Russia arms Su-34s with air-to-air missiles in Syria

originally posted by: ressiv
hmmm did assad (still the legimit gov.) granted NATO planes to cross syrian borders?.. bet not !
soon syria airspace will be closed for some country's ! Turkey /saudy arabia and an few moore..
bingo.:-)

Russia isn't sending anti-aircraft missiles into Syria to protect against ISIS because last time I checked, ISIS didn't have any jet fighters.

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

I am interested to know how an advance anti-air system can be sunk, if not from the air, I bet the Russians now very well about that given their strategic placement of the s-400 basically covering a majority of Syrian airspace. Good luck to Turks going past that...With SU-35's scouring the skies.

Turkey has three submarines, remember?

originally posted by: paraphi
Well, let's hope Russia don't violate Turkish airspace again. He who fires first tends to win.

Russia didn't violate Turkish airspace.
If you believe that then you may as well believe that Santa Claus will land on your roof with his sleigh being towed by magic flying reindeer slide down your chimney with his fat ass and belly and leave you presents around a decorated pine tree.

originally posted by: mortex

originally posted by: paraphi
Well, let's hope Russia don't violate Turkish airspace again. He who fires first tends to win.

Russia didn't violate Turkish airspace.
If you believe that then you may as well believe that Santa Claus will land on your roof with his sleigh being towed by magic flying reindeer slide down your chimney with his fat ass and belly and leave you presents around a decorated pine tree.

So... you're going with "Turkey violated Syrian airspace" tweet? Russia has a track record of testing other countries' airspace. How do you think they test all that super-duper secret equipment you believe they have? If the jets were shot down, their e-countermeasures must not be as good as Russia wants you to believe they are.

a reply to: DJW001

Considering that Russians have high tech subs, it all comes down to the best strategy, and it's anybodies game...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: VashTheStampede

You have that backwards Russian has more advanced small arms tech than any other country,

So what? Turkey would be fighting a defensive war at home. They could hold out a long time. Russia would be fighting an aggressive war at a distance, with plenty of opportunities for their lines of supply and communication to be severed. How would you feel if the Moskva were sunk, Crimea starved, and thousands of Russians died without Turkey showing the least inclination to surrender? Couple that with more terrorist bombings aimed at Russian civilians. Do you think Putin is prepared to take that chance?

LMFAO at a distance? Better consult your map matey because Russia and Turkey aren't that far apart.

Russia would decimate Turkey.
Anyone who thinks Turkey can take on Russia is delusional.

Russia is in the top tier of countries when it comes to military strength. Turkey is barely scraping into middle power rankings.

Russia dealt with its Chechen terrorist problem.
How's Turkey's Kurdish terrorism problem going? Oh right 40+ years of fighting..

a reply to: mortex

LMFAO at a distance? Better consult your map matey because Russia and Turkey aren't that far apart.

But Turkey controls the choke points; that's why they are in NATO in the first place. All they have to do is maintain their perimeter; Russia would need to invade and establish an occupation, which they cannot even do in SyriaThey are certainly not going to pull troop s out of the Baltic or Central Europe to do it.

Russia would decimate Turkey.

Russia could kiss Crimea goodbye before that.

Anyone who thinks Turkey can take on Russia is delusional.

Anyone who thinks Russia is still a superpower has been listening to propaganda.

Russia is in the top tier of countries when it comes to military strength. Turkey is barely scraping into middle power rankings.

Russia is vast and its forces are overextended. Also, its leadership is paranoid and might suspect that events in Turkey are a feint to draw Russian troops out of the Baltic so that NATO can re-take Koenigsburg. You call it Kaliningorod.

Russia dealt with its Chechen terrorist problem.

With a brutal genocidal campaign.

How's Turkey's Kurdish terrorism problem going? Oh right 40+ years of fighting..

Being in NATO and a candidate for the EU dampens their enthusiasm a bit.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: mortex

Being in NATO and a candidate for the EU dampens their enthusiasm a bit.

I am just thinking how everybody will see Turkey if indeed Russia proves that Turkey is involved with ISIS Oil smuggling across it's borders.

It be pretty bad imagine for Turkey, many NATO and EU members including France will not be pleased about that news..

originally posted by: mortex

originally posted by: paraphi
Well, let's hope Russia don't violate Turkish airspace again. He who fires first tends to win.

Russia didn't violate Turkish airspace.
If you believe that then you may as well believe that Santa Claus will land on your roof with his sleigh being towed by magic flying reindeer slide down your chimney with his fat ass and belly and leave you presents around a decorated pine tree.

What is it about you Brits? You've had Russian air assets tickling you airspace. Even had to request French help to counter Russian sub incursions into your waters.

Somehow you don't believe either through inexperienced or indifferent pilots that Russia couldn't or wouldn't violate Turk airspace???

Really?

Then Ho ho ho....

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: mortex

originally posted by: paraphi
Well, let's hope Russia don't violate Turkish airspace again. He who fires first tends to win.

