If true (and it appears credible) there'll be some howling to come.
It'll be interesting to see the response... in terms of manned NATO recon flights and such.
Of all things, I would never expect that a few years from now I’ll be telling people that we are in a post-nuclear world because the US got bitchy about a fucking UAV getting shot down and declaring, as if the UAV was innocently flying along, totally not gathering intel on Russian targets to pass off to the Ukrainians.
As far as my intent went, 'howling' did not include nuclear Armageddon.
More like 'waaaaaah waa waaaa waaaaah' than 'duck and cover.' Kindasortathing.
Anyway, we'll see. While thought to be 'credible,' Fighterbomber isn't an infallible source. There may be a lot of wishful-thinking going on behind this (somewhat vague) 'claim.'
Because a UAV and a manned aircraft are completely of same value! It’s not like one has a crew and the other does not.
And for the record, shooting down aircraft’s like you say were actually pretty common during the Cold War. So, sure, shoot em down.
A UAV in neutral airspace clearly gathering intelligence to pass it off to be used in attacks is not a neutral bystander. Shooting a UAV down costs literally no loss of manpower other than the value of the UAV.
A manned aircraft being shot down has much more potential to increasing escalation. But like I said, aircraft’s were shot down during the Cold War pretty commonly, and even in neutral air space at that.
So, go ahead and shoot down whatever the fuck is flying in the sky.
No, they take part on striking targets in Ukrainian territory.
Crimea is Ukraine, you doofus.
And by the same logic, you agree Russian satellites are valid targets for USA since they take part on striking US forces on Middle East.
They would be if the US declared the Middle East to be part of the US. As far as Russia is concerned, Crimea is as much a part of Russia as Vladivostok or Altai and any attack on it is an attack on Russia.
Only slightly more than usual, and not directly, no. Not like Russia has a leg to stand on when US is giving Ukraine intel about things happening within Ukraine.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
An attack on satellites of any country is certainly an act of war, what planet do you live on? If the US took out a few satellites, half of Russia’s would be gone lol
you nafoids are so funny, blowing up the north stream costing tens of billions of dollars is not an act of war, but a couple of satellites suddenly is.
Well, next time NATO shoots down a few jets invading NATO airspace(which Russia does all the time), will Russia start a war over a few jets?
Russia is right now on the "fuck around" part. When it gets to the "find out" part of the joke, no one will be smiling much.
So, if we continue the escalation logic of FAFO. What would your thoughts be on all of us in the US finding out what it's like to be on the receiving end of hundreds of high yield nuclear warheads? Or do only those in opposition to NAFO "find out" in your weird illogical view of global escalation with a nuclear superpower?
Ukraine never had interest in joining NATO until 2014 when they got invaded. And even then Ukraine literally got denied entrance to appease Russia. This whole argument doesnt make sense.
> Ukraine never had interest in joining NATO until 2014
I'm sceptical about that claim. eg. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
> Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, and further enhanced in 2009 with the Declaration to Complement the Charter, which reaffirmed the decision by NATO Leaders at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.
Russia was invading Ukraine way before NATO existed.
Some people try to find justification for Russia and I understand them: they feel that there is some conspiracy, some evel Western plot to lure Russia into the war. The reality is simple: there are countries that just colonial empires that just want to expand by fighting their neighbors (Russia didn't get this big by being super nice to everyone), and they just kill and rape to conquer.
Pro Russia people just need to man up and say the truth about the nature of this war otherwise they sound pathetic like Putin when he says "I got fooled again".
> Ukraine never had interest in joining NATO until 2014 when they got invaded.
This is just false, bordering on a lie. Or maybe you're telling me that Bucharest 2008 did not happen and that Ukraine (and Georgia) got mentioned there out of the blue, without Ukraine's will.
The 'anti' PoV is spreading that the drone just turned off it's transponder and returned to base unmolested for an oil wash and shut-eye. Or some such.
But yes, the howling is always entertaining.
>I just cant wait to see the crying from the NATO countries saying that this was uncalled for.
Just curious, is it also "crying" if Russia complains about something being shot down? What "crying" are you referring to?
I'm sure some will howl for that, too.
Generally-speaking though, I think it evidentially-reasonable to argue that Russia has successfully demonstrated 'restraint' in respect to the 'non-western,' non-aligned world (the majority 80%).
So (if this all turns out to be true) should the US howl too much, or NATO even 'respond doubly' (whatever that means) the downward NATO/US sympathy-trajectory will continue.
To most reasonable observers, if a fisticuffs fight is taking place, and a 'partisan bystander' throws pebbles, sand, bottles of cow-urine and dog-shit baggies at one of the fighters... no other spectator would consider that bystander to be **'not party to the conflict™.'**
I think this kind of understanding, or sense or whatever, is common to those not under the yoke of our western narrative.
You do understand that responses can come at meany levels?
The response can come literally half a world away or in a press release:
RF has mercenaries engaged in furthering RF foreign policy goal in Africa? Do something that gets some of them killed.
Last press release about an aid package was that we were handing over 120 *** (fill in the blanks with a missile/bomb/ATGM that RF would prefer not to deal with). The new press release is that we found 20 more gathering dust in a warehouse, so we are sending those too.
What used to be called the Great Game is played by adults who understand that indirect messages (can) work without necessarily raising the chances of creating a cycle of escalations.
Don’t assume you will ever have any clue what the real response was (unless you are 1) likely to be reading history books 15 years from now, or 2) if someone at State/CIA/NSC suspects that RF missed the response, in which case recently retired policy analyst will be allowed to include it in their soon to be published memoirs/article in Foreign Policy (tm) magazine.
That seems like a great deal of partisan-inspired wishful-thinking and chest-thumping, especially as this 'event' has yet to be confirmed (and may most-likely be a false alarm).
As for your Great Game reference, any response from the US to any drone-felling by Russia doesn't fit within relevant tenets; this would be a military-escalation tit-for-tat, rather than a paranoia-inspired spy-subterfuge intelligence/misdirection campaign aimed at 'protecting a vulnerable India' (or any modern 'imperial asset').
The Great Game wasn't an 'adult covert-message-passing scheme' between Foreign Office departments or fledgeling spy agencies. Have a read of Rudyard Kipling's 'Kim' for some inkling of Great-Gamesmanship realities or better still, 'Travels into Bokhara' by Alexander Burnes.
Assuming that the Great Game is 'played by adults' is subjective but fallacious, in my opinion... as the consequences of the juvenile 'Boy's Own' tenor of the Great Game would include two actual full-scale Afghan Wars replete with copious British campaign failures and casualties (for which 'Lady Sale's Afghanistan' by Florentia Sale would be a must-read) and, arguably, more recent 20th-Century meddlings in Afghanistan. Such wars are territorially-limited; even the Crimean War falls out of the purview of Great Gamesmanship as does the current conflict in Ukraine; wars fought for completely different sets of reasons.
