Slashdot Mirror


Turkey Downs Allegedly Intruding Russian Fighter Near Syria Border (reuters.com)

jones_supa writes: Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian Sukhoi SU-24 fighter near the Syrian border on Tuesday after repeated warnings over airspace violations. Moscow said it could prove the jet had not left Syrian air space. Footage from private Turkish broadcaster Haberturk TV showed the warplane going down in flames in a woodland area. Separate footage from Turkey's Anadolu Agency showed two pilots parachuting out of the jet before it crashed. A Syrian rebel group sent a video to Reuters that appeared to show one of the pilots immobile and badly wounded on the ground and an official from the group said he was dead. This is the first time a NATO member's armed forces have downed a Russian military aircraft since the 1950s. The Guardian is following the developments with live updates. Also covered by the BBC, which notes Russian aircraft have flown hundreds of sorties over northern Syria since September. Moscow says they have targeted only "terrorists", but activists say its strikes have mainly hit Western-backed rebel groups. Turkey, a vehement opponent of Syria's president, has warned against violations of its airspace by Russian and Syrian aircraft. Last month, Ankara said Turkish F-16s had intercepted a Russian jet that crossed its border and two Turkish jets had been harassed by an unidentified Mig-29.

26 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. I have an idea by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's start World War III over a piece of land in the middle east we all gave fuck-all about five years ago.

    Didn't we elect someone to get us the hell out of some sandy region where everyone hates everyone else, and the only people they hate more is anyone who shows up to help? Are we really going to do this all over again with the advisers and the airstrikes and then another Iraq/Libya/Egypt clusterfuck?

    1. Re:I have an idea by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WW1 started with one man being shot dead. A downed aircraft is just as good to start WW3.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    2. Re:I have an idea by quenda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and the only people they hate more is anyone who shows up to help?

      I was with you until you said "help". Don't be so naive. If not for the oil, we'd have as many "helpers" in the Middle East as we do in the Congo.

    3. Re:I have an idea by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Didn't we elect someone to get us the hell out of some sandy region where everyone hates everyone else

      ...and ironicly, staying out of it is exactly what got us into this position. That's the problem with being the USA. We have treaty commitments (eg: Turkey is a NATO member we are pledged to defend, as is France), and letting situations fester until they start to spill over onto our allies only means things will be 100x worse when we are finally forced to get involved.

      On paper it might sound nice, but ignoring the nasty political swamps of the world is simply not an option for the US.

    4. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The region never got its borders sorted out through wars like Europe did. The current borders were drawn up by European colonialists, and don't reflect tribal/ethnic divisions.

    5. Re:I have an idea by njnnja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but WWI was caused by many factors, including a network of western alliances, a rapid advance in communication technologies and globalization, a multiethnic region where nobody seemed to be able to get along, a rising industrial and economic power challenging the existing hegemon, and the last straw, Russia coming to the aid of a long time ally amidst a campaign of terrorist acts.

      Fortunately that sounds nothing like the world today!

    6. Re:I have an idea by Mishra100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the line then? There are millions of conflicts around the world that we can 'get involved with'. Saudi Arabia likes to behead and crucify people, should we 'get involved' with them? What is the number of wars and death it takes to make everyone do exactly what we want them to do?

      Did you know ISIS was born of intervention policies from the U.S. government? The reason why they are even around is because we are involved.

      Strangely enough, when you kill someone family members, they hate you every single time. I guess you should stamp out that hate with more death and hate...

    7. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Probably as deliberate as Bush/Cheney when they fucked around in Iraq and broke it.

      Nope.

      The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven, nor was it a "rush" in that it took almost a year and included multiple attempts at UN consensus and Congressional approval.

      Obama's "policies" (to use the term generously) seem to be flailing attempts more intended to preserve whatever "legacy" he might have by not allowing facts to destroy the narrative of the "Great Light Bringer" making the world all peaceful instead of leadership making a decision and them implementing it.

      Obama can't acknowledge the seriousness of ISIS, for example, because that would invalidate his decision to withdraw from Iraq and emphasize his fuck-ups in Syria (remember the "red line"?). Read this NY Times article.

      ISIS traces its roots to Al Qaeda in Iraq under Zarqawi - read that article and note the US troop with a captures ISIS flag from 7-8 years ago - well before Obama withdrew from Iraq.

    8. Re:I have an idea by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are actually not many armed conflicts around the world, and very few of them are high-intensity conflicts. Most of them are in Africa.

      The problem is that if a country or coalition of countries decides to intervene, they also need to be prepared to ensure some minimal level of security and political stability for about 40 years or more, instead of withdrawing after 5-10 years. History has shown that again and again.

    9. Re:I have an idea by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven, nor was it a "rush" in that it took almost a year and included multiple attempts at UN consensus and Congressional approval.

