Turkey shot down Russian Su 24

[bose]

So... no real source then? One assumes the Turks are staying on their side of the border for now (as they mostly did before), but I rather doubt they've grounded themselves.

What source your are looking from ?? Confirmation from FOX News ??

Read from page #1 !!

 

[pmaitra]

So... no real source then? One assumes the Turks are staying on their side of the border for now (as they mostly did before), but I rather doubt they've grounded themselves.

The issue here is, when people jump in the middle of a discussion and ask for sources, it indicates that this person has the expectation that one will wade through the thread and re-post what has already been posted. That expectation cannot be fulfilled.

If you have time to post, you have time to read the thread.

 

[lookieloo]

Read from page #1 !!

The issue here is, when people jump in the middle of a discussion and ask for sources, it indicates that this person has the expectation that one will wade through the thread and re-post what has already been posted. That expectation cannot be fulfilled.

If you have time to post, you have time to read the thread.

I see a lot of random twitter screenshots... some Sputnik... some RT... ***yawn*** ...think I'll go to bed instead.

 

[bose]

I see a lot of random twitter screenshots... some Sputnik... some RT... ***yawn*** ...think I'll go to bed instead.

Please go ahead... That is the best thing to do !!

 

[Razor]

Russia is really flattening down everything. Good job Putin.

So the current developments show that Turkey did not have US backing in shooting down the plane.

What current developments "show" that Turkey did not have US backing.

I'm thinking Turkey got an active OK or a passive OK, from the US.

Turky and Poland are the most important allies the US has on the Western front.

 

[Razor]

France Ambassador to NATO Calls for Respect of Turkey Territorial Integrity

On Friday, Sputnik reported quoting a diplomatic source that Jean-Baptiste Mattei "made a harsh speech" at a NATO Council meeting on November 24 regarding the Su-24 incident. The source told RIA Novosti on Friday that the French representative said that Turkish activities were undermining the military operation of the international coalition against ISIL.

Jean-Baptiste Mattei released a statement via Twitter later on Friday refuting this information.

"I, like all the Allies, called for the respect of Turkey’s territorial integrity and underlined the necessity of preventing any escalation," the French ambassador stressed.

NATO offered support for Ankara and expressed solidarity with Turkey after it downed a Russian Su-24 bomber on Tuesday.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance’s assessment of the incident was consistent with information provided by the country, which claimed that the Russian aircraft had briefly violated Turkish airspace.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151128/1030897180/nato-turkey-territorial-integrity.html

Excuse me, somebody was saying NATO distancing from turkey?

 

[pmaitra]

France Ambassador to NATO Calls for Respect of Turkey Territorial Integrity



http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151128/1030897180/nato-turkey-territorial-integrity.html

That is what they have to say in public. The German VC did explicitly point out Turkey.

 

[Razor]

Curb Your Enthusiasm, Russia Is Not Winning in Syria
A counterview to consider. With a Russian-Turkish crisis that Russia can’t benefit from, and few territorial gains in Syria, this opponent of US global hegemony feels Russia’s Syria intervention was a bad idea that will hurt Russia in the long term


Jacob Dreizin | Russia Insider

Despite all you’ve heard about Russia’s great airstrikes and “Putin going full beast,” the Russian position in Syria and the world is looking weaker by the day.

First off, the main supply line of the Russian force in Syria, and in fact the entire Syrian army, which is fighting almost exclusively with Russian munitions, hangs on the Bosporus and Dardanelles. The required volumes of jet fuel, ammo, etc., simply cannot be brought in by air.

In a state of war or near-war with Turkey, or say a Russian cut-off of gas supplies to that nation as retaliation for the SU-24 downing, Ankara would have not only perhaps the legal right but certainly U.S. approval to shut down this lifeline.

Assad would then probably collapse within weeks and the Russian force, lacking fuel and munitions, would have to evacuate by air, perhaps via the Iraq-Iran-Caspian route if Uncle Sam hasn’t closed off Iraqi airspace to Russia by that point.