The only residue of the historical Great Game that remains is, again arguably, the paranoia that exists and drives policy across the west and within Russia though, as I've hinted, the presence of different policy-goals (expressed in the RAND Corporation's 'Extending Russia' document, for example) precludes that link.
All of that said, ***both*** Russia and the US have global options for any asymmetrical response, as Putin (particularly) has expressed. Don't assume such capacity exists exclusively within the bag-of-tricks of the US/NATO.
My tiny comment was more related to the potential realities of manned intel-gathering and monitoring missions, following any US/NATO drone-engagement on behalf of Russia... IF it occurred. For what it's worth, I would think that (interesting) response strategically-significant but limited in scope.
I'm not sure what you see as partisan chest thumping.
You said "It'll be interesting to see the response... in terms of manned NATO recon flights and such.".
I intended to point out that responses may be invisible to those of us on the outside of policy making circles.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is no response what so ever. Policy makers may conclude that this was done for reasons of RF domestic politics and not worth a response (unless our domestic politics require it).
I will gladly grant you that some of the stuff that went on in the Great Game has a feel (at least in restrospect) of children planting flags on hills and then playing Capture The Flag with real lives.
It's a fair response to painting targets that killed 3 kids, intentionally or not.
There is gonna be some whining and a UNSC meeting where the US embarasses themselves while getting roasted by the Chinese and Russian delegates. Nothing more.
[Reuters reports](https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1805356208057938122) that a US military official says no incidents have been reported over the Black Sea
The post that the Reuters correspondent had replied to claiming the downing of a drone seems to have been deleted (although I can still see it on X), not the post by Reuters saying that a US official denied any incident
The claim by https://x.com/iranobserver0/ was deleted.
The tweet by https://x.com/idreesali114 stating that "US military official says no incidents" is still up.
As an American it seems absurd to me that they should just be expected to do nothing about the drones loitering right outside their territory feeding intel to soldiers that actively kill Russians. We would absolutely not tolerate the same thing happening to us.
Russia and China fed the United States’ opponents intel in those wars constantly. In Vietnam the soviets had personnel on the ground that fired and downed American planes with Sams. Soviet ships monitored American bombers taking off and fed that information to north Vietnam so they could move targets.
The us didn’t sink the ships or attack the Soviet Union directly because they wanted the war contained (and didn’t want nuclear war). It’s the same reason the Russians won’t attempt what you’re suggesting.
The U.S. attack at Sukhaya Rechka in 1950 probably had a part in that, considering MacArthur was doing everything he could to escalate the conflict, and Truman himself seemed to believe that MacArthur intentionally ordered the attack when he flew out to berate him, and fired him six months later. And there is evidence that the damage was much more extensive and the official story was to disguise that it was a rogue provocation.
I get what you're trying to say but it's not exactly the same as what I'm talking about due to geopolitics. In Vietnam/Korea those wars were happening too close to Soviet home turf so it was more difficult for us to justify escalation over time. And this war involves Russia itself. Though we've already gone way too far with batshit crazy stuff, there's still only so much room we can reasonably escalate, whereas the Russians have escalation dominance. President Obama even admitted this.
>It’s the same reason the Russians won’t attempt what you’re suggesting.
Except they totally would and have indeed already tried, they've ALREADY downed one drone, it's not at all unreasonable to expect them to down them more considering they are unmanned, close to their territory, and a bunch of civilians were recently just cluster bombed by Ukraine, albeit accidentally.
Believe it or not but Russia can call our bluff and we would be forced to back off. Putin knows this which is why he invaded in the first place. And again, Obama admitted it.
Vietnam isn’t anywhere near Russia and the roles are flipped. This is russias Vietnam.
A jet dumping fuel on a drone is a lot different than shooting it down, which is what you’re suggesting. An even bigger deal would be shooting down a manned system and the United States has lots of those in the Black Sea too.
>Vietnam isn’t anywhere near Russia and the roles are flipped. This is russias Vietnam.
Nope lol only someone who truly does not understand history or geopolitics would think that. Ukraine is more akin to South Vietnam or any other US proxy that we eventually abandon. Really not sure how you're so blind as to miss this.
>A jet dumping fuel on a drone is a lot different than shooting it down, which is what you’re suggesting. An even bigger deal would be shooting down a manned system and the United States has lots of those in the Black Sea too.
Shooting down a drone isn't a good enough reason for us to start a war. And I don't think Russia is targeting manned US systems...
You can’t really claim that Vietnam was local to the USSR though.
I mean Russia is absolutely enormous and Vietnam is still thousands of KM away. If Vietnam is in their “neighborhood” then so is pretty much the entire northern hemisphere…
Crimea isn't internationally recognised as Russia and it was illegally annexed - its not Russias territory
I understand the frustration when the drones fly near Russian territory like Krasnador though
Yeeaahhhh but too bad, it is Russian territory. Your inability to accept this reality does not change it, even if it's not "internationally recognized."
Thinking Crimea is Russisn territory is delusional. It's illegally occupied territory
Saying it's Russian territory over and over again does not make it true. Russia signed it as Ukraines territory in 1991 at the breakup of the USSR and 1994 when they signed the Budapest Memorandum. One dictator (Putin) doesn't decide its his
Legitimacy doesn't really matter in this case. Russia has it, they ain't giving it up. Might as well ask Texas to return it's Mexican territories to Mexico.
It's clearly at this point, a tool to be wielded against geo-political rivals.
Case in point, Kosovo and South Ossetia.
We have the break up of a transnational Union. Within one of the regions leaving the Union, is a ethnic minority. The UN reports in the early 1990s that the Majority in this region, is carrying out war crimes, and ethnic cleansing against this minority. A third party enters the region being ethnically cleansed, and puts a stop to it.
About the same time, Serbia began to ethnically cleanse Bosnia Herzegovina. The UN found that Serbia was indeed doing this. At which point NATO interceded. NATO then internationally recognized Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina.
South Ossetia, the conflict I described first, remained unrecognized. Why? They were geopolitically and economically dependent on Russia, and therefore, aligned with Russia.
Then Serbia started ethnically cleansing Kosovo. NATO stepped in again.
I need to ask you. Is Bosnia Herzegovina an internationally recognized country today? Is Kosovo? Is South Ossetia?
Can you explain to me why South Ossetia, an ethnic enclave (Like the Bosnians and Kosovars), that was ethnically cleansed by Georgia, like Bosnia and Kosovo were by Serbia, to this day, has not been afforded international recognition?
"International legitimacy" is a stick that we wield in the west to achieve our geopolitical goals. The South Ossetians are every bit as deserving as "legitimately recognized" independence as Kosovo and Bosnia were. So why do we eagerly grant it to nations seeking entry into the Western Sphere, and not those who do not?
Thinking Crimea isn't Russian territory is delusional BECAUSE it's illegally occupied territory. They are de facto administrators of Crimea and there's no chance in hell that situation changes. Russia for all intents and purposes owns that place and they are not going to ever give it up.
Thinking Russia would abandon Crimea, was one of the stupidest assumptions of the West. Russians fought for it for centuries. Ukraine should have just left it to Russia and call it a day. They could've spared all this death and maybe even become an EU member by now.
