Why shoot a plane down when you can spend untold $trillians on superior everything for many years and write a fanfic story about it someday, just as russia gets good at unmanned drones and bypassess all that jazz the same year
> On 15 October 2015, the Deputy Commander of the Russian Air-Space Force (VKS) visited Turkey to meet his Turkish counterparts. They’ve agreed that Russia would give at least twelve hours’ advance notice of any flight that would take VKS aircraft close to the Turkish-Syrian border. A hotline was also set up for the Turks to use to warn the Russian military if their aircraft came too close to the border.
> Even then, the Turkish tactical commanders played it safe: they called headquarters in Ankara and explained the situation. Two unknown aircraft were approaching, they could not be contacted, and the Russians had not announced any flights.
> What a surprise the Turks then drew the logical conclusion: the two jets could only belong to the Syrian Arab Air Force.
> It was only later - once the images from a Turkish TV team on site were published - that there was clarity: the AIM-120C has hit a Russian-, not a Syrian jet.
> It’s a mistake to think that on 24 November 2015 the Turks have had enough of the Russians and thus opened fire. No. They’ve opened fire and shot down that Su-24 precisely because they’ve trusted the Russians: they’ve trusted the Russians would stick to their arrangement, they were convinced the Russians would never-ever do be as sloppy as to forget announcing their flight, and were convinced they’re shooting at the Assadists.
Very common but not very thoughtful sentiment. You are missing the frankly obvious point that Russia wants NATO to overreact, giving them the ability to continue internally escalating the conflict, to increase their already strained mobilization effort, et cetera. Do you think Russia somehow forgot about the Turkey situation?
It's also pretty obvious that Russia respects only strength. If NATO doesn't react strongly enough, it is perceived weak by Russia, which increases the likelihood of them trying something against a NATO country.
I don't think shooting down aircraft that severely violate NATO airspace is overreacting. It's what Russia would do to NATO aircraft violating their airspace. I think everything Russia does should be responded with a measure of similar size. Being overly careful with Russia hasn't worked very well at all historically.
Showing strength is also showing restraint. The Russian pilots now know that they owe their life to NATO's restraint, a restraint that they know they cannot expect from their own chain of deluded command.
The releasing of this information to the Russian public demonstrates clearly who is what, and how foolish joining the ranks of the man-eating army of the losing side would be.
Think about it for a second. Is it really the "correct" reaction when it achieves precisely the outcome wanted by the Russian command? How is this a wise policy?
All of you silly internet people keep repeating the "Russia is just a bully" mantra like it's some sort of an important insight. Putin is playing chess while you guys are struggling to comprehend the rules for checkers. If NATO is to successfully defend against Russia, we need to do better than, uhh, whatever this is supposed to be.
Since you completely failed to address anything I've said, I direct you back to my messages above. I also highly recommend William Spaniel's excellent analysis on this and related subjects if you care to catch up.
I was thinking that. The most plausible reasoning I've seen for Russia's recent behavior along those lines is Putin is mostly concerned with his personal power and position in Russia.
The Ukraine war doesn't make him look very good in Russia - a lot of dead Russians and burning oil facilities in return for occupying some bombed out land where the people hate them.
If he gets into a low level fight with NATO then he can sell it at home that they are in a noble war with a much larger enemy rather than getting beat up by a small and largely peaceful neighbor they chose to attack.
The strategic option for NATO is probably to mostly ignore Russian planes and drones flying near them but respond by helping Ukraine win.
(Or personally I'd like if they took out Putin but that doesn't seem the done thing. Better to kill a hundred thousand innocents than the guilty one seems to be the thing.)
Just wait until you learn that flying straight towards an opponent's border to trigger defensive systems, then turning away in the last literal second, is Standard Operating Procedure of US aircraft around North Korea, China, and Russia.
On a radar screen, that is indistinguishable from a first-strike scenario until the very moment it isn't.
So please... think twice before repeating this "Bullies need to get slapped once" nonsense. Because if someone in Pyongyang, Beijing, or Moscow ever agrees with that logic for even a heartbeat, we're not talking about one downed plane - we're talking about World War III.
