|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
If you analyse this situation as if state actors (Turkey and Russia) made rational decisions, you will never be able to understand what happened.
In such a short time, it seems unlikely that any high level decision making was involved and probably everything just followed a standard protocol. Furthermore, it seems highly likely that the normal cautious protocol was altered to be more aggressive on the Turkish side, following the various Russian incursions (and maybe also the tension with Russia bombing Turkish allies).
To me this seems pretty clear and understandable, though the merit of the protocols and the political process behind them can of course be debated. What is a bit more difficult to answer and in that sense more interesting, is why Russia conducts such risky operations and especially why the pilots wouldn't heed warnings* (I saw speculations that the fighter pilots deactivated their radio, if this is true the question would of course be why they did this).
*There has been some corroborating evidence about this if I recall correctly, if not I am not too adamant about this. Though if no warnings were send then it would be interesting why warnings were not included into the standard procedures for Turkey. I doubt that this is the case.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate?
|
On November 26 2015 22:40 silynxer wrote:
If you analyse this situation as if state actors (Turkey and Russia) made rational decisions, you will never be able to understand what happened.
In such a short time, it seems unlikely that any high level decision making was involved and probably everything just followed a standard protocol. Furthermore, it seems highly likely that the normal cautious protocol was altered to be more aggressive on the Turkish side, following the various Russian incursions (and maybe also the tension with Russia bombing Turkish allies).
To me this seems pretty clear and understandable, though the merit of the protocols and the political process behind them can of course be debated. What is a bit more difficult to answer and in that sense more interesting, is why Russia conducts such risky operations and especially why the pilots wouldn't heed warnings* (I saw speculations that the fighter pilots deactivated their radio, if this is true the question would of course be why they did this).
*There has been some corroborating evidence about this if I recall correctly, if not I am not too adamant about this. Though if no warnings were send then it would be interesting why warnings were not included into the standard procedures for Turkey. I doubt that this is the case.
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker.
|
I hope Erdogan will pay for this.
|
On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 22:40 silynxer wrote:
If you analyse this situation as if state actors (Turkey and Russia) made rational decisions, you will never be able to understand what happened.
In such a short time, it seems unlikely that any high level decision making was involved and probably everything just followed a standard protocol. Furthermore, it seems highly likely that the normal cautious protocol was altered to be more aggressive on the Turkish side, following the various Russian incursions (and maybe also the tension with Russia bombing Turkish allies).
To me this seems pretty clear and understandable, though the merit of the protocols and the political process behind them can of course be debated. What is a bit more difficult to answer and in that sense more interesting, is why Russia conducts such risky operations and especially why the pilots wouldn't heed warnings* (I saw speculations that the fighter pilots deactivated their radio, if this is true the question would of course be why they did this).
*There has been some corroborating evidence about this if I recall correctly, if not I am not too adamant about this. Though if no warnings were send then it would be interesting why warnings were not included into the standard procedures for Turkey. I doubt that this is the case. Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know. The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker.
And you would just let ethnic turks be bombed into oblivion? They should protect the turkmen and ensure russia is not able to hurt them.
|
On November 27 2015 00:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:On November 26 2015 22:40 silynxer wrote:
If you analyse this situation as if state actors (Turkey and Russia) made rational decisions, you will never be able to understand what happened.
In such a short time, it seems unlikely that any high level decision making was involved and probably everything just followed a standard protocol. Furthermore, it seems highly likely that the normal cautious protocol was altered to be more aggressive on the Turkish side, following the various Russian incursions (and maybe also the tension with Russia bombing Turkish allies).
To me this seems pretty clear and understandable, though the merit of the protocols and the political process behind them can of course be debated. What is a bit more difficult to answer and in that sense more interesting, is why Russia conducts such risky operations and especially why the pilots wouldn't heed warnings* (I saw speculations that the fighter pilots deactivated their radio, if this is true the question would of course be why they did this).
*There has been some corroborating evidence about this if I recall correctly, if not I am not too adamant about this. Though if no warnings were send then it would be interesting why warnings were not included into the standard procedures for Turkey. I doubt that this is the case. Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know. The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. And you would just let ethnic turks be bombed into oblivion? They should protect the turkmen and ensure russia is not able to hurt them.