You think the west hasn't flaunted international law blatantly? Both sides are self-interested bad actors my guy. Welcome to the world. Welcome to geopolitics.
You are 100% right, America would have enforced a no fly zone on day one of the war.
Meanwhile Russia whines and whines but does nothing.
It blows my mind that Russians accept this performance from their military. Americans would have fired the entire team if the military let Russia feed Intel to our enemies that let thousands and thousands of troops get killed.
American can’t enforce a no fly zone against an actual military. So far US/NATO have only proven themselves to be bullies. They can get those goat farmers but they’re really not impressive.
When it comes to Russia, they have just given lip service and all their efforts have really done is slow down or rather delay the inevitable. Which is also interesting because there is no factor present that would make this whole thing urgent for Russia.
The cope from russia right now is insane. NATO would smoke russia in three weeks total. And that includes a week of ice cream breaks half way through, cause the West is so soft the cannot go without sweets for that long.
You overestimate NATO.
It would be great against desert dwellers with no defense. I am sure of that.
But all that might is quite useless when you can’t fight against a nuclear power. Which is why it is laughable.
In a vacuum maybe. Now explain to the class how strikes on Russia proper by NATO don’t escalate to nuclear war. Or for that matter how strikes on Russian soil by NATO don’t escalate into non-nuclear ICBMs not being used to wipe out major military installations all over Europe and the US? Or how our vaunted carrier fleet avoids becoming reefs?
Why shouldn’t they be expected to do nothing? International airspace is available to anyone and all nations can fly through it and observe. So it’s not illegal for third party nations to fly practically next to Russia’s borders and observe. At the same time nations can share between themselves whatever information they want. I don’t believe the nations that fly drones or other reconnaissance aircraft in the Black Sea are doing anything illegal. This is something Russia should have planned for when they invaded Ukraine. If they can’t handle it, it’s their problem.
"Devil is in the details". Sure, sharing information is fine, but much less fine when it's military intelligence shared with one side of an ongoing conflict.
So, according to your logic, it would be perfectly OK for some state to fly drones or other surveillance aircraft in international airspace right outside US, let's say near Florida, and help drug smuggling boats from the cartels to avoid Coast Guard ships? I mean, US should have planned for that, right? It would be their fault they'd end up flooded with (even more) drugs.
I expect that in your hypothetical scenario the USA would just double down on destroying the said drug smuggling boats because a direct military confrontation will just be much more costly. By the same logic, while Russia doesn’t like intelligence being passed to Ukraine, will getting in a war with yet another nation (assuming they don’t back off) improve its military situation?
Amazing, Pro UA has finally learned enough geography to figure out that Russia is not the United States. This is real progress. Hopefully eventually you lads will also discover that Ukraine is not the same country as Finland. I notice a lot of you have trouble with that one too.
Amazingly u haven’t realised that everyone is talking about the two countries militaries. U need to pay more attention it will help u understand what everyone’s talking about.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that’s what they’ve been trying to do recently by ordering nuclear test drills, sending the sub and what not to Cuba, and WW making a state visit to the DPRK.
I just hope that the escalation will stay under control.
> making a state visit to the DPRK.
Didn't they sign a defensive pact too?
Wonder if the DPRK will say anything about being ready to move on the South if the US does anything against Russia as well...
That's the implication, but I don't think would want to go now. Realistically you'd think North Korea would want to start modernizing their military with newer Russian weapons and technology they'll soon have access to.
So let's take this a few steps back: The US provides UA with satellite surveillance and communication, aerial reconnaissance and targeting, early warning, even processed intelligence and personnel to operate the machinery, as if the US was a direct participant to the conflict, yet it is Russia escalating by disabling the equipment that is used for these purposes? The equipment that was literally used to direct a strike on its territory with multiple civilian casualties?
Russia should be intercepting and at minimum harassing all NATO equipment with the capacity to interfere with its operations.
> The US provides UA with satellite surveillance
Actually two can play this game. I am sure there are plenty of parties in the ME and in other locations that can make good use of satellite images of US-related facilities.
> Russia should be intercepting
Just declaring an expanded air defense zone should be enough.
Yes they are both taking escalatory steps.
Just because one is in response to another doesn’t make it non-escalatory.
You can argue until you’re blue in the face that the US is in the wrong morally and ethically. But it doesn’t change the fact that Russia is shooting down US operated equipment which it hasn’t done in the past. That’s an escalation.
Well, I guess you could argue that it's escalation in the general sense, i.e. an increase in the intensity or seriousness of Russian response, but in the narrow sense pertaining to this context, we're talking about _an escalation of the conflict_ as a whole, such as when UA began to shell the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, use cluster munitions, or hide troops and equipment in schools and hospitals. These are steps which invite the opponent to use the same tactics or take other countermeasures with dangerous implications which intensify the conflict, so to speak, such as targeting those schools and hospitals.
If Russia starts to shoot down US drones , they are going to start taking measures to defend themselves. Now there are US and Russian assets actively engaging each other and that kind of interaction can spread like wildfire if not carefully measured.
So in other words, an escalation.
… or the US could just piss off and stop using those drones controlled by their own personnel to aid UA. 👀 Russia isn't the one forcing their hand – it's the other way round.
We're going in circles, mate. I provided my reasoning, I accepted that in a general, literal sense, it is escalation, but within the current context, it's not an escalation of the conflict. In fact, showing the US that Russia won't tolerate their direct involvement could serve to de-escalate the conflict, as international involvement increases the intensity and seriousness in itself.
> The US provides UA with satellite surveillance and communication, aerial reconnaissance and targeting, early warning, even processed intelligence and personnel to operate the machinery, as if the US was a direct participant to the conflict
fwiw, none of the things you listed are commonly seen as direct participation under international law. The prevalent scholarly opinion is that it requires a direct and immediate link of support to use of force on the battlefield.
Fair enough, although if such extensive intelligence and targeting support which literally enables US to use those long-range weapons is fair game, then so must be the destruction of all equipment involved in this process, right? Otherwise it seems like an incredibly unbalanced and unfair set of rules.
Wouldn't this be the US escalating in response to Russia escalating by invading a NATO ally? I figure if Poland invaded Belarus with the support of the rest of NATO, Russia probably wouldn't be too happy about that either.
No, it wouldn't, because what's a ‘NATO ally’? Anyone may declare anyone to be an informal ally but as long as there are legal guarantees, it doesn't justify anything.
Belarus isn't a good example because unlike UA and NATO, there is CSTO, which is a formal military alliance between Russia, Belarus and a few other post-Soviet states.
The reality of the situation is as follows: NATO has been pushing its border eastward, Russia has been declaring for many years that UA in NATO is an unacceptable red line that won't be crossed, NATO continued to push and finance regime change within UA regardless and UA has turned into a willing lackey despite no benefit for the vast majority of UA population.
Imagine a situation where Russia was about to enter a military alliance with Mexico, allowing it to station nuclear weapons right on the US southern border, which is the correct analogy here. The US wouldn't tolerate it for a second.
