"More of an ambush than anything else."

[another_liberal]

Professor of Global Affairs at New York University, Dr. Mark Galeotti, is among a growing number of knowledgeable authorities who have concluded that Turkey's attack on a Russian fighter jet Tuesday was a premeditated, intentional act, an ambush the intent of which was to bring the West to Turkey's aid in countering Russia's anti-terrorist campaign.

SU-24 aircraft on fire after being hit by Turkish air-to-air missile.


Turkey ‘Ambushed’ Russian Su-24 to Protect Terrorists – NYU Professor


The shooting down of the Russian Su-24 bomber was a planned attack and a trap set by the Turkish Air Force, Dr. Mark Galeotti, the Professor of Global Affairs at the New York University, told Radio Sputnik.

"What it in fact seems to be, as many are saying, it was more of an ambush than anything else," Galeotti told Sputnik.

By downing the Russian plane, Turkey had two things in mind. First of all, Ankara wants to assert itself as a powerful regional actor, especially considering Russia's active participation in Syria. The Turkish government thought that by shooting down its plane Turkey would make Russia take Ankara more seriously in the future. Secondly, the Turkish government wanted to protect its allies, whom Russia's currently bombing in Syria, Galeotti, an expert in Russo-Turkish relations, explained.

Turkey intends to protect ISIL, as it has direct financial interests involved in the delivery of oil extracted from ISIL-controlled territories. Various estimates place oil revenues generated by ISIL somewhere between $40 and $50 million a month. A day prior to the downing of the Su-24, Russian airstrikes destroyed over 1,000 semi-truck tankers carrying crude oil to ISIL refineries, a large oil storage facility and an oil refinery in Syria.

(snip)

Read more, and hear full interview at: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151126/1030827854/turkey-russia-su-24-erdogan-ambush-galeotti.html

[R3druM]

1. From RT to Sputnik News

Sputnik is an international multimedia news service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government

You are not even pretending anymore, are you?

[another_liberal]

2. Do you have anything to say . . .

About the comments of the above quoted, prominent American academic? You know, the subject of my post?

[R3druM]

3. Well...

If by "prominent" you mean obscure professor who writes for Moscow News, then no comment is necessary. Keep peddling RT and Sputnik News, it's always good for a laugh.

[another_liberal]

4. Have anything to say?

Once again, have anything to say concerning the Professor's contention that Turkey's attack was an ambush, or just going to use this string as an opportunity to indulge in character assassination?

[Chan790]

6. I do.

His suspect credibility renders his opinion questionable. I disbelieve his contention because it conflicts with those of experts I do find credible.

[another_liberal]

7. As you should . . .

Care to offer reasons you think the attack was other than an "ambush," as suggested?

[Chan790]

5. Yes, actually.

He's not prominent and given enough resources I can find a Ph.D willing to state anything in hir discipline or area of focus, including an astronomer that claims to have proof the moon-landing was faked.

So, I don't give Galeotti a lot of credence since my impression is that he is a Russian partisan being quoted in a newssource of questionable credibility which functions as a state-mouthpiece for the Russian government. It's about as credible as all those issues of Stars and Stripes from the late 1960s claiming we were on the verge of victory in Viet Nam.

[another_liberal]

8. Is that all it is with you?

Last edited Thu Nov 26, 2015, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Nothing, really, to say about the question at all?

[dumbcat]

11. I guess I would have to say that

there isn't anyone that I am willing to believe that can explain what happened. Therefore I am going to have to conclude that I don't know, and cannot know, exactly what happened and what the motives and anticipated reactions were.

In short, I cannot know and really don't care.

[another_liberal]

15. Maybe not for sure, not with complete certainty . . .

Still, one does have the ability to critically consider differing opinions, shift out the facts of the situation and decide what is likely true. That is what separates us from the pawns and unwitting dupes of our world.

[dumbcat]

18. No

One does not have the ability to do that when you have no credible sources of facts or opinion. That was my point.

[another_liberal]

32. Read between the lines . . .

That is where the whole truth lies. Always read between the lines.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. ^^^^THIS ^^^^

[HereSince1628]

9. Is it an ambush if you -know- the position of the opposing aircraft?

Seems likely the Russians would have their aircraft tracked and guided by their own combat air-controllers. Wouldn't that likely have shown the Turkish planes?

[another_liberal]

13. They were not expecting to be attacked . . .

At least not by what they thought were friendly aircraft. Why should they expect such an attack from the planes of a nation Russia is at peace with? To quote President Putin, "It was a stab in the back."

