17 Seconds That Changed The World - Leaked Letter Exposes Turkey's Hair-Trigger Reality

Tyler Durden's picture

Needless to say, Moscow and Ankara are at odds over precisely what happened on Tuesday when a Russian Su-24 was shot down near the Syrian border. 

The two pilots ejected and attempted to parachute to safety but Turkmen FSA-allied Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen shot at them as they fell before posting a video purporting to show rebel soldiers celebrating over one of the bodies. It only got worse from there when the FSA's 1st Coastal Brigade used a US-made TOW to destroy a Russian search and rescue helicopter. 

Clearly, this was a marked escalation and indeed it was the first time a NATO member had engaged a Russian or Soviet warplane in more than 60 years.

The Kremlin was not happy as Vladimir Putin - who was meeting with King Abdullah in Jordan - proceeded to brand Erdogan a “backstabber” and an ISIS supporter. Sergei Lavrov subsequently canceled a planned trip to Turkey.

At issue now, is whether the Russian fighter jet did indeed, as Turkey claims, venture into Turkish airspace or whether the Turks actually engaged Moscow’s warplane in the skies over Syria. 

Here's Russia's version of the story, presented via a video released by the Defense Ministry:

And here's Turkey's account:


Finally, here's The New York Times with a compare and constrast visual:

In the wake of an emergency NATO meeting this afternoon, new information has come to light. First, there’s Ankara’s letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the 15 members of the UN Security Council. Here it is: 

The highlighted passage reads: “Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."

So, as RT notes, even if we buy Turkey's story (i.e. if we accept that Russia actually did violate Turkish airspace), then it would appear that Ankara has something of an itchy trigger finger. That is, Turkey was apparently willing to risk sparking a wider conflict between NATO and Russia over a 17 second incursion.

But something doesn't sound right.  

In other words, as Sputnik put it earlier this evening, "according to those numbers, the Su-24 would have had to be flying at stall speed."

The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.

So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds? Or perhaps even less? 

It's important not to forget the context here. Ankara is fiercly anti-Assad and in addition to being generally displeased with Russia's efforts to support the regime, just four days ago, Turkey summoned Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov over the alleged bombing of Turkish villages near the border. "Turkey has asked Russia to 'immediately end its operation,'" AFP reported, adding that "Ankara warned bombing villages populated by the Turkmen minority in Syria could lead to 'serious consequences.'"

Of course Russia wasn't just bombing Turkish civilians for the sheer hell of it. It's likely Moscow was targeting the very same FSA-affiliated Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen who shot and killed the parachuting Russian pilot earlier today. 

In short, it looks like Ankara saw an opportunity to shoot down a Russian jet in retaliation for strikes on Turkish rebel fighters who are operating alongside anti-Assad forces. Erdogan is essentially gambling that Russia will not retailiate militarily against Turkey because doing so would open the door for a direct confrontation with NATO. 

Time will tell whether that gamble pays off or whether Moscow decides that the next time a Turkish F-16 gets "lost" over Latakia, a little payback is in order.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Guitarbill's picture

If the US had half a brain they would boot Turkey out of NATO and disassociate themselves all together. These stupid pricks are going to start something that they can't finish!

LibertarianMenace's picture

If the US had any brains it would quit NATO.

Itsthetiming's picture
Itsthetiming (not verified) LibertarianMenace Nov 24, 2015 10:34 PM

What benefit would thre be t the USA leaving NATO?

LibertarianMenace's picture

A forelorn hope of a smaller bill: for me.

Itsthetiming's picture
Itsthetiming (not verified) LibertarianMenace Nov 24, 2015 10:57 PM

Those countries pay a lot of money to have America as their bulldog. We don't pay them, they pay us. The media tells you the USA pays but that's untrue. Talke a closer look.

