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

[Novus America]

Grab for the ham, 'cause there won't be any turkey left for Thanksgiving!

Joke was already made, not funny then or now.

And Turkey is not in any real trouble. Russia cannot realistically do anything to Turkey but bitch.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well Saddam was an autocrat, but his regime was at least mostly stable.

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

b-b-but muh stability

[Valaran]

Well Saddam was an autocrat, but his regime was at least mostly stable.

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

Not to mention the frequent uprisings, the heavily burdened economy, the ruinous foreign wars that wrecked public finances and tore into the nation's youth, causing bitter resentment against the small tribal sunni elite...

Stable isn't exactly the word I would have used.

[The Qeiiam Star Cluster]

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

Not to mention the frequent uprisings, the heavily burdened economy, the ruinous foreign wars that wrecked public finances and tore into the nation's youth, causing bitter resentment against the small tribal sunni elite...

Stable isn't exactly the word I would have used.

Hush! You're ruining the authoritarian narrative that dictatorships are stable!

[Valaran]

And Turkey is not in any real trouble. Russia cannot realistically do anything to Turkey but bitch.

If this was a really serious incident, Russia could do a lot to Turkey (of course, this isn't that serious).

Taking the energy market alone, Turkey is Russia's biggest energy market after Germany - ie, Turkey relies on Russian energy.

It was telling that one of the earliest comments by the Turks was the energy minister, trying to reassure people that this hadn't affected the above.

[Novus America]

Well Saddam was an autocrat, but his regime was at least mostly stable.

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

"He ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors."
This could also apply to Assad.

I am well aware. He was also corrupt as hell and ruined the ecnomy to build gold plated palaces. And the Arab Spring may have turned his rule into another Syria. But in 2002 it was mostly stable.

[Valaran]

Not to mention the frequent uprisings, the heavily burdened economy, the ruinous foreign wars that wrecked public finances and tore into the nation's youth, causing bitter resentment against the small tribal sunni elite...

Stable isn't exactly the word I would have used.

Hush! You're ruining the authoritarian narrative that dictatorships are stable!

*is quickly silenced*

[Roski]

And Turkey is not in any real trouble. Russia cannot realistically do anything to Turkey but bitch.

If this was a really serious incident, Russia could do a lot to Turkey.

Taking the energy market alone, Turkey is Russia's biggest energy market after Germany - ie, Turkey relies on Russian energy.

It was telling one of the earliest comments by the Turks was the energy minister, trying to reassure people that this hadn't affected the above.

The problem I'm having is that the map turkey provided means that they
A: Spoke those ten warnings hella fast
B: Shot down the Russian plane way into Syrian airspace
C: Fired well after the planes left turkish airspace (either that or they have really shitty missiles on those F-16s)
D: Violated Syrian Airspace
E: That Russian Pilots are clearly incompetent to avoid a missile going that slow if they really did fire it from Turkish airspace while they are in it.

Clearly, even if this is technically within NATO protocols, Russia diplomatically has the upper hand.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

"He ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors."
This could also apply to Assad.

Not really since the last country Syria invaded was Israel. I'm not 100% convinced Bashar was even at school when that happened. I'm pretty sure Syria was not an "apartheid" regime, but the regime only started "regularly" massacring its people... when the civil war started. Which, in terms of the "legitimising civil killings" scale is a fair point to start.

[Novus America]

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

Not to mention the frequent uprisings, the heavily burdened economy, the ruinous foreign wars that wrecked public finances and tore into the nation's youth, causing bitter resentment against the small tribal sunni elite...

Stable isn't exactly the word I would have used.

Well more stable than Iraq is now. I did not like the guy. He deserved to hang. But we do not offer a viable alternative. I mean al-Maliki was just about the worst idiot and also sectarian, corrupt and prone to shooting peaceful protesters.

Al-Maliki was the number one cause of the mess in Iraq. Of course Saddam played a role by destroying civil society and fucking the economy.

[Novus America]

"He ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors."
This could also apply to Assad.

Not really since the last country Syria invaded was Israel. I'm not 100% convinced Bashar was even at school when that happened. I'm pretty sure Syria was not an "apartheid" regime, but the regime only started "regularly" massacring its people... when the civil war started. Which, in terms of the "legitimising civil killings" scale is a fair point to start.

What about invading Lebanon? And his regime always made Allawites the ruling elite and everyone else second class. And the massacres started the civil war, not the other way around.

[Roski]

Not to mention the frequent uprisings, the heavily burdened economy, the ruinous foreign wars that wrecked public finances and tore into the nation's youth, causing bitter resentment against the small tribal sunni elite...

Stable isn't exactly the word I would have used.

