|
|
Svartzorn
Known Hero
Dead struggling with death.
|
posted November 25, 2015 04:06 AM |
|
|
That's messed up. Even if the plane was within turkish borders, the answer was so obviously excessive.
This is not Turkey's doing, it's NATO's obviously trying to provoke the russians. Shameful, should I say, since Russia's only trying to clean the mess the imperialists have made in the ME.
____________
Death to the world.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 08:00 AM |
|
|
Kayna said:
This is a blow on the Russian air force reputation though. Shows the whole world how easy it is to shoot them down.
Hardly. Su-24 is a fairly outdated bomber, it's not exactly supposed to engage fighters which try to shoot it from the back.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 02:43 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:44, 25 Nov 2015.
|
Russia will deploy SAMs around its Syrian airbase and sends a missile cruiser near Latakia (port city fairly close to Turkey) to "shoot down everything which threatens the Russian warplanes". Apart from that Putin more than implies links between Erdogan/Davutoglu's government and the terrorism in the area in his last few speeches but otherwise the signs from Russia are for possible economic penalties toward Turkey, as expected. Thing is that Russian can't really afford to put too much pressure on Turkey because of several major projects which it probably still hopes to realize at least partially.
As a side note, it seem more than a coincidence that during the last few days Ukraine has been deliberately sabotaging the power supply of Crimea and today officially forbid Russian airplanes to traverse its airspace. Normally I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but these events are too conveniently synchronized. 
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 06:44 PM |
|
|
Hooow dare uuuu?!
I'll have you know the Russian SU is a state of the art killing machine, so much so that the Chinese have recently purchased a bunch of 'em since Russia opened up its state of the art military tech cause of financial problems (albeit they only bought them to reverse engineer them and then produce their own knock-offs, but the point still stands, that jet is a beut', goddamn hillbillies and their lack of appreciation for modern armaments).
Blizz you get back here and answer for your crimes.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 06:45 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Kayna said:
This is a blow on the Russian air force reputation though. Shows the whole world how easy it is to shoot them down.
Hardly. Su-24 is a fairly outdated bomber, it's not exactly supposed to engage fighters which try to shoot it from the back.
Bombers dropping sorties will receive escorts for now on, so Russian & Turkish jets can get into dogfights next time.
Problem = solved
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 06:46 PM |
|
|
Sorry Tsar for deleting my post, but his was a response to me making a poke at the su-24.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 07:17 PM |
|
|
This is funny because I also attempted a poke to your deleted post, asking if you think that pilot also shot himself in the head, but then I realized that an intelligent guy like you (+ a fanatic of editing button) will realize that the joke was not really funny and will delete all. Then I just hit back in the browser and counted until 5, then your post was gone. 
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 07:44 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
Hooow dare uuuu?!
I'll have you know the Russian SU is a state of the art killing machine, so much so that the Chinese have recently purchased a bunch of 'em since Russia opened up its state of the art military tech cause of financial problems (albeit they only bought them to reverse engineer them and then produce their own knock-offs, but the point still stands, that jet is a beut', goddamn hillbillies and their lack of appreciation for modern armaments).
I haven't seen any information what sub-type of Su-24 was that but the original version is more than 40 years old.  At best, this is a modernized Soviet bomber.
The surviving and recovered Russian pilot claims that there were no warnings whatsoever before his plane was shot down. Turkey responded by releasing some recording of the alleged warnings. With the black box probably firmly into the hands of the rebels closely to the Turkish border, we will probably never know which side says the truth. Not that it really matters.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 09:13 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
we will probably never know which side says the truth. Not that it really matters.
the truth never matters in circumstances like these. all that matters is how it is manipulated on both sides, and what becomes of it.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 09:40 PM |
|
|
Sure it matters. Downing a Russian plane for a brief airspace violation might not be so popular either way, but it sure beats sinking one inside Syrian territory.
The bigger question is whether or not the right people care about the truth, so that they can respond appropriately. Insofar as Putin's goals are concerned towards the West, as well as ISIS's goals, this is very good news. This is a topic to create division among the loose coalition of Western governments, and division is only ever a good thing for ISIS as well, since it could never survive a united front. ISIS could never survive in an assertive world, but it can survive in a geopolitical climate very similar to post-WW 1.
You have multiple governments flying planes around inside a relatively small nation who are providing limited communication with one another. This is not going to be the last fumble that happens on the field.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 09:55 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 21:56, 25 Nov 2015.
|
|
ISIS can't survive ONE of the states in this so-called "coalition" if the said state decides to wipe it out. Many of these states however need ISIS or secretly support it from the backstage, hence why the media-friendly "war on terror" is so damn inefficient. The supply chains, the financing, the recruitment grounds, the bases - all of these are known to everybody, including states with hundreds of thousands of standing armies, technology worth trillions and pretty much full popular support to destroy such a major terrorist organization - and yet, ISIS is still here, a few years later, not even showing signs of weakening. The only chance to really be wiped out is the people, mainly in the West, to see the problem in their own houses.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 10:00 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
ISIS can't survive ONE of the states in this so-called "coalition" if the said state decides to wipe it out. Many of these states however need ISIS or secretly support it from the backstage, hence why the media-friendly "war on terror" is so damn inefficient. The supply chains, the financing, the recruitment grounds, the bases - all of these are known to everybody, including states with hundreds of thousands of standing armies, technology worth trillions and pretty much full popular support to destroy such a major terrorist organization - and yet, ISIS is still here, a few years later, not even showing signs of weakening. The only chance to really be wiped out is the people, mainly in the West, to see the problem in their own houses.
