6 ms·

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

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.

splouk 11y ago
> 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.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  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.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > 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.
    - emp_zealoth 11y ago
      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.
- jon-wood 11y ago
  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.
- NiftyFifty 11y ago
  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.
- camelNotation 11y ago
  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.
antocv 11y ago
> 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.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  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.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  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.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  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.
DonaldFisk 11y ago
The distance travelled over Turkish airspace, shown here: https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669098577524822016/photo/1 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-34908469
- Shank 11y ago
  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?
  - gort 11y ago
    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.
    - ivoras 11y ago
      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.
  - 0x07c0 11y ago
    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-crisis-helicopter-idUSKBN0TD1KQ20151124 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/us-mideast-syria-c...
netcan 11y ago
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.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- netcan 11y ago
  ^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.
  - ConceptJunkie 11y ago
    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.
mcv 11y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > 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.
  - speeder 11y ago
    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).

splouk 11y ago

> 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.

ckozlowski 11y ago
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.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > 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.
  - emp_zealoth 11y ago
    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.
jon-wood 11y ago
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.
NiftyFifty 11y ago
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.
camelNotation 11y ago
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.

antocv 11y ago

> 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.

ckozlowski 11y ago
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.
merpnderp 11y ago
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.
vinceguidry 11y ago
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.

DonaldFisk 11y ago

The distance travelled over Turkish airspace, shown here: https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669098577524822016/photo/1 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-34908469

Shank 11y ago
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?
- gort 11y ago
  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.
  - ivoras 11y ago
    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.
- 0x07c0 11y ago
  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-crisis-helicopter-idUSKBN0TD1KQ20151124 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/24/us-mideast-syria-c...

netcan 11y ago

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.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
netcan 11y ago
^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.
- ConceptJunkie 11y ago
  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.

mcv 11y ago

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.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> 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.
- speeder 11y ago
  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).