Well more stable than Iraq is now. I did not like the guy. He deserved to hang. But we do not offer a viable alternative. I mean al-Maliki was just about the worst idiot and also sectarian, corrupt and prone to shooting peaceful protesters.

Al-Maliki was the number one cause of the mess in Iraq. Of course Saddam played a role by destroying civil society and fucking the economy.

Just because there wasn't an invasion from a terrorist group before the US was involved, doesn't mean Iraq was stable.

[Novus America]

Well, if you put aside the fact that he ran quasi a apartheid racist minority rule, regularly massacred his own population and had a habit for invading his neighbors...

Not to mention the frequent uprisings, the heavily burdened economy, the ruinous foreign wars that wrecked public finances and tore into the nation's youth, causing bitter resentment against the small tribal sunni elite...

Stable isn't exactly the word I would have used.

Which is why I added the "mostly" qualifier. Iraq was mor stable then than it is now. I am no Saddam supporter. But obviously ending his regime without a working alternative did not turn out so well.

[Valaran]

Roski, I'm not quite sure, how this was related to my post, but ok.

The problem I'm having is that the map turkey provided means that they
A: Spoke those ten warnings hella fast

It is often the case that the warnings come before the jet has entered foreign airspace.

B: Shot down the Russian plane way into Syrian airspace

Not to mention that in those split seconds and at such incredible speeds, it is understandably hard for the pilots to work out whether it was in Turkish airspace or not - the borders aren't lit up with neon lights.

C: Fired well after the planes left turkish airspace (either that or they have really shitty missiles on those F-16s)

Hard to determine as of yet, buts it quite possible that the missile was fired as the jet was leaving.

D: Violated Syrian Airspace

I don't believe the Turkish jets went across into Syria during this incident.

E: That Russian Pilots are clearly incompetent to avoid a missile going that slow if they really did fire it from Turkish airspace while they are in it.

This isn't exactly how aerial combat works.

Clearly, even if this is technically within NATO protocols, Russia diplomatically has the upper hand.

This isn't really a 'victory' for either side. Russia may spin it better, but that's for domestic opinion, not diplomatic points.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not really since the last country Syria invaded was Israel. I'm not 100% convinced Bashar was even at school when that happened. I'm pretty sure Syria was not an "apartheid" regime, but the regime only started "regularly" massacring its people... when the civil war started. Which, in terms of the "legitimising civil killings" scale is a fair point to start.

What about invading Lebanon? And his regime always made Allawites the ruling elite and everyone else second class. And the massacres started the civil war, not the other way around.

The killings at protests I consider to be the start of the civil war.

Unlike in Iraq, mass killings wasn't just your average Tuesday.

[Novus America]

Well more stable than Iraq is now. I did not like the guy. He deserved to hang. But we do not offer a viable alternative. I mean al-Maliki was just about the worst idiot and also sectarian, corrupt and prone to shooting peaceful protesters.

Al-Maliki was the number one cause of the mess in Iraq. Of course Saddam played a role by destroying civil society and fucking the economy.

Just because there wasn't an invasion from a terrorist group before the US was involved, doesn't mean Iraq was stable.

Again I said mostly. Saddam was horrible. My point was merely that the regime we replaced him with was far less stable.

As Assad's regime is already unstable at least another civil war wracked regime after his is no worse.

[Valaran]

Well more stable than Iraq is now.

But that's not due to Saddam's brand autocracy. In fact, even by autocratic standards, Saddam was rather unstable.

But obviously ending his regime without a working alternative did not turn out so well.

Certainly true.

[Roski]

Roski, I'm not quite sure, how this was related to my post, but ok.

The problem I'm having is that the map turkey provided means that they
A: Spoke those ten warnings hella fast

It is often the case that the warnings come before the jet has entered foreign airspace.

B: Shot down the Russian plane way into Syrian airspace

This isn't correct, especially given your next point.

C: Fired well after the planes left turkish airspace (either that or they have really shitty missiles on those F-16s)

Hard to determine as of yet, buts it quite possible that the missile was fired as the jet was leaving. Not to mention that in those split seconds and at such incredible speeds, it is understandably hard for the pilots to work out whether it was in Turkish airspace or not - the borders aren't lit up with neon lights.

D: Violated Syrian Airspace

I don't believe the Turkish jets went across into Syria during this incident.

E: That Russian Pilots are clearly incompetent to avoid a missile going that slow if they really did fire it from Turkish airspace while they are in it.

This isn't exactly how aerial combat works.

Clearly, even if this is technically within NATO protocols, Russia diplomatically has the upper hand.

