A red line to what? NATO’s been monitoring Ukraine airspace, and almost assuredly providing that and other intelligence, including satellite imagery to Ukraine. If Russia is doing drone reconnaissance over Poland, that’s a tit-for-tat response.
On the other side, Poland shooting down a Russian done in Polish air space doesn’t seem like any kind of an escalation to me. Even if it was over Ukrainian airspace, I doubt Russia would use that as a pretext for a lethal attack against a NATO member. The last thing they want is NATO escalation.
For those who didn’t see Zelensky’s speech, he also showed a short but well-crafted video clearly illustrating the horrors that Putin’s army is inflicting on his country. It might be news to some of these politicians how truly much suffering and destruction is being inflicted.
Satellite imagery is in no way comparable to sending a drone into another country’s airspace. Drones can (and usually are) be armed and used as an offensive weapon. Satellites take pictures.
The US (and NATO allies) also have E-3B Sentry aircraft in Poland and Romania monitoring SIGINT (signals intelligence) and probably aircraft movement over Ukraine (and probably Belarus). They are being scrupulously fair in staying on their side of the border, but are still pretty close. The drones may be a response saying “If you get to close, we have the capability to take you down”.
Or not. War is not only a common human trait, the fog of war is just as common.
As far as I’m aware, there’s been no actual coordination between NATO and Russia on rules of engagement or limits on military operations. So what’s being adopted is essentially Cold War rules of conduct. Basically if one side does it, it’s okay for the other side. NATO’s performing reconnaissance against Russia forces, including most likely over the Russian border via satellite. So they’ll forgive Russian reconnaissance over Poland, even if it’s via a drone. NATO’s not going to target an airfield in Belarus just because a drone from there was taking some pictures of Polish bases.
Even if NATO were flying drones in Ukraine (with Ukrainian permission), that would not be tit-for-tat with Russia violating another countries airspace. Note, that I don’t think Russia shooting down a NATO drone in Ukraine would necessarily be an act of war.
And once again, a satellite taking pictures is in no way comparable to a potentially armed drone violating territorial airspace.
Nobody has suggested targeting an airfield in another country; Where are you getting this whacky idea from? What has been suggested is shooting down a drone that is flying over your territorial airspace.
To belabour the point; Satellites are not drones. Drones are not satellites.
Except that’s how that low-level Cold War type of exchange was always done. One side would commit an offensive act and the other side would counter with a similar offensive act. And Russia always pushed it a little more than NATO did. Russia surely dislikes NATO providing Ukraine with intelligence, including intelligence on what is happening inside Russian borders. So my guess as to why they’re sending drones over Poland is to send a message that they can look over a NATO member’s borders as well. If Russia were firing missiles from drones at targets inside Poland, that would be an escalation.
Reconnaissance is reconnaissance. If one side does it, the other side will do it. That’s not escalation in my opinion, and going back to the point I originally responded to, will not be seen as a “red line” for escalation. The Wall Street Journal articles are paywalled, but I disagree with their headline. Is there a non-paywalled source that says how NATO has/will respond?
I think we’re saying the same thing actually. I’m saying that in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military was set up to fail. There literally wasn’t a way to win- there weren’t quantifiable goals or clear end states that the military was aiming to achieve, so they were sort of spinning their wheels.
In fact, I suspect that there was very little guidance to the military post 2003 Iraq invasion, and that they were fully expecting the State Department to install some other ruler/government, and they’d withdraw. When that didn’t happen, they were sitting there with their dicks in their hands in an unforeseen occupation role when the insurgency started.
Again, civilian authority failure more than military failure. Yes, the military probably should have been thinking ahead a little bit and asking questions- they had to have known that they’d curbstomp the Iraqi military again.
In Ukraine, the Russian army is suffering much the same sort of thing- the whole concept to go to war, and in a specific way is the flawed part. I’m sure the Russian generals are doing their best to conduct a war that adheres to the strategic plan set down by the civilian authorities, but they’re hamstrung by the overall system and scope of the operation, and that’s going to mean that they ultimately probably lose, or at the very best, fail to achieve all (or even a majority) of the objectives for the war.
No, Reconnaissance is not equivalent in all cases. Drones are not satellites. A drone is an escalation, as it violates a country’s airspace. A satellite does not.
For example, I imagine NATO is listening in to Russian military radio broadcasts. Russia may want to do the same to NATO forces. However, it would not be equivalent, and would indeed be an escalation if Russia were to send in a team in trucks to sit outside of NATO headquarters with their ears to the door.
I’ve already stipulated that shooting down a drone over Poland, or even over Ukraine after it had Poland’s borders, would not be considered an escalation such that a red line had been crossed. For those who agree with the WSJ headlines, what red line do you think is being crossed, and what escalative response should happen from that red line being crossed? I’d think that an attack at their source of launch, most likely Belarussian airfields, would be a clear escalation. Increased radar coverage and more anti-aircraft defences at the Polish border, not so much.
I think calling the war a stalemate is being very generous to the Russians. The same way would it would be generous to call it a stalemate if the NY Giants played a high school football team and the score was 0-0 at the end of the third quarter. If you compare accomplishments to goals, Ukraine has met and exceeded it’s goals (keeping a functioning military and government). Russia has utterly failed at it’s goals.
I would argue that a swift US intervention to end things in Ukraine’s favor decisively right now would be most optimal - far better than letting a protracted conflict drag on for years - a recipe for never ending bloodshed. Doesn’t have to involve ground troops, just zap the Russians with airpower for a few days. A Ukraine that’s decisively Russian-free is much more stable and able to get on with the post-war repairing stuff as quickly as possible, and Russia may not attack anymore if it realizes Ukraine is a truly lost cause.
Optimal for Ukraine, surely. But for NATO? What would be optimal for NATO would be the Russians drowning in a years long insurgency quagmire eroding away at their ability to make war on NATO.