      And everyone was telling them they can get lost with it, as it makes no sense and will just create more problems. Luckily they were right, it made sense, and now all the problems are solved. Iraq is a blooming democracy, and the neighboring feudal states are rapidly reforming towards pluralistic, democratic societies.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:I have an idea by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably as deliberate as Bush/Cheney when they fucked around in Iraq and broke it.

      Nope.

      The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven,

      Duh-huhn. Of course it wasn't, the invasion of Iraq was something they wanted to do from the start, the fact that they could scare the US public into believing that not only was Saddam involved with 9/11, but that he also hoarded WMDs to attack America "again" was simply all the excuse they needed.

      Point is: they had no plan beyond getting rid of Saddam.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    11. Re:I have an idea by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we would open drilling even more in the US and more publicly support fracking, we could never use another drop of middle eastern oil again.

      Don't you dumbasses realize that we're using their oil so that when it runs out we'll still have ours left? Leaving our oil in the ground for as long as possible gives us a strategic advantage, and squandering that for short-term economic gain isn't "conservative," it's just goddamn fucking stupid!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. This is why ISIS wins by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

    U.S., Iran, Turkey, Assad, Russia. All hate ISIS. All have an interest in destroying the ISIS "caliphate."

    Can't stop fighting among themselves for even a minute to even consider an alliance.

    Meanwhile, ISIS just slips across some other border that the side who happens to be fighting them at that moment can't cross.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:This is why ISIS wins by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The situation between Turkey and ISIS is actually a lot more murky than you would think - Turkey has actually actively collaborated with ISIS on occasion when it comes to fighting the Kurds (which Turkey has a long standing conflict with). Turkey has also actively protested Russian targets within Syria as they are pro-Turkey factions of ISIS.

      Turkey will play the anti-ISIS game only as long as they have to in order to keep up international appearances - behind the scenes, the game is played completely differently.

    2. Re:This is why ISIS wins by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those parties are not really fighting amongst themselves; but they do have different interests in Syria. While their common goal is to fight IS, they each want to use this conflict as an opportunity to back their own horse in this race. Russia bombs the "moderate" rebels opposing Assad, while the rest likes to support those rebels. Meanwhile, Turkey bombs the Kurds.

      By the way, Russia has a long history of violating the airspace of other nations. I'm surprised there hasn't been such an incident earlier.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:This is why ISIS wins by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those parties are not really fighting amongst themselves; but they do have different interests in Syria. While their common goal is to fight IS, they each want to use this conflict as an opportunity to back their own horse in this race.

      I shudder to think how WWII would have ended if the alliance powers had each worried so much about what the other sides would do AFTER they defeated Hitler that they refused to ally with one another to begin with.

      Destroy ISIS. Worry about the other squabbling bullshit later.

      The U.S. once had the balls to support JOSEPH STALIN to defeat a nasty threat. Now you won't even support some petty little dictators like Putin/Assad to defeat a religious movement that threatens the entire modern world?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:This is why ISIS wins by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Turkey doesn't like ISIS

      Bullshit. The western friendly Turkey as reformed by Ataturk is long gone. Erdogan's Turkey of today is being lurched back in the medeival Islamist totalitarian direction, and mark well that he was popularly elected. Turkey now sees everything through Moslem colored glasses. It has no problem with ISIS at all.

      You are right that Turkey hates Kurds with a vengeance.

    5. Re:This is why ISIS wins by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The situation between Turkey and ISIS is actually a lot more murky than you would think - Turkey has actually actively collaborated with ISIS on occasion when it comes to fighting the Kurds (which Turkey has a long standing conflict with). Turkey has also actively protested Russian targets within Syria as they are pro-Turkey factions of ISIS.

      It's amazing how short sighted people can be. Yeah there's been a long conflict with the Kurds, and yeah the Kurds want to break away. But for fuck's sake, having ISIS on your border is far, far, far worse.

      The Kurds want to break away, ISIS wants to take over and bring Turkey under the Caliphate.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:This is why ISIS wins by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why ISIS is so darned convenient for Turkey. It takes the piss out of the Kurds outside Turkey's borders and thus weakens the overall Kurdish cause. I'm sure the Turkish government is happy enough to take a few suicide bombings on the chin for the strategic advantage gained from allowing ISIS to run rampant and kill lots of Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:This is why ISIS wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Churchill was an unapologetic imperialist. It's interesting that FDR effectively made the dismantling of the British empire a precondition for war assistance. Stalin appeared to treat him with contempt. In fact, I think Churchill was one of the most overrated figures in modern history. A gift for oratory, but a scion of a degenerate class system. Basically a failure as a military strategist. A failure as a peacetime politician. A man who broadcast bravery to the frontline, while enjoying brandy, cigars, chauffeurs, and comfort for the duration of the war.

      And yet, after all that... he was a product of his environment, and gave it everything he had as a wartime leader, which is probably all that can be asked. You've got to read "The Second World War", and perhaps "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples" - the man could write.

