Russian jet shot down in Turkish/Syrian Airspace

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Sigvatr**

LethalShade wrote:

+ About the pilots :

https://www.rt.com/news/323237-video-dead-russian-pilot/

You forgot to add a source.

**Orlanth**

Frazzled wrote:

Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.

If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.

I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.

**Ketara**

IGtR= wrote:

To quote from the ICRC Guidelines on war crimes:
"(ii) Perpetrators. Practice in the form of legislation, military manuals and case-law shows that war crimes are violations committed either by members of the armed forces or by civilians against members of the armed forces, civilians or protected objects of the adverse party.[28] National legislation typically does not limit the commission of war crimes to members of the armed forces, but rather indicates the acts that are criminal when committed by any person.[29] Several military manuals contain the same approach.[30] A number of military manuals, as well as some legislation, expressly include the term “civilians” among the persons that can commit war crimes.[31] "

If you want to read more then I can give you the link. Basically there are a certain set of agreed legal norms that are classified legally as war crimes, for example rape, genocide, which are agreed through conventions, treaties and through the case law of the ICC and equivalents to have codified what a war crime is. Russia's actions are legal under their laws of engagement and are targeted at irregular military forces and are not war crimes. They have no relevant provision under international law stating they are war crimes ergo they are not war crimes. The action of shooting at pilots on parachutes is arguably a war crime.

The problem you are having is divorcing morality and your political perspective from the law. You might not like Russian airstrikes, and think they are wrong, but they are not war crimes. I don't like the government taxing me and taking my money but it is not theft, it is legal, and therefore cannot be described as a crime. I hope that has clarified the legal approach somewhat.

Sorry, but I'm going to pick a few holes in what you've just posted. Primarily along the lines that

a) Your own post admits that the definition of a 'war crime' can vary according to the military and legal system used. Might makes right when it comes to enforcing 'war crimes' in foreign locations,
b) the agreed norms are agreed between governments, and any irregular/civilian force cannot be automatically considered to have signed up to/agreed to enforce and be judged by random international laws, and
c) if Russia can declare that their laws of engagement permit them to fire on defenceless targets, those selfsame targets can declare that their law of engagement permits them to do the same thing (because as an irregular armed civilian group in a geographic location with no government present, they can be considered the de facto government).

EDIT:- Unsurprisingly, I just examined the definitions of war crimes under the Rome Statute the ICC draws on. I'm reasonably sure that random Russian missile/air strikes could be argued to breach some of the following:-

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii) Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

(iii) Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

**CptJake**

Frazzled wrote:
Why are you assuming there are Turkish planes over Syria?

They've been flying sorties into Syria since this summer and in September officially joined the Anti-DaIsh coalition and has increased sortie rate a tiny bit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.

If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.

I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.

Turkey, generating sorties from Turkey won't be outmatched by anything the Russians have in theater, the Russians are not able to support an air to air campaign with what they have in Syria and can't project 'front line' squadrons from Russia very easily. They would need to forward base them.

**Orlanth**

Ketara wrote:

A think an important third point not yet raised here is the act the Russian pilots were engaged in. They were engaged in firing munitions against civilian targets (hence the reason for them being there to get shot down in the first place). Why is it not a war crime when they fire a missile that blows up a house and kills five people, but when their aircraft is destroyed and they bail and get shot by their targets, the populace they were firing at are guilty of war crimes?

This needs sourcing, there will be civilians in the area, there almost always are, and a level of collateral is acceptable; but you need to prove the Russians were purposefully not-targeting military targets.

There are plenty of military targets in the region, the Turkmen are heavily armed and have large scale deployments.
they are not ISIS but they are also anti-Assad which makes them a legit target in Russia's eyes. Turkey doesn't want these rebels shot at because they are pro Turkish rebels. Hence taking the excuse to shoot at the Russian bomber.

Ketara wrote:

I mean, let's be frank here, if it's just a case of firing on defenceless targets(i.e. that cannot fire/fight back) that makes it a war crime, doesn't that make every Russian air strike so far a war crime?

That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.

**Frazzled**

You might not like Russian airstrikes, and think they are wrong, but they are not war crimes.

Under what authority?

**Ketara**

Orlanth wrote:

That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.

Precisely the point.

In other words, it is already accepted that it can be legitimate to fire upon a defenceless enemy in war, and that does not make it a war crime. That is why the Russian actions are not considered war crimes. And that is why the actions of those who shot them are not war crimes. There is nothing in the Rome Statute (having just read it through) that could be applied to one that would not also make it logically applicable to the other.