[HereSince1628]

14. Turkey warned the Russians about Turkey's intent to resist incursions back on ~4th of Oct.

The Russians may have thought the Turks wouldn't follow thru, but the warning was made in plenty of time.


on edit--made the pronouns unambiguous

[another_liberal]

16. There is considerable doubt that an incursion occured . . .

In fact, it now looks as if the Turkish plane actually crossed into Syrian airspace before it fired.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20151124/1030695406/mod-su-24-flight-path.html

[HereSince1628]

17. My point was the Russians had actually been warned about Turkey's posture.

I can't speak to the animations or their authenticity having no knowledge of that.

[another_liberal]

25. One country does not have the right to fire on aircraft in another country's airspace.

Put simply, Turkey committed a clear act of war by downing a Russian plane and killing a Russian pilot in Syrian airspace.

[hobbit709]

53. Oh, really? Better recheck your history.

[4now]

10. Thanks for the laugh

[another_liberal]

12. An odd sense of humor . . .

But you are welcome anyway.

[4now]

35. When someone posts links to sputnik news or RT

and then expects to be taken seriously it is very funny.

[another_liberal]

36. To you, perhaps . . .

Most of the world does, however, disagree.

[Nitram]

19. "A trap set by the Turkish Air force..."

Yup. A trap in Turkish territory. How thoughtless of them. Called Russia's bluff. You know, the one where Russian planes keep venturing further and further into Turkish airspace to show their dominance.

[another_liberal]

22. There was no "incurrsion" of Turkish airspace . . .

The Turkish plane actually entered Syrian airspace to fire at the Russians!


http://sputniknews.com/military/20151124/1030695406/mod-su-24-flight-path.html

[Nitram]

23. I would be include to believe the Turks over the Russians on that one, not your BS hypothesis.

And they warned the intruder numerous times.

[another_liberal]

28. It is not a matter of "believing" in something or not . . .

Last edited Sat Nov 28, 2015, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)

This isn't Sunday School class, my friend. Use your common sense. Follow the evidence. Leave "believing" to those who call on the tooth fairy.

[Nitram]

30. No this isn't a sunday School class, it is a propaganda exercise.

Whose evidence?

[another_liberal]

31. All of it . . .

If you want to learn anything meaningful. Or just accept what the Pentagon and the State department want to hand you, and go on your half-informed way.

[Nitram]

34. We just have trust in different sources.

But I can't imagine why you find yours more trustworthy. Care to enlighten me?

[another_liberal]

37. It is anything but "trust" I assure you.

Last edited Fri Nov 27, 2015, 07:53 AM - Edit history (1)

I rely on decades of experience studying international relations both privately and professionally to tell the crap from the facts, reading between the lines of what governments try to lie about. Yes, with very few exceptions, they all lie much of the time.

[Nitram]

39. Amazing that such a course of study would give you the mystic ability to see whether a Russian jet..

...has flown into Turkish territory. You are truly a unique human being!

[another_liberal]

43. Nothing much "mystic" about it either . . .

I just try to pay attention (and never expect an official Pentagon spokesperson to tell the truth).

[Duckhunter935]

51. What sources

Say it incurred into Turkey and what sources say it did not. I think only Russia's state run media does not. I beleaive the rest of the world. Putin must be paying you well, lol.

[Nitram]

57. I see. You take what the Pentagon states and believe the opposite.

I'm surprised you find the Russian state-controlled media more reliable.

[another_liberal]

83. I don't, not on all things . . .

On the subject of American Imperial foreign policy, however, I find they provide a generally more believable reading of what has happened.

[Nitram]

85. What's your take on Russian Imperial foreign policy?

Constantly testing borders in the Middle East with warplanes (and elsewhere with submarines) doesn't seem like a very friendly way to conduct foreign policy.

[another_liberal]

86. What?

Frankly, my friend, there is only one imperialistic world power active at this time, and that is (sadly) the good old, war-mongering, exceptionalist, expansionist, neo-con-motivated Empire of the U. S. A.

[Nitram]

87. So you truly believe that Putin doesn not wish to reconstitute as much of the USSR as possible...

...and neutralize the rest? I'm afraid, my friend, that you are either naively idealistic or cynically manipulative.

[mythology]

52. I'm not sure the person citing a Russian state news agency should be talking about belief

I don't believe anything sent forth from a source that unquestioningly takes the position held by the Russian government since I don't trust Putin as far as I can throw him.

