Reports: Turkish F-16s shoot down Russian Su-24

[Alvecia]

RT is only the true source *nods*

Indeed.

In regards to the BBC, I tend not to trust them, and I live in England, so I end up seeing a lot of that biased reporting pretty much most of the time I care to turn the TV on in the morning.
On a related note regarding the BBC, I found this.

You can't deny it's more trustworthy than most though. I understand it's biases, which is why it's only one on the list of news organisations that I use to compare stories.

[Novus America]

Not only. But I've seen enough to be convinced of the falsity of the most part of foreign media.

Yet stubbornly cling to the idea that a state-funded new organisation with a history of twisting the facts is completely reliable. Your bias is showing.

In all fairness RT does not always twist facts. Often it just makes shit up or outright lies. See MH-17. Or is just is a platform for rants from insane conspiracy theorists that cross into not even wrong.

[Rio Cana]

But the Crimea is full of Russians. Historically, it has been Russian since it was annexed to Imperial Russia. When Soviet premier Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, ceded Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine he did it without even holding a referendum. Khrushchev must have known that it did not really matter if Crimea was part of Soviet Ukraine or Soviet Russia since in the end it would still be under the Soviet flag. But this all changed when Ukraine decided to separate. No longer would the Russians have any control over Crimea.

For what its worth, at least the Russians had a referendum.

When Ukraine became independent, Russia agreed to recognize its existing borders in return for Ukraine surrendering all the nuclear weaponry it inherited from the USSR. By annexing Crimea, Russia violated this agreement and has no grounds for complaint if Ukraine builds or purchases nukes now.

That weapons deal was in 1994. But a few years later, Russia did sign a friendship agreement which guaranteed the shared borders of both nations. But after that weapons deal and before the friendship treaty, Crimea separatists were trying to break away from the Ukraine. But without Russian help they were crushed. This all happened under former President Yeltsin watch. Yeltsin had other problems which did not make Crimea a priority. Then in modern times we have Ukraine moving toward NATO which the Russians consider a major security risk which had to be acted on. Crimea being strategic to there Navy they finally acted. In short, if the Crimea problem has been fairly solved in the mid 90's then we might not be seeing the conflicts in the Ukraine.

Read this - https://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2 ... d-ukraine/

[Valaran]

RT is only the true source *nods*

Indeed.

In regards to the BBC, I tend not to trust them, and I live in England, so I end up seeing a lot of that biased reporting pretty much most of the time I care to turn the TV on in the morning.
On a related note regarding the BBC, I found this.

Firstly, there is a difference between state propaganda and bias.

Secondly, the BBC in the UK has claims of bias from both the left and right, so which would you say is more accurate?

[Tmutarakhan]

New trolling of Turkey: "Rightly-led Russia" party introduces a "Holocaust-denial" type bill in the Duma which would criminalize denying that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians.

[The Emerald Dawn]

New trolling of Turkey: "Rightly-led Russia" party introduces a "Holocaust-denial" type bill in the Duma which would criminalize denying that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians.

Huh...that's fucking hilarious.

[Valaran]

New trolling of Turkey: "Rightly-led Russia" party introduces a "Holocaust-denial" type bill in the Duma which would criminalize denying that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians.

lol


Though if this is the sort of level that the spat continues at, then its safe to say that things aren't too bad. Russia has hinted at various escalatory options, but the only significant worrying (but understandable) one that they have taken would be the airdefence ship. Hopefully, it won't get much worse than that.

[Tmutarakhan]

Ukraine today closed its airspace to civilian Russian aircraft, not directly about the Turkish incident but with obvious overtones. The actual dispute is part of the ongoing gas-pipeline business: Gazprom started demanding advance payments a while back and cut off any more gas to Ukraine because the prepayments have been used up; Ukraine says "Yah boo, we don't want your smelly gas anymore anyway" but is not about to cut off Gazprom's use of the pipelines to ship gas across Ukraine to Europe (THAT would be serious; this is all just dick-waving).

[Ganos Lao]

New trolling of Turkey: "Rightly-led Russia" party introduces a "Holocaust-denial" type bill in the Duma which would criminalize denying that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians.

lol


Though if this is the sort of level that the spat continues at, then its safe to say that things aren't too bad. Russia has hinted at various escalatory options, but the only significant worrying (but understandable) one that they have taken would be the airdefence ship. Hopefully, it won't get much worse than that.

Turkish media is apparently reporting that the Russians just conducted another air strike, this time on a bunch of Turkish trucks that entered Syria this evening. I have an article on hand, but it's fully in Turkish.

[Ganos Lao]

New trolling of Turkey: "Rightly-led Russia" party introduces a "Holocaust-denial" type bill in the Duma which would criminalize denying that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenians.

