I just read this piece of news:

... the American plane took off from a carrier (George HW Bush), flew over all of Russia's radar and missile sites in western Syria, shot down the Syrian Su-22 in Raqqa, and then flew right back over all the Russian anti-air sites.

The reason Americans could do so without any worries is because having announced the flight to the Russians through the deconfliction channel (but not their intention to be shooting down Syrian jets without trying to contact the Russians again) the Russians were honor-bound to not molest the US plane.

But they don't really cite any sources, so I don't know how to assess whether it's actually true.

Is this actually true or is it fake news?

closed as off-topic by Sklivvz Jun 22 '17 at 23:28

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions about unresolved current events and issues currently under investigation by a court of law, government, or other similar investigative body are off-topic because there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer. For more information, see Handling current news questions." – Sklivvz
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    they shot down a Syrian aircraft, they flew over Soviet manned SAM batteries after the Soviets announced they'd consider the US or anyone else except them and the Syrians flying there an act of war. So either there was an agreement with the US to allow them to be there OR someone's trying to save face who failed to do his duty. – jwenting Jun 22 '17 at 9:53
  • 3
    @jwenting: [citation-needed] – Oddthinking Jun 22 '17 at 13:39
  • 3
    @jwenting "after the Soviets announced" I am pretty sure that the announcement came AFTER the incident, not before. – Federico Jun 22 '17 at 13:43
  • 12
    Soviets? What year is this?! – vartec Jun 22 '17 at 19:25
  • 4
    The question asked was, "Did the US lie to Russia?" but what evidence do you hope someone could present? If they did lie wouldn't that be a national secret? If they didn't lie, how would you prove a negative? One may ask these kinds of questions about the second world war, for example, where documents have been declassified and historians have written about it; but I can only imagine people presenting circumstantial evidence (e.g. "They flew in from the west and weren't shot down")... which wouldn't be more nor less solid than the evidence presented in the OP. So this question is unanswerable? – ChrisW Jun 23 '17 at 7:47

Browse other questions tagged .