This isn't a schoolyard where you teach someone a moral lesson. It's a nuclear standoff where one hot-headed mistake can erase every living thing on Earth.
Deterrence requires discipline, not chest-beating bravado.
Including but not limited to: A Turkish supply convoy, reportedly carrying small arms, machine-guns and ammunition, was bombed by what is believed to have been Russian airstrikes in the northwestern town of Azaz, in north-western Syria.
I've seen this rhetoric of "Russia made Turkey pay just two short years later!" on reddit as well, and it sounded just as farfetched there as it does here.
And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that? Look at the Turkish support in Ukraine, or look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east.
They were warm words from two men seeking a good working relationship.
Russia wants continued access to its Tartous naval port and Hmeimim military airbase on Syria's Mediterranean coast.
Sharaa suggested he would allow this, saying Syria would "respect all agreements concluded throughout the great history" of their bilateral relations.
In turn, he wants help to consolidate his power in Syria, secure its borders and rescue a parlous economy with access to Russian energy and investment.
Where are the concrete actions? Is Russia going to surrender their puppet and the stolen assets? Is Russia going to pay for the reparations of their destruction?
Those words mean nothing.
Do I need to grab the quote from Putin stating that no one will interfere in Syria or they will have to face Russia? (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point)
At this level of diplomacy it's actions that matter, not words. You have these guys say one thing one day, and do the opposite the other day.
You can skim through the wikis for some color, but tldr Turkey is generally playing amoral "middle power dilemma" politics rather than the Marvel universe fan fiction version:
In June 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a letter, on the recommendation of Farkhad Akhmedov[123] to Russian President Vladimir Putin expressing sympathy and 'deep condolences' to the family of the victims. An investigation was also reopened into the suspected Turkish military personnel involved in the incident.[124] Three weeks later (in the meantime, there had been a coup d'état attempt against him), Erdoğan announced in an interview that the two Turkish pilots who downed Russian aircraft were arrested on suspicion that they have links to the Gülen movement, and that a court should find out "the truth"
On 12 September 2017, Turkey announced that it had signed a deal to purchase the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system; the deal was characterised by American press as ″the clearest sign of [Recep Erdoğan]′s pivot toward Russia and away from NATO and the West" that ″cements a recent rapprochement with Russia″.[109] Despite pressure to cancel the deal on the part of the Trump administration, in April 2018 the scheduled delivery of the S-400 batteries had been brought forward from the first quarter of 2020 to July 2019.[110]
In September 2019, Russia sent the Sukhoi Su-35S and the 5th Generation stealth fighter Su-57 to Turkey for Technofest Istanbul 2019. The jets landed at Turkey's Atatürk Airport, weeks after Recep Tayyip Erdoğan went to Moscow and discussed stealth fighter with Vladimir Putin.[111]
In November 2021, Russia offered assistance to Turkey in developing new-generation fighter jet to Turkey.[112][113] Some Turkish officials have also shown interest to buy Russian jets if the US F-16 deal fails.[114][115][116][117][118]
In 2024, Washington warned Turkey of potential consequences if it did not reduce exports of US military-linked hardware to Russia, critical for Moscow's war efforts. Assistant Commerce Secretary Matthew Axelrod met Turkish officials to halt this trade, emphasizing the need to curb the flow of American-origin components vital to Russia's military. The issue strained NATO relations, as Turkey increased trade with Russia despite US and EU sanctions since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Axelrod urged Turkey to enforce a ban on transshipping US items to Russia, warning that Moscow was exploiting Turkey's trade policy. Despite a rise in Turkey's exports of military-linked goods to Russia and intermediaries, there was no corresponding increase in reported imports in those destinations, suggesting a "ghost trade."[119]
There is no place called 'Udem' in Germany. There is a place called Uden in the Netherlands. Close to it is the military Volkel Air Base. It has fighter jets and nuclear bombs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base
> NATO was monitoring the Baltic States air space from ground radars and from a Gielenkirchen based AWACS several hundred kilometers back near the German/Polish border.
