
Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border - enesunal
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/europe/turkey-syria-russia-military-plane.html?_r=0
======
ckozlowski
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.

~~~
netcan
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.

~~~
ckozlowski
>There's also the possibility that this is a bad decision made by field
officers in the short decision window they had.

That's an excellent point, and one I think is often missed. These are
decisions made by commanders in the field in a short amount of time, with
limited information. They have many concerns, worries, and instructions to
comply with. What if it was misidentified as a Russian plane? What if they did
nothing, and the plane dropped bombs on a Turkish village? There's lots of
potential outcomes, limited information, and consequences and repercussions
far beyond the event itself. And it's a mistake to think national leaders are
involved directly in this process.

To give my personal views for a moment here, this is why it's so important
they recognize, that whenever force is involved, regardless of intent, aim, or
goal, it's messy, and things like this will occur, without fail. There will be
accidents, without fail.

~~~
100timesthis
I think this is a fairly known scenarios, that strategists and leaders taught
well in advance with all possible and military personnel are trained on. I
also read in an article that the order to shot it down came from the turkish
president.

~~~
antillean
> I also read in an article that the order to shot it down came from the
> turkish president.

Can you link to that article?

~~~
100timesthis
I can't remember which source it was was I read different articles from FB
trending news, I tried to find it but couldn't, later I'll have another go.

------
sfjailbird
I'm the skeptical type, but my take is that the West has never been serious
about hurting IS, beyond making a show of it, because of its strategic
usefulness. There have been indications of this since the bombing campaigns
began over a year ago in Iraq, the British flew for weeks without attacking
anything, the Kurds reported no help from the air, etc. Add to this all the
direct and indirect support IS has been getting in terms of weapon supplies to
'moderates' that end up with them, and particularly the strange ease with
which they are able to sell oil and send fighters back and forth across the
Turkish border.

So I'm inclined to believe that this incident was staged to further put a
spanner in the wheel of real concerted attacks on IS - instead we get Russia
and the West staring each other down. Note that the Russian jet did not
exactly invade Turkish territory - it crossed a tiny finger of land less than
a mile wide extending into Syria - a tiny excuse for such a forceful response.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
Do you have any sources for this? You don't sound so much like the "skeptical"
type as the "pre-drawn anti-west conclusions" type.

It's important to clear up what "making a show of it" means. If you want to
look like you're doing something big and important to the layperson, you
distribute dozens of videos of air-launched cruise missiles and massive
volleys of dumb bombs from high altitude, like the Russians have.

If you want to actually degrade ISIS's capabilities, you make literally
thousands of precision airstrikes over the course of months.

~~~
ihsw
The Isil-Turkish border has been open and porous for a very long time, at the
behest of Turkey.

They have insisted that the Isil-Turkey border remain under control of Isil or
Turkey, and that any interference with that arrangement be regarded as a
"crossing a red line."

Turkey has been a very important ally for Isil, despite the Turkish
authorities clamping down on homegrown anti-government terror cells.

Degrading and ultimately destroying Isil should begin with closing all of its
borders with neighbouring nations, an action which the West has been hesitant
to do -- a hesitation borne of Turkish intransigence.

This is why the West's response to Isil has been slow and wrought with
contradictions and failures.

~~~
Bud
Simplistic. How precisely do you suggest that Turkey "close" its border? To my
knowledge, there is not a magic 30-foot motorized wall, hundreds of miles
long, that can simply be winched up into place. Turkey's military certainly
isn't large enough to patrol it sufficiently.

~~~
saiya-jin
1) turkey hates kurds, meaning strong motivation to silently support enemy of
them (not calling them outright allies). let them bleed so they are weak and
don't dream about kurdistan covering turkish soil.

2) US-led precision strikes achieved next to nothing, ISIL was strong as
before. At one point US boasted that they spend 9 millions of USD daily for
these strikes. That means an attempt to bring down organization of a size of
state with few plane flights a day and couple of bombs? Not working. Of course
I am not a fan of cluster bombing vietnam-style either.

3) it seems to me, and in this I might be wrong that US has higher priority in
bringing down Asad rather than ISIL. So similar approach as 1)

4) the simple fact that ISIL is daily trading oil using big oil convoys means
either US is completely incompetent to see this & take action (not believing
for a second, ac-130/a-10 would squash them in no time), or that russians are
much much better than US at surveillance from above (not a chance)

and one could go on and on...

------
eveningcoffee
Lets be more precise. It was shot down over Turkey territory (according to
information provided by Turkey military).

Of course one could argue that the plane was just taking a shortcut over the
small part of Turkey territory. The problem with this is that Turkey has
warned Russians on many occasions to not do that. But in my opinion it does
not look like there was any threat to Turkey.

In principle the Russians have become very cocky near all NATO borders, and
Turks are the least PC NATO member, so one can say that Russians had it coming
and it looks like they finally found their equally crazy nemesis. Anyway, the
situation is alarming and it is not yet clear how the following actions would
unroll.