LibertarianMenace's picture

Not all bills are denominated in money.

knukles's picture

We're all gonna get killed by these crazies

Kassandra's picture

My thoughts exactly..these assholes are going to kill us all..

greenskeeper carl's picture

They pay us, huh? So we are MAKING money by having bases in over 100 countries in the world? Hell, why not open more, we could pay off the national debt.

Even if that were true, it doesn't make one but of difference. We are not the worlds policemen. Everything that happens in the world isn't our problem. Our founding fathers warned of 'entangling alliances' hundreds of years ago, and preferred peaceful commerce with all, instead. You can't get a much more 'entangling' alliance than NATO. I sure as shit don't want to fight a war with Russia because turkey shot down a Russian plane.

NATO is bad for us because so many countries can start a war for us, and we sure as hell don't need any help in that department. It's the equivalent of a little kid picking a fight with someone bigger because he knows his big brother is nearby and will protect him, except with nuclear weapons. I want no part of it.

highandwired's picture

Countries USSA has bombed since WWII:

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999

Afghanistan 2001

Libya 2011

falconflight's picture

So? And asshole?  Go lick Puztin's rectum, ummm yummy.  You said "bombed."  Is that your final answer?  Did you really mean supported insurgencies, invaded, and/or bombed or WTF?

Iran 1998?  Want to expound? BJ Clinton bombed or invaded Iran?  

Indonesia 1958?  I Like Ike invaded them or what?  

Some of these dates and locations are quite justifiable; Libya 1986.  

Take your Soviet/Socialist Internationale/Third World decades old campaign of disinformation and shove it up your birthing unit's asshole.

BarkingCat's picture

You're quite angry for a little faggot.

nnnnnn's picture
nnnnnn (not verified) BarkingCat Nov 25, 2015 1:44 AM

you cant blame him he dont have a girlfriend     since he was born


while lickin obamas asshole he advise other people to do similar thing

come on falconfail   except of you no one want to lick assholes here

highandwired's picture

1998 - oh sorry, it was Iraq, as if it's any better

1958 - "In their authoritative book about the CIA entitledThe Invisible Government, Washington correspondents Thomas Ross and David Wise related how the U.S. supplied a right-wing rebel force in Indonesia with arms and a small air force of B-26 bombers in an attempt to overthrow Sukarno."  http://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap2.html

I'm sure in your limited Merican worldview, all bombing are justifiable as long as you can keep your standard of living at other people's expense!


J Jason Djfmam's picture

Always better to be the bomber than the bombed. Sorry!

OldPhart's picture

Not so long ago I would have responded as you did.

I, however, embarked on finding out what I never learned.

Start here:  http://www.historybyzim.com/

Then go to every wacko-liberal website and absorb what they think.  Argue with them.

Then go to every wacko-conservative website and absorb what they think.  Argue with them.

I suggest reading Atlas Shrugged, the Road to Serfdom, Economics in One Lesson, the Koran, the Bible, and other litergical books on other religions such as Hindu, Sihks and any other that catches your fancy (because if you really do this, you will find it fascinating).

I was disquieted beginning 2004 and couldn't put my finger on why.  So I did this sort of personal research from 2004 to about 2009, when I stumbled into Zero Hedge and started lurking.  The commenters, at the time, were obviously so far over my head I didn't dare make a sound but just read the comments for over a year.  Using the links provided to see what the hell they were talking about.

(I miss Money McBags, the most from that time.)

When you first stumble onto Zero Hedge, it most often, these days, reads like a bunch of idiots posting shit (God knows I'm guilty), but never disrespect any other commenter on Zero Hedge.  As a relative newbie you're apt to get your ass handed to you wrapped in a ribbon.  Zero Hedge used to use a comment screener.  The typical screener would ask something like whats the fifth root of PI?  Or the fourth root of 5.  No lie.

Newbies, I strongly suggest that you lurk this site, read the comments from those, other than I, that are so far superior to you that you have no clue...and appreciate what you read a long, long time before you even dare make your first comment.

