Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #5

KiloGolf wrote:If that Fencer was indeed brought down by TuAF then this shows a great lack of contingency or over-confidence from the Russian side. Any outdated soviet bomber is mince meat for an AIM-120B or -C. It seems these bombers were on their own there. No escort on AEW&C assets and whilst operating against an ethnic minority that is favored by Turkey.

Not wise at all.

Range is way too short for AIM120 to be used there. Its far more likely it was Sidewinder or Sparrow, since those are the most numerous missiles in TuAF.

Monarchist wrote:

Karl Haushofer wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

flamming_python wrote:If it was shot down in Turkish airspace then they had the right to.

It's not like it's the first time our planes violated their airspace, let's be honesst.

At the same time though, the fact that they actually went this far - does indeed merit a response. Cancelling all flights, pulling out tourists, bombing 'Turkmen' (Islamist) positions with a new intensity, and the start of arms shipments to the PKK and so on.
Let's see how they like that.

How about suspending the Blue Stream and cut off the gas ?

That would be a tough decision since Turkey has a paying customer.

Putins jewish oligarch buddies wouldn't want to loose any money. That's the biggest attack on Russia, kill it's people, shell it's territory, take away it's electricity, down it jets and kill it's pilots you will get away with it, but touch Deripaska, Vekselberg,Fridman, Abramovich money and your doomed.

Well, oligarchs are not the only ones who benefit from these gas sales. Russian military is another beneficiary.

flamming_python wrote:If it was shot down in Turkish airspace then they had the right to.

It's not like it's the first time our planes violated their airspace, let's be honesst.

At the same time though, the fact that they actually went this far - does indeed merit a response. Cancelling all flights, pulling out tourists, bombing 'Turkmen' (Islamist) positions with a new intensity, and the start of arms shipments to the PKK and so on.
Let's see how they like that.

oh.. come on>> 2,7 Km >>> 19 sec ... even if we trust the maps given by the Turks https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUkdnCuW4AAxX9L.png



So within this time slot the Turks managed to give warning , lock the target , made the decision to hit.. and fired..!!

KiloGolf wrote:If that Fencer was indeed brought down by TuAF then this shows a great lack of contingency or over-confidence from the Russian side. Any outdated soviet bomber is mince meat for an AIM-120B or -C. It seems these bombers were on their own there. No escort on AEW&C assets and whilst operating against an ethnic minority that is favored by Turkey.

Not wise at all.

While in all honesty you are right, in that no one should trust a someone like Erdross, the fact that the shot came from Turkish AS towards Syrian AS, mean that there was nothing you could do more. To me it was just an opportunity handed to some Osmanli retards. Why would you have an escort if you have deconfliction?

Why is Turkey firing inside Syria? This isn't against SyAF, it's against RuAF. The fact that Turkey fired that shot, also comes as a part of NATO. FFS, think about it. This is nothing more than a decision came from higher up, not from the local battery, this is a political statement.

Ethnic minorities should get more operations by now.

Before russia will react, they have to see how the US/NATO/EU will respond to this.

If putin can get worldwide condemnation of at least a consensus of disproval from the big players, with more effort and pressure being put on turkey to stop its support of terrorists, i think we will find a common sense solution for the west and russia.

If the west comes out and backs turkey, then i think its going to get very ugly and fast.

This is also going to be an indicator of how nato would react to one of its members being attacked, their willingness to stick up for a fellow member state. For that reason alone they are obliged to stick up for turkey, or else the credibility of nato will start to erode. At the same time though they cant just allow its members to start wars willy nilly with a military superpower.

Difficult times ahead for nato.

"Rebel spokesman says Russian Su-24 pilot landed dead" - How convinient. Who catapulted him? Holy Spirit?

Militarov wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:If that Fencer was indeed brought down by TuAF then this shows a great lack of contingency or over-confidence from the Russian side. Any outdated soviet bomber is mince meat for an AIM-120B or -C. It seems these bombers were on their own there. No escort on AEW&C assets and whilst operating against an ethnic minority that is favored by Turkey.

Not wise at all.

Range is way too short for AIM120 to be used there. Its far more likely it was Sidewinder or Sparrow, since those are the most numerous missiles in TuAF.