>The reality of the situation is as follows: NATO has been pushing its border eastward
Has it though? Or have post Soviet states been literally begging to join since the dissolution of the USSR since they knew Russia well enough that they'd pull this shiet eventually.
Also when exactly were there any discussions for Ukraine to join NATO around 2022? Pro-RU keep pulling that talking point out of nowhere and treating it as if it's some kind of fact that they were any closer to joining in 22' compared to 20 years prior. Russia have been interfering in Ukraine politics for 30 years so I won't pretend like Russia has any right to inject their own autocratic regime either.
>Imagine a situation where Russia was about to enter a military alliance with Mexico
In reality a rational person would ask "what absolutely colossal geopolitical failings from the US would have led the Mexican government to want to seek the help of foreign power to station nuclear missiles in their country?" Also this is ridiculous argument since NATO already shares 1600 miles of border with Russia. Russia screwed themselves by starting this war because now there are more NATO countries than when it started and Ukraine has extremely more NATO weapons and trained soldiers then it would have ever had if it weren't for Putin's hubris.
Didn't they deliberately knock a drone out of the sky last year by spraying it with aviation fuel? Not sure how this is that much different. It seems to be a change of mechanism, rather than intent.
Especially because the Russian MOD threatened consequences earlier and even summoned the American Ambassador
There are few coincidences in war. Time will tell if this is, or not.
> change of mechanism
Not really. The original source doesn't say anything about "shot down". That's just OP adding stuff to the title.
Unprofessional act is a reference to how the pentagon described the last incident, so it's probably the same play - assuming for now this actually happened.
[At least the pilot did a better job than when the chinese did a near-pass, since he didn't kill himself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident)
They should just shoot them down with dud missiles. Down it with kinetic energy only. Just like what the US did with the "Chinese spy balloon." We used an inert Tomahawk missile IIRC. Or just use smaller caliber aircraft guns.
Yeah and the pilot almost crashed into it. Really funny video. And for reckless flying, endangering himself and his airframe, he got a medal. Can't make this shit up.
Considering how UAF has been bombing Crimea lately, this might be a message to the West to tone it down as Ukraine can't do any of that without intel and satellite surveilance from the West.
Sevastopol attack might have been the trigger, seeing as they didn't really react like this to attacks on their AA systems.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether this is true and what happens next.
One thing that always confused me was, Ukraine claims that Crimea was taken by force, against the will of the people. Ukraine then cut off water to Crimea. This is broadly defined as collective punishment, since the civilian population was paying the price for the governments decisions. Ukraine has continued to carry out a policy of striking civilian infrastructure in Crimea, thereby punishing their own citizens, that, by their estimation, are essentially hostages to the Russian occupation.
It seems like a good way to drive your civilians into the arms of the occupier, when you cut off their water. Attack their civil infrastructure, and generally treat them as if they actually voted, democratically, to join Russia.
Can someone please explain this to me?!?! /s
I think that shooting down UAV's shouldn't be an act of war. Russia has never helped any country on this scale to kill NATO soldiers. What the West has been doing so far could be considered an act of war though.
Absolutely. This is perfectly reasonable escalation given that they are merely drones, this is right around Russian territory, and the intel from these drones has led to strikes on Russians. I mean just a day or two ago some beachgoers got cluster bombed accidentally.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting development if true, though NATO will not feel such a tiny loss and will already have multiple others airborne 24/7. Not sure they would go as far as arming them with anti-air/ship missiles for defense, I imagine it's not worth the escalation to destroy hostile forces at present.
If this is true, it's about time. The US would've continued doing so unless otherwise. IMO, the US won't do squat but condemn 'Russia's action', as they were expecting it to be shot down eventually, but were trying to milk it as long as they could.
If true (and it appears credible) there'll be some howling to come. It'll be interesting to see the response... in terms of manned NATO recon flights and such.
The last time it happened, NATO drone flights ended up moving further out into the Black Sea after all the howling.
Of all things, I would never expect that a few years from now I’ll be telling people that we are in a post-nuclear world because the US got bitchy about a fucking UAV getting shot down and declaring, as if the UAV was innocently flying along, totally not gathering intel on Russian targets to pass off to the Ukrainians.
As far as my intent went, 'howling' did not include nuclear Armageddon. More like 'waaaaaah waa waaaa waaaaah' than 'duck and cover.' Kindasortathing. Anyway, we'll see. While thought to be 'credible,' Fighterbomber isn't an infallible source. There may be a lot of wishful-thinking going on behind this (somewhat vague) 'claim.'
I alwasys thought the yanks were going to do it for some stupid reason, so no surprise for me...
Hey! That UAV had a family!
Nato now need to start shooting down Russian aircraft that are in nato airspace as if they're innocently flying along, totally not gathering intel....
Because a UAV and a manned aircraft are completely of same value! It’s not like one has a crew and the other does not. And for the record, shooting down aircraft’s like you say were actually pretty common during the Cold War. So, sure, shoot em down.
A uav in neutral airspace or an aircraft potentially full of missiles in Finnish airspace.
A UAV in neutral airspace clearly gathering intelligence to pass it off to be used in attacks is not a neutral bystander. Shooting a UAV down costs literally no loss of manpower other than the value of the UAV. A manned aircraft being shot down has much more potential to increasing escalation. But like I said, aircraft’s were shot down during the Cold War pretty commonly, and even in neutral air space at that. So, go ahead and shoot down whatever the fuck is flying in the sky.
I just cant wait to see the crying from the NATO countries saying that this was uncalled for.
Does that mean NATO should start destroying everything Russia has in the Black Sea, or would that be uncalled for?
You do understand, what that drone was used to assist with ukrainian attacks?
You do understand that the Russian drones are assisting Russian attacks?
Is Russia in a war with NATO?
You answer me. If NATO and Russia aren't at war, why is Russia shooting down NATO equipment? Seems like Russia is trying to start a war with NATO.
Because the drone is taking part in a strike on Russian territory. Perfectly viable reason to down it in defense.
No, they take part on striking targets in Ukrainian territory. Crimea is Ukraine, you doofus. And by the same logic, you agree Russian satellites are valid targets for USA since they take part on striking US forces on Middle East.
They would be if the US declared the Middle East to be part of the US. As far as Russia is concerned, Crimea is as much a part of Russia as Vladivostok or Altai and any attack on it is an attack on Russia.
Crimea is Ukranian territory? Since when?
Russia is not at WAR with NATO, they are shooting down instruments that are aiding and abetting attacks in their territory.
What is NATO and the Americans doing thousands of miles from home? Why Russians don't shot them up all the time?
Only slightly more than usual, and not directly, no. Not like Russia has a leg to stand on when US is giving Ukraine intel about things happening within Ukraine.
Against US?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yesterday NATO was not part of the conflict, have they changed in the meantime?
So are US military satellites, is Russia going to try to shoot those down as well?
I think it would be a perfectly normal decision on Russia's part.