    8. Re:This is why ISIS wins by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The U.S. once had the balls to support JOSEPH STALIN to defeat a nasty threat.

      Yep, that's true. Oh, and while we're on the history lesson:

      The U.S. also once had the balls to support Saddam Hussein to defeat a nasty threat.

      The U.S. also once had the balls to support Osama Bin Laden to defeat a nasty threat.

      Perhaps you're suggesting the USA ally with a nefarious group to bring down the larger threat. Let me remind you that ISIS is in no way a credible threat to national security. They have zero chance of ending us. We will endure. They will not. Indeed, their time on this world seems quite short. As a rogue "nation" they, at most, can conduct a terrorist campaign. And the biggest risk of said campaign, is giving in to the terror.

      Those who don't learn a little history are doomed to repeat it.

      (Which honestly applies more to our backing of Syrian rebels if anything. Seriously, why do we even have a horse in the race in the first place?)

  3. Sigh by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It makes me sick to see the phrase, "Western-backed rebel forces". These are Islamists. When Russia says they're only going after the terrorists, they aren't lying. See, there aren't two sides in Syria's civil war, there are three (major ones). There is Assad's government, who represent a minority that would get massacred if they ever lose power (Russia is backing them), the Islamist rebels (we're backing them *puke*), and ISIS (against everyone). There aren't any good guys. The Syrians who want Western democracy? Laughable.

    It continues to amaze me, year after year, all the journalists who simply do not comprehend that there are three (major) sides in the battle. When Russia bombs the Islamists, this is nothing more than a proxy war. Putin thinks Obama is finished, weak, and America is ready to be swept aside. This is all Obama's own fault, of course, for his miserable failure during the Syrian nerve gas crisis of 2013. His "red line" was shown to be nothing that anyone need be afraid of. Russia saw weakness and swooped in. According to Putin, this was America's "Suez Moment" and without it Russia would today not be in the civil war and NATO wouldn't have just shot down one of their aircraft.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  4. Re:There's an old curse by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's an old curse that seems relevant: "May you live in interesting times." Times are certainly interesting. At this point, it seems like some sort of full-scale war between NATO and Russia is more likely now than it has been any time since the 1980s (granted then it would have been NATO against the USSR but the basic point is the same).

    This depends on who Russia focuses on as responsible, and how exactly they retaliate. Right now Putin is focusing mostly on Turkey and says it will hurt their "relationship". This could be something as small as a diplomatic tiff, maybe expel a diplomat or two; they could impose some kind of economic sanctions on them (not sure what the level of trade or cooperation there is between Russia and Turkey); or, most severely, retaliate in kind. Any kind of overt military action would be very dangerous as Turkey could immediately call in NATO for assistance. Russia doesn't want this, Putin certainly doesn't want this. He doesn't need war between Russia and the West, he just needs the relationship to be hostile enough to maintain his domestic support. The next few days will be very interesting to watch.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. Re:Is the U.S. still that fucking naive? by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are more than two sides. It's not just ISIS vs Assad. I am not saying there are any clean hands, but you are taking an absurdly reductionist view of the conflict.

  6. All Things Being Equal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Russians won't do anything to retaliate. I have a healthy respect for Russia and most people should. I grew up during the Cold War not too far from the former Soviet Union. I used to watch the Soviet submarines off the coast when I was a teenager. They would surface occasionally. My father purchased a powerful maritime telescope for my brother and I to see them better when they did surface. Once, a submarine surfaced and broadcasted an emergency. One of the crew suffered a burst appendix. Our guys sent out a helicopter and collected him and took him to hospital where he stayed for two day's time. The submarine waited off the coast, but was joined by 24 hour patrol helicopters and a frigate escort. This was 1983.

    The Russians are good people, their military is very capable, and while some of their equipment might be a generation or so behind the West, make no mistakes in thinking this limits them. Russia and Putin have something the West doesn't have at present: will and intent. It doesn't matter why Russia is in Syria, although to my estimation, they are protecting their oil and gas pipeline interests (present and future) through Iran to Syria.

    I rather admire Vladimir Putin for his nationalism and his refusal to play nice with islamists. His duty is to kill them and that he will do. Unlike the West, Russia is actually killing ISIS and other islamists and this is to be praised.

  7. Re:Russia won't retaliate by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly, Turkey doesn't belong in NATO any more. NATO too needs to redefine its mission, or dissolve quietly. It's now nearing 25 years since the Cold War ended, and so NATO's mission needs to be redefined.

    If Communism was the enemy in the last millenium, Islam is the enemy in this one, and NATO needs to recognize that and act accordingly. If they won't do it, then it's time for them to wind up. Turkey is not going to take the side of NATO against its Muslim comrades in Syria or anywhere else. Just like they refused to let the US fly over their space during the last US invasion of Iraq. It might take the side of the Saudis in an Islamic campaign somewhere, but that's it.