it 5 min before already in the direction toward the border would require an even lower speed. So, correcting the false stall speed with a reasonable assumption about the speed does not save the Turkish claim. Thus, Turkey is caught with two lies.

 

[OmCheeto]

Who was it that said; "The first casualty of war, is the truth." ?^[1]

Physicists Show Both Russia And Turkey Were Lying About The Downed Russian Plane [IFLScience]
Dec 1, 2015

Source of IFLS's story [kuleuvenblogt.be]
According to our calculations, it is clear that both the story of Turkey and Russia should be taken with a grain of salt. Estimates limit the violation of Turkish airspace to a maximum of 10s. Russia's claim that the jets prevented Turkey does not correspond to the laws of mechanics.
...
[translation by, um, a button on my browser]

[1] From my searches, this appears to be an ancient truth, passed down from antiquity, and attributed to many.

 

[mheslep]

While the findings reported by KU LEUVEN blog may or may not be correct, and I think not, the phrase is "The first casualty of war, is the truth", period. The phrase is not appended with "...except from physicists as reported on the internet."

We all have our self interests. Some of those interests may be, for those not directly involved, as I observe: i) the pull of the idea that there is no right or wrong party and so a passive stance is never challenged; ii) the desire to feel important, authoritative.

 

[nikkkom]

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.

Turkey just got a visa-free travel agreement with EU approved.

 

[nikkkom]

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.

What is advantageous about that for Russia? The deeper it goes into Syria, the more likely it to have its Afghanistan#2. Afghanistan#1 ended with dissolution of USSR.

 

[nikkkom]

Simple revenge. You have shot my oil trucks (ok, officially IS oil trucks, but they sell it very cheap, so 50% of the profit is mine) and my soldiers (ok, officially "moderate opposition", but I pay them, give them weapons, many of them are Turks) with your jets, so I will shoot your jets.

Our Russian friend is incredibly butthurt when somebody does to Russia what Russia did to Ukraine one year ago. LOL.

 

[Nehmo]

• • 
    
    Erdogan, president of Turkey, opposes the Kurds and also opposes Syrian president Assad. He doesn’t like Greece or Russia or Iran, basically all the surrounding countries. He is friendly with the US, NATO, Iraq’s current government, some militant groups in Syria and Iraq, like the Turkmen and the moderate Muslim rebels who oppose Assad
    
  • An intercepted phone call, denied by Erdogan, reveals Erdogan instructing his 33-year-old son, Bilal, to dispose of large amounts money from their private home on the day police were raiding politicians’ homes conducting a corruption investigation.
  • Erdogan’s administration of Turkey makes thousands of flight incursions into Greece, but Greece doesn’t attack any of the planes.
  • After Syria downed a Turkish plane in 2012,, Erdogan said, "A short term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack". And, referring to the same incident, Erdogan also said, "Even if the plane [the Turkish one] was in their [Syrian] airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack."
  • Russia is not at war with Turkey. However, Erdogan buys oil from ISIS, and Russia is bombing ISIS.
  • A day after Erdogan shot the Russian plane, he assassinated human rights lawyer Tahir Elci. Immediately after the assassination, the Erdogan government outlandishly claimed the lawyer’s own people killed him. Tahir Elci was a prominent critic of the Erdogan government.
  • According to a Turkish Radar picture shown on BBC, the plane went over a part of Turkey protruding into Syria, which is about 3km wide where the jet went over. Assuming the Turkish version is correct, it means the Su24, at a slow speed, was over Turkish space for 17 seconds.
  • The Russians provided the US the flight path of the plane before it took off. Presumably, the US in tern gave this to other members of the collision, including Turkey. This is why Putin describes the event as a “stab in the back”. The Turkish F16s had to have been already in the air. The Turks claim they gave 10 warnings to the russian jet, but they weren’t heeded. The US has not provided its recordings of the air traffic. Turkey provided a sound clip of one side. Russia says this is fake.
  • Russian radar shows the plane was always in Syria.
  • Erdogan claims Syrian ground in the area has Turkmen rebels and civilians. However, the video of the Su24’s crash shows a Turkish citizen, a mayor’s son (the guy with the long nose), commanding a group of undisciplined fighters who shoot at the parachutes.
    