This isn't really a 'victory' for either side. Russia may spin it better, but that's for domestic opinion, not diplomatic points.[/quote]

By diplomatic upper hand, I mean that more nations are going to realitistically be able to sympathize for the russians.

A: How did the Turks know that Russia wasn't going to go around the area last second
B: The missile hit the plane quite far from Turkish airspace. From the map turkey gave us.
C: Then they shouldn't have fired a missile at the plane.
D: That's quite far into Syrian airspace to not have fired from that point.
E: You fire a missile, and then there is evasion attempts. Or do pilots let themselves get shot down? I'm pretty sure that once a missile is fired at you, you want to get away from its evil grips.

It also doesn't have to be necessarily related to your post. But its also got a lot to do with what type of incident it was and your response to Novus America.

[Novus America]

And Turkey is not in any real trouble. Russia cannot realistically do anything to Turkey but bitch.

If this was a really serious incident, Russia could do a lot to Turkey (of course, this isn't that serious).

Taking the energy market alone, Turkey is Russia's biggest energy market after Germany - ie, Turkey relies on Russian energy.

It was telling that one of the earliest comments by the Turks was the energy minister, trying to reassure people that this hadn't affected the above.

Turkey has energy alternatives like Iran and Azerbaijan. And Russia cannot realistically attack Turkey. So Russia has little leverage.

[The Emerald Dawn]

If this was a really serious incident, Russia could do a lot to Turkey (of course, this isn't that serious).

Taking the energy market alone, Turkey is Russia's biggest energy market after Germany - ie, Turkey relies on Russian energy.

It was telling that one of the earliest comments by the Turks was the energy minister, trying to reassure people that this hadn't affected the above.

Turkey has energy alternatives like Iran and Azerbaijan. And Russia cannot realistically attack Turkey. So Russia has little leverage.

You think if Russia, Iran's sole UNSC defender, shuts off the pipe that Iran, their stated enemy, is going to start supplying?

[Novus America]

Well more stable than Iraq is now.

But that's not due to Saddam's brand autocracy. In fact, even by autocratic standards, Saddam was rather unstable.

But obviously ending his regime without a working alternative did not turn out so well.

Certainly true.

I am not arguing the first point. You are correct on both counts.

[Spirit of Hope]

If this was a really serious incident, Russia could do a lot to Turkey.

Taking the energy market alone, Turkey is Russia's biggest energy market after Germany - ie, Turkey relies on Russian energy.

It was telling one of the earliest comments by the Turks was the energy minister, trying to reassure people that this hadn't affected the above.

The problem I'm having is that the map turkey provided means that they
A: Spoke those ten warnings hella fast
B: Shot down the Russian plane way into Syrian airspace
C: Fired well after the planes left turkish airspace (either that or they have really shitty missiles on those F-16s)
D: Violated Syrian Airspace
E: That Russian Pilots are clearly incompetent to avoid a missile going that slow if they really did fire it from Turkish airspace while they are in it.

Clearly, even if this is technically within NATO protocols, Russia diplomatically has the upper hand.

A). They probably started warning them as they apron bed Turkies air space.
B). They shot the plane down at most 1 km outside of Turkish air space.
C). The plane shot down could cover 1 km in less than 3 seconds, they easily could have been fired upon in Turkish air space and then been hit outside the boarder.
D). Hardly, the plane was hit 1 km from Turkish air space, since air to air missiles can easily fly 50+ km the F-16s in question were probably well within their own air space.
E). Where are you getting the idea the missile was slow? By Russia's own admission the plane crashed 4 km from the boarder and was "attacked" within 1 km, and turkey says they hit it I their owns air space. those are tiny distances for jets that fly at 1,3000 km an hour.
D).

[Novus America]

Turkey has energy alternatives like Iran and Azerbaijan. And Russia cannot realistically attack Turkey. So Russia has little leverage.

You think if Russia, Iran's sole UNSC defender, shuts off the pipe that Iran, their stated enemy, is going to start supplying?

There is no honor amongst thieves. Iran needs the money. Iran often does not do what Russia wants. Plus the Azeris alone have a ton of gas and oil.

[Shofercia]

Another person who missed Putin's UN Speech... Putin said that Assad and Kurds are the only ones who are really fighting ISIS. They might've been fighting earlier, and there might be a clash or two, but neither side wants to eliminate the other.

lol, because I'm going to trust what Putin says.

Generally what Putin says is a good predictor of what Putin will do. I stated that Russia should formally ally the Kurds. You said "it's unlikely". I pointed out that Putin said there's already a sort of alliance.

What sledgehammer? Can you tell more about what Russia could do?
I'm sure that with their 5% economic recession they have wide range of measures available to them.