The fact is that sadly, in war, people die, and they don't always get the chance to fire back. If you're going to lob munitions at people when they're defenceless, when you have no treaty, law or agreement with them regarding conflict between you, complaining that they do it back to you when they get the chance is just absurd.

**Frazzled**

Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.

If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.

I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.

Maybe.

Alternatively...
Would you like to play a game? How about global thermonuclear war?

**Orlanth**

CptJake wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.

If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.

I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.

Turkey, generating sorties from Turkey won't be outmatched by anything the Russians have in theater, the Russians are not able to support an air to air campaign with what they have in Syria and can't project 'front line' squadrons from Russia very easily. They would need to forward base them.

For the Russians as with the Soviets front line units doesnt mean anything geographic, it means those units equipped with cutting edge equipment. The Russians (and Soviets) used a three tier armed forces, a large enough force of premium hardware, a second line of obsolescent but usable equipment to be deployed en masse, and a third line of obsolete equipment placed in laagers behind lines, to be mobilised to replace casualties and keep up superior numbers. The third line forces were optioned out, and a lot also disappeared into the international arms trade, same with a lot of the second line equipment, but Russia did contain a lot of that. Front line equipment includes important pieces kept over a long period, such as the Tu-160 fleet and up to date recent build assets. As the T-50 and Mig-35 are'nt ready yet AFAIK the 'front line' fighter are the Mig-29K and Su-35.
The Turks will have to think carefully before attacking assets like those.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Unless te Turks shoot the bomber down first.

If the Turks shoot at, let alone down a Russian aircraft that doesn't enter their airspace there will be a further escalation which Turkey will lose out over.

I would expect any punitive raid to be well escorted also but front line Russian squadrons. If Turkey scrambles F-16's they can be outmatched.

Maybe.

Alternatively...
Would you like to play a game? How about global thermonuclear war?

Turkey isnt a nuclear power.

**CptJake**

Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.

The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.

**Orlanth**

Ketara wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.

Precisely the point.

In other words, it is already accepted that it can be legitimate to fire upon a defenceless enemy in war, and that does not make it a war crime. That is why the Russian actions are not considered war crimes. And that is why the actions of those who shot them are not war crimes. There is nothing in the Rome Statute (having just read it through) that could be applied to one that would not also make it logically applicable to the other.

The fact is that sadly, in war, people die, and they don't always get the chance to fire back. If you're going to lob munitions at people when they're defenceless, when you have no treaty, law or agreement with them regarding conflict between you, complaining that they do it back to you when they get the chance is just absurd.

Shooting at the Russian aircraft is not a war crime, its an international incident to which Russia may well respond, but not a war crime. Medevac aircraft are an exception, and only if they are unarmed. However shooting captured Russian pilots is a war crime as prisoners have right of protection under the Geneva conventions Though for ISIS and a lot of Syrian rebels the articles regarding POWs are ignored.

**thenoobbomb**

Sigvatr wrote:
LethalShade wrote:

+ About the pilots :

https://www.rt.com/news/323237-video-dead-russian-pilot/

You forgot to add a source.

The video was uploaded originally by the group that got him.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
Again, they would need to forward base those Migs and Sus, AND the logistics of maintaining them and all the support assets needed for an air to air campaign. From a C2 perspective alone Turkey has a much easier time, plus their assets are protected by a sophisticated and established IADS.

The Russians have had trouble maintaining air to ground sortie rates. They are not good at force projection against third world targets that don't fire back much. Attempting to take on a country with AWACs and other C2 assets coupled with the IADS Turkey has won't be easy. They had a hard time doing it in Georgia and that did not require near the logistic capability fighting the Turks will.

Plus that whole - hard to force project when all your assets are slags of now radioactive material.
Turkey is a NATO country. There is no Russia/Turkey air war. There could however be an escalated Russia / US nuke war.

**Ketara**

Orlanth wrote:
Ketara wrote:
Orlanth wrote:

That would forbid and condemn bombing in general, which hasnt happened.

Precisely the point.

In other words, it is already accepted that it can be legitimate to fire upon a defenceless enemy in war, and that does not make it a war crime. That is why the Russian actions are not considered war crimes. And that is why the actions of those who shot them are not war crimes. There is nothing in the Rome Statute (having just read it through) that could be applied to one that would not also make it logically applicable to the other.

The fact is that sadly, in war, people die, and they don't always get the chance to fire back. If you're going to lob munitions at people when they're defenceless, when you have no treaty, law or agreement with them regarding conflict between you, complaining that they do it back to you when they get the chance is just absurd.

Shooting at the Russian aircraft is not a war crime, its an international incident to which Russia may well respond, but not a war crime. Medevac aircraft are an exception, and only if they are unarmed. However shooting captured Russian pilots is a war crime as prisoners have right of protection under the Geneva conventions Though for ISIS and a lot of Syrian rebels the articles regarding POWs are ignored.