[LanternWaste]

89. And the three previously acknowledged incursions into Turkish airspace over the past tend days

And the three previously acknowledged incursions into Turkish airspace over the past tend days is rationalize precisely how...?

Tooth fairy, indeed. Again, you state RT stories as objective fact, and any source to the contrary as propaganda. Until you admit to your own biases, your arguments come across as buffoonery.

[Duckhunter935]

33. Not surprised the Russian government

Would admit another incursion into Turkey. They are the only ones that say that, lol. Putin must have put out some funding to post utter crap again.

[another_liberal]

44. How many times did Turkish military aircraft stray into Greek airspace last year?

Well over twenty-one hundred times, say the Greeks.

[Duckhunter935]

50. Are they bombing ethnic Greeks?

You know how Russia says they can protect ethnic Russians in other countries by invading other countries? Turkey is just protecting ethnic Turks from Russia's bombs and when Russia incurred into Turkey, they paid the price.

[NCTraveler]

20. A questionable professor and state run media.

Thanks for highlighting how bad the shit being put in front of people's eyes really is. Unfortunately, state sponsored media and the lackeys they pay off have an audience.

[another_liberal]

21. Do you have anything to say about the content of the Professor's comments?

Or did you just come by to try and slam his reputation?

Pitiful. (sigh).

[Nitram]

24. another, your thesis is dubious and unsupported.

Unless you are inclined to take the Russian air force at its word.

[another_liberal]

38. What, exactly, do you find "dubious". . .

Many, even many in this country, do agree with what I'm suggesting happened. Also, how can you say my reading of the incident is "unsupported?" The details I relied on are part of the public record and fairly unavoidable.

[Nitram]

40. The "public record" informs you that the Russian jet did not enter Turkish airspace and ignore...

...five repeated warnings to leave or face the consequences? To which "public record" are you referring?

[another_liberal]

45. That is not the "Public record" . . .

It's more like a steaming hot pile of Turkish B.S. (or ass-covering Turkish excuses, if you prefer).

[Nitram]

58. The radio traffic was confirmed by the US and other who were listening in.

But if your position is that anything the US and allies say is bound to be a lie, your position is too extreme to take seriously. I'd be more inclined to feel that way about Putin's administration. "No, our athletes don't take drugs, and the government is not involved." "Russia is not aiding anti-government rebels in Ukraine. We are offering only non-military assistance." "Crimea is, and has always been, Russian territory."

[bahrbearian]

26. Thanks for the Info , it is one big mess.

[another_liberal]

29. Welcome . . .

Yes, it is.

[Octafish]

41. The plane intruded Turkish airspace for ''seconds''

Russian entry into Turkish airspace lasted 'seconds': U.S. official

Reuters, Nov. 24, 2015

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States believes Russia's incursion into Turkish airspace on Tuesday likely lasted only a matter of seconds before Turkey shot down a Russian warplane, a U.S. official said, saying the assessment was based on preliminary indications.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the United States was still investigating the incident.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/russian-entry-turkish-airspace-lasted-seconds-u-official-164618732.html

PS: Thank you for the post, Another Liberal. In addition to the news, it shows some of the many illiberals who post on DU.

[another_liberal]

42. You are very welcome, Octafish . . .

And thank you, my friend.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

46. If this was an ambush, then Turkey knew the Russians would fly over.

This seems to be evidence that Russia has sent their flyers over that bit of Turkey many times. Otherwise, Turkey would not have had fighters in the air "laying in wait".

If Russian flyovers were common, then the so-called-ambush was made possible, by the Russians.

This couldn't have been one isolated lost pilot who strayed over Turkey for a few seconds. This was a normal flight path.

[another_liberal]

47. The American coalition was infromed where Russian jets would attack . . .

Turkey is part of that coalition, so of course they knew just where to wait. And, I think it should be noted, the shoot-down took place in Syrian airspace (the Turkish jet actually entered Syrian airspace before firing).

[GGJohn]

60. The Turkish jet entered Syrian airspace before firing?

According to whom? Sputnik news?

Do you ever quote any reliable sources for your threads?

The Turkish jet was in Turkish airspace when it fired on the Su24, the missile followed it into Syrian airspace, missiles don't have a habit of respecting borders, and the Turks didn't shoot the pilot has he was descending, it was the rebels that they were bombing.

