NATO warns Russia over air strikes

[webfact]

NATO warns Russia over air strikes



BRUSSELS: -- The Russian air strikes over Syria have sparked controversy beyond the conflict zone and led to a warning from NATO. It comes after Russian fighter jets twice violated Turkish airspace. Moscow has responded by saying the action was a “mistake”.

Russian planes flew 15 sorties over Syria on Monday (October 5) attacking ISIL targets in Homs province.

Ankara summoned the Russian ambassador to protest against the violation with a warning if it was repeated.

“Turkey’s rules of engagement apply to all planes, be they Syrian, Russian or from elsewhere. Necessary steps would be taken against whoever violates Turkey’s borders, even if it’s a bird,” Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said when he was interviewed on Turkish television.

NATO and the US denounced the actions with one official under the cloak of anonymity saying Washington doubted the incursions were an accident.

“Russia’s actions are not contributing to the security and stability of the region. I call on Russia to fully respect NATO airspace and to avoid escalating tensions with the alliance. I urge Russia to take the necessary steps to align its efforts with those of the international community in the fight against ISIL,” Jens Stoltenberg NATO Secretary General told reporters in a press conference.

Moscow says it is targeting the militant group ISIL and other Islamic positions. More than 40 Syrian insurgent groups have called on regional states to forge an alliance against Russia and Iran.

-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2015-10-06

[Barin]

It happened also in Europe:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mistaken-identity-french-plane-entered-swedish-air-space-not-russian-as-reported/5414801

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5

It happens from time to time due to bad weather and navigational errors.

This is not intentional.

Reports of Russian incursions into national airspace regularly appear in the media, but they are often not officially confirmed or are disproved later.

Even Washington – which doesn’t typically hesitate to accuse Russia of wrongdoing with little to no evidence – says Moscow complies with international law when flying close to American borders. The US can only say that it doesn’t see “the security environment as warranting international activity,” in the words of State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Barin

[steven100]

you think Russia really cares what NATO says ..............

[Ace of Pop]

Remember Nam , V.C. Got supplied via Laos and Cambodia,should have been a legit targets too.

[craigt3365]

Mistake? No way. These planes are high tech with lots of people involved regarding their operations. Impossible.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html

Not the first time Russia's made a "mistake" by going into other countries sovereign territory.

[hawker9000]

It happened also in Europe:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mistaken-identity-french-plane-entered-swedish-air-space-not-russian-as-reported/5414801

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5

It happens from time to time due to bad weather and navigational errors.

This is not intentional.

Reports of Russian incursions into national airspace regularly appear in the media, but they are often not officially confirmed or are disproved later.

Even Washington – which doesn’t typically hesitate to accuse Russia of wrongdoing with little to no evidence – says Moscow complies with international law when flying close to American borders. The US can only say that it doesn’t see “the security environment as warranting international activity,” in the words of State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

Just one word. Bull.

[Publicus]

This reigns Putin in some but nowhere near enough cause he's swimming straight out to the wide open deep.

[derator01]

A post violating the fair use regulation has been removed from view. Please provide a clear link to the article and no more than 3 sentences from the source.

[Dr Robert]

It happened also in Europe:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mistaken-identity-french-plane-entered-swedish-air-space-not-russian-as-reported/5414801

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-spy-plane-reportedly-violated-swedish-air-space-to-escape-russian-fighters-424d05e11bd5

It happens from time to time due to bad weather and navigational errors.

This is not intentional.

Reports of Russian incursions into national airspace regularly appear in the media, but they are often not officially confirmed or are disproved later.

Even Washington – which doesn’t typically hesitate to accuse Russia of wrongdoing with little to no evidence – says Moscow complies with international law when flying close to American borders. The US can only say that it doesn’t see “the security environment as warranting international activity,” in the words of State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki.

If you want to be an apologist for an aggressive regime with a bully boy leader who is fooling around with potential conflagration that could draw many nations into a war then it is your right to do so. But dont think anyone is going to buy your bullsh*t or the nonsense propoganda spewing from Putin-Jack- Boots.

[ABCer]

Perhaps if the ISIS groups pursued by Russian planes didn't run for cover in Turkey there would be no violations?

It was said often enough that Turkey only joined the fight with one eye on Kurds and another handle on Jihadists.

Could this summoning of Russian diplomat be an tit for tat answer to Putin's warning to Erdogan not to support ISIS?

I'm not pretending to know much in politics or diplomacy.

But when it comes to Middle East one does not have to be a genius to know it for being a snakes nest.