The jihadi apologist is real. The turkmen are part of al-nusra, an al qaeda spin off and they kill Kurds. Turkey is supplying and funding jihadis lol. Turkey and the jihadis have the common goal of killing kurds, our allies in the fight against ISIS.
|
On November 26 2015 22:45 oneofthem wrote:
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate?
Is this directed at me? I have literally no idea to what you are replying to. Why would you think that I think the action was proportional?
On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker.
I would be very skeptical of his claim (even Sputnik News has some doubts). Also "The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally." can mean all kinds of things like orders to shoot down any violating airplane no matter how brief the incursion. Given that Erdogan is a strongman and lives from this shit he would say something like this no matter what happened. Curiously you believe him in this regard but doubt (for example) that warnings were given...
|
I have not followed every detail, can someone please tell me, what happened to the allegation that the Turkish F-16 must have sneaked up on the Su-24 in a low-altitude flight in order to be not spotted?
I personally feel this would make a big difference, defending the border vs. going on a kill-mission several miles away from it...
|
Turkmen = GreyWolf Turk Sunni nationalists. Their commander isn't a Syrian Turkmen, he is a Turkish citizen deeply invested into GreyWolf ideology.
I can understand people being anti-Putin, I myself don't really like him. But people being Pro Erdogan's Turkey is beyond my comprehension.
IN Dutch forums as well there are many Turk trolls trying to dominate and steer public opinion. This is no different here.
I'm so fucking done with Turkey after they've fed the Kurds to ISIS and bombed the Kurds in the back after ISIS bombed their civilian gatherings. This is only 1 thing the Turks are doing wrong since that goon Erdogan is in power. Unrightfully so I might add.
|
On November 27 2015 00:18 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 22:45 oneofthem wrote:
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate? Is this directed at me? I have literally no idea to what you are replying to. Why would you think that I think the action was proportional? Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. I would be very skeptical of his claim (even Sputnik News has some doubts). Also "The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally." can mean all kinds of things like orders to shoot down any violating airplane no matter how brief the incursion. Given that Erdogan is a strongman and lives from this shit he would say something like this no matter what happened. Curiously you believe him in this regard but doubt (for example) that warnings were given...
I don't really believe or disbelieve his words on this, whether it's true or not makes no difference, the important thing is their stance on the matter, which is attempting to deter Russian operations in the region, not by accident but in whatever way they can even remotely justify.
As for the Turkmen in the area being 'ethnic turks' that Turkey wants to protect... like the other poster above said, those guys are a bunch of radicals known for ethnic persecution and murders, supported by Turkey's very own ultra-right extremists (see the NTV link I posted earlier). Assad is not a saint either, but you know what, there are literally no 'good guys' in the Syrian conflict (or politics in general, but that's neither here nor there). The difference between Assad and every other asshole in there is that Assad has at least 'some' legitimacy in claims to rule over Syria, is willing to be at least 'somewhat' reasonable in diplomacy, and doesn't expect the region to be redrawn completely. Kurd nationalists aside (and those aren't really a merry bunch either, but whatever), most of the 'moderate' rebel groups out there are either Islamist fanatics or straight up bandits and the sooner NATO stops pretending they are helping some 'good guys' fighting a 'good fight' out there, the better it will be for everyone.
And the Turkey spin on this is that Erdogan's government hates Assad and seeks him deposed, plus they hope to make territorial gains out of the Syrian conflict and keep Kurds suppressed under their own rule, which is as it usually goes in politics, hoping to both eat the cake and keep it. You'd think a country claiming they want to protect their 'ethnic brothers' would also acknowledge the rights of other ethnicities, but considering the way Turkey has handled ethnic minorities since the Ottoman days, their approach to this isn't really all that surprising I suppose.
|
To be honest I highly dislike both Putin and Erdogan, and I find this situation between those dictators (or close to) pretty funny as they try to cover up their schemes with more and more lies. I saw the analysis of the official version given by both country for the fly path of the su-24 and the number of discrepancies in both versions were pretty funny (don't know if I can find the equivalent in english).