[another_liberal]

61. According to ground-based radar tracking . . .

The evidence is there, and everyone we haven't yet bought-off or coerced for the Turks admits the fact.

Turkey committed an act of armed and deadly aggression against a friendly aircraft, without warning and while the target and its attacker were in Syrian airspace.

Those are the facts, despite anything Ashton (Ash) Carter and the underhanded Turks would rather were true.

[GGJohn]

63. Ground based radar images coming straight out of the Kremlin

via Sputnik News?
Yeah, right!!!

[mainer]

48. Jane's: Russian jet had nonfunctioning radio, didn't hear warnings

Last edited Sat Nov 28, 2015, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Turkish plane warned the Russian plane 10 times. The transmissions have been shared with the U.S. and reveal ever-increasing tension in the Turkish pilot's voice as the Russians fail to respond..

The Russian pilot may not have heard the warnings because of a faulty radio.

http://www.janes.com/article/56295/russian-su-24m-communications-equipment-blamed-for-shootdown

[randome]

49. That sounds more plausible than anything else, given that Russia's military equipment is decrepit.

But I'll wait for SputnikNews or RT to chime in before believing it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[another_liberal]

62. Janes is, on this particular occasion, . . .

Completely full of NATO-butt-kissing bullshit!

You can bet Russia sent some of its finest equipment and best personnel to Syria. To do anything less would be asking for disaster.

You can count on it that they had functioning radios in those planes.

(sigh)

[GGJohn]

64. Oh, so everyone else is wrong except the Russians?

Finest equipment? Really?
Don't know much about military equipment do you.
The Su24 Fencer entered service in the 70's, it's nowhere near "finest equipment" and the radio in that bomber may not have even been working.
Yeah, that's real fine equipment there.

[another_liberal]

65. I said nothing about being "right" or wrong . . .

I only noted that Janes is (if you have quoted them accurately) completely full of crap on this subject, and was undoubtedly well-rewarded for printing such nonsense.

As to the Su-24: Despite its venerable age it (like its contemporary, the A-10 Warthog) is still recognized as one of the world's foremost ground attack aircraft. Its numerous successes in the current Syrian anti-I. S. campaign should reinforce that opinion significantly.

[GGJohn]

66. The Fencer is successful in Syria because they face no serious opposition,

but if faced with opposition, as evidenced by the shoot down, it would fare very poorly against modern fighters with modern AA missiles.

[another_liberal]

67. You seem disappointed more planes haven't been lost?

If Russia had expected to have to contend with hostile fighters or ultra-modern air defenses in the skies over Syria, they might have sent entirely different aircraft, however, the fact remains that what they did choose to send is doing extremely well (despite the occasional, criminal and underhanded sneak attacks by fighters of some terrorist-supporting countries in the region).

[GGJohn]

69. What criminal and underhanded sneak attack?

Russia was warned numerous times by the Turkish govt to stop intruding on their territory since they arrived in Syria, on the day of the shootdown, the pilot was warned, again, numerous times to change course before they violated Turkish airspace, only when the Fencer crossed the border did the F-16 fire on it.
The only ones pushing that bullshit of the Turkish fighter engaging the Fencer in Syrian territory is the Russian govt via Sputnik news.

[another_liberal]

70. Warnings have no importance in this . . .

Turkey committed a criminal act of war by attacking another nation's aircraft in another nation's airspace. The Russian jet was well within Syrian territory when it was hit. That is all there is to it.

After all, who do the Turks think they are, the United States or something?

(Yes, that last bit is sarcasm)

[GGJohn]

71. Warnings have no importance in this . . .

OMG, did you just say this?

Yes, it was in Syria when hit, but it was fired upon while in Turkish airspace, which is perfectly legal by international standards.

[another_liberal]

72. That is where you are wrong . . .

Evidence shows the Russian plane was well within Syrian airspace when it was hit, and that is most definitely against international law!

[GGJohn]

73. LOL.

The only "evidence" is from the Kremlin via Sputnik news, which is akin to Pravda during the days of the Soviet Union, IOW, a state controlled media putting out the views of the Kremlin.

[another_liberal]

74. Where did the Russian jet fall, in Turkey?

No?

In fact, it fell nearly five miles Southwest of the nearest point of Turkish territory.

[GGJohn]

75. Maybe you missed the part where I said it was struck in Syria,

but fired upon while still in Turkish airspace?
AA missiles aren't known for suddenly stopping at borders just because the offending aircraft has left the airspace.