So in truth, despite the brave talk on most sites not sympathetic to the Empire, Russia can do nothing militarily against Turkey. Moreover, Russia’s problems are now mounting by the week.

The destruction of the tourist plane over Sinai has led Moscow to ban direct flights to Egypt, potentially throwing a big wrench into Russian-Egyptian relations, which had up to that point been strengthening. Now with the Turkish crisis, Russia’s relationship with one of its main trading partners is on the skids.

Yes, Turkey may lose over $20 billion/year or 2.5 percent of its GDP (can you say recession?) from Russian sanctions, including comprehensive restrictions on flights and tourism (there were 4.4 million Russian visits to Turkey last year), import bans, loss of massive construction contracts throughout Russia, and an end to Russian investment in the Akkuyu nuclear power plant, which Rosatom was building on its own dime.

But is this a good thing? Who needs it? There is no prize for guessing who benefits from these two strong, proud, sovereign states (so unlike America’s emasculated European colonies) butting heads.

And what will next week bring? You just know something bad will happen. Some Russian pundits have suggested recognizing Syrian Kurdistan and arming the Kurds. OK, then what? It will just keep rolling downhill.

The “solution” to problem A will cause problems B and C, and so on. Don’t they realize this is precisely America's M.O.? But at least Uncle Sam can afford it. This is a terrible swamp Russia is sinking into.

Also at this time, it is clear that the Iranian-Hezbollah “Big Offensive” was a load of hot air. Making use of the Russian air strikes, the Shi’ites have stabilized the situation and taken a few villages here and there, but they are also wasting themselves with casualties they were not prepared for.

Nor does Hezbollah have any strategic reserve to speak of. What they’ve thrown into the mix is all there is. There won’t be another “Big Offensive.”

Only someone who has spent too long playing too many computer games could have thought that the Iranians and just 6000 Hezbollah and what pathetic ragtag bits remain of the Syrian army were ever going to chase the rebels or Nusra or ISIS out of Syria.

At most, destroying ISIS’ oil business might lead the group into Chapter 11, causing it to splinter into many small outfits, perhaps with local tribes taking back some of their own lands.

But for Assad to recover that territory? Forget it! No one in the region will allow it, even if Assad had the manpower for it, which he does not at this point. Nor do I think his goons would ever be welcome back. Notwithstanding the sad apologias we have seen on his behalf, he is now the “legitimate elected leader” of precisely Jack and squat.

So it seems that the great geostrategic genius, Vladimir Putin, may have finally gone a bridge too far. If he had left it alone, the problems of a hyper-fragmented, Somalia-esque, post-Assad Syria as well as ISIS would have been 100-percent owned by America and its lackeys.

This permanent catastrophe would have sapped any remaining will on Uncle Sam’s part to intervene in the region. In fact, after colossal, nation-destroying failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and of course Ukraine—which saw Washington’s chaos devouring our world like “The Nothing” from The Neverending Story—it could have been the very last straw, the end of U.S. Global Dominion. But now, all the Empire needs to do is sit back and watch Russia screw up and exhaust itself.

And Assad is still toast, even if his “Saigon embassy roof” escape to Moscow, Tehran, or Bolivia has been delayed by a year or two. Like the late Najibullah in Afghanistan, this patient can never come off life support, and the only question is when does the hospital get tired or go broke trying to keep him alive. (Besides Russian involvement, Iran is reportedly sending him $6 billion a year, which probably amounts to his entire state budget.)

For Russia, the only benefit I see is its air force gaining experience waging a US-style extended bombing campaign as well as impressing countries such as India, who then line up to buy even more Russian arms. Other than that, I see no gains, only risks now manifesting as one crisis after another.

As for Russian and other post-Soviet nationals involved with Nusra or ISIS, who present an existential threat to the entire former USSR, they can run back to their support base of Turkey at the drop of a hat, then return when things have calmed down.

Only the delusional think the Russian air force will kill them all, or even enough to make a difference. Short of dropping neutron bombs, this is a fool’s errand.

Just as with the 9/11 attackers and their ilk, the only real solution is stopping them at the border or at the airport immigration control booth. The “we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” approach is pure fantasy imported from America.