Edited October 6, 2015 by ABCer

[Barin]

A post violating the fair use regulation has been removed from view. Please provide a clear link to the article and no more than 3 paragraphs from the source.

http://www.talkradionews.com/world-news/2015/10/05/russia-invades-turkish-airspace-nato-denounces-actions.html

While Turkey seems to be satisfied with Russia’s explanation of its accidental violation of Turkish airspace on Saturday, the U.S. seems to be unwilling to drop the issue

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151005/1028056133/us-russia-turkey-air-space.html

Renato Denis ·

Montecarlo, Italy

Sorry, as far as I remember the US Air Force never had any authorization from the Syrian government to conduct flights and much less bombings on its soil. So now we have the US whining about Russia's violation of Turkish airspace while systematically violating Syrian airspace for at least a year. Oh, the irony.

[craigt3365]

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/08/25/3475131/syria-isis-strikes/

In a televised press conference, Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moualem said that his country is willing to cooperate with any country fighting against militants. “Syria, geographically and operationally, is the center of the international coalition to fight Islamic State,” he said, adding “States must come to it if they are serious in combating terrorism.”

[Publicus]

Russia does extreme things and stupidly but never accidentally unless it is accidentally on purpose. Russia has been violating Nato countries airspace since the Malaysian plane was shot down over east Ukraine where commercial passenger air routes have existed for a long time. Russian bombers have flown in to Canada airspace as detected by the North American Aerospace Defence Command which consists of the US and Canada since the cold war.

Putin and his people need to realize and recognize they are not talking to kulaks.

[Publicus]

you think Russia really cares what NATO says ..............

So now come 150,000 Russian troops in to the ME in addition to Iran combat forces on the ground in Syria, China docking its single aircraft carrier at Tartus with designs to send CCP pilots on missions into Syria. Baghdad is aligned with Russia, Assad and the rest of 'em.

This is already looking worse than the United States in Iraq courtesy of Bush-Cheney.

The alarms and red lights are going off in Riyahd, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Beruit, the Gulf states, Kuwait, throughout North Africa and in Ankara which as we saw yesterday chased a Russian fighter plane out of Turkey airspace and for which Putin apologized, said was a mistake.

SecDef Ashton Carter is in Rome today meeting with all the Nato allies after stopping in Spain en route. The US 6th Naval Fleet is in the Med as a part of the Nato Southern Command and the US 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain to operate in the Gulf off Iraq and Iran with Suez in between.

Putin's economy is going deeper and deeper into the tank, Putin is stymied in Ukraine, so now Putin is going for broke in Syria and the Middle East.

It's of small comfort this isn't the Guns of August and that it is not Poland 1939....not yet.

[ABCer]

I really envy Publicus.

Best looking avatar.

Best and clearest understanding of Russians.

Best knowledge of US aims and purposes.

A man with such a best advantage in everything must be sleeping each night like a baby with a happy content smile.

He knows what Putin needs. He knows about all stupid things Russia did. He knows who shot down the Malaysian flight over Ukraine. He even might know who killed JFK.

And there is a good reason for this - he sees all things better from the height of the famous statue. Enviable position.

[steven100]

Why is Russia helping Syria ?

Oil in Syria ?

Mining ?

Gas ?

There has to be a reason why Putin is spending so much $$ on helping Syria ....... ????

[craigt3365]

Why is Russia helping Syria ?

Oil in Syria ?

Mining ?

Gas ?

There has to be a reason why Putin is spending so much $$ on helping Syria ....... ????

Syria is Russia's 7th largest weapons customer. Some 1.5 billion USD over the past 10 years or so. Big money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations

Plus, Russia can't lose it's important base there....quite valuable to them.

[ABCer]

Why is Russia helping Syria ?

Oil in Syria ?

Mining ?

Gas ?

There has to be a reason why Putin is spending so much $$ on helping Syria ....... ????

Syria is Russia's 7th largest weapons customer. Some 1.5 billion USD over the past 10 years or so. Big money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations

Plus, Russia can't lose it's important base there....quite valuable to them.

craig is right... but there are many more 'pluses' to be continued. I'm sure any person thinking for himself can find another half dozen reasons.

[quandow]

Moscow has responded by saying the action was a “mistake”.

First, Russians are FAR too good a bunch of pilots to make such a mistake; they were fully aware of their actions.

Second, I NEVER go grammar Nazi on TV members, but a journalist should know better - the period goes inside the quotation mark at the end of a sentence:

"mistake."

[MaxYakov]

Moscow has responded by saying the action was a “mistake”.

