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.

NPR was saying that there's an 8-mile stretch near the border where Turkey is allowed to enforce its airspace, since rules of engagement put into place in 2012. It also sounds like they repeatedly warned the jet to change course and it did not.

This is a real mess, and I think we have handled the whole Syria situation terribly... it's certainly complicated, but we're definitely not rising to the occasion here!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:


Rules of war only followed by those signed up to them.

Only if made publicly. Pretty much all states use mercenaries that act covertly (and much more efficiently, might I add) and do not adhere the "rules of war".

Aye true, black ops, cia, all very direct and effective with no rules ttieing it down bar do not get caught doing that stuff.

 LordofHats wrote:


Maybe don't violate other country's air spaces?

It was shot over Syria. The only violation possible was 2km zone, where Turkey catched and shot down Assad's Mig. But it's few seconds violation, Turkey can only launch rockets when it oveer Syrian territory. Anyway, it's very stupid action. Like retailation for oil trucks from terrorists as someone wrote

Possibly a stupid question:

With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down? They would look different than a pilot on a parachut I would think, but just wondering.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Anyway, it's very stupid action.

Yes. Continually violating the airspace of a country with whom you have a historic rivalry, that has a leader every much as focused on rebuilding old glories as your own, and whose interests in a nearby conflict have become opposed to yours, is a very stupid action.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Maybe don't violate other country's air spaces?

It was shot over Syria. The only violation possible was 2km zone, where Turkey catched and shot down Assad's Mig. But it's few seconds violation, Turkey can only launch rockets when it oveer Syrian territory. Anyway, it's very stupid action. Like retailation for oil trucks from terrorists as someone wrote

Almost as stupid as violating Turkish airspace and being warned about it. Violating it again and getting a drone shot down, violating it yet again, having your aircraft warned repeatedly. Almost as if Putin wanted to push the Turks to see how far they would go, no?

It's not like Putin likes testing how far he can go. Like, let's say, militarily occupying another country or something.

...oh, wait.

 d-usa wrote:
Possibly a stupid question:

With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down? They would look different than a pilot on a parachut I would think, but just wondering.

Been a while but if I remember my Law of War training, yes we could target paratroopers (combatants) but not ejected air crew (no longer combatants). I even remember a manual showing how to lead paratroopers so you could cap them on their way down.

 d-usa wrote:
Possibly a stupid question:

With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down?

Yes.

Has a parachute and is falling from the sky != cannot be harmed. The pilot must surrender or be captured to be considered a legal POW. If a pilot resists or evades capture they are still an enemy combatant and can be fired on. Though I have little doubt the rebels who killed the pilots didn't give any gaks about anything like that.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Maybe don't violate other country's air spaces?

It was shot over Syria. The only violation possible was 2km zone, where Turkey catched and shot down Assad's Mig. But it's few seconds violation, Turkey can only launch rockets when it oveer Syrian territory. Anyway, it's very stupid action. Like retailation for oil trucks from terrorists as someone wrote

Where it was when it was shot down is almost irrelevant at this stage. If the Russian jet was violating Turkish airspace at any stage in it's flight, Putin is to blame as the primary instigator of the incident. Russia has been warned multiple times recently about what would occur if it kept doing it. That said, just because one politician decides to engage in moronic international military posturing does not mean all others should sink to the same depths, and Erdogan is responsible for making the call to take the lives of two men to 'show Putin who's boss'.

What a pair of fethwits. I totally get that there's a time and a place to start flexing your military muscles when you're playing realpolitik and it advances the cause of your nation, but this really wasn't it for either side.

Yes, it was very dangerous. Many warned it may happen and it's happened

 obsidianaura wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Pilots were shot by "moderate rebels" as they hung on their parachutes in the air.

This should be a war crime if it's not already.

There's no reason to shoot them as they're stuck there helplessly.

Even if they've been bombing them for the last few months. They should have been taken prisoner and treated with respect.

Alternatively, you don't have to take them prisoner until you take them prisoner. I missed, when did Russia declare war on Syria?

If anything then this may wind up benefiting Turkey. Considering the weak hand the rest of his rivals have shown recently, the Turks showing some force might make the Russians give a damn. Then again the Russians may just throw even more flak at the Turk's proxies.