Sparrow most numerous in TuAF? That's incorrect, their few (~50) remaining F-4Es despite remaining AIM-7 capable have been assigned to A2G duties. Their numerous fighter is F-16 (~230) and that can only fire AIM-9 or AIM-120.

And how did you determine "the range being too short"? Too short for what?
They blasted the Fencer, safely, while flying within their airspace. The C5 has range > 100 km.

Firebird wrote:

flamming_python wrote:If it was shot down in Turkish airspace then they had the right to.

It's not like it's the first time our planes violated their airspace, let's be honesst.

At the same time though, the fact that they actually went this far - does indeed merit a response. Cancelling all flights, pulling out tourists, bombing 'Turkmen' (Islamist) positions with a new intensity, and the start of arms shipments to the PKK and so on.
Let's see how they like that.

Are you for real? Was Russia (then!) planning to bomb Istanbul?
Bombing Turkey?

NO
It was bombing ISIS. A terrorist regime with its strings pulled by Erdocunt and Obumboy.

A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

When the Korean Airlines flight violated Soviet airspace in the 80s - it was shot down.

Alleged intent, armament, etc... is all irrelevant. None of these things can be made certain of, especially for high-speed aircraft that can potentially reach whatever sensitive targets in a manner of minutes.

Of course in practice, actually shooting-down aircraft happens very rarely - because everyone has the common sense to recognize when an aircraft has hostile intent and capabilities and when it doesn't.
But legally speaking, Turkey had the right.

It's clear though that the Turks wanted to send Russia a message, and that this was a pre-planned action in some respect - rather, they clearly had orders to shoot down the next Russian aircraft that crossed their airspace no matter however briefly or with whatever intention.
The warnings over the 'Turkmen' are part of this context too.
Turkey must think that they will be able to get away with this and spook Russia. They must be proven wrong, very very wrong. Vengence need not come directly, but it should come.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:If that Fencer was indeed brought down by TuAF then this shows a great lack of contingency or over-confidence from the Russian side. Any outdated soviet bomber is mince meat for an AIM-120B or -C. It seems these bombers were on their own there. No escort on AEW&C assets and whilst operating against an ethnic minority that is favored by Turkey.

Not wise at all.

Range is way too short for AIM120 to be used there. Its far more likely it was Sidewinder or Sparrow, since those are the most numerous missiles in TuAF.

Sparrow most numerous in TuAF? That's incorrect, their few  (~50) remaining F-4Es despite remaining AIM-7 capable have been assigned to A2G duties. Their numerous fighter is F-16 (~230) and that can only fire AIM-9 or AIM-120.

And how did you determine "the range being too short"? Too short for what?
They blasted the Fencer, safely, while flying within their airspace. The C5 has range > 100 km.

Which shows that they weren't at all concerned with Airspace shenanigans. they probably fired the shots from their Acakale airbase and hit it. So yeah, thanks from explaining the obvious.

flamming_python wrote:
A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

Just a bit of correction, not that it's significant, Turkey is neither a state nor sovereign.

[quote="KoTeMoRe"]

KiloGolf wrote:Which shows that they weren't at all concerned with Airspace shenanigans. they probably fired the shots from their Acakale airbase and hit it. So yeah, thanks from explaining the obvious.

Of course Turkey doesn't care about "airspace", that word does not exist in their vocabulary. They've had that attitude since the '70s.

flamming_python wrote:

Firebird wrote:

flamming_python wrote:If it was shot down in Turkish airspace then they had the right to.

It's not like it's the first time our planes violated their airspace, let's be honesst.

At the same time though, the fact that they actually went this far - does indeed merit a response. Cancelling all flights, pulling out tourists, bombing 'Turkmen' (Islamist) positions with a new intensity, and the start of arms shipments to the PKK and so on.
Let's see how they like that.

Are you for real? Was Russia (then!) planning to bomb Istanbul?
Bombing Turkey?

NO
It was bombing ISIS. A terrorist regime with its strings pulled by Erdocunt and Obumboy.

A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

When the Korean Airlines flight violated Soviet airspace in the 80s - it was shot down.