What?
It would be extremely costly for the US to single-handedly wipe out ISIS (assuming we're talking about a semi-humane ground invasion, not Armageddon). A government like France or Britain would be flat-out incapable with their current military budget & manpower. They'd go broke and be forced to retreat.
You can't just show up, kill a bunch of people that fight back, and then leave next month.
|
|
Kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 10:06 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
With the black box probably firmly into the hands of the rebels closely to the Turkish border, we will probably never know which side says the truth.
We wouldn't really know the truth no matter in who's hands the black box ends into. Ha.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 10:13 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
What?
It would be extremely costly for the US to single-handedly wipe out ISIS (assuming we're talking about a semi-humane ground invasion, not Armageddon). A government like France or Britain would be flat-out incapable with their current military budget & manpower. They'd go broke and be forced to retreat.
You can't just show up, kill a bunch of people that fight back, and then leave next month.
What do you think ISIS consists of? Its ground forces are reportedly several thousand militants, not counting the infiltrated terrorists in Europe. They fight against the Syrian army and the Iraqi army, among other things. They get their money from Saudi Arabia, Quatar, possibly your dear government through a net of proxies and hell knows who else and by selling oil and plunder on the black market. How long do you think several thousand armed brainless peasants will survive against a real army if their funding stops? Try to really think about it.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 10:14 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
ISIS can't survive ONE of the states in this so-called "coalition" if the said state decides to wipe it out. Many of these states however need ISIS or secretly support it from the backstage, hence why the media-friendly "war on terror" is so damn inefficient. The supply chains, the financing, the recruitment grounds, the bases - all of these are known to everybody, including states with hundreds of thousands of standing armies, technology worth trillions and pretty much full popular support to destroy such a major terrorist organization - and yet, ISIS is still here, a few years later, not even showing signs of weakening. The only chance to really be wiped out is the people, mainly in the West, to see the problem in their own houses.
Putin has pointed out numerous times that ISIL is netting most of its income from the sale of oil from Iraqi oil-fields that they've acquired (that and normal 'state' incomes), first order of business would be to freeze the accounts/sanction those buying the oil, well no **** right? Nope... What about finding out who is dealing the weapons and direct financing to ISIL, surely something like that would be a piece of cake for the fabled CIA right? Well kids, turns out that US are air-dropping massive crates loaded with weapons and supplies into the region apparently meant for 'moderate' rebels but oh my they've found their way into the hands of ISIL, that and just blatant defections of all personnel trained by the US to ISIS. It's another one of those situations, where the US is looking out for numero uno, I bet the reason they even got involved is to keep other powers from going ham on ISIS and actually disrupting their underhanded operations. It's not even a conspiracy when they're rubbing the crap in your face it's almost obvious, dunno how they keep getting away with sowing chaos.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 25, 2015 10:22 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
blizzardboy said:
What?
It would be extremely costly for the US to single-handedly wipe out ISIS (assuming we're talking about a semi-humane ground invasion, not Armageddon). A government like France or Britain would be flat-out incapable with their current military budget & manpower. They'd go broke and be forced to retreat.
You can't just show up, kill a bunch of people that fight back, and then leave next month.
What do you think ISIS consists of? Its ground forces are reportedly several thousand militants, not counting the infiltrated terrorists in Europe. They fight against the Syrian army and the Iraqi army, among other things. They get their money from Saudi Arabia, Quatar, possibly your dear government through a net of proxies and hell knows who else and by selling oil and plunder on the black market. How long do you think several thousand armed brainless peasants will survive against a real army if their funding stops? Try to really think about it.
1) There's a colossal disparity between active forces and inactive forces.
2) What to do about Assad if a foreign Western government moves in with a ground army. If you fight against him, then you have the sole responsibility to be the power in his place, and large chunks of his forces might end up your enemy.
3) You have to occupy what you take. Things are going to be boiling for several years after you move in with the ground forces. You don't need to line up your troops and march against a Western army. You just bleed them.