First, Russians are FAR too good a bunch of pilots to make such a mistake; they were fully aware of their actions.

Second, I NEVER go grammar Nazi on TV members, but a journalist should know better - the period goes inside the quotation mark at the end of a sentence:

"mistake."

Maybe you should do a little more research before submitting such a post. But, since I've been meaning to research this issue myself, so here's a site (www.quora.com) with varying opinions on this issue.

One of them is:

American English conventions: He thought dinner was "good."

British English conventions: He thought dinner was "good".

Side note: Those punctuation marks are quotation marks, not quotes.

-- David Bowman Chief editor writing instructor author of writing resources

Maybe you know about as much about Russian pilots, their navigation equipment, their operational polices, rules of engagement, etc. that they are now using in Syria as you do about English punctuation?

Edited October 6, 2015 by MaxYakov

[khunken]

First of all it was supposed to be Russia only targeting the so-called good rebels - which was a lie as they certainly targeted Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate (or are they supposed to be 'good' rebels?).

Now when they target the ISIS on the border between Syria & Turkey, the latter brings NATO into it - why?

It certainly shows up Turkey who seems to be more interested in protecting ISIS than attacking them.

There's so much hypocrisy about Russia's involvement in Syria & considering Assad invited them, who gave permission for the US, UK or France etc to overfly Syria?

Unfortunately the main western culprits are more prepared to allow ISIS to continue their murderous occupation rather than reach an agreement with those awful Russians to deal with the priority issue - ISIS - and then negotiate the Assad issue afterwards.

[Ace of Pop]

Will they go home when it's over.?.Or find another reason to be refugees.

[Ulic]

Remember Nam , V.C. Got supplied via Laos and Cambodia,should have been a legit targets too.

I am not sure I understand, are you saying the over 280 million cluster bombs dropped by the

Americans on Laos was not enough and the numbers were kept down because it was not a

"legit" target, because a neighbouring country was using there territory as a transport route for

weapons. Not really sure how effective the US program was at stopping the transport route. Or

are you saying that it was a legitimate target and who cares what the collateral damage was.

Would you have supported the UK bombing the crap out of Boston in the 70's because the

Boston Irish funded and supplied weapons and explosives to the IRA in Northern Ireland. After

all when the British government asked the US government to stop this the American government

told the British to piss off, it was not there problem, which I guess was true, the bombings and

shootings were a long way off in Laos, Cambodia and the UK. Not so now though.

[Publicus]

First of all it was supposed to be Russia only targeting the so-called good rebels - which was a lie as they certainly targeted Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate (or are they supposed to be 'good' rebels?).

Now when they target the ISIS on the border between Syria & Turkey, the latter brings NATO into it - why?

It certainly shows up Turkey who seems to be more interested in protecting ISIS than attacking them.

There's so much hypocrisy about Russia's involvement in Syria & considering Assad invited them, who gave permission for the US, UK or France etc to overfly Syria?

Unfortunately the main western culprits are more prepared to allow ISIS to continue their murderous occupation rather than reach an agreement with those awful Russians to deal with the priority issue - ISIS - and then negotiate the Assad issue afterwards.

It is wrong and assinine [sic] to say that if we're not for Putin then it means we are for ISIS. This is akin to the Bush-Cheney pronouncements in 2002 about Iraq and all else. It is also trolling.

The hard core right keeps throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The right is wrong again because many of us are against Putin and against ISIS. If that explodes rightwing heads then so be it.

[khunken]

First of all it was supposed to be Russia only targeting the so-called good rebels - which was a lie as they certainly targeted Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate (or are they supposed to be 'good' rebels?).

Now when they target the ISIS on the border between Syria & Turkey, the latter brings NATO into it - why?

It certainly shows up Turkey who seems to be more interested in protecting ISIS than attacking them.

There's so much hypocrisy about Russia's involvement in Syria & considering Assad invited them, who gave permission for the US, UK or France etc to overfly Syria?

Unfortunately the main western culprits are more prepared to allow ISIS to continue their murderous occupation rather than reach an agreement with those awful Russians to deal with the priority issue - ISIS - and then negotiate the Assad issue afterwards.

It is wrong and assinine [sic] to say that if we're not for Putin then it means we are for ISIS. This is akin to the Bush-Cheney pronouncements in 2002 about Iraq and all else. It is also trolling.

The hard core right keeps throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The right is wrong again because many of us are against Putin and against ISIS. If that explodes rightwing heads then so be it.