All in all the reality is probably a grey area in the middle. The su-24 got too close as it was trying to probe turkey's response and turkey's military got trigger happy.
|
On November 27 2015 00:48 frontliner2 wrote:
Turkmen = GreyWolf Turk Sunni nationalists. Their commander isn't a Syrian Turkmen, he is a Turkish citizen deeply invested into GreyWolf ideology.
I can understand people being anti-Putin, I myself don't really like him. But people being Pro Erdogan's Turkey is beyond my comprehension.
IN Dutch forums as well there are many Turk trolls trying to dominate and steer public opinion. This is no different here.
I'm so fucking done with Turkey after they've fed the Kurds to ISIS and bombed the Kurds in the back after ISIS bombed their civilian gatherings. This is only 1 thing the Turks are doing wrong since that goon Erdogan is in power. Unrightfully so I might add.
Don't mistake my support of Turkey in defending its airspace (amid plenty of warnings) with defending their actions towards the Kurds and ISIS.
|
|
|
On November 27 2015 00:54 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 00:18 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2015 22:45 oneofthem wrote:
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate? Is this directed at me? I have literally no idea to what you are replying to. Why would you think that I think the action was proportional? On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. I would be very skeptical of his claim (even Sputnik News has some doubts). Also "The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally." can mean all kinds of things like orders to shoot down any violating airplane no matter how brief the incursion. Given that Erdogan is a strongman and lives from this shit he would say something like this no matter what happened. Curiously you believe him in this regard but doubt (for example) that warnings were given... I don't really believe or disbelieve his words on this, whether it's true or not makes no difference, the important thing is their stance on the matter, which is attempting to deter Russian operations in the region, not by accident but in whatever way they can even remotely justify. As for the Turkmen in the area being 'ethnic turks' that Turkey wants to protect... like the other poster above said, those guys are a bunch of radicals known for ethnic persecution and murders, supported by Turkey's very own ultra-right extremists (see the NTV link I posted earlier). Assad is not a saint either, but you know what, there are literally no 'good guys' in the Syrian conflict (or politics in general, but that's neither here nor there). The difference between Assad and every other asshole in there is that Assad has at least 'some' legitimacy in claims to rule over Syria, is willing to be at least 'somewhat' reasonable in diplomacy, and doesn't expect the region to be redrawn completely. Kurd nationalists aside (and those aren't really a merry bunch either, but whatever), most of the 'moderate' rebel groups out there are either Islamist fanatics or straight up bandits and the sooner NATO stops pretending they are helping some 'good guys' fighting a 'good fight' out there, the better it will be for everyone. And the Turkey spin on this is that Erdogan's government hates Assad and seeks him deposed, plus they hope to make territorial gains out of the Syrian conflict and keep Kurds suppressed under their own rule, which is as it usually goes in politics, hoping to both eat the cake and keep it. You'd think a country claiming they want to protect their 'ethnic brothers' would also acknowledge the rights of other ethnicities, but considering the way Turkey has handled ethnic minorities since the Ottoman days, their approach to this isn't really all that surprising I suppose.
This has basically nothing to do with the point I am making. You are confusing procedures and politics. Of course which procedures are put in place is political but to explain an incident like this you have to look at the procedures first. Btw this relates to the point about mind control Gorsameth was making.
To expand why I think Erdogan did not order this personally: Just think about how ridiculous it would be from an organisatorial point of view to call the head of state every time there might be an (very brief!) incursion in the next minutes, so he can within seconds personally give the order.
When I say I don't understand why Russia makes such risky maneuvers, I don't mean that as an attack. I really don't understand how the procedures came to be. Of course I can theorize about this but I feel way less sure than about the Turkish side. I invite especially the "pro Russian" side to give their ideas on this!