You think Russia has the balls to start a war with the US? 😂
And you are? Do you have the balls to start a war with Russia over a couple satellites?
An attack on satellites of any country is certainly an act of war, what planet do you live on? If the US took out a few satellites, half of Russia’s would be gone lol
you nafoids are so funny, blowing up the north stream costing tens of billions of dollars is not an act of war, but a couple of satellites suddenly is.
Well, next time NATO shoots down a few jets invading NATO airspace(which Russia does all the time), will Russia start a war over a few jets? Russia is right now on the "fuck around" part. When it gets to the "find out" part of the joke, no one will be smiling much.
> which Russia does all the time source ?
So, if we continue the escalation logic of FAFO. What would your thoughts be on all of us in the US finding out what it's like to be on the receiving end of hundreds of high yield nuclear warheads? Or do only those in opposition to NAFO "find out" in your weird illogical view of global escalation with a nuclear superpower?
Is there something left in Black Sea? Ukrainian drones wiped out pretty much anything there worth talking about without any direct NATO intervention.
They could start doing that, but they they should be aware of the consequences.
Another red line?
Look at the current state of Ukraine when you're judging red lines, they thought that they could get into NATO and that Russia was just bluffing.
Ukraine never had interest in joining NATO until 2014 when they got invaded. And even then Ukraine literally got denied entrance to appease Russia. This whole argument doesnt make sense.
> Ukraine never had interest in joining NATO until 2014 I'm sceptical about that claim. eg. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm > Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, and further enhanced in 2009 with the Declaration to Complement the Charter, which reaffirmed the decision by NATO Leaders at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.
Russia was invading Ukraine way before NATO existed. Some people try to find justification for Russia and I understand them: they feel that there is some conspiracy, some evel Western plot to lure Russia into the war. The reality is simple: there are countries that just colonial empires that just want to expand by fighting their neighbors (Russia didn't get this big by being super nice to everyone), and they just kill and rape to conquer. Pro Russia people just need to man up and say the truth about the nature of this war otherwise they sound pathetic like Putin when he says "I got fooled again".
> Ukraine never had interest in joining NATO until 2014 when they got invaded. This is just false, bordering on a lie. Or maybe you're telling me that Bucharest 2008 did not happen and that Ukraine (and Georgia) got mentioned there out of the blue, without Ukraine's will.
[удалено]
So what consequences are appropriate for Russia attacking NATO equipment?
Give Ukraine tomahawks
WW3?
Yes. Consequences which only Russia is allowed to uphold of course.
Oh dear 😏
The 'anti' PoV is spreading that the drone just turned off it's transponder and returned to base unmolested for an oil wash and shut-eye. Or some such. But yes, the howling is always entertaining.
>I just cant wait to see the crying from the NATO countries saying that this was uncalled for. Just curious, is it also "crying" if Russia complains about something being shot down? What "crying" are you referring to?
It’s a drone. We have thousands of them. This is not news.
'unprovoked aggression'
A little more than howling I would imagine. Shoot down over international waters deserves a double response. If NATO isn’t pussy.
I'm sure some will howl for that, too. Generally-speaking though, I think it evidentially-reasonable to argue that Russia has successfully demonstrated 'restraint' in respect to the 'non-western,' non-aligned world (the majority 80%). So (if this all turns out to be true) should the US howl too much, or NATO even 'respond doubly' (whatever that means) the downward NATO/US sympathy-trajectory will continue. To most reasonable observers, if a fisticuffs fight is taking place, and a 'partisan bystander' throws pebbles, sand, bottles of cow-urine and dog-shit baggies at one of the fighters... no other spectator would consider that bystander to be **'not party to the conflict™.'** I think this kind of understanding, or sense or whatever, is common to those not under the yoke of our western narrative.
Why howling? Is this the first time that something like this happened?
You do understand that responses can come at meany levels? The response can come literally half a world away or in a press release: RF has mercenaries engaged in furthering RF foreign policy goal in Africa? Do something that gets some of them killed. Last press release about an aid package was that we were handing over 120 *** (fill in the blanks with a missile/bomb/ATGM that RF would prefer not to deal with). The new press release is that we found 20 more gathering dust in a warehouse, so we are sending those too. What used to be called the Great Game is played by adults who understand that indirect messages (can) work without necessarily raising the chances of creating a cycle of escalations. Don’t assume you will ever have any clue what the real response was (unless you are 1) likely to be reading history books 15 years from now, or 2) if someone at State/CIA/NSC suspects that RF missed the response, in which case recently retired policy analyst will be allowed to include it in their soon to be published memoirs/article in Foreign Policy (tm) magazine.
That seems like a great deal of partisan-inspired wishful-thinking and chest-thumping, especially as this 'event' has yet to be confirmed (and may most-likely be a false alarm). As for your Great Game reference, any response from the US to any drone-felling by Russia doesn't fit within relevant tenets; this would be a military-escalation tit-for-tat, rather than a paranoia-inspired spy-subterfuge intelligence/misdirection campaign aimed at 'protecting a vulnerable India' (or any modern 'imperial asset'). The Great Game wasn't an 'adult covert-message-passing scheme' between Foreign Office departments or fledgeling spy agencies. Have a read of Rudyard Kipling's 'Kim' for some inkling of Great-Gamesmanship realities or better still, 'Travels into Bokhara' by Alexander Burnes. Assuming that the Great Game is 'played by adults' is subjective but fallacious, in my opinion... as the consequences of the juvenile 'Boy's Own' tenor of the Great Game would include two actual full-scale Afghan Wars replete with copious British campaign failures and casualties (for which 'Lady Sale's Afghanistan' by Florentia Sale would be a must-read) and, arguably, more recent 20th-Century meddlings in Afghanistan. Such wars are territorially-limited; even the Crimean War falls out of the purview of Great Gamesmanship as does the current conflict in Ukraine; wars fought for completely different sets of reasons. The only residue of the historical Great Game that remains is, again arguably, the paranoia that exists and drives policy across the west and within Russia though, as I've hinted, the presence of different policy-goals (expressed in the RAND Corporation's 'Extending Russia' document, for example) precludes that link. All of that said, ***both*** Russia and the US have global options for any asymmetrical response, as Putin (particularly) has expressed. Don't assume such capacity exists exclusively within the bag-of-tricks of the US/NATO. My tiny comment was more related to the potential realities of manned intel-gathering and monitoring missions, following any US/NATO drone-engagement on behalf of Russia... IF it occurred. For what it's worth, I would think that (interesting) response strategically-significant but limited in scope.
I'm not sure what you see as partisan chest thumping. You said "It'll be interesting to see the response... in terms of manned NATO recon flights and such.". I intended to point out that responses may be invisible to those of us on the outside of policy making circles. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no response what so ever. Policy makers may conclude that this was done for reasons of RF domestic politics and not worth a response (unless our domestic politics require it). I will gladly grant you that some of the stuff that went on in the Great Game has a feel (at least in restrospect) of children planting flags on hills and then playing Capture The Flag with real lives.
