Russia says NATO accepts reponsibility for downing of Russian Su-24 jet

By ‘covering’ Turkey politically, NATO took responsibility for downing of Russian Su-24 – envoy

By refusing to render an opinion on Turkey’s “intentional” downing of Russia’s bomber over Syria, and instead providing Ankara with political backing, NATO’s leadership has taken responsibility for the incident, Russia’s NATO envoy, Aleksandr Grushko, said.

Well, i see the escalation continues. What do you guys think will come of this? I kind of see the U.S. with it's back against the wall. With all the political discontent at home, maybe uncle sam is betting on a world war to "unite" its people against a common enemy?

originally posted by: benwyatt
I kind of see the U.S. with it's back against the wall. With all the political discontent at home, maybe uncle sam is betting on a world war to "unite" its people against a common enemy?

The report is that NATO's man "gave no opinion".
I don't see how you can read much from that about American intentions. All I can see is a reluctance to get involved on either side of the fight between Russia and Turkey.
Russia's man is the one who is trying to make something out of it, so perhaps you should be making your diagnosis about Russia.

"Turkey was right to shoot it down" would = "Giving Turkey political backing".
"Turkey was wrong to shoot it down" would = "Giving Russia political backing".
"Er, I don't know..." = "trying to sit on the fence".

a reply to: DISRAELI

Russia got fired on in 17 seconds of air space breach...

So it's obvious Turkey was waiting for it.

NATO giving no opinion is standard. (no one in their right mind would support shooting down this plane).

Now I have to figure out why Turkey is playing this game on top of supplying ISIS.. And the reports I read dating back to the chemical weapons in Syria, were, that they came through Turkey.

So, my point of view. If you are Turkey, you better check what you are doing. You're about to be thrown under NATO's bus if need be.

Same for the Sauds.

Meanwhile I'm a little anti terrorist, so I side with Russia in just this one instance.

a reply to: Reverbs
You are probably right.
I would imagine that NATO's leaders are saying something like that to Turkey behind the scenes, and here Russia is trying to twist their arms to make them disown Turkey more publicly.

I don't think Putin is stupid enough to act on this. Sure, it must really piss him off, but the benefits of a reaction does not outweigh the downfalls of said reaction to this event.

I don't think Putin is stupid enough to let it happen again though. Now that all capable aircraft have air-to-air missiles on board, I don't think NATO will let it happen again either. This is all Putin can really do at this point without sparking all out war. He clearly doesn't want a direct confrontation to unfold between Russia and NATO. And no sane person would.

...but then again, stranger things have happened. So who knows what's really coming down the tube next?

a reply to: Reverbs

Russia got fired on in 17 seconds of air space breach...

So it's obvious Turkey was waiting for it.

Correct, they warned Russia not to enter their airspace weeks before.

NATO giving no opinion is standard.

It doesn't concern them since it was done on Turkey's own initiative; this makes the headline a lie. NATO is not accepting responsibility.

Now I have to figure out why Turkey is playing this game on top of supplying ISIS.. And the reports I read dating back to the chemical weapons in Syria, were that they came through Turkey.

There has been no proof that Turkey is supplying Daesh. Also, you must remember that, despite its rightward swing, Turkey still has private property and private enterprise. Just because Turkish merchants may be dealing with Daesh does not mean that the government endorses it.

So, my point of view. If you are Turkey, you better check what you are doing. You're about to be thrown under NATO's bus if need be.

Turkey does not need NATO's bus. They can actually have the strategic advantage over Russia; that's why Erdogan is acting to confidently and all Putin can do is whine and impose sanctions that will hurt Russia more than Turkey.

Same for the Sauds.

The Gulf States are not in NATO in the first place.

Meanwhile I'm a little anti terrorist, so I side with Russia in just this one instance.

Very little anti-terrorist if you support carpet bombing civilians.

a reply to: DJW001

look your first two point are moot. As in I didn't disagree with those. Read carefully how I write.

Your third point using the word Daesh is sort of a weasel word to use. All of my research points to the chemical weapons used in Syria as coming out of Turkey. You can say it's not the state Turkey that does these things and I agree you can't prove that. It's pretty easy to look around especially if you trained with special ops guys in the Army. To look around and see a clearer image.

Never mentioned Turkey needing NATO bus. Maybe you don't know certain idioms? Anyway Turkey will get thrown under the bus. I'm just politely telling them so. Nothing really to do with Russia. And Russia will do something like sanctions on Turkey and you are right on those points.

Sauds are in similar position being major terrorism supporters. They can be easily replaced when the time is right for American oil interests.

Never said Sauds were in NATO, and not sure how you came to that conclusion. The comparison being they will be thrown under the bus as useful trouble makers.

And if you want to talk about bombing civilians I think you want to be anti terrorists FIRST. And my Air Force friends agree.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: DISRAELI

Russia got fired on in 17 seconds of air space breach...

So it's obvious Turkey was waiting for it.

NATO giving no opinion is standard. (no one in their right mind would support shooting down this plane).

Now I have to figure out why Turkey is playing this game on top of supplying ISIS.. And the reports I read dating back to the chemical weapons in Syria, were, that they came through Turkey.

So, my point of view. If you are Turkey, you better check what you are doing. You're about to be thrown under NATO's bus if need be.

Same for the Sauds.

Meanwhile I'm a little anti terrorist, so I side with Russia in just this one instance.

So how many seconds would it take for those in 'their right mind' to shoot down a foreign FIGHTER in your airspace?

a reply to: nwtrucker

You don't know the area or terrain.