|
On November 27 2015 01:07 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 00:54 Salazarz wrote:On November 27 2015 00:18 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2015 22:45 oneofthem wrote:
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate? Is this directed at me? I have literally no idea to what you are replying to. Why would you think that I think the action was proportional? On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. I would be very skeptical of his claim (even Sputnik News has some doubts). Also "The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally." can mean all kinds of things like orders to shoot down any violating airplane no matter how brief the incursion. Given that Erdogan is a strongman and lives from this shit he would say something like this no matter what happened. Curiously you believe him in this regard but doubt (for example) that warnings were given... I don't really believe or disbelieve his words on this, whether it's true or not makes no difference, the important thing is their stance on the matter, which is attempting to deter Russian operations in the region, not by accident but in whatever way they can even remotely justify. As for the Turkmen in the area being 'ethnic turks' that Turkey wants to protect... like the other poster above said, those guys are a bunch of radicals known for ethnic persecution and murders, supported by Turkey's very own ultra-right extremists (see the NTV link I posted earlier). Assad is not a saint either, but you know what, there are literally no 'good guys' in the Syrian conflict (or politics in general, but that's neither here nor there). The difference between Assad and every other asshole in there is that Assad has at least 'some' legitimacy in claims to rule over Syria, is willing to be at least 'somewhat' reasonable in diplomacy, and doesn't expect the region to be redrawn completely. Kurd nationalists aside (and those aren't really a merry bunch either, but whatever), most of the 'moderate' rebel groups out there are either Islamist fanatics or straight up bandits and the sooner NATO stops pretending they are helping some 'good guys' fighting a 'good fight' out there, the better it will be for everyone. And the Turkey spin on this is that Erdogan's government hates Assad and seeks him deposed, plus they hope to make territorial gains out of the Syrian conflict and keep Kurds suppressed under their own rule, which is as it usually goes in politics, hoping to both eat the cake and keep it. You'd think a country claiming they want to protect their 'ethnic brothers' would also acknowledge the rights of other ethnicities, but considering the way Turkey has handled ethnic minorities since the Ottoman days, their approach to this isn't really all that surprising I suppose. This has basically nothing to do with the point I am making. You are confusing procedures and politics. Of course which procedures are put in place is political but to explain an incident like this you have to look at the procedures first. Btw this relates to the point about mind control Gorsameth was making. To expand why I think Erdogan did not order this personally: Just think about how ridiculous it would be from an organisatorial point of view to call the head of state every time there might be an (very brief!) incursion in the next minutes, so he can within seconds personally give the order. When I say I don't understand why Russia makes such risky maneuvers, I don't mean that as an attack. I really don't understand how the procedures came to be. Of course I can theorize about this but I feel way less sure than about the Turkish side. I invite especially the "pro Russian" side to give their ideas on this!
You can't look at the airplane incident as an isolated occurrence. There was plenty of buildup to it, except the Turkish 'warnings' and Russian pilots' 'recklessness' has nothing to do with the real buildup. Both sides were interested in an incident like this, for their own reasons. Turkey needs to score points with the rebels they support and right wings inside their country; Russia needs justification to increase pressure on the anti-Assad rebels that aren't aligned with ISIS. Both are getting exactly what they want out of an incident like this, the thing is I really don't think it's going to work out for Turkey in the long term, but then again Erdogan might not even be thinking about long term at this point so who knows.
But the bottomline is, it's literally pointless discussing whether the airplane shoot down was 'justified' or not as an isolated thing. The context of the incident is far more important than the number of seconds spent in Turkish airspace or whether or not the plane was in fact in Turkey at the moment of the engagement and so on. All of that is only being discussed to gain some extra popular support; even if it was confirmed with 100% certainty that the plane never strode into Turkey (or if it was confirmed with 100% certainty that the plane was given ample warnings and still flew in there and made a few circles over a Turkish village or something), it wouldn't make a big difference as to how the major players in the region would react to it (and by reacting I mean, you know, real actions rather than fluff said to media).
To be honest I highly dislike both Putin and Erdogan, and I find this situation between those dictators (or close to) pretty funny as they try to cover up their schemes with more and more lies. I saw the analysis of the official version given by both country for the fly path of the su-24 and the number of discrepancies in both versions were pretty funny (don't know if I can find the equivalent in english).
All in all the reality is probably a grey area in the middle. The su-24 got too close as it was trying to probe turkey's response and turkey's military got trigger happy.