It pains me to see wise Russia parroting failed Bush-era mantras straight out of Fox News. For a country that is intellectually head-and-shoulders over the US, with a leader who can speak coherently and in great detail for three hours without a teleprompter, it is certainly a new low.

Russia should have stayed home. Now it is in a hopeless situation that is rolling downhill at dizzying speed. I’m almost afraid to open my eyes at this point.
_________________________
Commentary: It is true. Russia cannot afford a war with Turkey, even if NATO stays out of it. Turkey closing off the Bosporus and Dardanelles would be an act of war. Similarly, Russia starting a war will result in just that. It is important to note that the Kurds control a large swathe of territory from Iran, through Iraq, Syria, all the way up to Turkey. This is the land route Russia needs to keep control of. For this, Iran’s role is very important. Currently, Iraq’s government is heavily Iranian influenced, so much so that even the US cannot do much about it. Russia needs Iran as much as Iran needs Russia. In the larger scheme off things, the best solution is to not escalate tensions with Turkey. With the deployment of S-400, Russia now has a free hand at obliterating the Turk terrorists with minimum chance of Turkish fighter jets doing anything. It should stay that way, and Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia alliance should try to get as much ground as possible. Then, one has to wait for the Europeans to toss out their present governments and bring in some new faces that will call a spade a spade.

@Razor, @gadeshi, @nirranj, @bose, @Rowdy, et al., please comment.

It was pretty clear from the very beginning ISIS cannot be destroyed by Russian bombing, especially not when they receive funding from america via turkey and KSA proxies. And it was also doubtful Syria could be restored to its original borders. But what is of importance to Russia is that at least a considerable chunk of syria (including all coasts) remain under assad.

More & more one can smell the american-turkey hands over this entire project.

Europe is just a spring board to conquer eurasia. Only some important countries like need be considered for the fight against Eurasia/russia. The rest, more like cannon fodder.

 

[pmaitra]

It was pretty clear from the very beginning ISIS cannot be destroyed by Russian bombing, especially not when they receive funding from america via turkey and KSA proxies. And it was also doubtful Syria could be restored to its original borders. But what is of importance to Russia is that at least a considerable chunk of syria (including all coasts) remain under assad.

More & more one can smell the american-turkey hands over this entire project.

Europe is just a spring board to conquer eurasia. Only some important countries like need be considered for the fight against Eurasia/russia. The rest, more like cannon fodder.

Indeed. So, what in your opinion, should be the long term solution to this tendency of certain powers to spread chaos to further their geopolitical goals? I think the only option left for Russia is to look east. This will turn PRC into the next superpower. Unless EU comes to its senses, they can be discounted from any usefulness.

 

[Razor]

Oh and btw AFP reports US troops are now in Northern Syria to "train" the "rebels"
Northern Syria; Just in time, right? @pmaitra @Sakal Gharelu Ustad


Just get the kurds in, and russia is cornered.

US Troops Arrive in Syria to 'Train' Rebels

U.S. soldiers are in Kobani, the town in northern Syria nearly destroyed in fierce fighting with ISIS, to train Kurdish forces to battle the extremists, Kurdish sources said Thursday.

Mustapha Abdi, an activist in the town on the Turkish border, told AFP the American instructors had arrived “in recent hours” in what is the first official deployment of U.S. ground troops in Syria.

A source with the Kurdish People's Protection Units said the Americans would help plan offensives on two Syrian cities held by ISIS – Jarablus and the extremists' Syrian “capital”, Raqqa.

At the same time, they would have a role in coordinating with the Kurds and their Arab and Syriac Christian allies on the ground airstrikes on ISIS by the U.S.-led coalition, the YPG source said.

As you might recall, Obama announced that he would be putting boots on the ground in Syria, after vowing to never put boots on the ground in Syria.

Try to wrap your head around this: Obama says he supports Ankara after Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian jet in Syrian airspace…but he's also sending US soldiers to “train” Kurdish rebels who have been at war with Turkey since the dawn of time. Where is the logic here?