The first reaction from Putin does not make it look like Russia would admit
their fault, but I think that he is rather reserved.

My condolences go to the parents and relatives of the killed pilot.

Edit: Changed two paragraphs, added one more paragraph.

Edit2: It looks like Russians flew over Turkey territory towards their target
zone (see the map provided in this thread) and then began to fly in circles
over Turkey territory. They were shot at the second entry.

I do not know why Russians choose this route as it does not seem to be the
most optimal one.

The length over Turkey territory is about 1500-1600 meters, SU-24 flies up to
360 m/s so it was about minimum 5 seconds flight, but as it was a second
entry, I guess it does not matter that much.

Anyway, I think that both sides acted in a very unwise manner.

~~~
codingbeer
According to the radar image released by Turkey, the aircraft passed over a
strip of Turkey airspace around 2km wide.

Apparently they gave the russian 10 warnings. That doesn't add up.

~~~
pimlottc
Turkey started warning the Russian plane before it had crossed the border:

"In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities
repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15 kilometers or
less away from the border"

~~~
tobiasu
Which is absurd, Turkey have zero rights to declare a no fly zone and shoot
down planes in Syria.

This isn't the first time either, they shot down plenty SyAF fighters and
helicopters over Syria, it's just that nobody in the West cares.

~~~
Bud
Actually, Turkey has every right to defend its airspace, under international
law.

~~~
saiya-jin
... and they did it in a very stupid way. I am damn sure that during 10 years
of occupation of Iraq, US air force came numerous times within 15km distance
from Iranian border, yet they didn't attack a single time.

~~~
low_battery
There had been several incidents on Syria border, Turkey warned both Syria
(and downed their helicopters and airplanes before) and Russia that it is very
serious about this.

Russians got cocky.

------
antman
Turkey has shown lots of military and secret service activity trying to
establish its regional power status. For a minor airspace violation during
border clashes from a supersonic aircraft the ."In the first month of 2014
alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times."
[http://m.sputniknews.com/europe/20151009/1028274796/greece-t...](http://m.sputniknews.com/europe/20151009/1028274796/greece-
turkey-warplanes.html) Abdulah

Gul Turkish Prime Minister in 2012:It is routine for jet fighters to sometimes
fly in and out over [national] borders... when you consider their speed over
the sea," he added. [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-
east-18562210](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18562210)

Also Turkey has armed islamist groups in that border area and then denied it
[http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0O61L220150521](http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0O61L220150521)

And threatened anybody assisting the Syrian Kurds, the only ground force that
is fighting ISIS except Assad. Turkish military policy goes way beyond its
borders.

[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-says-turkey-may-
hit...](http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-says-turkey-may-hit-us-
backed-pyd-to-block-advance.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90476&NewsCatID=352)

------
mason240
There was map on
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/3tyj1r/the_unusual...](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/3tyj1r/the_unusual_route_taken_by_two_russian_tu160/)
of "The unusual route taken by two Russian Tu-160 bombers on their way to
Syria," where Russian jets circle all the way around Europe to get to Syria.

I wonder if this was one of those flights.

[https://i.imgur.com/iARdJtM.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iARdJtM.jpg)

------
jacquesm
The plane came down in Syria, no info about where it was before then or where
the plane was shot as far as I know. Not looking very good for Turkey with
info available at this moment, if the plane had come down inside the Turkish
borders they'd have a much stronger story.

The conflict is becoming extremely complex, all parties hate IS, but some more
than others and some offer clandestine support and quite a few parties hate
each other as well. Turkmenes, Assad, Russia, Turkey, the Kurds, IS are
fighting there each with their own relationship with all the other parties and
that's just _one_ small fragment of the zone, and Turkey is part of NATO to
make things even more complex.

~~~
seren
I am not afraid of escalation between Nato and Russia, but the future of Syria
will need a full cooperation of all parties involved, and today we took a step
in the wrong direction.

EU needs the help of Turkey to host refugee camp on its territory, and at the
same time, could be helped by Russian air force.

However,Turkey and Russia have totally opposite goals regarding Assad. So this
is likely going to get worse, before getting better.

~~~
jacquesm
The news now is that the Turkmenes shot the pilots coming down on their
parachutes.

------
jcrei
There is already a big sense of alarm on social media (particularly along new
EU/NATO countries) that this can lead up to new confrontation between Russia
and NATO. I would like to think that Russia is not going to start attacking
Turkey or any other NATO country just because one plane was brought down near
Syria. Thoughts?

~~~
honestcoyote
Russia's initial reaction was to place the blame on insurgents and not Turkey.
Even after Turkey claimed responsibility, Russia essentially said: "Are you
sure? We really think it was the rebels. Hint. Hint." [1]

So that's pretty telling. Russia showed a willingness to sweep this under the
table but Turkey wouldn't let them.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-
je...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-
by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-
updates#block-56543954e4b0877f6541edef)

"President Putin is reportedly readying a statement. On Russian state
television, there was little discussion of the Turkish claim they had shot the
plane down, with anchors and analysts speculating that the Su-24 could have
been shot down by rebels with anti-aircraft weapons. This chimes with the
Russian Defence Ministry’s claim that the plane was shot down from the ground,
but completely contradicts the Turkish statement that an F-16 from its
airforce shot the plane down."