This will no doubt have the side effect of provoking the Azeris, but it's really not surprising. Even before this incident, the Russians had always been close to the Armenians. There's still a Russian military base there. In fact, the commander of that base once said:

"If Azerbaijan decides to restore jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh by force the [Russian] military base may join in the armed conflict in accordance with the Russian Federation’s obligations within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)."

I'm sure the Turks will do something for the Azeris in return. No, I don't mean war or anything like that, but something that "reaffirms" Turkey's belief in Nagorno Karabakh belonging to the Azeri or some such.

[Esperantujo 2]

When Ukraine became independent, Russia agreed to recognize its existing borders in return for Ukraine surrendering all the nuclear weaponry it inherited from the USSR. By annexing Crimea, Russia violated this agreement and has no grounds for complaint if Ukraine builds or purchases nukes now.

That weapons deal was in 1994. But a few years later, Russia did sign a friendship agreement which guaranteed the shared borders of both nations. But after that weapons deal and before the friendship treaty, Crimea separatists were trying to break away from the Ukraine. But without Russian help they were crushed. This all happened under former President Yeltsin watch. Yeltsin had other problems which did not make Crimea a priority. Then in modern times we have Ukraine moving toward NATO which the Russians consider a major security risk which had to be acted on. Crimea being strategic to there Navy they finally acted. In short, if the Crimea problem has been fairly solved in the mid 90's then we might not be seeing the conflicts in the Ukraine.

Read this - https://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2 ... d-ukraine/

The claim of the Ukrainian far right is ludicrous. If Ukraine was "giving up" nuclear weapons, then so were all the other republics of the Soviet Union. The argument makes nonsense of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. What about Algeria, which was part of France? Bangladesh which was part of Pakistan? etc etc.

[Imperializt Russia]

USA destroyed almost 300 ISIS oil trucks as well and US aircraft wasn't shot down. So oil obviously can't be the reason.

Of course, Erdogan is not suicidal.
In addition, Russia alone has done for two months much more than all the Western anti-ISIS coalition for the year.
300 oil trucks - a very small quantity for the strongest army in the world.
This is not real war with ISIS, but only the sembalance.
Russia destroyed almost 500 ISIS oil trucks only in few first days of operation.

Three hundred oil trucks doesn't represent a great quantity of oil lost, no, but it represents a vast amount of infrastructure IS has to transport that oil with.

You're going to have to source "500 trucks destroyed in first few days" because A, the phrasing is just classic one-upmanship akin to children in a playground and B, Russia's own media depict Su-24's dropping iron bombs on targets, which isn't exactly going to strike trucks en masse.

Do you believe that Russian state news are non-bias outlets?

Nope.
But they are much more truthful, compared with Western media.
At least, they never was accused in a staged or deliberately fictional news.

Russian state news outlets are repeatedly accused of staged and deliberately fictional news.

They are not "more truthful" than western media. Western media, even the heavily biased outlets, usually gets at least the principle points down before resorting to ideological bias to frame the argument as desired.

[Esperantujo 2]

The murder of the Russian pilots exposes one of the anti-Russian arguments: that Western bombing is good because it attacks only IS, whereas Russian bombing is bad because attacks IS's allies as well.

[The Emerald Dawn]

The murder of the Russian pilots exposes one of the anti-Russian arguments: that Western bombing is good because it attacks only IS, whereas Russian bombing is bad because attacks IS's allies as well.

*Tosses yellow flag*

Massive conflation, on the offense. Fifteen yards, replay third down.

[Imperializt Russia]

The murder of the Russian pilots exposes one of the anti-Russian arguments: that Western bombing is good because it attacks only IS, whereas Russian bombing is bad because attacks IS's allies as well.

This statement has no flow and makes no sense. Could you please rephrase it?

[The Enclave Government]

i'm kindof in a quagmire as who to support on this

first off i'm completely behind Russia on their ISIS policy. russia has, unlike the U.S these days, gone to great extents to strike ISIS and help other nations (france) retaliate. literally why is RUSSIA helping france more then the U.S???

secondly, the SU-24 was kindaaaa over turkey's land and therefore they had the right to shoot it down soooooooo

legally turkey is in the right, but morally russia is in the right

[The Emerald Dawn]

i'm kindof in a quagmire as who to support on this

first off i'm completely behind Russia on their ISIS policy. russia has, unlike the U.S these days, gone to great extents to strike ISIS and help other nations (france) retaliate. literally why is RUSSIA helping france more then the U.S???

secondly, the SU-24 was kindaaaa over turkey's land and therefore they had the right to shoot it down soooooooo

legally turkey is in the right, but morally russia is in the right

Because the US has been fighting this battle for over 14 years, and we're rather tired of it.

France, Russia, and many other nations were opposed to it, and have done everything they can to stop this fight, but now they desperately want us to "lead"?

[Imperializt Russia]

It has. Not all airframes have been upgraded. The majority haven't in fact.