There is also no place called „Gielenkirchen“. It‘s likely a typo of „Geilenkirchen“, which indeed does have a NATO base. But it is also at the German/Dutch border, while the article places it at the German/Polish border.
I am questioning the rest of the article based on these findings. They are straight-forward to check before publishing.
> ...based AWACS several hundred kilometers back near the German/Polish border
This should also have triggered the 'fact checker alarm bells' because there are no NATO bases in the area of former East Germany to this day (honoring the agreement with the late Soviet Union to not station foreign NATO troops in former East Germany - e.g. the only "no NATO East expansion promise" that actually exists in writing) - and AFAIK apart from the Eurofighter Luftwaffengeschwader 73 in Rostock-Laage (also not exactly close to the Polish border) there is no presence of the German airforce in East Germany either.
Although tbf, the sentence could also be read as the Geilenkirchen-based AWACS plane operating several hundred kilometers back (from Estonia) near the German/Polish border - which I guess makes a lot more sense than moving Geilenkirchen several hundred kilometers to the east :)
In any case I agree that it's a poorly written article and should be classified as fiction until confirmed by more reliable sources.
This reads cool and all, but I also can't help help but feel like it might not have been as much of a 'gotcha' as the text makes it out to be. Who knows what kind of information the Russians got from this episode. The closer the NATO response is to what would actually happen in a combat scenario, the more valuable such a provocation is to them, I suspect.
If breathlessness was a writing style. Seriously tiring when every other paragraph is a soft trailer for action much later on.
Which, by the way, is all conjecture. Even if everything happened as described (citation needed), they have no idea what the Russians knew. For a piss-them-off mission like this, watching the response and playing dumb seems far wiser than reacting.
When you like something, it's engaging and informative. When you don't, well, call it propaganda. I suppose anything is propaganda, since nothing is pure facts.
I'd rather have a sourced analysis of something I don't like than read a dude writing an unsourced cheering post celebrating how powerful my army is.
Propaganda can be done by both your enemies and your own side, and the later is the most dangerous one. The more you like it, the more skeptical you should be.
Everything is propaganda. Even your and mine comments are propaganda. Because propaganda can also be called marketing. And every text is marketing of ones own opinion.
You tend to distrust the propaganda of the other side. You are not quite as distrustful of the propaganda of your own side. If it is clever enough not to appear as a cheerleader like this article, you may barely notice it cherrypicking the benefits of a story.
Obligatory: "Are we the baddies?"-sketch illustrates the concept very nicely.
> - someone in Russian military R&D got new data to work with.
Also doubtful tbh because such interceptions (although without actual airspace violation) happen every other week over the Baltic Sea. It might have been the first time F-35s were used(?), but I really doubt they took off their radar reflectors to 'reveal capabilities'.
For the last 60 years, Russia behaved like this to test NATO's defenses constantly.
Only once was an incursion to Turkish airspace. After a warning it was shot down. Never happened again.
You tell me what's the better strategy to deal with Russia.
If you give leeway to a bully, the bully's gonna keep on bullying.
Nearly everyone does this testing each other, their equipment, responses, verify doctrines etc.
“Unknown aircraft, you were detected…” then radar lock warning if they’re lucky.
Why shoot a plane down when you can spend untold $trillians on superior everything for many years and write a fanfic story about it someday, just as russia gets good at unmanned drones and bypassess all that jazz the same year
The Turkish incident is more complex:
> On 15 October 2015, the Deputy Commander of the Russian Air-Space Force (VKS) visited Turkey to meet his Turkish counterparts. They’ve agreed that Russia would give at least twelve hours’ advance notice of any flight that would take VKS aircraft close to the Turkish-Syrian border. A hotline was also set up for the Turks to use to warn the Russian military if their aircraft came too close to the border.
> Even then, the Turkish tactical commanders played it safe: they called headquarters in Ankara and explained the situation. Two unknown aircraft were approaching, they could not be contacted, and the Russians had not announced any flights.
> What a surprise the Turks then drew the logical conclusion: the two jets could only belong to the Syrian Arab Air Force.