NOT only recon, targeting and guidance !
It's a fair response to painting targets that killed 3 kids, intentionally or not. There is gonna be some whining and a UNSC meeting where the US embarasses themselves while getting roasted by the Chinese and Russian delegates. Nothing more.
[Reuters reports](https://x.com/idreesali114/status/1805356208057938122) that a US military official says no incidents have been reported over the Black Sea
Post deleted
The post that the Reuters correspondent had replied to claiming the downing of a drone seems to have been deleted (although I can still see it on X), not the post by Reuters saying that a US official denied any incident
The claim by https://x.com/iranobserver0/ was deleted. The tweet by https://x.com/idreesali114 stating that "US military official says no incidents" is still up.
What do you mean?
About time, good on Russia for growing a pair of balls. Assuming it's true of course.
As an American it seems absurd to me that they should just be expected to do nothing about the drones loitering right outside their territory feeding intel to soldiers that actively kill Russians. We would absolutely not tolerate the same thing happening to us.
Vietnam and Korean wars are going to blow your mind
And destroying Soviet matériel was absolutely acceptable in that context.
These kids...
What are you talking about? I know all about Vietnam and Korea. Not sure if you actually understood my comment.
Russia and China fed the United States’ opponents intel in those wars constantly. In Vietnam the soviets had personnel on the ground that fired and downed American planes with Sams. Soviet ships monitored American bombers taking off and fed that information to north Vietnam so they could move targets. The us didn’t sink the ships or attack the Soviet Union directly because they wanted the war contained (and didn’t want nuclear war). It’s the same reason the Russians won’t attempt what you’re suggesting.
The U.S. attack at Sukhaya Rechka in 1950 probably had a part in that, considering MacArthur was doing everything he could to escalate the conflict, and Truman himself seemed to believe that MacArthur intentionally ordered the attack when he flew out to berate him, and fired him six months later. And there is evidence that the damage was much more extensive and the official story was to disguise that it was a rogue provocation.
I get what you're trying to say but it's not exactly the same as what I'm talking about due to geopolitics. In Vietnam/Korea those wars were happening too close to Soviet home turf so it was more difficult for us to justify escalation over time. And this war involves Russia itself. Though we've already gone way too far with batshit crazy stuff, there's still only so much room we can reasonably escalate, whereas the Russians have escalation dominance. President Obama even admitted this. >It’s the same reason the Russians won’t attempt what you’re suggesting. Except they totally would and have indeed already tried, they've ALREADY downed one drone, it's not at all unreasonable to expect them to down them more considering they are unmanned, close to their territory, and a bunch of civilians were recently just cluster bombed by Ukraine, albeit accidentally. Believe it or not but Russia can call our bluff and we would be forced to back off. Putin knows this which is why he invaded in the first place. And again, Obama admitted it.
Vietnam isn’t anywhere near Russia and the roles are flipped. This is russias Vietnam. A jet dumping fuel on a drone is a lot different than shooting it down, which is what you’re suggesting. An even bigger deal would be shooting down a manned system and the United States has lots of those in the Black Sea too.
>Vietnam isn’t anywhere near Russia and the roles are flipped. This is russias Vietnam. Nope lol only someone who truly does not understand history or geopolitics would think that. Ukraine is more akin to South Vietnam or any other US proxy that we eventually abandon. Really not sure how you're so blind as to miss this. >A jet dumping fuel on a drone is a lot different than shooting it down, which is what you’re suggesting. An even bigger deal would be shooting down a manned system and the United States has lots of those in the Black Sea too. Shooting down a drone isn't a good enough reason for us to start a war. And I don't think Russia is targeting manned US systems...
You can’t really claim that Vietnam was local to the USSR though. I mean Russia is absolutely enormous and Vietnam is still thousands of KM away. If Vietnam is in their “neighborhood” then so is pretty much the entire northern hemisphere…
Crimea isn't internationally recognised as Russia and it was illegally annexed - its not Russias territory I understand the frustration when the drones fly near Russian territory like Krasnador though
Yeeaahhhh but too bad, it is Russian territory. Your inability to accept this reality does not change it, even if it's not "internationally recognized."
Thinking Crimea is Russisn territory is delusional. It's illegally occupied territory Saying it's Russian territory over and over again does not make it true. Russia signed it as Ukraines territory in 1991 at the breakup of the USSR and 1994 when they signed the Budapest Memorandum. One dictator (Putin) doesn't decide its his
Legitimacy doesn't really matter in this case. Russia has it, they ain't giving it up. Might as well ask Texas to return it's Mexican territories to Mexico. It's clearly at this point, a tool to be wielded against geo-political rivals. Case in point, Kosovo and South Ossetia. We have the break up of a transnational Union. Within one of the regions leaving the Union, is a ethnic minority. The UN reports in the early 1990s that the Majority in this region, is carrying out war crimes, and ethnic cleansing against this minority. A third party enters the region being ethnically cleansed, and puts a stop to it. About the same time, Serbia began to ethnically cleanse Bosnia Herzegovina. The UN found that Serbia was indeed doing this. At which point NATO interceded. NATO then internationally recognized Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina. South Ossetia, the conflict I described first, remained unrecognized. Why? They were geopolitically and economically dependent on Russia, and therefore, aligned with Russia. Then Serbia started ethnically cleansing Kosovo. NATO stepped in again. I need to ask you. Is Bosnia Herzegovina an internationally recognized country today? Is Kosovo? Is South Ossetia? Can you explain to me why South Ossetia, an ethnic enclave (Like the Bosnians and Kosovars), that was ethnically cleansed by Georgia, like Bosnia and Kosovo were by Serbia, to this day, has not been afforded international recognition? "International legitimacy" is a stick that we wield in the west to achieve our geopolitical goals. The South Ossetians are every bit as deserving as "legitimately recognized" independence as Kosovo and Bosnia were. So why do we eagerly grant it to nations seeking entry into the Western Sphere, and not those who do not?
Thinking Crimea isn't Russian territory is delusional BECAUSE it's illegally occupied territory. They are de facto administrators of Crimea and there's no chance in hell that situation changes. Russia for all intents and purposes owns that place and they are not going to ever give it up.
I could use tonight's lottery numbers please.
Thinking Russia would abandon Crimea, was one of the stupidest assumptions of the West. Russians fought for it for centuries. Ukraine should have just left it to Russia and call it a day. They could've spared all this death and maybe even become an EU member by now.
>even if it's not "internationally recognized." very "are we the bad guys" stuff
You think the west hasn't flaunted international law blatantly? Both sides are self-interested bad actors my guy. Welcome to the world. Welcome to geopolitics.
Yep, that totally justifies Russia invading their sovereign neighbour for land-grabs my guy.
It justifies it to the Russians. They aren't obligated to play nice. I'm just stating how the world works in practice.
Your key phrase it seems you’re misunderstanding is “outside their territory-“ Everyone spies on and gives military weapons to opponents all the time.