If there's one thing Russia might be right about, it's that the Wests' alienation towards Assad might be getting rid of the only workable ground army that could put some stability into the region. Coordinating localized ground forces with Western air power has been successful in both Afghanistan and Kosovo, but in Syria they're lacking a significant local ground army. The "moderate" factions within Syria are small and overrated.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 26, 2015 08:04 AM |
|
|
Why do you think something has to be "done" with Assad? It has already been proven by several failed campaigns in the Middle East that removing local dictators makes the situation far worse. In the context of the region these are not even dictators in the typical propaganda sense, there has never been anything even remotely resembling liberal state with some "human rights" focus there and it should already be clear even to the most deluded dimwits that these people can't be "civilized" through force (not that anybody really cares about "civilizing" them, exploit however...). States, no matter how oppressive they might be, have a fairly standard apparatus, they can be negotiated with, included in and excluded from international organizations, subjected to a large number of tools tried and tested throughout the centuries. Groups like ISIS work differently, you can't reason with them or pressure them, they don't play by the rules and thrive in an environment with no rules. Remove the state and you create such an environment. No, nothing should be "done" with Assad, at best he should step down and be replaced by another Assad who should stabilize the country. Any scenarios of West-installed interim government will follow the Iraqi road.
As for ISIS itself - you can't bleed anyone if you have no weapons and food for your fighters. It's true that after years of generous supplies delivered to them from the democratic world, be it via the phantom "moderate opposition" or just directly, they have the means to fight for some time. They are however not exactly beloved by the population which they terrorize and being able to lead a successful guerrilla warfare requires at least some popular support. The real problem is not that rabble advertised as an "army" but the states which support it and the unwillingness of the counties pretending to fight ISIS to put pressure on them. Economic embargo on Saudi Arabia will lead to increased oil prices which in turn will partially revive the Russian economy - now the world of free men can't afford that. At the same time the Saudis openly breed fanatics on their own territory and nobody even mentions their - in reality HUGE - contribution to the spread of twisted, reactionary Islam and all groups spawned by it. So you see, the trace leads back to the states which hope to exploit the chaos to achieve their own strategic goals, steadily ignoring the more and more obvious fact that the chaos only grows and will get out of control at some point.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 26, 2015 08:44 AM |
|
|
You don't necessarily need to oust Assad. That would require a major shift in current policy though. UN has already condemned him for war crimes against his own people, though that was before the situation was so desperate and it seemed like he would get toppled with the rest of the "Arab Spring" that was a popular term in 2011. Assad in Syria seems so tame at this point.
Obama & co know that their preferred outcome seems difficult to realize at this point. ISIS is anti-everything. Assad is part of the Russian/Iranian axis. The closest Western friendly factions are your random other rebel forces, and they're not particular big, nor particularly Western friendly.
Assad will probably remain in power, at least for the time, seeing as how Russia is already basing its planes there. UK will likely be joining the US-led airstrikes by Christmas now that the House of Commons has shifted stances since the Paris attacks; Labour MPs are getting on board. France is radically committed more than anybody. Russia isn't going anywhere.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted November 26, 2015 09:07 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Turkey shot down the Russian plane because Putin has been bombing Turkmen in Syria who are fighting the Syrian dictator. Turkey knows it gets a freebe attack on the Russians because Turkey can invoke Article 5 with NATO.
An air space violation for a few seconds did not warrant the shootdown.
Which is to say: the rebels on the border were not ISIS.
Of course - as a general rule - you don't shoot a plane down for violating airspace for a few seconds. Imagine if it was a French or American plane that went into the airspace without permission and was shot down. The larger question is what the Russian plane's targets were. Turkey doesn't want Turkmen rebels getting bombed, because they're an asset against Assad.
Turkey's concerns, in order, are probably as follows:
1) Iranian imperial ambitions
2) Kurdish separatists
3) Russian imperial ambitions
4) ISIS
Not that I have any fondness in my heart towards Erdogan, but I'm explaining the situation here. If Turkey knows Russians are bombing non-ISIS rebels on their border - rebels which Turkey would loosely consider allies - then Turkey is not going to tolerate any leeway with airspace violations. If Mussolini version 2.0 gets too angry about losing his plane, Turkey can invoke NATO article 5. Turkey is on the high ground and they know it.
It would be clear to sympathize with the Russians over the Turks if they were actually trying to destroy ISIS and nothing else, but that isn't what they're doing. They are there to bolster a regional ally, and are targeting anybody that is a threat to the current regime in Syria, including Turkish proxy allies. You think Turkey is going to watch a Russian bomber fly through their airspace in order to bomb Turkmen, while they have the NATO card in their pocket? Apparently we now know the answer to that question.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted November 26, 2015 07:41 PM |
|
|
Erdogan said that they didn't know that the bomber was Russian. Also, the Turkish Ministry of Defense allegedly said that they have not released any recordings about the warnings, so (if true) whatever circulates the media is fake. It's also being mentioned that there are no common communication frequencies for NATO and Russia so even if the Turkish pilots tried to warn the Russians (over what channel though?), the latter didn't get anything.
Yes, blizz, Russia is in Syria to protect Assad. The US, UK and Turkey are in Syria to remove Assad. The fight against ISIS is a propaganda fuel. Right now however, protecting Assad is far more reasonable than removing him if you also want to get rid of ISIS. And more and more people want to get rid of them.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