> It was only later - once the images from a Turkish TV team on site were published - that there was clarity: the AIM-120C has hit a Russian-, not a Syrian jet.
> It’s a mistake to think that on 24 November 2015 the Turks have had enough of the Russians and thus opened fire. No. They’ve opened fire and shot down that Su-24 precisely because they’ve trusted the Russians: they’ve trusted the Russians would stick to their arrangement, they were convinced the Russians would never-ever do be as sloppy as to forget announcing their flight, and were convinced they’re shooting at the Assadists.
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/the-russian-sloppiness
Wasn't Russia on Assad's side? The ally of my enemy is also my ally does read kinda weird.
And isn't Turkey an ally for both Ukraine and Russia?
Very common but not very thoughtful sentiment. You are missing the frankly obvious point that Russia wants NATO to overreact, giving them the ability to continue internally escalating the conflict, to increase their already strained mobilization effort, et cetera. Do you think Russia somehow forgot about the Turkey situation?
It's also pretty obvious that Russia respects only strength. If NATO doesn't react strongly enough, it is perceived weak by Russia, which increases the likelihood of them trying something against a NATO country.
I don't think shooting down aircraft that severely violate NATO airspace is overreacting. It's what Russia would do to NATO aircraft violating their airspace. I think everything Russia does should be responded with a measure of similar size. Being overly careful with Russia hasn't worked very well at all historically.
Showing strength is also showing restraint. The Russian pilots now know that they owe their life to NATO's restraint, a restraint that they know they cannot expect from their own chain of deluded command.
The releasing of this information to the Russian public demonstrates clearly who is what, and how foolish joining the ranks of the man-eating army of the losing side would be.
Shooting down a plane violating NATO airspace is the correct reaction, not an overreaction.
Think about it for a second. Is it really the "correct" reaction when it achieves precisely the outcome wanted by the Russian command? How is this a wise policy?
Stop defending bullies. Russia will push a d take until someone says no. its just how they operate.
All of you silly internet people keep repeating the "Russia is just a bully" mantra like it's some sort of an important insight. Putin is playing chess while you guys are struggling to comprehend the rules for checkers. If NATO is to successfully defend against Russia, we need to do better than, uhh, whatever this is supposed to be.
Since you completely failed to address anything I've said, I direct you back to my messages above. I also highly recommend William Spaniel's excellent analysis on this and related subjects if you care to catch up.
I was thinking that. The most plausible reasoning I've seen for Russia's recent behavior along those lines is Putin is mostly concerned with his personal power and position in Russia.
The Ukraine war doesn't make him look very good in Russia - a lot of dead Russians and burning oil facilities in return for occupying some bombed out land where the people hate them.
If he gets into a low level fight with NATO then he can sell it at home that they are in a noble war with a much larger enemy rather than getting beat up by a small and largely peaceful neighbor they chose to attack.
The strategic option for NATO is probably to mostly ignore Russian planes and drones flying near them but respond by helping Ukraine win.
(Or personally I'd like if they took out Putin but that doesn't seem the done thing. Better to kill a hundred thousand innocents than the guilty one seems to be the thing.)
Just wait until you learn that flying straight towards an opponent's border to trigger defensive systems, then turning away in the last literal second, is Standard Operating Procedure of US aircraft around North Korea, China, and Russia.
On a radar screen, that is indistinguishable from a first-strike scenario until the very moment it isn't.
So please... think twice before repeating this "Bullies need to get slapped once" nonsense. Because if someone in Pyongyang, Beijing, or Moscow ever agrees with that logic for even a heartbeat, we're not talking about one downed plane - we're talking about World War III.
This isn't a schoolyard where you teach someone a moral lesson. It's a nuclear standoff where one hot-headed mistake can erase every living thing on Earth.
Deterrence requires discipline, not chest-beating bravado.
But neither was it only one incursion into Turkish airspace, not did Turkey not pay a price for it
What price did Turkey pay for shooting down a Russian military plane on their territory?
