BBC now showing where the Russian aircraft was hit by the missile:
Based on the reported 17-second length of the incursion, the SU-24 must have been back in Syrian airspace for about 40 seconds when it was hit. That's way longer than the time of flight of a visual missile shot, which means that either:
A) The Turkish aircraft fired a visually-aimed shot when the Russians had already left Turkish airspace. Very, very bad. Especially if fired in Syrian airspace (Newsnight just described the missile as a Sidewinder... if true, then its limited range makes that quite likely).
B) The Turkish aircraft fired BVR when the Russians were in their 17-second transgression. Raises serious question of proportionality as it would have been blindingly obvious that they were heading straight out again, meaning the shot could not possibly prevent or terminate incursion, but merely punish it. Bad.
If the Turkish intent was actually to protect the Turkmen rebels from Russian air strikes, using a minor infringement as a pretext, then it can reasonably be characterised as an aggression by Turkey - after all, Russia is in Syria at the sovereign's request. Neither of the defensive explanations above stacks up for me. And the warnings over 10 minutes are weakened in significance by the evidence that the Russians were orbiting - and only pointing at the border for a minute or so before the shot.
I always thought NATO would be desperately challenged by a Turkish request for assistance in a situation of marginal or negative interest to the other members. If Putin is looking for any consolation, he might find it in the ructions undoubtedly going on at NATO HQ tonight.
Hang on.... he wouldn't have set this one up, would he? Where's my tinfoil hat!
Edited to add: Must agree with a previous poster that for Obama to hail the "moderate opposition" when we've just seen them shooting at parachutes and Allah-akhbaring over dead bodies simply exposes the utter folly of Western policy.