Alleged intent, armament, etc... is all irrelevant. None of these things can be made certain of, especially for high-speed aircraft that can potentially reach whatever sensitive targets in a manner of minutes.

Of course in practice, actually shooting-down aircraft happens very rarely - because everyone has the common sense to recognize when an aircraft has hostile intent and capabilities and when it doesn't.
But legally speaking, Turkey had the right.

It's clear though that the Turks wanted to send Russia a message, and that this was a pre-planned action in some respect - rather, they clearly had orders to shoot down the next Russian aircraft that crossed their airspace no matter however briefly or with whatever intention.
The warnings over the 'Turkmen' are part of this context too.
Turkey must think that they will be able to get away with this and spook Russia. They must be proven wrong, very very wrong. Vengence need not come directly, but it should come.

In Greece we should have downed half of the Turkish fleet then , and not let them fly over the Greek Islands..

flamming_python wrote:Of course in practice, actually shooting-down aircraft happens very rarely - because everyone has the common sense to recognize when an aircraft has hostile intent and capabilities and when it doesn't.
But legally speaking, Turkey had the right.

They did indeed. And this has happened to them too, so there is a consensus in the region that ever so often that violations do happen, planes go down.

KiloGolf wrote:If that Fencer was indeed brought down by TuAF then this shows a great lack of contingency or over-confidence from the Russian side. Any outdated soviet bomber is mince meat for an AIM-120B or -C. It seems these bombers were on their own there. No escort or AEW&C assets and whilst operating against an ethnic minority that is favored by Turkey.

Not wise at all.

Indeed, this is a disgrace.

The Turks had made warnings earlier on. Why were there no escorts flying with the Su-24? Especially when it was so close to foreign airspace? Heads should roll over the planning of this operation.

Rodinazombie wrote:Before russia will react, they have to see how the US/NATO/EU will respond to this.

If putin can get worldwide condemnation of at least a consensus of disproval from the big players, with more effort and pressure being put on turkey to stop its support of terrorists, i think we will find a common sense solution for the west and russia.

If the west comes out and backs turkey, then i think its going to get very ugly and fast.

This is also going to be an indicator of how nato would react to one of its members being attacked, their willingness to stick up for a fellow member state. For that reason alone they are obliged to stick up for turkey, or else the credibility of nato will start to erode. At the same time though they cant just allow its members to start wars willy nilly with a military superpower.

Difficult times ahead for nato.

Of course the West is going to back Turkey. But they may attempt to sit on the side-lines and mediate unless Russia really presses into Turkey and starts making demands -at which point of course the West will openly side with Turkey.

In any case, Russia's quarrel is not with the West in this episode, it's with Turkey. Loud UN pronouncements and bombast are not what's needed, concrete actions and measures are what's needed. If it brings Russia closer into a military conflict with NATO then so be it, but it should not be sought out for its own sake.

PapaDragon wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:........................
I understand you are emotional today so calling me idiot wasn´t meant to be. We´ll see what the answer is and I am sure you´ll be surprised Putis not giving to attack Turkey. With UN and diplomatic channels I agree with arming Kurds too but I do not see Russians attacking Turkey.

Dude, ignore the emo crowd, they are angry 24/7. Give them an hour or two and they cool off...

A lot of people didnt see the kebabscum attacking Russia. Guess what?

You need to listen what Erdocunt actually said. Either Russia is against ISIS etc, or it is accepting them.
People dont mean WW3, they mean targetted actions by Russia against those who have confirmed verbally that they consider Russia to be an adversary ie targetted military actions against Turkey.

pilot captured by the FSA has been killed


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef3_1448360307





click at your own risk.It seems that they killed him, lots of allah snackbaring in there. RIP

Flamming_Python wrote:
A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

Then shoot down all Turkish airplanes operating over or just across the border.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

Just a bit of correction, not that it's significant, Turkey is neither a state nor sovereign.

It is a state, and it is sovereign enough to make its own decisions about who to down and not.
And those decisions will have consequences.

arpakola wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Firebird wrote:

flamming_python wrote:If it was shot down in Turkish airspace then they had the right to.

It's not like it's the first time our planes violated their airspace, let's be honesst.