I didn't read it yet, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
Including but not limited to: A Turkish supply convoy, reportedly carrying small arms, machine-guns and ammunition, was bombed by what is believed to have been Russian airstrikes in the northwestern town of Azaz, in north-western Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Russian_Air_Force_Al-Bab_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Balyun_airstrikes
I've seen this rhetoric of "Russia made Turkey pay just two short years later!" on reddit as well, and it sounded just as farfetched there as it does here.
And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that? Look at the Turkish support in Ukraine, or look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east.
> And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that?
That wasn’t the question and you’re putting words in my mouth.
> look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c201p2dd6r4o
They were warm words from two men seeking a good working relationship.
Russia wants continued access to its Tartous naval port and Hmeimim military airbase on Syria's Mediterranean coast.
Sharaa suggested he would allow this, saying Syria would "respect all agreements concluded throughout the great history" of their bilateral relations.
In turn, he wants help to consolidate his power in Syria, secure its borders and rescue a parlous economy with access to Russian energy and investment.
Plus ça change.
Your counter argument are words?
Where are the concrete actions? Is Russia going to surrender their puppet and the stolen assets? Is Russia going to pay for the reparations of their destruction?
Those words mean nothing.
Do I need to grab the quote from Putin stating that no one will interfere in Syria or they will have to face Russia? (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point)
At this level of diplomacy it's actions that matter, not words. You have these guys say one thing one day, and do the opposite the other day.
You can skim through the wikis for some color, but tldr Turkey is generally playing amoral "middle power dilemma" politics rather than the Marvel universe fan fiction version:
In June 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a letter, on the recommendation of Farkhad Akhmedov[123] to Russian President Vladimir Putin expressing sympathy and 'deep condolences' to the family of the victims. An investigation was also reopened into the suspected Turkish military personnel involved in the incident.[124] Three weeks later (in the meantime, there had been a coup d'état attempt against him), Erdoğan announced in an interview that the two Turkish pilots who downed Russian aircraft were arrested on suspicion that they have links to the Gülen movement, and that a court should find out "the truth"
On 12 September 2017, Turkey announced that it had signed a deal to purchase the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system; the deal was characterised by American press as ″the clearest sign of [Recep Erdoğan]′s pivot toward Russia and away from NATO and the West" that ″cements a recent rapprochement with Russia″.[109] Despite pressure to cancel the deal on the part of the Trump administration, in April 2018 the scheduled delivery of the S-400 batteries had been brought forward from the first quarter of 2020 to July 2019.[110]
In September 2019, Russia sent the Sukhoi Su-35S and the 5th Generation stealth fighter Su-57 to Turkey for Technofest Istanbul 2019. The jets landed at Turkey's Atatürk Airport, weeks after Recep Tayyip Erdoğan went to Moscow and discussed stealth fighter with Vladimir Putin.[111]
In November 2021, Russia offered assistance to Turkey in developing new-generation fighter jet to Turkey.[112][113] Some Turkish officials have also shown interest to buy Russian jets if the US F-16 deal fails.[114][115][116][117][118]
In 2024, Washington warned Turkey of potential consequences if it did not reduce exports of US military-linked hardware to Russia, critical for Moscow's war efforts. Assistant Commerce Secretary Matthew Axelrod met Turkish officials to halt this trade, emphasizing the need to curb the flow of American-origin components vital to Russia's military. The issue strained NATO relations, as Turkey increased trade with Russia despite US and EU sanctions since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Axelrod urged Turkey to enforce a ban on transshipping US items to Russia, warning that Moscow was exploiting Turkey's trade policy. Despite a rise in Turkey's exports of military-linked goods to Russia and intermediaries, there was no corresponding increase in reported imports in those destinations, suggesting a "ghost trade."[119]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Turkey_relation...
I do enjoy some military fiction as much as the next guy, but without some sources this might as well just be that.
> This is why another similar move hasn’t happened, and why Russia will think twice before it does so again.
It literally happened again the following month. Is this an AI generated article or something?