They never signed the Geneva convention, and the pilots never surrendered to them. So wrong on both accounts, I'm afraid.

**thenoobbomb**

Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?

**Frazzled**

You assume he has a right to surrender.

**thenoobbomb**

Frazzled wrote:
You assume he has a right to surrender.

Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.

**Ketara**

thenoobbomb wrote:
Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?

In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.

Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.

**Frazzled**

thenoobbomb wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You assume he has a right to surrender.

Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.

You call him a soldier. They would call him a terrorist. If he had been busy attempting to bomb my family, a bullet is the least bad option he is going to have.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:
Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?

In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.

Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.

War itself is a crime.

**Kilkrazy**

Sigvatr wrote:
obsidianaura wrote:
They should have been taken prisoner and treated with respect.

This isn't how war works.

During the Battle of Britain, RAF attacked downed German pilots and their rescue boats and seaplanes in the channel.

It's not something I am proud of. It shows how even liberal democracies with the rule of law will behave when there is an existential threat.

Of course, the situation with rebel guerillas in Syria is very different. They should have captured them and bargained them for some concessions. but, probably no fire discipline, just being a gang of wild men with guns.

I think it's a shame and would be happier if the pilots could have been saved.

**BrotherGecko**

So after all the fear and saber rattling of the Cold War nothing apparently was learned.

**Chute82**

Obama pardons Turkey for thanksgiving , Turkey shots down Russian jet... Thanks Obama

**jhe90**

Frazzled wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You assume he has a right to surrender.

Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.

You call him a soldier. They would call him a terrorist. If he had been busy attempting to bomb my family, a bullet is the least bad option he is going to have.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:
Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?

In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.

Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.

War itself is a crime.

War is brutal, but you don,t have to turn into savage barbarians of the darkest kind

**thenoobbomb**

I'll (naturally) agree that war itself is a crime.

**Frazzled**

I find that statement lacks merit. The very nature of war is brutal. Thats why it is wrong.

It is savage to shoot at pilots, but those pilots are attempting to liquify the organs of the people on the ground. Who's truly savage?

**Iron_Captain**

Ketara wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:
Please tell me how a pilot, hanging from a parachute in the air, is supposed to surrender?

In the same way a serviceman sitting on the toilet in his camp in a foreign country his army is occupying, surrenders to a mortar shell from local insurgents. He doesn't. But that scenario isn't generally regarded as a war crime, in the same way that a missile hitting a target that can't shoot back or surrender to your plane isn't regarded as a war crime.

Shooting someone defenceless and unable to surrender is not a war crime. Sadly.

Very wrong. Shooting at pilots parachuting down has explicitly been defined as a war crime under Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions. The same goes for other combatants unable to participate in combat, like those who are wounded and sick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_parachutists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat

Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all.

Also, Russia will deploy a missile cruiser to the area with orders to shoot down everything posing a threat to Russian personnel, and every raid will now be escorted by fighter planes. Any military cooperation and contacts with Turkey have been broken.
https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/

**Frazzled**

Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all.

Who allows or disallows?

**jhe90**

thenoobbomb wrote:
I'll (naturally) agree that war itself is a crime.

Aye, but sometimes ita the lesser evil to stop a greater one.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
Also, the Turkmen are unlawful combatants, which means that most of the normal laws of war and protections do not apply to them. Unlawful combatants are not allowed to shoot anything at all.

Who allows or disallows?

There isn't a legal category of unlawful combatant defined by international law. Ordinary civilians are specifically allowed by the laws of war to take up arms to defend their country, and are to be treated the same way as regular soldiers.

Unlawful combatant was invented by Bush to allow him to lock people up without trial.

**Sigvatr**

thenoobbomb wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You assume he has a right to surrender.

Yeah, because that's something every soldier should have, whether he's from a country whose politics you like or not.

This isn't how war works. The Geneva conventions are there, but do you seriously think that people on a battlefield care? If an armed tango is hit, there's a pretty good chance that he's still able to fire hins gun right at your face. Even when lying on the ground. So? You double-check. And noone will ever care - because that's war. Your life is worth more than your enemy's life. Your squad's lives matter more. Pretty much everyone and everything matters more. Split-second decisions decide on life or death on a battlefield and if you roam around strictly following the Geneva conventions, you will die. Soon. Especially against enemies that have zero respect for their own life. Shoot to kill. Always. Not a stance people like or even accept, not a stance you can publicly take. Why do you think governments hire mercenaries? Guess who has to do the gakky jobs.

War is dirty, far beyond any imagination. Soldiers die, civilians die, children die. That's war.