 

[nsaspook]

What is advantageous about that for Russia? The deeper it goes into Syria, the more likely it to have its Afghanistan#2. Afghanistan#1 ended with dissolution of USSR.

The Russians keep their Syrian bases with an improved military posture to maintain a defacto no-fly zone in their area of operations.

Another Afghanistan? Possible but unlikely for several reasons. #1 The lack of massive (mainly) US support of proxy fighters in a direct confrontation with Soviet ground forces like we did starting in early 1979 Afghanistan that lead to a demoralizing decade long ground war causing the destruction of nearly the entire Afghanistan infrastructure. This left the USSR holding on to rubble and trading rocks for dead soldiers while the Soviet state imploded economically. #2 The Syria leaderships close cooperation with Russia for generations provides a stable base of operations for Pro-Assad Syrian fighters to operate and regain control of lost territory. #3 The Assad dictatorship is not a puppet government quickly thrown together with little internal support. We don't like the current leadership in Syria for very good reasons but it is internationally considered as the legal government of the Syria people that now looks moderate when compared to the alternatives.

 

[mheslep]

Erdogan’s administration of Turkey makes thousands of flight incursions into Greece, but Greece doesn’t attack any of the planes.

These incursions into Greek airspace is quite a different matter from was Russia was doing the last couple months, flying over land, the Turkish mainland. This Turkish-Greek airspace dispute involves the Turks flying into the 10 nmi airspace Greece claims around all of its territory, when the Turks say they'll only respect 6 nmi. Given the Greek islands in the Aegean the total territory considerable, making an air approach to Turkey from the Aegean difficult. 10 nmi airspace from wiki:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Aegean_10_nm.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Aegean_10_nm.svg

If the Turks had been flying over the Greek mainland instead of, say, 8 nmi off the island of Lesbos the Greeks might have had quite a different response.

Russian radar shows the plane was always in Syria.

We don't know that. We know that Putin et al says Russian radar shows ...

 

[Nehmo]

I'm just learning about the subject, but it seems at least a few of the Turkish flights have been over mainland Greece,. But in the situation of the Turkish shoot down of the Russian plane (the issue is not one jet or one pilot or a possible 17 second intrusion), the question is more of Which side is Turkey on? Turkey publicly claims to be against ISIS. It's part of the coalition. But if it is, then why would it attack a plane fighting ISIS?
The natural suspicion is that Turkey really isn't against ISIS.

Edit by mentor, removed inappropriate source

 

[nikkkom]

the question is more of Which side is Turkey on? Turkey publicly claims to be against ISIS. It's part of the coalition. But if it is, then why would it attack a plane fighting ISIS?

This plane wasn't attacking ISIS. ISIS isn't present in the area.

 

[rootone]

This plane wasn't attacking ISIS. ISIS isn't present in the area.

The Russians have stated plainly enough that their interest is to support the Assad regime against ALL rebel groups, and not IS in particular.
I guess they would be therefore be targeting any location where there is a rebel group assessed to be posing some kind of immanent threat.
Well I do have to say that this is at least a clear policy, unlike some other involved countries who seem a bit unsure about which rebels are good rebels and which are bad rebels.

 

[nikkkom]

The Russians have stated plainly enough that their interest is to support the Assad regime against ALL rebel groups, and not IS in particular.

I was responding to Hehmo's question "why would Turkey attack a plane fighting ISIS?". The question is invalid: turkey did not attack a plane which was fighting ISIS.

 

[rootone]

This plane wasn't attacking ISIS. ISIS isn't present in the area.

Sure I don't disagree, the plane which downed was not involved in attacking ISIS.
It mission would have been an attack on some other outfit which was considered problematic for some reason.
As I said the Russians have made it plain that their presence is in support of Assad, who requested their support.
They don't particularly care whether ISIS positions are today's target, or some other grouping.