Please don't twist what I said. I didn't say that 'we' (who's 'we'?) or you are for the ISIS. By refusing to agree with the Russians who have the same anti-ISIS view as most others, it is akin to giving ISIS a free hand nothwithstanding the odd ineffective bombing mission & training & arming 'rebels' who end up inside ISIS.

The hard core right would have invaded & bombed Syria into Libyian-like failed state if they were given the opportunity - right into ISIS & Al-Nusra's hands.

My main thrust is that because of so much hatred of the Russians (including most western media), the US & it's forelock-tuggers are indeed in danger of throwing away an opportunity to take on the biggest danger to the region. The priority is skewed.

BTW I don't troll & don't demean my argument by accusing others of it.

Edited October 6, 2015 by khunken

[Publicus]

First of all it was supposed to be Russia only targeting the so-called good rebels - which was a lie as they certainly targeted Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate (or are they supposed to be 'good' rebels?).

Now when they target the ISIS on the border between Syria & Turkey, the latter brings NATO into it - why?

It certainly shows up Turkey who seems to be more interested in protecting ISIS than attacking them.

There's so much hypocrisy about Russia's involvement in Syria & considering Assad invited them, who gave permission for the US, UK or France etc to overfly Syria?

Unfortunately the main western culprits are more prepared to allow ISIS to continue their murderous occupation rather than reach an agreement with those awful Russians to deal with the priority issue - ISIS - and then negotiate the Assad issue afterwards.

It is wrong and assinine [sic] to say that if we're not for Putin then it means we are for ISIS. This is akin to the Bush-Cheney pronouncements in 2002 about Iraq and all else. It is also trolling.

The hard core right keeps throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The right is wrong again because many of us are against Putin and against ISIS. If that explodes rightwing heads then so be it.

Please don't twist what I said. I didn't say that 'we' (who's 'we'?) or you are for the ISIS. By refusing to agree with the Russians who have the same anti-ISIS view as most others, it is akin to giving ISIS a free hand nothwithstanding the odd ineffective bombing mission & training & arming 'rebels' who end up inside ISIS.

The hard core right would have invaded & bombed Syria into Libyian-like failed state if they were given the opportunity - right into ISIS & Al-Nusra's hands.

My main thrust is that because of so much hatred of the Russians (including most western media), the US & it's forelock-tuggers are indeed in danger of throwing away an opportunity to take on the biggest danger to the region. The priority is skewed.

BTW I don't troll & don't demean my argument by accusing others of it.

Putin supporting Assad is the greatest danger to the region. The two joined are a danger equivalent to that of ISIS which itself presents its own dangers to almost anyone.

No government in the mix needs to oppose ISIS and support Putin. There is no such test of bona fides that could apply to Nato, the US and coalition partners, and others such as France.

Nato opposed ISIS long before Putin threw the switch on bombs away in Syria in absolute support of Assad, who Nato wants gone. Putin is bombing everyone he doesn't like, which is everyone except Assad. At the top of Putin's list are the rebels associated with the US..

Putin fanboyz need to throw away the leashes they have in their hands cause they're not going to walk anyone in to Putin's camp. The fanboyz need to recognize and realize they're not talking to fellow kulaks.

[Cook my sock]

We've trained, armed and let a bunch of lunatics destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and priceless historical sites.

Now we are in panic as a million displaced Syrians take refuge in Europe.

Something about coming home to roost..

So let's face it, are we in a position to tell Putin not to bomb these lunatics?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Publicus]

I really envy Publicus.

Best looking avatar.

Best and clearest understanding of Russians.

Best knowledge of US aims and purposes.

A man with such a best advantage in everything must be sleeping each night like a baby with a happy content smile.

He knows what Putin needs. He knows about all stupid things Russia did. He knows who shot down the Malaysian flight over Ukraine. He even might know who killed JFK.

And there is a good reason for this - he sees all things better from the height of the famous statue. Enviable position.

Much too generous thx and perhaps gratuitous while being distinctively under the top. It is nonetheless a payday of sorts to hear expressly and rather explicitly from the lunar regions as to the view from out there. The discovery of liquid water on Mars does indeed suggest new possibilities of a theory concerning the origins of right wing life on earth. Odd to mention JFK actually as yours truly was there at the time, in Washington, in the Presidential Honor Guard that marched in the state funeral all day on Monday, November 25, 1963. No one really wants to know yet so let sleeping dogs lie. Later worked in Congress as professional staff, quit twice, got dragged back in twice more. Given getting out of town wasn't separating the kid from Washington he got out of the country. Did spend a lot of time in Washington though to include getting an M.A. there. At the end of each hot and steamy day in the nation's capital the hard truth is the only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican. Varmint eat vermin. So I wuz pleased to enjoy LOS while it lasted. Which brings us to where we are. Untenable position really.