More_sellers_than_buyers's picture

McBags had the best photolinks ever! Miss him too

Tall Tom's picture

Zero Hedge used to use a comment screener.  The typical screener would ask something like whats the fifth root of PI?  Or the fourth root of 5.  No lie.


That should return.

JR's picture

“NATO’s first secretary general, Pug Ismay, once said: ‘NATO was formed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.’” – Brother Nathanael Kapner

With NATO’s philosophy it won’t be long before the bankers will be deciding who is the enemy within the United States - if they haven’t decided already.

rejected's picture

The USA is NATO.... provides over 60% of the funding.

JR's picture

Hastings Lionel “Pug” Ismay as Secretary General of NATO (1952 - 1957) --

On NATO "I am convinced that the present solution is only a partial one, aimed at guarding the heart. It must grow until the whole free world gets under one umbrella."

NATO is the bankers' military arm headed for world government and Russia stands in the way.

Z_End's picture

NATO = Needs Americans To Operate

greenskeeper carl's picture

Exactly. I've been saying that for years. While we are at it, leave the UN and kick them out of the country too. Fuck the both of them. Good for the government, bad for everyday people.

Itsthetiming's picture
Itsthetiming (not verified) Guitarbill Nov 24, 2015 10:27 PM

NATO is to expanded, not contracted.

monk27's picture

Balloons are expanding right until they blow up...

Ghordius's picture

then take your country out of it. the French did it, once

bigkahuna's picture

Alas G, we will have to be tossed out. Even if our apathetic constituencies garnered the wherewithall to petition CONgress to get out - the financial/war dictatorship here would not allow this. 

The old US Republic required a moral, intellectual populace to run her and make her free and great. At one time much of the world was truly with us. At present we have quite an internal problem that will have to be resolved before we could accomplish what France did.

Ghordius's picture

have a look at the footage from Hollande's visit in Washington, watch his face and Obama's during the press conference. I sometimes do that, without sound, and watch the whole back again to listen to what was said, exactly

Obama was... well, look at it yourself, and make up your own mind

bigkahuna's picture

I saw most of it. It was not not nice for me to look at. It looked to me like the two were not very happy with each other, then it seemed like it was abruptly ended. I have not been a fan of DCs decision making matrix for quite a while now. At this point, I am not surprised that our roughshods in DC are agrivating allies.

nosam's picture
nosam (not verified) Guitarbill Nov 24, 2015 11:10 PM

"If the US had half a brain they would boot Turkey out of NATO and disassociate themselves all together. These stupid pricks are going to start something that they can't finish!"

Turkey would not have shot down the jet without explicit orders from the US to do so. This is the US trying to start WWIII. They are poking the bear like they did in Ukraine.

Peak Bull's picture

Obama was clear that he supported Turkey. To correct the issue, the US military needs to arrest Obama for starting a war without Congressional authorization. Then, Nato needs to remove Turkey for provocation. Finally, we can watch a bear carve up a turkey. as a side show during the Macy's parade.

As an aside, since the Russian jets posed no real threat to Turkey, one can substitute "war plane" with "Russian passenger jet". This makes Obama's statement supporting Turkey's "right to protect airspace" completely absurd.

"Today Canada shot down an American Airliner for traveling 1 mile inside its borders, for 5 seconds. The plane crashed into Niagra Falls. President Obama said that Canada has a right to protect its own country, and also stated "I'm not really sure who owns Niagra Falls anyway" "

ebear's picture

Niagra Falls?

Slowly I turned.....

vollderlerby's picture

Obozo wants Assad gone, Erdogan wants Assad gone => happily ever after .      Or not .....

monk27's picture

Obama will be long gone before Assad. The jury is still out regarding Erdogan...

FIAT CON's picture

The US has a brain and their goal is to overthrow Assad from the back door. Countries like Turkey and Israel are just what the US needs to do the dirty work, so they can say our hands are clean.