There is no place called 'Udem' in Germany. There is a place called Uden in the Netherlands. Close to it is the military Volkel Air Base. It has fighter jets and nuclear bombs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkel_Air_Base
It's a forgivable typo for Uedem, which is in Germany, close to the Dutch border and does indeed house the NATO Combined Air Operations Centre:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uedem
> NATO was monitoring the Baltic States air space from ground radars and from a Gielenkirchen based AWACS several hundred kilometers back near the German/Polish border.
There is also no place called „Gielenkirchen“. It‘s likely a typo of „Geilenkirchen“, which indeed does have a NATO base. But it is also at the German/Dutch border, while the article places it at the German/Polish border.
I am questioning the rest of the article based on these findings. They are straight-forward to check before publishing.
> ...based AWACS several hundred kilometers back near the German/Polish border
This should also have triggered the 'fact checker alarm bells' because there are no NATO bases in the area of former East Germany to this day (honoring the agreement with the late Soviet Union to not station foreign NATO troops in former East Germany - e.g. the only "no NATO East expansion promise" that actually exists in writing) - and AFAIK apart from the Eurofighter Luftwaffengeschwader 73 in Rostock-Laage (also not exactly close to the Polish border) there is no presence of the German airforce in East Germany either.
Although tbf, the sentence could also be read as the Geilenkirchen-based AWACS plane operating several hundred kilometers back (from Estonia) near the German/Polish border - which I guess makes a lot more sense than moving Geilenkirchen several hundred kilometers to the east :)
In any case I agree that it's a poorly written article and should be classified as fiction until confirmed by more reliable sources.
This reads cool and all, but I also can't help help but feel like it might not have been as much of a 'gotcha' as the text makes it out to be. Who knows what kind of information the Russians got from this episode. The closer the NATO response is to what would actually happen in a combat scenario, the more valuable such a provocation is to them, I suspect.
The author does have a point about making incursions so normal we no longer react to them.
And that’s before you even get to the asymmetric costs.
I'd say the only source listed is the guy who wrote it, but he doesn't even give his actual name...
If breathlessness was a writing style. Seriously tiring when every other paragraph is a soft trailer for action much later on.
Which, by the way, is all conjecture. Even if everything happened as described (citation needed), they have no idea what the Russians knew. For a piss-them-off mission like this, watching the response and playing dumb seems far wiser than reacting.
Useless propaganda piece.
To probably quote Terry Pratchett, at least it is proper-ganda.
When you like something, it's engaging and informative. When you don't, well, call it propaganda. I suppose anything is propaganda, since nothing is pure facts.
Have you never read anything that supported your general worldview, yet it did so using populist and deliberately deceptive talking points?
I'd rather have a sourced analysis of something I don't like than read a dude writing an unsourced cheering post celebrating how powerful my army is.
Propaganda can be done by both your enemies and your own side, and the later is the most dangerous one. The more you like it, the more skeptical you should be.
Everything is propaganda. Even your and mine comments are propaganda. Because propaganda can also be called marketing. And every text is marketing of ones own opinion.
> and the later is the most dangerous one
Genuine question: why?
Because buying your own lies about the strength of your army makes you complacent.
There's a reason why dictators have a terrible war time track record.
You tend to distrust the propaganda of the other side. You are not quite as distrustful of the propaganda of your own side. If it is clever enough not to appear as a cheerleader like this article, you may barely notice it cherrypicking the benefits of a story.
Obligatory: "Are we the baddies?"-sketch illustrates the concept very nicely.
I think someone should also tell the Russians that.
It might have been generated. It reads exactly like some generic voice talking on FB. I am on the side of this propaganda, but it's propagansa.
A bit too horray-patriotic for my tastes.
What actually happened:
- A group of 40 year old Russian interceptors flew just beyond the airspace border, to test NATO response times.
- NATO responded and revealed capabilities
- someone in Russian military R&D got new data to work with.
> - someone in Russian military R&D got new data to work with.
Also doubtful tbh because such interceptions (although without actual airspace violation) happen every other week over the Baltic Sea. It might have been the first time F-35s were used(?), but I really doubt they took off their radar reflectors to 'reveal capabilities'.