Russia didn't violate Turkish airspace.
If you believe that then you may as well believe that Santa Claus will land on your roof with his sleigh being towed by magic flying reindeer slide down your chimney with his fat ass and belly and leave you presents around a decorated pine tree.

So... you're going with "Turkey violated Syrian airspace" tweet? Russia has a track record of testing other countries' airspace. How do you think they test all that super-duper secret equipment you believe they have? If the jets were shot down, their e-countermeasures must not be as good as Russia wants you to believe they are.

Why not just put the two probabilities into one theory.

Russia violated Turkish airspace for 17sec, but Turkish F-16CJs had to fly into Syria to punish Russia by shooting Down the SU-24 there.

originally posted by: VashTheStampede


Turkey wouldn't stand a chance against Russia,the Turks are lucky Russia isn't angrier about it.

Of course, but then there's reality. Russia does not border Turkey so very little Russia can do about anything.

The touch-point here is the enclave Russia has in Syria and in that area local Turkish superiority in all areas is marked. You can fantasise about war as much as you like, but it won't happen. Turkey could blockade the Russians in situ and close the Bosphorous. In fact Turkey could annex Syria, or parts thereof. Maybe Turkey could hold a referendum al la Crimea!

As I said. The way to prevent a reoccurrence is not to enter Turkish airspace.

originally posted by: mortex


Russia didn't violate Turkish airspace.
If you believe that then you may as well believe that Santa Claus will land

You cannot prove that, nor can I. It's down to whose account you believe.

I have no trust of Russia's words on this issue, nor of the "in overdrive" Russian stare controlled and owned media machine. Russia has proven to be highly dishonest and manipulative. Take the MH17 tragedy as a case in point. The fact that Russian's account of the shoot-down changed is telling.

a reply to: spy66

Russia violated Turkish airspace for 17sec, but Turkish F-16CJs had to fly into Syria to punish Russia by shooting Down the SU-24 there.

Don't you think their missiles travel faster than their jets?

originally posted by: paraphi

Of course, but then there's reality. Russia does not border Turkey so very little Russia can do about anything.

I think you need to look at a map and perhaps rethink your assumptions.

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost

originally posted by: paraphi

Of course, but then there's reality. Russia does not border Turkey so very little Russia can do about anything.

I think you need to look at a map and perhaps rethink your assumptions.

Bulgaria is not Russia. Georgia is not Russia, and Russia wouldn't dare move the 5,000 troops it has stationed it the part of Georgia they, er, "liberated."

a reply to: DJW001

I'm not so sure. In the event of hostilities Russia could be rolling across the Turkish border in a day or two. Georgia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia is not much of an obstacle.

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not so sure. In the event of hostilities Russia could be rolling across the Turkish border in a day or two. Georgia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia is not much of an obstacle.

Under aerial bombardment by Turkey and partisan resistance from Bulgarians and Georgians. Also, that would need to pull the troops from somewhere. The Polish border? The Ukrainian border? Koeningsburg/Kaliningorod?

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost

I'm not so sure. In the event of hostilities Russia could be rolling across the Turkish border in a day or two. Georgia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia is not much of an obstacle.

Er, so to get to Turkey Russia would be happy to invade and occupy the countries in between? I guess they did it before!

In the land of pink elephants maybe, but in reality Russia would not. Besides, whichever way you cut it there's a big thing called NATO that would intervene. This is why war will not happen between Russia and Turkey.

Fantasists who want war should move on. Russia has so far confined their belligerence to small counties that never really had a chance, but Turkey (even without NATO) would not be a happy experience.

a reply to: paraphi

I think a war is unlikely as well, but one can never say with certainty, a lot can happen. There are any number of reasons NATO might choose not to back a member, and small, inconveniently placed countries have been walked over in past wars (remember "little" Belgium?). All told, the reasons for avoiding war remain stronger than the reasons for going to war, and hopefully it stays that way.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost
a reply to: DJW001

I'm not so sure. In the event of hostilities Russia could be rolling across the Turkish border in a day or two. Georgia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia is not much of an obstacle.

Under aerial bombardment by Turkey and partisan resistance from Bulgarians and Georgians. Also, that would need to pull the troops from somewhere. The Polish border? The Ukrainian border? Koeningsburg/Kaliningorod?

Definitely legitimate concerns for Russia, though I don't think they'd necessarily go in through Bulgaria. I agree that Turkey would be a tough customer, and I'd imagine that Russia would do best to avoid a fight with them rather than risk defeat.

Hypothetically speaking, I think Partisan resistance from the Georgians would have to be weighed against counter-partisan operations from Russian-sympathetic Georgians/Ossetians/Abkhazians; Georgia doesn't exactly present a united front; and as far as pulling troops go, that would be largely dependent on the rest of NATO sitting things out, which given the questionable behavior of Turkey in the present Syrian conflict is possible, but unlikely.