Quasi's picture

Putin starts an Orthodox Crusade against Turkey to re-claim Constantinople. Hey, weirder things have happened.

deja's picture

They'd never be allowed to keep it.  Wouldn't it be hilaious though, if they partitioned Turkey and gave Constantinople back to the Greeks?

Surging Chaos's picture

They are so desperate to start WW3.

Demdere's picture

You can understand why : our Israeli-Neocons are losing the info war, and 9/11 is going to be blamed on them, along with all of the Treason associated with that throughout the various governments of the world.

Do you notice tnat no one in our entire intelligence apparatus has noticed 9/11 yet?  Do you think that is because 9/11 happened as the government claims?

False Flag of some large order is next, it is the way these guys work, and they double down every time they are losing.

Usurious's picture
Usurious (not verified) Demdere Nov 24, 2015 10:48 PM

what year did the EURO debut?.......from ZH 2010


''Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.''


Ghordius's picture

but everybody knows that the EUR is an evil thing, isn't it? I mean... even Russia was contemplating to support a use of some EUR for oil trade, particularly if Iraq and Iran would do some too

azusgm's picture

This particular incident might have more to do with attempting to overextend the Russians to make it harder for them to deal with what is going on in Ukraine. The power supply to Crimea from Ukraine has been cut and repairs are not being allowed. The puppet in Ukraine now has placed a cargo ban on movement of goods to Crimea.

Russia is stuck dealing with two fronts.

Bazza McKenzie's picture

And how many fronts is the US fighting on?

At least for Russia, the Ukraine conflict is right on its border, with all the logistics advantages and local knowledge that brings.  None of the many conflicts in which the US is involved are on its borders.  So it is pretty clear which country is overextended.

researchfix's picture

Power cable to Crimea will be ready in 4 weeks. So it was about last minute for the Ukies to pull this stunt.

Our German press calls these bombers ´activists´.

I am waiting for the names given to the guys who will starting bombing in Germany soon. Maybe ´activists´ too? Somehow i don´t think so.

JustObserving's picture

Fuck Turkey.  It wanted a war and it will get one. Tourism will be down 90% and more.  Look at Turkey's violations of Greek airspace:

In just the first month of 2014 Turkish jets are claimed to have violated Greek airspace1,017 times

Money Boo Boo's picture

Turkey is doing NATO's bidding, this was all pre-arranged in order to make PUtin look bad, if they crossed the line for any reaon no matter how small then they would be shot down. This is all a game being played by fucktards.

Uchtdorf's picture

And NATO's actions have revealed the Red Shield once again. There are no good guys in this story.

Flagit's picture


To which line are you referring?

The internationally recognized territorial boundary, or the one the Turkey decided they wanted?

Blankone's picture

Putin is impotent to do anything, and does not have the fortitude to do so either.  Putin will make a show, make accusatons, poster, bitch, may ride a horse with his shirt off, the usual.

He has been caught playing checkers to their chess.  And he is getting whipped bad while being bitch slapped for good measure.

Airliner goes down - message is russians are not safe outside of russia and makes Putin look weak to his citizens

NATO enters Syria more directly and takes over the sky in key areas, may put boots on the ground to occupy - If Putin now (due to his delays) resist he will be made to look like he is helping/acting like a terroist and is hendering the fight against terrorism.

Russia's jet gets shot down by NATO country.  Russia's abilities must be questioned by allies when he cannot react.

If Putin fires back at Turkey then Turkey could claim an act of war, negate the treaty, and block Russia's ships from the strait.  Turkey is then backed by NATO in this. 

Better weapons continue to be given to ISIS.  Putin's bases may be hit with rockets etc in the future.  Maybe one of his ships are hit with a barrage of missiles/rockets.  

Putin will pay dearly for not taking control with a no-fly zone at the same time he started the fight.  That is unless he goes all in now or he negotiates an agreement where he gets a naval bases and gives up the rest of Syria. (Of course the agreement would be violated by NATO in future years)