Gee i wonder why Russia hasnt upgraded the rest? And why are they sending old airframes into Combat where the SU-25,34 could probably do just fine?

Su-25 couldn't hold a candle to the Su-24 and I'm pretty certain the Su-34 isn't even in service.

But the Crimea is full of Russians. Historically, it has been Russian since it was annexed to Imperial Russia. When Soviet premier Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, ceded Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine he did it without even holding a referendum. Khrushchev must have known that it did not really matter if Crimea was part of Soviet Ukraine or Soviet Russia since in the end it would still be under the Soviet flag. But this all changed when Ukraine decided to separate. No longer would the Russians have any control over Crimea.

For what its worth, at least the Russians had a referendum.

When Ukraine became independent, Russia agreed to recognize its existing borders in return for Ukraine surrendering all the nuclear weaponry it inherited from the USSR. By annexing Crimea, Russia violated this agreement and has no grounds for complaint if Ukraine builds or purchases nukes now.

The Ukrainians "inherited" jack shit. It was all Russian equipment, the Ukrainians just refused to return it until they got guarantees.

You can't just "buy" nukes. It's not a thing. Ukraine has precisely zero facilities with which to produce nuclear arms, probably zero expertise with which to begin to do so and no-one's going to provide nukes to Ukraine (NATO nuclear-sharing programme, which is just distributing US free-fall B-61 bombs, for example) because that will make Russia absolutely flip.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Gee i wonder why Russia hasnt upgraded the rest? And why are they sending old airframes into Combat where the SU-25,34 could probably do just fine?

Su-25 couldn't hold a candle to the Su-24 and I'm pretty certain the Su-34 isn't even in service.

When Ukraine became independent, Russia agreed to recognize its existing borders in return for Ukraine surrendering all the nuclear weaponry it inherited from the USSR. By annexing Crimea, Russia violated this agreement and has no grounds for complaint if Ukraine builds or purchases nukes now.

The Ukrainians "inherited" jack shit. It was all Russian equipment, the Ukrainians just refused to return it until they got guarantees.

You can't just "buy" nukes. It's not a thing. Ukraine has precisely zero facilities with which to produce nuclear arms, probably zero expertise with which to begin to do so and no-one's going to provide nukes to Ukraine (NATO nuclear-sharing programme, which is just distributing US free-fall B-61 bombs, for example) because that will make Russia absolutely flip.

We park nukes in Ukraine, Russia parks nukes in Venezuela, some boat commander passes the wrong parallel and it all goes to shit.

[Teemant]

Gee i wonder why Russia hasnt upgraded the rest? And why are they sending old airframes into Combat where the SU-25,34 could probably do just fine?

Su-25 couldn't hold a candle to the Su-24 and I'm pretty certain the Su-34 isn't even in service.

When Ukraine became independent, Russia agreed to recognize its existing borders in return for Ukraine surrendering all the nuclear weaponry it inherited from the USSR. By annexing Crimea, Russia violated this agreement and has no grounds for complaint if Ukraine builds or purchases nukes now.

The Ukrainians "inherited" jack shit. It was all Russian equipment, the Ukrainians just refused to return it until they got guarantees.

You can't just "buy" nukes. It's not a thing. Ukraine has precisely zero facilities with which to produce nuclear arms, probably zero expertise with which to begin to do so and no-one's going to provide nukes to Ukraine (NATO nuclear-sharing programme, which is just distributing US free-fall B-61 bombs, for example) because that will make Russia absolutely flip.

Ukraine knows how to build ballistic missiles without a doubt. They probably just can't produce nuclear warheads for them.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ukraine was one of the best states in the Soviet Union for constructing military equipment including rocketry, it probably built most of the Union's ballistic missiles.

Without warheads, what does it matter?

[Elwher]

I find it somewhat ironic that the country who shot down an unarmed US U-2 recon plane and a Korean airliner for violating their territory is up in arms when one of their armed military aircraft receives the same treatment.

[Tmutarakhan]

i'm kindof in a quagmire as who to support on this

first off i'm completely behind Russia on their ISIS policy. russia has, unlike the U.S these days, gone to great extents to strike ISIS

This is the reverse of truth. Russia has not been observed to strike ISIS at all, only the other anti-Assad groups.

[Imperializt Russia]

I find it somewhat ironic that the country who shot down an unarmed US U-2 recon plane and a Korean airliner for violating their territory is up in arms when one of their armed military aircraft receives the same treatment.

I'm sorry, why would they not shoot down reconnaissance aircraft?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I find it somewhat ironic that the country who shot down an unarmed US U-2 recon plane and a Korean airliner for violating their territory is up in arms when one of their armed military aircraft receives the same treatment.

I'm sorry, why would they not shoot down reconnaissance aircraft?

Because it was mean.