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-troops-arrive-syria-train-rebels/ri11500

 

[pmaitra]

@Razor,

I would look at what the US state controlled (even if privately owned) media says.

CNN has been splashing how Turkey helps ISIS in its news. We need to look at what the US gains.

Positioning of US troops within the Kurds will dissuade Turkey from bombing the Kurds. The US was obliged to openly support Turkey, not on the shooting down of the jet, but on Turkey's sovereignty. That Turkey has suspended flights indicates they were told by the US not to escalate the matter further, as it could spark off a war between Turkey and Russia and NATO countries are unwilling to go to war with Russia, which would inevitably destroy the credibility of NATO.

The US is making slow steps towards moving away from the Saudis and reaching out to Iran. The US probably no longer sees Middle East oil as an asset, but a competitor to its own fracking industry.

I am just trying to see which way the US would swing, and the answer lies in which way the US gets to gain the most.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Razor]

@Razor,

I would look at what the US state controlled (even if privately owned) media says.

CNN has been splashing how Turkey helps ISIS in its news. We need to look at what the US gains.

Positioning of US troops within the Kurds will dissuade Turkey from bombing the Kurds. The US was obliged to openly support Turkey, not on the shooting down of the jet, but on Turkey's sovereignty. That Turkey has suspended flights indicates they were told by the US not to escalate the matter further, as it could spark off a war between Turkey and Russia and NATO countries are unwilling to go to war with Russia, which would inevitably destroy the credibility of NATO.

The US is making slow steps towards moving away from the Saudis and reaching out to Iran. The US probably no longer sees Middle East oil as an asset, but a competitor to its own fracking industry.

I am just trying to see which way the US would swing, and the answer lies in which way the US gets to gain the most.

Let me know what you think.

So how does all this invalidate the claim that US is working to corner russia and remove assad ?

Remember US gave the green signal for saddam to attack kuwait and used that (and his supposed human rights record) as a pretext to eventually remove him.
Erdogan/davotoglu team is similar to the Russiam tandem team. They seem to have ambitions, and they seem to have power. Now bring in a puppet for turkey, who doesn't have much ambitions for turkey.
Constrict Bosporus. Prevent relations with russian improving. Therefore maintain constriction of bosporus for russia.

Take control of kurds. Prevent supply routes through caspain, iran, iraq.

Anyway I could be wrong. This just came off the top of me head.

Also fracking, is it sustainable? I have heard reports which says it causes earthquakes and what not.

 

[Razor]

Indeed. So, what in your opinion, should be the long term solution to this tendency of certain powers to spread chaos to further their geopolitical goals? I think the only option left for Russia is to look east. This will turn PRC into the next superpower. Unless EU comes to its senses, they can be discounted from any usefulness.

There is no merit in defense.
To win one must go on offense.
The US is very lucky to be on a separate continent protected by two largest oceans on both sides and a large buffer state on north and cheapo labor to the south.
When the time is right russians must cause internal destabilization of the US.

 

[pmaitra]

So how does all this invalidate the claim that US is working to corner russia and remove assad ?

Remember US gave the green signal for saddam to attack kuwait and used that (and his supposed human rights record) as a pretext to eventually remove him.
Erdogan/davotoglu team is similar to the Russiam tandem team. They seem to have ambitions. Now bring in a puppet for turkey, who doesn't have much ambitions for turkey.
Constrict Bosporus. Prevent relations with russian improving. Therefore maintain constriction of bosporus for russia.

Take control of kurds. Prevent supply routes through caspain, iran, iraq.

Also fracking, is it sustainable? I have heard reports which says it causes earthquakes and what not.

No, it doesn't invalidate the claim that the US is trying to corner Russia.

I am trying to say that the US is trying to use Turkey just as much as Turkey is trying to use the US.

The US cannot prevent supply routes by controlling the Kurds. The Russians will build pipelines under the Caspian and pipe it to Germany. There is nothing the US can do.