~~~
norea-armozel
I wonder why Putin is trying to give Turkey an exit out of responsibility. Is
he still trying to pull them out of the NATO fold? Or is Germany still
stringing Turkey along for the possibility of an EU/EC membership?

~~~
honestcoyote
Because Putin doesn't want to see tensions rise and have the situation go out
of his control. There's nothing for him to gain by blaming Turkey or be pushed
into a direct confrontation with NATO. I mean, he seems to enjoy pushing NATO
& the EU's buttons. But he tends to do so when he feels like he has control
over the situation.

Blaming the rebels would bolster his plans in Syria and probably make it an
easier sell. Might have been best for Turkey to also allow the rebels to be
blamed. The Kremlin would still get Turkey's message loud and clear, but there
wouldn't be any public conflict with unpredictable consequences.

------
puppetmaster3
When you think of recent Turkey, you must think of this weeks:
[http://youtube.com/watch?v=cBRSfdAvsDQ](http://youtube.com/watch?v=cBRSfdAvsDQ)

to help put the context.

------
SyneRyder
CNN Türk English has a flight analysis diagram they claim was provided to them
by military sources, claiming the Russian jet encroached on Turkish airspace:

[https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669096544650600448](https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/669096544650600448)

[The same diagram on Twitter Verified @CNN_Türk:
[https://twitter.com/cnnturk/status/669105783729180672](https://twitter.com/cnnturk/status/669105783729180672)
]

The distance between borders at that point is 2 - 3km across (measured via
Google Maps), which would be a few seconds of travel time. Russia claims the
jet never even entered Turkish airspace. Following the red line, it seems to
have crashed in Syrian airspace, not Turkish territory.

I was about to link to this next tweet as an example of the 3km border-to-
border measurement, until I noticed... this is the _only_ tweet this account
has posted. Which rather undermines its own credibility & makes me wonder how
much of a social media propaganda fight is also occurring right now:

[https://twitter.com/Pere08331980/status/669106359355461633](https://twitter.com/Pere08331980/status/669106359355461633)

------
georgecmu
And only three years ago:

 _Turkey’s president said Saturday that his country would do “whatever is
necessary” in response to the downing of a Turkish military jet by Syria,
adding a new complication to the tense relationship between the former allies
split by Turkey’s support for Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the
government.

“It is not possible to cover over a thing like this,” said President Abdullah
Gul of Turkey, according to the Anatolia news agency. “Whatever is necessary
will no doubt be done.”

Syria said Friday that its military forces had shot down a Turkish jet that
had entered its airspace just off the Syrian coast. But Mr. Gul said Saturday
that while the exact route of the plane had not yet been confirmed, _it was
routine for military jets flying at high speeds to briefly cross into another
country’s airspace_, and that the jet’s presence over Syrian territory was not
intended as a hostile act._

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/world/middleeast/turkey-
pr...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/world/middleeast/turkey-promises-
retaliation-in-response-to-downing-of-military-jet-by-syria.html)

------
csomar
Might seem like a stupid question, but I don't know how serious this is: I
have a flight on Thursday via Turkishairlines and landing in Istanbul for a
few hours. Is this an act that can trigger war between the two countries? What
could possibly go wrong (more than an airjet down) here?

~~~
algorithmsRcool
Open war between Russia and Turkey would be defacto war with the United States
and the rest of NATO due to Article 5 of the NATO charter.

That doesn't really answer your question but hopefully gives some context.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
It really depends if the rest of NATO will go to war over Turkey. I fibd
that...perhaps not so likely

~~~
algorithmsRcool
I would be inclined to agree.....but the treaty is pretty ironclad as long as
Turkey is a full member. Which they have been since 1952.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Treaties are hardly sacrosanct, and its not as if the current Turkish
government is universally liked within NATO.

~~~
dragonwriter
> its not as if the current Turkish government is universally liked within
> NATO.

Credibility as a bulwark against Russia with Eastern European NATO members and
partners, OTOH, is probably universally liked within NATO, and sacrificing one
without sacrificing the other would be quite tricky.

------
mring33621
2 people were killed for trespassing. Sickening, IMHO.

~~~
algorithmsRcool
Stepping over an invisible line has much bigger consequences if you are
piloting a powerful military aircraft and acting as agents of the foreign and
non-friendly state.

------
thedaemon
The turkey finally gets his revenge just before Thanksgiving.