As much as you might hate Putin, Russia's intervention in Syria is hardly something to rag on. The NATO coalition had been at a standstill for way too long and it should be clear by now that fighting both Assad and ISIS at the same time isn't working out. The West really needs to accept that whatever dictators might end up ruling in the Middle East, having a dictator who is at least in control of their own country is far better than the chaos currently seen in Egypt, Syria, Iraq etc. Then again, people are as usual making money off this conflict, so maybe that was really the big plan all along, who knows.
|
On November 27 2015 01:07 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 00:54 Salazarz wrote:On November 27 2015 00:18 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2015 22:45 oneofthem wrote:
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate? Is this directed at me? I have literally no idea to what you are replying to. Why would you think that I think the action was proportional? On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. I would be very skeptical of his claim (even Sputnik News has some doubts). Also "The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally." can mean all kinds of things like orders to shoot down any violating airplane no matter how brief the incursion. Given that Erdogan is a strongman and lives from this shit he would say something like this no matter what happened. Curiously you believe him in this regard but doubt (for example) that warnings were given... I don't really believe or disbelieve his words on this, whether it's true or not makes no difference, the important thing is their stance on the matter, which is attempting to deter Russian operations in the region, not by accident but in whatever way they can even remotely justify. As for the Turkmen in the area being 'ethnic turks' that Turkey wants to protect... like the other poster above said, those guys are a bunch of radicals known for ethnic persecution and murders, supported by Turkey's very own ultra-right extremists (see the NTV link I posted earlier). Assad is not a saint either, but you know what, there are literally no 'good guys' in the Syrian conflict (or politics in general, but that's neither here nor there). The difference between Assad and every other asshole in there is that Assad has at least 'some' legitimacy in claims to rule over Syria, is willing to be at least 'somewhat' reasonable in diplomacy, and doesn't expect the region to be redrawn completely. Kurd nationalists aside (and those aren't really a merry bunch either, but whatever), most of the 'moderate' rebel groups out there are either Islamist fanatics or straight up bandits and the sooner NATO stops pretending they are helping some 'good guys' fighting a 'good fight' out there, the better it will be for everyone. And the Turkey spin on this is that Erdogan's government hates Assad and seeks him deposed, plus they hope to make territorial gains out of the Syrian conflict and keep Kurds suppressed under their own rule, which is as it usually goes in politics, hoping to both eat the cake and keep it. You'd think a country claiming they want to protect their 'ethnic brothers' would also acknowledge the rights of other ethnicities, but considering the way Turkey has handled ethnic minorities since the Ottoman days, their approach to this isn't really all that surprising I suppose. This has basically nothing to do with the point I am making. You are confusing procedures and politics. Of course which procedures are put in place is political but to explain an incident like this you have to look at the procedures first. Btw this relates to the point about mind control Gorsameth was making. To expand why I think Erdogan did not order this personally: Just think about how ridiculous it would be from an organisatorial point of view to call the head of state every time there might be an (very brief!) incursion in the next minutes, so he can within seconds personally give the order.
When I say I don't understand why Russia makes such risky maneuvers, I don't mean that as an attack. I really don't understand how the procedures came to be. Of course I can theorize about this but I feel way less sure than about the Turkish side. I invite especially the "pro Russian" side to give their ideas on this!
You know standing orders are a thing and quite common.
|
On November 27 2015 00:10 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 00:06 ImFromPortugal wrote:On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:On November 26 2015 22:40 silynxer wrote:
If you analyse this situation as if state actors (Turkey and Russia) made rational decisions, you will never be able to understand what happened.
In such a short time, it seems unlikely that any high level decision making was involved and probably everything just followed a standard protocol. Furthermore, it seems highly likely that the normal cautious protocol was altered to be more aggressive on the Turkish side, following the various Russian incursions (and maybe also the tension with Russia bombing Turkish allies).
To me this seems pretty clear and understandable, though the merit of the protocols and the political process behind them can of course be debated. What is a bit more difficult to answer and in that sense more interesting, is why Russia conducts such risky operations and especially why the pilots wouldn't heed warnings* (I saw speculations that the fighter pilots deactivated their radio, if this is true the question would of course be why they did this).
*There has been some corroborating evidence about this if I recall correctly, if not I am not too adamant about this. Though if no warnings were send then it would be interesting why warnings were not included into the standard procedures for Turkey. I doubt that this is the case. Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know. The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. And you would just let ethnic turks be bombed into oblivion? They should protect the turkmen and ensure russia is not able to hurt them. The jihadi apologist is real. The turkmen are part of al-nusra, an al qaeda spin off and they kill Kurds. Turkey is supplying and funding jihadis lol. Turkey and the jihadis have the common goal of killing kurds, our allies in the fight against ISIS.