I take it that the West is still backing the Syrian rebels? Even with the whole ISIS fiasco? Or have we somehow joined the Syrian government's side, despite baying for his head months ago? ...I wonder how the Israelis are taking all of this? Hell the Middle East must be pretty confused about the current situation, well the Western backed elements that is.

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Possibly a stupid question:

With paratroopers being a thing, would you be allowed to shoot them as them as they are parachuting down?

Yes.

Has a parachute and is falling from the sky != cannot be harmed. The pilot must surrender or be captured to be considered a legal POW. If a pilot resists or evades capture they are still an enemy combatant and can be fired on. Though I have little doubt the rebels who killed the pilots didn't give any gaks about anything like that.

From the view of the rebels they are terrorists killing their children. Put 7.62s through to your heart's content.

 CptJake wrote:


Almost as stupid as violating Turkish airspace and being warned about it. Violating it again and getting a drone shot down, violating it yet again, having your aircraft warned repeatedly. Almost as if Putin wanted to push the Turks to see how far they would go, no?

If I were to be conspiratorial, one might suggest Russia plans to target Turkey in coming years to isolate it from other NATO members, put them in a really rotten position like opposing a Kurdish War of Independence backed by Russia to provoke Turkey into calling for NATO aid, and laughing when other NATO members refuse to get involved. This potentially undermines and breaks NATO as a meaningful alliance to oppose future Russian aims.

Hypothetically speaking. If it actually happens, I fething called it 2015, Right here

Frazzled wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
Pilots were shot by "moderate rebels" as they hung on their parachutes in the air.

This should be a war crime if it's not already.

There's no reason to shoot them as they're stuck there helplessly.

Even if they've been bombing them for the last few months. They should have been taken prisoner and treated with respect.

Alternatively, you don't have to take them prisoner until you take them prisoner. I missed, when did Russia declare war on Syria?

They didn't. They're fighting ISIS and other terrorist organisations in Syria.

Wyrmalla wrote:If anything then this may wind up benefiting Turkey. Considering the weak hand the rest of his rivals have shown recently, the Turks showing some force might make the Russians give a damn. Then again the Russians may just throw even more flak at the Turk's proxies.

I take it that the West is still backing the Syrian rebels? Even with the whole ISIS fiasco? Or have we somehow joined the Syrian government's side, despite baying for his head months ago? ...I wonder how the Israelis are taking all of this? Hell the Middle East must be pretty confused about the current situation, well the Western backed elements that is.

'the West' still opposes the Syrian government.

I recall Israel was providing the Russians with drone images and such of targets. The French ship Charles de Gaulle had a Russian escort as well.

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Almost as stupid as violating Turkish airspace and being warned about it. Violating it again and getting a drone shot down, violating it yet again, having your aircraft warned repeatedly. Almost as if Putin wanted to push the Turks to see how far they would go, no?

If I were to be conspiratorial, one might suggest Russia plans to target Turkey in coming years to isolate it from other NATO members, put them in a really rotten position like opposing a Kurdish War of Independence backed by Russia to provoke Turkey into calling for NATO aid, and laughing when other NATO members refuse to get involved. This potentially undermines and breaks NATO as a meaningful alliance to oppose future Russian aims.

Hypothetically speaking. If it actually happens, I fething called it 2015, Right here

Actually, everyone thought about that in one way or another.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
I take it that the West is still backing the Syrian rebels?

We've been scaling that back over time, and focusing more resources on the Kurds. All things said, the Kurds are kind of bad asses at this kind of thing. Given more recent events, support for non-ISIS Syrian rebels is likely to further erode from Western states as we move away from removing Assad from power. It's become an impractical aim with the larger threat of ISIS.

Though at the same time. Assad is probably doomed anyway. Even if Western states back off from opposing him, the reality is that his regime is likely over in the long run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LethalShade wrote:
Actually, everyone thought about that in one way or another.

Yeah, but I called it I have dibs

I think, weather you are or are not in controlled airspace that you've been officially warned not to enter or will be shot down. Then are right before the attack you are warned 10 times in 5 minutes to leave and ignore it.