They were flying parallel to the border.

think about how long it take to have a jet in the air.

Think about it. 17 seconds....

Meanwhile Turkey invades Greece airspace all the time. Greeks never shoot them down.

greece.greekreporter.com...

Similar incidents happen with frequency and have increased rapidly since 2013. In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports. This was twice the number of total airspace violations between the two countries for the first half of 2013.

edit on 1-12-2015 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Reverbs

I ask again how long would those in their 'right minds' allow incursion into their airspace....parallel, not moving inward...before shooting it down?

Answer the damn question, please?

I don't see how you can read much from that about American intentions. All I can see is a reluctance to get involved on either side of the fight between Russia and Turkey.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I did not draw solely from this article to form my opinion. I happen to believe that it is possible that Russia and USA may be doing some shady back room deals to undermine stability in the region.

Russia's man is the one who is trying to make something out of it, so perhaps you should be making your diagnosis about Russia.

I am not Russian, I can not say what they are thinking for certain, but I know the two collaborate behind closed doors. I can speak from my experiences here in the USA that political tensions are higher than i have ever personally experienced.

"Turkey was right to shoot it down" would = "Giving Turkey political backing". "Turkey was wrong to shoot it down" would = "Giving Russia political backing". "Er, I don't know..." = "trying to sit on the fence".

I guess this was supposed to be funny or a slight on my intelligence, or lack thereof?

a reply to: Reverbs

Now I have to figure out why Turkey is playing this game on top of supplying ISIS.. And the reports I read dating back to the chemical weapons in Syria, were, that they came through Turkey. So, my point of view. If you are Turkey, you better check what you are doing. You're about to be thrown under NATO's bus if need be. Same for the Sauds.

I'm of the opinion the turks can only be thinking one of two things. Either they are following orders (USA), or, they have truly went "rogue" and think NATO will back their escalation.

a reply to: Reverbs

That's what I thought....

I dislike both nations, Turks and Russia.

Cross into Turkish airspace? You get shot down.

Completely reasonable for Turk F-16s to be patrolling that border with all the goings on.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Reverbs

I ask again how long would those in their 'right minds' allow incursion into their airspace....parallel, not moving inward...before shooting it down?

Answer the damn question, please?

No one in their right mind would shoot down an aircraft from a country friendly to them that was not a threat to them

You understand that,or you still looking for reds under your bed from years of being indoctrinated by your media

a reply to: Reverbs

This conversation is completely pointless you are talking to a brick wall

I wouldn't engage in blame game conversation

Isis getting their hands on nukes ( or something similar) should be our concern

a reply to: benwyatt

I'm of the opinion the turks can only be thinking one of two things. Either they are following orders (USA), or, they have truly went "rogue" and think NATO will back their escalation.

You are overlooking the possibility that Ankara is certain that it can defeat Russia in a regional conflict without NATO's help. Russia, for all its boasts, has limited resources that are spread thin. They can't pull troops off of any of their borders, and they can't be certain that Turkey cannot destroy its assets in Syria. Turkey can certainly close the Bosporus and strangle Crimea. No, Erdogan is making a bid to be Top Dog by challenging the current Big Dog. Significantly, all Putin has done is impose sanctions.

this makes the headline a lie.

How so? It clearly says Russias own minister considers NATO just as guilty as Turkey?

Nice Signature.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Reverbs

I ask again how long would those in their 'right minds' allow incursion into their airspace....parallel, not moving inward...before shooting it down?

Answer the damn question, please?

No one in their right mind would shoot down an aircraft from a country friendly to them that was not a threat to them

You understand that,or you still looking for reds under your bed from years of being indoctrinated by your media

Very good. They wouldn't would they? Correct! But they did! Therefore, Turkey is nuts. The Russians aren't actually 'friends'- when compared with NATO as 'friends'. There's more going on than meets the eye, here. Both are underhanded, agenda driven nations....as is every single other nation in this mess.

A simple rule. Stay out of the airspace of nations that can do something about it.

originally posted by: benwyatt
"Russia's man is the one who is trying to make something out of it, so perhaps you should be making your diagnosis about Russia."
I am not Russian, I can not say what they are thinking for certain

By "Russia's man", I meant Grushko, and my comment does not depend on your nationality.
NATO's man says "I don't know" and Russia's man responds "That means NATO is supporting Turkey".
You saw this exchange as a reason for thinking the U.S. was looking for war.
But to my mind, Grushko's deliberately tendentious interpretation offers more reason to think that Russia is looking for a fight.

"Turkey was right to shoot it down" would = "Giving Turkey political backing".
"Turkey was wrong to shoot it down" would = "Giving Russia political backing".
"Er, I don't know..." = "trying to sit on the fence".

I guess this was supposed to be funny or a slight on my intelligence, or lack thereof?

It wasn't a slight on your intelligence or anyone else's intelligence.
It was intended to be a slight on Grushko's honesty.
He knows very well that "I don't know" is trying to sit on the fence, so there is something disingenuous about his claim that it means "NATO is backing Turkey".
Since you are not Russian, there is no reason why a slight on Grushko's honesty should bother you.

As you will see from elsewhere on this thread, I agree that Ergo is trying to pick a fight, and that Turkey is at least half to blame for the situation. But Grushko's comments do not help.

a reply to: DJW001

You are overlooking the possibility that Ankara is certain that it can defeat Russia in a regional conflict without NATO's help.

I did overlook that. Are you of this opinion? I sure hope Erdogan isn't.