Why apologist? If you read all my posts on this thread since 2011 i have been talking against both the regime and turkey so your assumption was a failure. Russians supported separatists in ukraine and now are mad the turks are doing the same.. hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do.
|
On November 27 2015 01:30 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2015 01:07 silynxer wrote:On November 27 2015 00:54 Salazarz wrote:On November 27 2015 00:18 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2015 22:45 oneofthem wrote:
not going to waste my time with clear delirium. how many flyovers in turkey and how many shootdowns? expand this to global flyovers. literally why do you think turkey action is propotionate? Is this directed at me? I have literally no idea to what you are replying to. Why would you think that I think the action was proportional? On November 26 2015 22:53 Salazarz wrote:
Considering Turkish PM claims he gave the order to shoot down the plane, I think you're pretty off on this assessment. The thing is, Turkish government is in power mostly through support from heavily right-wing and basically fanatical Islamic groups in the country. For them, this is a way to show defiance against Russia and their support towards their 'brothers' fighting in Syria. It's just that their entire plan is based on the fact that ISIS will either downright win the war in Syria or at least put up a good enough fight to dictate their terms of a political resolution in the region, which to me doesn't seem very likely but what do I know.
The less likely NATO and Russia to cooperate, the happier Turkey will be as that makes ISIS position in Syria stronger, so it really makes sense from that angle. Now I'm not even claiming that Turkey is directly involved with ISIS or anything (although in my eyes, that kind of makes sense), but the fact is Erdogan's government stands to profit from ISIS being stronger and Russia / NATO coalition being weaker. I would be very skeptical of his claim (even Sputnik News has some doubts). Also "The Turkish Armed Forces carried out orders given by me personally." can mean all kinds of things like orders to shoot down any violating airplane no matter how brief the incursion. Given that Erdogan is a strongman and lives from this shit he would say something like this no matter what happened. Curiously you believe him in this regard but doubt (for example) that warnings were given... I don't really believe or disbelieve his words on this, whether it's true or not makes no difference, the important thing is their stance on the matter, which is attempting to deter Russian operations in the region, not by accident but in whatever way they can even remotely justify. As for the Turkmen in the area being 'ethnic turks' that Turkey wants to protect... like the other poster above said, those guys are a bunch of radicals known for ethnic persecution and murders, supported by Turkey's very own ultra-right extremists (see the NTV link I posted earlier). Assad is not a saint either, but you know what, there are literally no 'good guys' in the Syrian conflict (or politics in general, but that's neither here nor there). The difference between Assad and every other asshole in there is that Assad has at least 'some' legitimacy in claims to rule over Syria, is willing to be at least 'somewhat' reasonable in diplomacy, and doesn't expect the region to be redrawn completely. Kurd nationalists aside (and those aren't really a merry bunch either, but whatever), most of the 'moderate' rebel groups out there are either Islamist fanatics or straight up bandits and the sooner NATO stops pretending they are helping some 'good guys' fighting a 'good fight' out there, the better it will be for everyone. And the Turkey spin on this is that Erdogan's government hates Assad and seeks him deposed, plus they hope to make territorial gains out of the Syrian conflict and keep Kurds suppressed under their own rule, which is as it usually goes in politics, hoping to both eat the cake and keep it. You'd think a country claiming they want to protect their 'ethnic brothers' would also acknowledge the rights of other ethnicities, but considering the way Turkey has handled ethnic minorities since the Ottoman days, their approach to this isn't really all that surprising I suppose. This has basically nothing to do with the point I am making. You are confusing procedures and politics. Of course which procedures are put in place is political but to explain an incident like this you have to look at the procedures first. Btw this relates to the point about mind control Gorsameth was making. To expand why I think Erdogan did not order this personally: Just think about how ridiculous it would be from an organisatorial point of view to call the head of state every time there might be an (very brief!) incursion in the next minutes, so he can within seconds personally give the order. When I say I don't understand why Russia makes such risky maneuvers, I don't mean that as an attack. I really don't understand how the procedures came to be. Of course I can theorize about this but I feel way less sure than about the Turkish side. I invite especially the "pro Russian" side to give their ideas on this! You can't look at the airplane incident as an isolated occurrence. There was plenty of buildup to it, except the Turkish 'warnings' and Russian pilots' 'recklessness' has nothing to do with the real buildup. Both sides were interested in an incident like this, for their own reasons. Turkey needs to score points with the rebels they support and right wings inside their country; Russia needs justification to increase pressure on the anti-Assad rebels that aren't aligned with ISIS. Both are getting exactly what they want out of an incident like this, the thing is I really don't think it's going to work out for Turkey in the long term, but then again Erdogan might not even be thinking about long term at this point so who knows. But the bottomline is, it's literally pointless discussing whether the airplane shoot down was 'justified' or not as an isolated thing. The context of the incident is far more important than the number of seconds spent in Turkish airspace or whether or not the plane was in fact in Turkey at the moment of the engagement and so on. All of that is only being discussed to gain some extra popular support; even if it was confirmed with 100% certainty that the plane never strode into Turkey (or if it was confirmed with 100% certainty that the plane was given ample warnings and still flew in there and made a few circles over a Turkish village or something), it wouldn't make a big difference as to how the major players in the region would react to it (and by reacting I mean, you know, real actions rather than fluff said to media).