You've got no-one to blame after you get shot down.

So ....... never lived on a air base beofre but judging by the land mass and flight path they would be inside that air space for what 12 minutes? How long does it to radio them several times warn them and then disembark a jet afte them catch up fire warning shot them shoot them down? Then set up people to shoot them on the way down.

Russia fly over our borders all the time. Warning are givin they keep flying they think they are a big deal and life moves on. Welcome to the death rattles of a forgotton empire. Plus they are failing to take over ukrain whcih is a stones throw away and not the greatest millitary they are not a threat. More of just like that cat that walks through your yard randomly. Their people are poor and they have few allies left in the wolrd.

5 minutes is 80km fly. too long

 Freakazoitt wrote:
5 minutes is 80km fly. too long

I would guess they saw them coming, started the warnings, kept them up as they entered the airspace, saw they were being ignored, and had the F16s splash them.

Maybe they should have heeded the warnings in this case.

Russia has to do something though.

Putin is trying to project power and having a jet shot down by lowly Turkey doesn't look good

One would hope they'd cease this "we're still a great power and we'll probe it by bombing someone" nonsense. But that's probably being too hopeful.

My take.

1. Su-24. Its a perfectly good idea to use older airframes for bombing guys in robes. This aircraft is obsolete for front line engagements against a modern military, but this wasnt what they were out there to do.

2. The pilots both ejected, but where did they land? Were they recovered before ISIS got to them?

3. While this is picky if the aircraft did violate Turkish airspace and Turkey did something about it, it sends a message to Putin that he wont get it all his own way. This is a larger message regarding events in the region, and Turkey is right to propagate that message.

 Orlanth wrote:
My take. Were they recovered before ISIS got to them?

Non-ISIS Syrian rebels captured and killed them.

To make Russia's day worse. They've had a helicopter shot down in Syria too today.

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has promised Turkey will "regret what it has done for a very long time", according to the BBC. Not that Chechnya can do much other than send terrorists, but still

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Not under Erdogan. Erdogan is a conservative pro-islamist and has favoured cooperation with Arab states over cooperation with Europe for quite a while now. Relations with Europe are pretty bad, actually.

That's mostly in relation to growing tensions the past decade over the Palestine-Israel Conflict, where Turkey has becoming increasingly pro-Palestinian. It's also really rich hearing criticism of Erdogan from Russia. Erdogan took all his plays from Putin's playbook. Seriously the political careers of the two have shocking parallels. I've always assumed it's just a matter of time till the guy tries invading Armenia or something.

Trying to paint this as "Turkey's really on their side" is just bs though. Turkey opposes Assad, and backs the non-ISIS Syrian rebels, and has ever since the Syrian Civil War started. Russia has decided to back Assad and bomb those rebels, and on top of that started a war in Ukraine. Turkey has every right to be very concerned about Russian intentions right now and it has nothing to do with the majority religion of the country.

Saying it has nothing to do with religion is denying the entire nature of the Syrian conflict. Erdogan is really big on religion, so supporting the conservative sunni muslim rebels against the secular Assad really fits them. Of course, geopolitical concerns are even more important than that. Assad was a rival to Erdogan's ambitions in the region, so it makes sense that Erdogan would support anti-Assad rebels (which are virtually all radical islamists, even the non-ISIS groups. The "moderate rebels" are mostly just a myth, there is no secular opposition to Assad). This includes ISIS. There are clear hints that Turkey actively supported ISIS before they went all crazy and conquering, but even now Turkey does virtually nothing to stop the flow of money and foreign fighters to ISIS, the vast majority of which goes through Turkey. Add to that that Turkey broke the cease-fire with the Kurds, who are the most active anti-ISIS fighters, and now actively fights them. It really does not take a genius to figure what Turkey's interests in the Syrian conflict are. Turkey wants to see Assad removed, and either a conservative muslim leader friendly to Turkey from one of the non-ISIS groups, or if that is not possible, to keep Syria in chaos.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's not like Putin likes testing how far he can go. Like, let's say, militarily occupying another country or something.

...oh, wait.

As it is for others, this war is another great chance to test their military from equipment and tactics, to different countries' responses.