[another_liberal]

76. More of Ashton (Ash) Carter's fairytales?

Please spare me the insult.

It is beyond doubt this was an intentional attack by a Turkish aircraft on a Russian aircraft not in Turkish airspace or in any way threatening to Turkey, but rather one which was attacking terrorist assets on Syrian soil, for fuck's sake!

Turkey committed a quite despicable crime, and it will be punished.

[GGJohn]

77. Beyond doubt huh?

According to whom? Sputnik news?

Show me the proof, other than the Kremlin mouthpiece.

[another_liberal]

78. The facts still remain facts . . .

That is true when facts are presented by a source one personally dislikes, and even when they don't, "Protect and enhance American interests."

[GGJohn]

80. So, IOW, other than Sputnik news or RT,

you can't present a different, reliable source saying the same thing?
Thought so.
But, thanks for playing.

[forsaken mortal]

79. indeed

That's why Russia is going to escort Fencers with fighter aircraft such as the SU-35 now, not to mention that most of Turkey's airspace will be locked up with the radar from the S-400 systems which are extremely formidable. Turkey got away with it once, I seriously doubt they'd be able to get away with it again without incurring losses of their own.

[GGJohn]

81. All Russia has to do is stay out of Turkish airspace and all is good,

I suspect that that's what they'll do now.

[daleo]

59. I imagine the U.S. knows the real story

If there were messages, U.S. signals intelligence would know well before the Turkish government shared anything, real or not. For the message to be meaningful, they would have to be on a standard frequency and unencrypted, so many powers would have probably picked them up.

[trumad]

54. OK---I read the whole thread and this is my takeaway...

Turkish side of the story---BS---Russian side of the story---all true.

You do realize that this Professor is not a military expert? The minute he said "What it in fact seems to be, as many are saying, he lost me. So very Fox news of him.

[another_liberal]

55. Anything to say about the content of his comments . . .

Or just indulging in character assassination?

[trumad]

56. Sure

They are his opinion and that's it.

[Nevernose]

68. Here's a more balanced article that hopefully changes your mind

These physicists claim that both sides are lying, and come to no conclusions about politics, only math:

http://gizmodo.com/physicists-nobodys-telling-the-truth-about-that-downed-1745006126

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/belgian-physicists-calculate-that-everyone-is-lying-about-the-downed-russian-jet

[forsaken mortal]

82. Shooting down the Russian plane was a cheapshot

The Fencer was in no way a danger to Turkey, it wasn't exactly flying toward Ankara with a loadout of AA missiles and other defenses. All I can say is it's going to be a bad day for the F-16 pilot that attempts round 2 when the S-400 SAM flies up his tail pipe if he's lucky enough to escape the SU-35s.

[cemaphonic]

84. Ambush, huh?

Telling Moscow "We'll shoot your planes down if they keep violating our airspace", and then shooting down their planes when they enter Turkish airspace...That's some diabolical reverse-psychology double-bluff right there.

[LanternWaste]

88. Most likely, Georgia said the same after the Russian invasion. And the Crimea. And Ukraine.

Most likely, Georgia said the same after the Russian invasion. And the Crimea. And Ukraine (wonderful military expansion New Russia has going on this century). Still, the incompetency of the Russian air force over the past ten days is dramatic. Not difficult to stay on one's own side of the border if the will and the training exist.

However, as far too many idiots have unquestioningly accepted Dmitry Kiselyov, the television presenter known for his anti-American conspiracy theories, and head of the state news agency Rossiya Segodnya as "an objective journalist", I suppose the rational will simply giggle at the continuation of Moscow's pretense.

[another_liberal]

90. Except that Georgia actually invaded South Ossetia . . .

At the urging of the Cheney/Bush administration. Russia only responded to calls from the people of South Ossetia for help.

There has been no Russian military force active in Eastern Ukraine. That is neo-con fiction, happily endorsed by our coup-installed government in Kiev.

As to Crimea: Russian troops didn't invade, tens of thousands of them were already there by treaty agreement with Kiev. The people of Crimea rejected a takeover by the same fascistic street gangs who caused the riots in Kiev. They then voted for and were accepted back under Russian governance and protection (as was their right to do under the UN charter).

[Nitram]

91. I see you love Russian fairytales, Another.

"...tens of thousands of them were already there by treaty agreement with Kiev"

And I suppose the treaty gave the Russian troops permission to annex Crimea if they wanted to? LOL.