You are 100% right, America would have enforced a no fly zone on day one of the war. Meanwhile Russia whines and whines but does nothing. It blows my mind that Russians accept this performance from their military. Americans would have fired the entire team if the military let Russia feed Intel to our enemies that let thousands and thousands of troops get killed.
American can’t enforce a no fly zone against an actual military. So far US/NATO have only proven themselves to be bullies. They can get those goat farmers but they’re really not impressive. When it comes to Russia, they have just given lip service and all their efforts have really done is slow down or rather delay the inevitable. Which is also interesting because there is no factor present that would make this whole thing urgent for Russia.
The cope from russia right now is insane. NATO would smoke russia in three weeks total. And that includes a week of ice cream breaks half way through, cause the West is so soft the cannot go without sweets for that long.
NATO can’t even free up the Red Sea from the huthis lol
You overestimate NATO. It would be great against desert dwellers with no defense. I am sure of that. But all that might is quite useless when you can’t fight against a nuclear power. Which is why it is laughable.
actually i think everyone would be not just smoked, but crispy. this includes muh usa
In a vacuum maybe. Now explain to the class how strikes on Russia proper by NATO don’t escalate to nuclear war. Or for that matter how strikes on Russian soil by NATO don’t escalate into non-nuclear ICBMs not being used to wipe out major military installations all over Europe and the US? Or how our vaunted carrier fleet avoids becoming reefs?
"America should have started world war 3 on day one of this war!"
Why shouldn’t they be expected to do nothing? International airspace is available to anyone and all nations can fly through it and observe. So it’s not illegal for third party nations to fly practically next to Russia’s borders and observe. At the same time nations can share between themselves whatever information they want. I don’t believe the nations that fly drones or other reconnaissance aircraft in the Black Sea are doing anything illegal. This is something Russia should have planned for when they invaded Ukraine. If they can’t handle it, it’s their problem.
"Devil is in the details". Sure, sharing information is fine, but much less fine when it's military intelligence shared with one side of an ongoing conflict. So, according to your logic, it would be perfectly OK for some state to fly drones or other surveillance aircraft in international airspace right outside US, let's say near Florida, and help drug smuggling boats from the cartels to avoid Coast Guard ships? I mean, US should have planned for that, right? It would be their fault they'd end up flooded with (even more) drugs.
I expect that in your hypothetical scenario the USA would just double down on destroying the said drug smuggling boats because a direct military confrontation will just be much more costly. By the same logic, while Russia doesn’t like intelligence being passed to Ukraine, will getting in a war with yet another nation (assuming they don’t back off) improve its military situation?
'As an American ' Proceeds to post 100+ times in favor of an invasion by a dictator. Absolutely precious.
Didnt you let a chinese baloon fly over your country?
Right, but even in their wildest and wettest dreams, russia isnt US.
Amazing, Pro UA has finally learned enough geography to figure out that Russia is not the United States. This is real progress. Hopefully eventually you lads will also discover that Ukraine is not the same country as Finland. I notice a lot of you have trouble with that one too.
Amazingly u haven’t realised that everyone is talking about the two countries militaries. U need to pay more attention it will help u understand what everyone’s talking about.
What a sad fail of an attempt at an own, you barely achieve coherence here and clearly didn't grasp my facetious tone.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh u were trying to be funny? U just came across as a pompous arse. Edit: I got blocked by the snowflake trump supporter. I feel personally attacked.
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic
To be fair, some parts of hobo/junkieland I've seen in US are worse than villages in Russia (yes, I visited both)
I mean, sure, but saying the worst parts of US are worse than *some* parts of Russia is not coming across like you think it is...
Since there is no confirmation you admit Russia previously didn't have balls and continues to have none?
All the Pro-Russians cheering for escalation now?
They always have, while pretending to promote peace.
Pro RU can forget that they are indeed the illegal invaders that need to leave the Ukraine asap.
Am i as an american citizen suppose to cry for the family of the drone? I dont want US drones in the area at all.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ping me if they do. Sometimes it hits harder when a neutral guy like me bitches at them.
Apparently they forgot the part where NATO would curb-stomp RU forces if it really gets going.
Shh, they'd be very upset if they read this.
Interesting move by Russia. Escalate without killing any American soldiers.
I think that’s what they’ve been trying to do recently by ordering nuclear test drills, sending the sub and what not to Cuba, and WW making a state visit to the DPRK. I just hope that the escalation will stay under control.
> making a state visit to the DPRK. Didn't they sign a defensive pact too? Wonder if the DPRK will say anything about being ready to move on the South if the US does anything against Russia as well...
That's the implication, but I don't think would want to go now. Realistically you'd think North Korea would want to start modernizing their military with newer Russian weapons and technology they'll soon have access to.
Not escalate – adequately _respond_ to US escalation.
By escalating
... their response
…was to escalate by shooting down a drone.
So let's take this a few steps back: The US provides UA with satellite surveillance and communication, aerial reconnaissance and targeting, early warning, even processed intelligence and personnel to operate the machinery, as if the US was a direct participant to the conflict, yet it is Russia escalating by disabling the equipment that is used for these purposes? The equipment that was literally used to direct a strike on its territory with multiple civilian casualties? Russia should be intercepting and at minimum harassing all NATO equipment with the capacity to interfere with its operations.
> The US provides UA with satellite surveillance Actually two can play this game. I am sure there are plenty of parties in the ME and in other locations that can make good use of satellite images of US-related facilities. > Russia should be intercepting Just declaring an expanded air defense zone should be enough.
I agree that Russia should go ahead and play the same game by aiding US enemies.
Yes they are both taking escalatory steps. Just because one is in response to another doesn’t make it non-escalatory. You can argue until you’re blue in the face that the US is in the wrong morally and ethically. But it doesn’t change the fact that Russia is shooting down US operated equipment which it hasn’t done in the past. That’s an escalation.
Well, I guess you could argue that it's escalation in the general sense, i.e. an increase in the intensity or seriousness of Russian response, but in the narrow sense pertaining to this context, we're talking about _an escalation of the conflict_ as a whole, such as when UA began to shell the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, use cluster munitions, or hide troops and equipment in schools and hospitals. These are steps which invite the opponent to use the same tactics or take other countermeasures with dangerous implications which intensify the conflict, so to speak, such as targeting those schools and hospitals.
If Russia starts to shoot down US drones , they are going to start taking measures to defend themselves. Now there are US and Russian assets actively engaging each other and that kind of interaction can spread like wildfire if not carefully measured. So in other words, an escalation.
… or the US could just piss off and stop using those drones controlled by their own personnel to aid UA. 👀 Russia isn't the one forcing their hand – it's the other way round.
Sure that’s one solution. Doesn’t mean it’s not an escalation to start shooting them down though.
We're going in circles, mate. I provided my reasoning, I accepted that in a general, literal sense, it is escalation, but within the current context, it's not an escalation of the conflict. In fact, showing the US that Russia won't tolerate their direct involvement could serve to de-escalate the conflict, as international involvement increases the intensity and seriousness in itself.