Russia tourism brings in anywhere between $4 billion and $8 billion to Turkey. Most Russians have about $2k to spend on tourism. If the Kremlin passes a law saying that tourists spending money in Turkey are subject to a $4,000 fine, tourism will fall by at least 90%. That's $3.6 billion. Added to other tourism woes, that effect could ricochet, much like the subprimes did in the US. And that's just one example.

Russia is a major trading partner of Turkey, so they do have leverage, if they choose to retaliate.

I'd rather that the incident be used as an opportunity to de-escalate, instead of an opportunity for an angry tantrum (which is what this is, Russo-Turk relations were good before this incident). I realize that to an extent a "strong" reaction is what Putin needs to do politically speaking.

We need a structured, agreement-based solution to this problem. Western and Russian aircraft flying around in Syria and near the Turkish border is a dangerous formula for escalation.

The US-Russia air protocols that were developed earlier should be expanded to cover Russian operations near Turkey.

Fuck no. This ain't the fucking 90s. Erdogan doesn't get to shoot down a plane and have deescalation. That piece of shit deserves full on retaliation, to the maximum reasonable extent possible. Once he's gone, along with his clique, then relations can normalize. It already happened with Georgia.

Really? You somehow implied that the sanctions were successful.

I would say a large recession is indicative that sanctions might not be totally worthless.

How did they succeed? Was the EU's sole intent to just hurt Russia economically? As for the Ukrainian economy, I cited that as an example of what a fucked up economy looks like. Nor am I defending everything that Russia does. Now, answer me, what was the purpose of the sanctions and how did they succeed?

The sanctions were designed to punish Russia and hurt it economically. What else do you think they were for? You cited Ukraine because you want to pedal conversation in a different direction, typical Russian government tactic in debating.

I would say Russia's economy certainly is not recovering, which you stated was true, based on I don't know what. Russia is not in a position to be flexing it's muscles anywhere.

The goal of the sanctions was to punish Russia? What is this, kindergarten? I'm getting tired of your bullshit, so here you go, official EU response outlining the sanctions, and showing your post as lying. Remember this part? The sanctions were designed to punish Russia and hurt it economically.

Now let's look at what the EU actually said: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/c ... 135804.pdf

EU sanctions are not punitive, but designed to bring about a change in policy or activity by the target country, entities or individuals. Measures are therefore always targeted at such policies or activities, the means to conduct them and those responsible for them. At the same time, the EU makes every effort to minimise adverse consequences for the civilian population or for legitimate activities.

What part of EU sanctions are not punitive, is unclear? You do know what punitive means, right? Furthermore, EU said that the sanctions are designed to bring about a change in policy or activity by the target country, entities or individuals. So I'm asking you, what changes did they bring?

I cited Ukraine as an example. You do realize that an example isn't designed to go off topic, but, shockingly enough, an example is designed to be just that, an example. Oh, and I don't work for any government. That includes the Russian government, since they are, actually, a government. Russia is in a position to punish Turkey to the tune of billions, see my post about tourism above. Much like the reason for EU sanctions, this is also incredibly common knowledge to those who actually study what they're talking about.

Oh, and speaking of the Russian recovery, I trust Forbes more than you, based on what I've seen from your posts: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2 ... ooperates/

Russia’s economy is still contracting, but the recession will end in 2016 if oil stays steady-to-higher from where it is now, Barclays Capital said on Thursday. Russia’s economy was whacked with the double whammy of falling oil prices and Western sanctions, now into their 16th month. Third quarter GDP fell 4.1% from the same period last year, which is better than the 4.6% decline in the second quarter. Russia’s third quarter GDP also beat consensus forecasts.

Generally speaking, when you go from a recession to economic growth, that's known as a recovery. Specifically, an economic recovery.

So far, this incident seems to have negatively affected the economies of both Russia and Turkey (or at least their stock markets and currencies).

The Russian economy has only recently started to recover from recession, but some of the recent improvement in the ruble was probably related to the Paris attacks and the assumption that Russia would start working with the West again... which is looking maybe a little less likely than it was a week ago.

Could be the reason that Erdogan did what he did. Russia and France were about to lead an effective coalition against ISIS/ISIL after the Paris Attacks. This, in Erdogan's mind, might throw a cog in the wheels. He doesn't want ISIS/ISIL gone until the Kurds are severely harmed. Once again, Mr. Jon Stewart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts1Br6M-CO0

[Baltenstein]

Seeing how Turkey has also managed to be at loggerheads with Iran over Assad (seriously, which neighbor country haven't they pissed off recently? Georgia?) I don't think Iran would be that eager to replace Russia as Turkey's energy supplier.