At the same time though, the fact that they actually went this far - does indeed merit a response. Cancelling all flights, pulling out tourists, bombing 'Turkmen' (Islamist) positions with a new intensity, and the start of arms shipments to the PKK and so on.
Let's see how they like that.

Are you for real? Was Russia (then!) planning to bomb Istanbul?
Bombing Turkey?

NO
It was bombing ISIS. A terrorist regime with its strings pulled by Erdocunt and Obumboy.

A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

When the Korean Airlines flight violated Soviet airspace in the 80s - it was shot down.

Alleged intent, armament, etc... is all irrelevant. None of these things can be made certain of, especially for high-speed aircraft that can potentially reach whatever sensitive targets in a manner of minutes.

Of course in practice, actually shooting-down aircraft happens very rarely - because everyone has the common sense to recognize when an aircraft has hostile intent and capabilities and when it doesn't.
But legally speaking, Turkey had the right.

It's clear though that the Turks wanted to send Russia a message, and that this was a pre-planned action in some respect - rather, they clearly had orders to shoot down the next Russian aircraft that crossed their airspace no matter however briefly or with whatever intention.
The warnings over the 'Turkmen' are part of this context too.
Turkey must think that they will be able to get away with this and spook Russia. They must be proven wrong, very very wrong. Vengence need not come directly, but it should come.

In Greece we should have downed half of the Turkish fleet then , and not let them fly over the Greek Islands..

Point is, you had the right to.

Perhaps political or military considerations were more important though; as they usually are.

arpakola wrote:In Greece we should have downed half of the Turkish fleet then , and not let them fly over the Greek Islands..

Yeap, but that's not how the world works.
Turkey seized a chance to show off like we did back in 1996 (masking it as accidental missile launch) or Syrians did few years ago.

flamming_python wrote:

Firebird wrote:

flamming_python wrote:If it was shot down in Turkish airspace then they had the right to.

It's not like it's the first time our planes violated their airspace, let's be honesst.

At the same time though, the fact that they actually went this far - does indeed merit a response. Cancelling all flights, pulling out tourists, bombing 'Turkmen' (Islamist) positions with a new intensity, and the start of arms shipments to the PKK and so on.
Let's see how they like that.

Are you for real? Was Russia (then!) planning to bomb Istanbul?
Bombing Turkey?

NO
It was bombing ISIS. A terrorist regime with its strings pulled by Erdocunt and Obumboy.

A violation of a sovereign states airspace is grounds for destruction of the offending aircraft.

When the Korean Airlines flight violated Soviet airspace in the 80s - it was shot down.

Alleged intent, armament, etc... is all irrelevant. None of these things can be made certain of, especially for high-speed aircraft that can potentially reach whatever sensitive targets in a manner of minutes.

Of course in practice, actually shooting-down aircraft happens very rarely - because everyone has the common sense to recognize when an aircraft has hostile intent and capabilities and when it doesn't.
But legally speaking, Turkey had the right.

It's clear though that the Turks wanted to send Russia a message, and that this was a pre-planned action in some respect - rather, they clearly had orders to shoot down the next Russian aircraft that crossed their airspace no matter however briefly or with whatever intention.
The warnings over the 'Turkmen' are part of this context too.
Turkey must think that they will be able to get away with this and spook Russia. They must be proven wrong, very very wrong. Vengence need not come directly, but it should come.

The Korean one was at the height of Cold War terror and panic.
Russia and Kebabscum knew exactly what was happening here. There had been much previous dialogue.

"Intl law" as you claim isn't strict liabiliy and penalty of death in these circumstances. The kebabscum killed two innocent men fighting an evil terror group. A terror group basically created by Turkey kebabscum.

The God damn Turks are unbearably arrogant, and don't seem to fully appreciate the fact that Russia is a superpower and that fucking with a superpower is NEVER a good idea, NATO's theoretical support notwithstanding. Turkey really seems to think that Northern Syria falls under their jurisdiction... in fact Turkey had the gall to claim that Turkish airspace extended 10 km inside Syria. Despite this provocation by that disgusting Islamist, terror supporting regime in Ankara, Russia will not debase itself by succumbing to knee-jerk reactions; it will obviously carefully consider how to most effectively respond to this aggression,  with full military support to the Kurds being one of the possible actions that it could take.