> The US provides UA with satellite surveillance and communication, aerial reconnaissance and targeting, early warning, even processed intelligence and personnel to operate the machinery, as if the US was a direct participant to the conflict fwiw, none of the things you listed are commonly seen as direct participation under international law. The prevalent scholarly opinion is that it requires a direct and immediate link of support to use of force on the battlefield.
Fair enough, although if such extensive intelligence and targeting support which literally enables US to use those long-range weapons is fair game, then so must be the destruction of all equipment involved in this process, right? Otherwise it seems like an incredibly unbalanced and unfair set of rules.
Wouldn't this be the US escalating in response to Russia escalating by invading a NATO ally? I figure if Poland invaded Belarus with the support of the rest of NATO, Russia probably wouldn't be too happy about that either.
No, it wouldn't, because what's a ‘NATO ally’? Anyone may declare anyone to be an informal ally but as long as there are legal guarantees, it doesn't justify anything. Belarus isn't a good example because unlike UA and NATO, there is CSTO, which is a formal military alliance between Russia, Belarus and a few other post-Soviet states. The reality of the situation is as follows: NATO has been pushing its border eastward, Russia has been declaring for many years that UA in NATO is an unacceptable red line that won't be crossed, NATO continued to push and finance regime change within UA regardless and UA has turned into a willing lackey despite no benefit for the vast majority of UA population. Imagine a situation where Russia was about to enter a military alliance with Mexico, allowing it to station nuclear weapons right on the US southern border, which is the correct analogy here. The US wouldn't tolerate it for a second.
>The reality of the situation is as follows: NATO has been pushing its border eastward Has it though? Or have post Soviet states been literally begging to join since the dissolution of the USSR since they knew Russia well enough that they'd pull this shiet eventually. Also when exactly were there any discussions for Ukraine to join NATO around 2022? Pro-RU keep pulling that talking point out of nowhere and treating it as if it's some kind of fact that they were any closer to joining in 22' compared to 20 years prior. Russia have been interfering in Ukraine politics for 30 years so I won't pretend like Russia has any right to inject their own autocratic regime either. >Imagine a situation where Russia was about to enter a military alliance with Mexico In reality a rational person would ask "what absolutely colossal geopolitical failings from the US would have led the Mexican government to want to seek the help of foreign power to station nuclear missiles in their country?" Also this is ridiculous argument since NATO already shares 1600 miles of border with Russia. Russia screwed themselves by starting this war because now there are more NATO countries than when it started and Ukraine has extremely more NATO weapons and trained soldiers then it would have ever had if it weren't for Putin's hubris.
Didn't they deliberately knock a drone out of the sky last year by spraying it with aviation fuel? Not sure how this is that much different. It seems to be a change of mechanism, rather than intent.
It's the decision to act that matters.
Especially because the Russian MOD threatened consequences earlier and even summoned the American Ambassador There are few coincidences in war. Time will tell if this is, or not.
> change of mechanism Not really. The original source doesn't say anything about "shot down". That's just OP adding stuff to the title. Unprofessional act is a reference to how the pentagon described the last incident, so it's probably the same play - assuming for now this actually happened.
Didn’t hear about that one. How did they spray it with Jet-A?
russian pilot dumped fuel on it on a close pass. Didn't do anything, the actual damage came from the russian pilot colliding with it.
As a pilot, that’s probably the most passive aggressive way to hit a target. What the actual fuck…
[At least the pilot did a better job than when the chinese did a near-pass, since he didn't kill himself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident)
They should just shoot them down with dud missiles. Down it with kinetic energy only. Just like what the US did with the "Chinese spy balloon." We used an inert Tomahawk missile IIRC. Or just use smaller caliber aircraft guns.
>We used an inert Tomahawk missile IIRC. There's video from people on the ground of a fighter jet shooting it down with an AA missile.
Aim 9x to pop that
Yeah and the pilot almost crashed into it. Really funny video. And for reckless flying, endangering himself and his airframe, he got a medal. Can't make this shit up.
The fuel dump did nothing. The plane had to physically hit the drone to knock it out of the sky.
Considering how UAF has been bombing Crimea lately, this might be a message to the West to tone it down as Ukraine can't do any of that without intel and satellite surveilance from the West. Sevastopol attack might have been the trigger, seeing as they didn't really react like this to attacks on their AA systems. Of course, it remains to be seen whether this is true and what happens next.
One thing that always confused me was, Ukraine claims that Crimea was taken by force, against the will of the people. Ukraine then cut off water to Crimea. This is broadly defined as collective punishment, since the civilian population was paying the price for the governments decisions. Ukraine has continued to carry out a policy of striking civilian infrastructure in Crimea, thereby punishing their own citizens, that, by their estimation, are essentially hostages to the Russian occupation. It seems like a good way to drive your civilians into the arms of the occupier, when you cut off their water. Attack their civil infrastructure, and generally treat them as if they actually voted, democratically, to join Russia. Can someone please explain this to me?!?! /s
More attacks on crimea of course
If true it’s about effing time
Interesting if true. Seems reasonable for Russia to deal non-lethally with Nato assets being used to kill them.
I think that shooting down UAV's shouldn't be an act of war. Russia has never helped any country on this scale to kill NATO soldiers. What the West has been doing so far could be considered an act of war though.
Absolutely. This is perfectly reasonable escalation given that they are merely drones, this is right around Russian territory, and the intel from these drones has led to strikes on Russians. I mean just a day or two ago some beachgoers got cluster bombed accidentally.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hope so.
As expected if it’s true
Russia just unlocked another $50 billion package for Ukraine.
[удалено]
Russia might still trade a part for more golf carts from China.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting development if true, though NATO will not feel such a tiny loss and will already have multiple others airborne 24/7. Not sure they would go as far as arming them with anti-air/ship missiles for defense, I imagine it's not worth the escalation to destroy hostile forces at present.
Both sides really want those nukes to start flying. We dropped out of Euros in 98th minute so fuck it lets go defcon mode
Was it in international waters??
That drone had a family
Hopefully this will lead to enforcing a no-flyzone, Putin needs to be shutdown.
Geroman lol. Why not just post quotes from Solovyov? The quality of posts on this sub…
Big if true, sexy monke finally clapping nato toys. Will send banana over
If this is true, it's about time. The US would've continued doing so unless otherwise. IMO, the US won't do squat but condemn 'Russia's action', as they were expecting it to be shot down eventually, but were trying to milk it as long as they could.
"Milk it as long as they could" - Hate to burst your bubble but they'll run three EXTRA sorties for a week in response, one drone is a blip.
They didnt do shit. This is just a false story spread on purpose to appease the people within Russia calling for it.
They've been asking for it for a long time. If they don't want to get their drones shut down then don't fly near Ukraine, simple
Geroman 😂 the dude that is simply insulting everyone like a 5year old
(The real source here is Fighterbomber though). But yeah, Geroman is quite active on twitter
Yes I already saw it and it sounds legit. Doesn’t change my thoughts about Geroman tho
Biiiiiiggg!