Constriction of Bosphorus would be an act of war. Turkey won't do that until Russia and Turkey go to war. If such an event occurs, NATO will collapse, and Turkey will lose the European part of Turkey to Greece.

 

[pmaitra]

There is no merit in defense.
To win one must go on offense.
The US is very lucky to be on a separate continent protected by two largest oceans on both sides and a large buffer state on north and cheapo labor to the south.
When the time is right russians must cause internal destabilization of the US.

Internal destabilization cannot be caused in the new world as easily at it can be caused in the world that has a history stretching into antiquity.

The Russian position is actually stronger, as long as it has Iran on its side, and PRC not against it. Trade over land is easier than trade over sea. The US military in interested in controlling sea trade lines, and wants to disrupt the land trade routes. PRC also wants to establish a land trade route. In the long term, I expect the US to lose. Russia simply needs to keep its cool, while the US will try to provoke it.

 

[Razor]

No, it doesn't invalidate the claim that the US is trying to corner Russia.

I am trying to say that the US is trying to use Turkey just as much as Turkey is trying to use the US.

1. The US cannot prevent supply routes by controlling the Kurds. The Russians will build pipelines under the Caspian and pipe it to Germany. There is nothing the US can do.

2. Constriction of Bosphorus would be an act of war. Turkey won't do that until Russia and Turkey go to war. If such an event occurs, NATO will collapse, and Turkey will lose the European part of Turkey to Greece.

1. I didn't mean supply routes for oil. I meant for war in syria. It will be a long one.
2. Afaik Bosporus & dardeneles are turkish territories. And ship transit is a privilege that turkey offers. I could be wrong though.

 

[Razor]

1. Internal destabilization cannot be caused in the new world as easily at it can be caused in the world that has a history stretching into antiquity.

The Russian position is actually stronger, as long as it has Iran on its side, and PRC not against it. 2. Trade over land is easier than trade over sea. The US military in interested in controlling sea trade lines, and wants to disrupt the land trade routes. PRC also wants to establish a land trade route. In the long term, I expect the US to lose. Russia simply needs to keep its cool, while the US will try to provoke it.

1. I don't think this is true. I think Black separatism, White separatism, and hispanic separatism are viable forces that can be exploited in the future (once whites become minority.)

2. I don't think this is true either.
Large quantities can be transported over sea. And if you want to trade with everyone eventually you'll have to go the sea way anyway, right? Only problem constriction points like malacca, suez, bosporus, panama etc.
And isn't the fact that most big cities are on coasts, a result of easier trade (and better climate.)

 

[pmaitra]

1. I didn't mean supply routes for oil. I meant for war in syria. It will be a long one.
2. Afaik Bosporus & dardeneles are turkish territories. And ship transit is a privilege that turkey offers. I could be wrong though.

All Black Sea powers not at war with Turkey can send naval ships as per the Montreux Convention. If Turkey closes it, it means Turkey is at a state of war, and can be interpreted as Turkey declaring war on Russia.

 

[pmaitra]

1. I don't think this is true. I think Black separatism, White separatism, and hispanic separatism are viable forces that can be exploited in the future (once whites become minority.)

2. I don't think this is true either.
Large quantities can be transported over sea. And if you want to trade with everyone eventually you'll have to go the sea way anyway, right? Only problem constriction points like malacca, suez, bosporus, panama etc.
And isn't the fact that most big cities are on coasts, a result of easier trade (and better climate.)

1. The US does have the risk of racial violence but I do not think it will result in separatism. Not yet.
2. Large volumes can be sent over land as well. Transporting goods over trains is always more convenient than via ships. That is what I think. Many cities have flourished at trade junctions far away from the seas.

 

[Razor]

All Black Sea powers not at war with Turkey can send naval ships as per the Montreux Convention. If Turkey closes it, it means Turkey is at a state of war, and can be interpreted as Turkey declaring war on Russia.

Are you sure?

What if turkey says it is at war with say the Kurds, or any other bogeyman.
Then declares a state of war; and declares the bosporus closed for military vessels so as not to escalate situation etc.
So now russia is not at war with turkey but still straits got closed.

Isn't that possible?