You cannot look at an incident and then after the fact use motivations of not directly participating persons as an explanation. That is just nonsense. I feel like I am not making myself clear, I'll try one more time from the beginning.
It is a convenient fantasy to imagine countries as persons acting in their own interest but if you think about this for more than a second you see that this is wrong. Countries are abstract entities, they don't think and they don't act. However thinking this way might sometimes be helpful as an abstraction (and sometimes, as here, it is actively unhelpful). Other times people personify a country as their leader of state. Again, for some situations this model is useful, especially if the leader is directly involved in the relevant decisionmaking and the orders are simple and direct. I don't think this was the case here, for the reasons given.
Most of the time complex institutions are issued unclear instructions that are interpreted and integrated into their structures. This is how the state works day to day. (all simplified)
Now let's analyse what happened here (if you take issue with any of this, please be specific, I don't want to read about why the shoot down would benefit Erdogan for a third time):
I am not a military expert but from similar incidents in the past (in particular one with Turkey and Russia earlier this year) the standard reaction to a foreign aircraft entering your airspace is not to immediately shoot it down but intercept it and then act according to the reaction.
On the other hand violating the airspace of another country (outside of war or conflict about borders) is a rare event and is taken pretty seriously. In this case all points towards Turkey changing their approach to incursions (probably after consulting with NATO) to immediate shoot down if an unidentified aircraft enters their airspace. Here you can insert all your speculation why this was done. Maybe Erdogan calculated that if such an incident was to occur, it would help him. Maybe he just wanted to be a strongmanand his ego was hurt. Maybe it has something to do with NATO or different factions in the Turkish military. It is also possible that whatever the new procedures were not completely clear and left some leeway for interpretation at the local level.
What I find very unlikely is, that general instructions were given to provoke an incident by shooting even when the unidentified aircraft was not in Turkish airspace. Maybe if Russian planes were always flighing the same maneuver close to the boarder something like this would be thinkable. Otherwise, in absence of evidence, I would note it under conspiracies. Mistakes by personel is of course possible.
I think this explains pretty well what happened on the Turkish side. Now, I ask again what led to Russian planes flying so close to the border (or even beyond). Was it for strategic reasons? Thoughtlessness?
|
On November 27 2015 01:41 ImFromPortugal wrote:
hopefully the turks keep on shooting anyone that gets into their airspace as they are allowed to do. They are not!
I don''t know what kind of international rule you have, but in the one most countries agreed on, you are not allowed to shoot down a plane, that is clearly not attacking you (a single plane without escort, with friend/foe identification on, entered and left your airspace in under 30 seconds), over foreign soil no less!
This kind of 'border touching' happens all the time. Like someone above posted, if you think it was normal behavior and Greece was acting like this, they should have shot down hundreds of Turkish planes:
![[image loading]](http://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/GreekAirspace-011-714x472.png)
|
The situation with Greece is different because there is a border dispute (e.g. the other side doesn't accept it violated any airspace). Violation of airspace is normally very rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