[Ace of Pop]

Remember Nam , V.C. Got supplied via Laos and Cambodia,should have been a legit targets too.

I am not sure I understand, are you saying the over 280 million cluster bombs dropped by the Americans on Laos was not enough and the numbers were kept down because it was not a "legit" target, because a neighbouring country was using there territory as a transport route for weapons. Not really sure how effective the US program was at stopping the transport route. Or are you saying that it was a legitimate target and who cares what the collateral damage was. Would you have supported the UK bombing the crap out of Boston in the 70's because the Boston Irish funded and supplied weapons and explosives to the IRA in Northern Ireland.

After all when the British government asked the US government to stop this the American government told the British to piss off, it was not there problem, which I guess was true, the bombings and shootings were a long way off in Laos, Cambodia and the UK. Not so now though.[/quote. My annoyance is from A Military point of view in Nam,don't stop Persuing the Enemy cause he runs from one red shithhole into another.Same there in my book.Nothing more than that.

[khunken]

First of all it was supposed to be Russia only targeting the so-called good rebels - which was a lie as they certainly targeted Al-Nusra, the Al-Qaeda affiliate (or are they supposed to be 'good' rebels?).

Now when they target the ISIS on the border between Syria & Turkey, the latter brings NATO into it - why?

It certainly shows up Turkey who seems to be more interested in protecting ISIS than attacking them.

There's so much hypocrisy about Russia's involvement in Syria & considering Assad invited them, who gave permission for the US, UK or France etc to overfly Syria?

Unfortunately the main western culprits are more prepared to allow ISIS to continue their murderous occupation rather than reach an agreement with those awful Russians to deal with the priority issue - ISIS - and then negotiate the Assad issue afterwards.

It is wrong and assinine [sic] to say that if we're not for Putin then it means we are for ISIS. This is akin to the Bush-Cheney pronouncements in 2002 about Iraq and all else. It is also trolling.

The hard core right keeps throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The right is wrong again because many of us are against Putin and against ISIS. If that explodes rightwing heads then so be it.

Please don't twist what I said. I didn't say that 'we' (who's 'we'?) or you are for the ISIS. By refusing to agree with the Russians who have the same anti-ISIS view as most others, it is akin to giving ISIS a free hand nothwithstanding the odd ineffective bombing mission & training & arming 'rebels' who end up inside ISIS.

The hard core right would have invaded & bombed Syria into Libyian-like failed state if they were given the opportunity - right into ISIS & Al-Nusra's hands.

My main thrust is that because of so much hatred of the Russians (including most western media), the US & it's forelock-tuggers are indeed in danger of throwing away an opportunity to take on the biggest danger to the region. The priority is skewed.

BTW I don't troll & don't demean my argument by accusing others of it.

Putin supporting Assad is the greatest danger to the region. The two joined are a danger equivalent to that of ISIS which itself presents its own dangers to almost anyone.

No government in the mix needs to oppose ISIS and support Putin. There is no such test of bona fides that could apply to Nato, the US and coalition partners, and others such as France.

Nato opposed ISIS long before Putin threw the switch on bombs away in Syria in absolute support of Assad, who Nato wants gone. Putin is bombing everyone he doesn't like, which is everyone except Assad. At the top of Putin's list are the rebels associated with the US..

Putin fanboyz need to throw away the leashes they have in their hands cause they're not going to walk anyone in to Putin's camp. The fanboyz need to recognize and realize they're not talking to fellow kulaks.

You have shown total ignorance of the region if you think Putin's support for Assad (which is longstanding) is the greatest danger.

Yes there is a test of any country invading, bombing or overflying any country. For the first two it's UNSC approval and for the third it's approval from the overflown country. That it is ignored by those who are self appointed world police doesn't make it justified or legal.

The US and many others opposed ISIS when it came into being - from the illegal invasion & mishandling of Iraq & it's military. But the opposition has been pathetic with the odd bombing mission that has had little or no effect on the spread of ISIS. Plus the arming & training of so-called 'good' rebels has been a disaster (which you choose to ignore), many having been captured and boosted the ISIS.

US & the US fanboyz need to discard their arrogance and not let it be a hurdle to making a real effort to get the ISIS & Al-Nusra (again ignored by you) out of Syria.

I don't know any 'fellow kulaks' but I suspect that your fellow US warboyz have as low a comprehension of the complexities of the region as you do. Too many neo-cons still involved.