Russia should fully commit to the Kurds in light of the fact that Turkey has repeatedly said that it would not allow Kurdish fighters to establish a contiguous line of control over their own territories in Syria, and so Russia should do everything it can to facilitate precisely just that; it should then provide air support and defence to the Kurds from the Turks and shoot down any Turkish aircraft that ventures into Syrian airspace.

I very much doubt that most NATO members would confront a military superpower for the sake of a reckless group of people that are racially, culturally, linguistically and religiously distinct from them; the Turks are not European - they are Asian and and are alien to Europe. The Turks established control over what is now Turkey from the Byzantine Greeks starting in 1064,  which is precisely what precipitated the Crusades -- they were justified because they were defensive.

Cyrus the great wrote:The God damn Turks are unbearably arrogant, and don't seem to fully appreciate the fact that Russia is a superpower and that fucking with a superpower is NEVER a good idea, NATO's theoretical support notwithstanding. Turkey really seems to think that Northern Syria falls under their jurisdiction... in fact Turkey had the gall to claim that Turkish airspace extended 10 km inside Syria. Despite this provocation by that disgusting Islamist, terror supporting regime in Ankara, Russia will not debase itself by succumbing to knee-jerk reactions; it will obviously carefully consider how to most effectively respond to this aggression,  with full military support to the Kurds being one of the possible actions that it could take.

Russia should fully commit to the Kurds in light of the fact that Turkey has repeatedly said that it would not allow Kurdish fighters to establish a contiguous line of control in Syria, and so Russia should do everything it can to facilitate precisely just that; it should then provide air support and defence to the Kurds from the Turks and shoot down any Turkish aircraft that ventures into Syrian airspace.

I very much doubt that most NATO members would confront a military superpower for the sake of a reckless group of people that are racially, culturally, linguistically and religiously distinct from them; the Turks are not European - they are Asian and and are alien to Europe. The Turks established control over what is now Turkey from the Byzantine Greeks starting in 1064,  which is precisely what precipitated the Crusades -- they were justified because they were defensive.

I hope theres a lot of Turkish flag burning around the civilised world.
Hopefully then more people will see them for what they are.
Just look at the booing of minute silences at sports events.

A rogue military prick is one thing. A whole rogue govt in a so called democracy. Well thats complete demonstration of what the kebabscum are.

The Turks are even RUBBING IT IN:

Ankara had made it very clear to Russia it was unhappy with Russian military activities close to its border, and even summoned the Russian ambassador and military attaché last Friday to make a complaint, Turkey’s Hurriyet reported this morning writes Shaun Walker.

The newspaper said the Turks warned the Russian ambassador they would retaliate and take necessary measures if their border security was threatened by operations against Turkmen Syrians close to the border. Turkish officials told the diplomats that Turkmen civilians were suffering as a result of Russian operations, and said the proximity to the Turkish border meant there was a possibility of a violation of Turkey’s border security.

“It should be noted Turkey’s rules of engagement were in place and there will be no hesitation to implement them if such a violation occurs,” the Russians were told, Hurriyet claimed.

OK, I'm guessing the gloves are definitely OFF now.
Let the games begin!
Turkey beware! You just went from an aspiring Ottoman Empire to shitstate status in a few months (something we in the Balkans know very well).
Glad to have your company here in the shitstate club Turkey, I was eager to see your fall to be honest!

Oh, the quotes are from that 'used-to-be-liberal' Guardian propaganda outlet...
Find more propaganda here.

Cyrus the great wrote:The God damn Turks are unbearably arrogant, and don't seem to fully appreciate the fact that Russia is a superpower and that fucking with a superpower is NEVER a good idea, NATO's theoretical support notwithstanding. Turkey really seems to think that Northern Syria falls under their jurisdiction...

They do feel it's "their jurisdiction" with all neighbouring countries (Hellas, Cyprus occupation, etc.) when in fact even their territory is an anachronistic colonial dinosaur comprising > 30% ethnic Kurds and God know what else.