Warning for @Velocity for posting abhorrent views.
This is so clearly into the realm of Abhorrent views, wishing death upon 10 million Russians in this case. We have examples of you wishing for nuclear exchanges. And other strangely abhorrent views. None of this will be tolerated again, next comes suspensions and that can lead to a ban. This means anywhere on the board. Not just P&E.
Abhorrent views. If you express yourself in a way we consider to be beyond the pale of civil discussion, whether in style or substance, we will warn you to stop, specifying what it is we want you to cease doing, on penalty of losing your posting privileges. This rule applies in all forums. To cite an infamous example, we don’t want to hear defenses of pedophilia. We invoke this rule infrequently and are not trying to suppress discussion of sensitive topics. We cannot anticipate everything we would consider abhorrent and do not maintain a list of proscribed views. Except in extreme cases, we will provide the offending party with a warning before taking further action.
Some past posts:
Please note I took the time to consult with other mods before this action. We all agreed, that this was very serious. Personal note, I was military during the Cold War when Russia was the big bad. I firmly support Ukraine over Russia, but this is just far, far too much even for someone like me.
As I (controversially) said a few days ago, the Russian goal is to wreck Ukraine & NATO, not conquer them in the conventional sense of the word.
If they are forced to be at war, democracy loses. If they are partly occupied, democracy loses. If their infrastructure and capital is being wrecked, they are losing.
Every day Russia is meddling, the West’s political will to resist fades. They are patient; we are not.
And that’s before the traitor-in-chief puts his corrupt Russian-controlled thumb on the scale.
Russia doesn’t want to win in the conventional sense of occupy the opposing capital and cause regime change.
They win by pushing gently and affordably until the West surrenders through boredom & exhaustion. That’s what Putin wants and he’s getting it. Don’t look at kilometers gained or lost. Don’t look at materiel destroyedvor captured. Look at will to fight. They have it; the West does not.
Much of this might be true, but the last sentence is pure Russian wishful thinking. There’s no evidence that Russia has some bottomless well of morale while Ukraine is ready to roll over to Russian domination and oppression.
Russians don’t have morale, they have nihilism. Other soldiers fight to win, but Russians fight because nothing matters and we’re all going to die anyway.
Russian MiG-31s violated Estonian airspace for 12 minutes over the Gulf of Finland. Russia denies that they did.
Czech President Petr Pavel on Saturday said Nato should respond to such provocations by shooting down planes.
Pavel, a former chairman of Nato’s military committee, said: “Unfortunately, this is a balancing act bordering on the edge of conflict, but one simply cannot retreat in the face of evil.”
Jürgen Hardt, a CDU politician (christian democratic party, currently in government in Germany) and Bundestag Foreign Policy Spokeperson said the same yesterday (link in German):
and in English:
It is tempting to agree with both. The Russians are asking for it. And then there will be much lamentation. On both sides, if everything turns south.
I don’t know the rules of interception/engagement. I’d have to ask @LSLGuy . On the left coast of the U.S., it seems the Russians like to send over a ‘Bear’ (Tu-95) to test our defences. It looks like the Air Force fighters fly up and ‘escort’ them out. AFAIK, the Bears don’t actually penetrate U.S. airspace.
I wonder what would happen if intruding Russian aircraft were ‘lit up’ by NATO fighters. If they’re in NATO airspace, then the shouldn’t be surprised if they are targeted. It would send a message.
That way lies uncontrollable escalation. Here is a comment piece from the Handelsblatt (something like Germany’s leading economic newspaper):
Shoot down Russian jets? Just don’t fall for their provocation Following Russia’s violations of NATO airspace, calls for a decisive response are growing louder. But anyone who reacts rashly will only play into Putin’s hands.
If there is one thing Vladimir Putin excels at, it is provocation. First, the Kremlin leader sent drones flying so far into Poland that NATO resorted to shooting them down for the first time since the start of the war in Ukraine. Manned Russian aircraft are also frequently sighted in the airspace of the Western defence alliance. It is safe to assume that the pilots are testing the limits of NATO’s patience on behalf of the Kremlin.
It is understandable that leading politicians such as CDU foreign policy expert Jürgen Hardt are now loudly demanding that NATO not put up with everything Putin does and, in case of doubt, shoot down Russian aircraft that violate its airspace. Just as the air force of NATO member Turkey did not hesitate in 2015 when a Russian jet allegedly violated Turkish airspace near the Syrian border.
But NATO would be wise not to allow itself to be provoked. The Russian fighter jets that were intercepted over the Gulf of Finland on Friday are said to have penetrated less than ten kilometres into Estonian airspace – which Moscow denies anyway.
However, if there is even the slightest doubt as to whether the airspace violation actually took place – as was the case in 2015 when Turkey shot down a Russian jet – this plays into Putin’s hands. The Kremlin leader is just waiting for proof of his crude theory that NATO has long been a warring party in Ukraine and that Russia is the victim.
Shooting down aircraft should only be considered as a last resort, when the airspace violation is truly clear and there is imminent danger. For example, when NATO aircraft intercepting the intruders are themselves threatened. The best way to respond to Moscow’s provocations is to demonstrate rapid responsiveness. Because that is precisely what Russia is currently testing on an almost daily basis
Translated with DeepL.com (free version) – and slightly corrected
So, after admitting in my previous post that it is tempting to teach those bastards a lesson, we should be better than that. And by better I do not mean morally superior (although we are, but that is not the point here), but clever enough to hit when it really hurts and then walk away as the winners leaving Russia defeated beyond any doubt of who is to blame for that: them. That moment has not arrived yet.
So my limited understanding of the 2015 incident is: Turkey shot down a Russian plane, Russia hasn’t violated Turkish airspace since.
From wikipedia, it seems there were some diplomatic moves by Russia - making tourism harder, moving some military units around, cancelling state visits - but in terms of blowback, retaliation, escalation etc there was a lot of noise, but no action.
That doesn’t mean that shooting down planes is the correct course of action, but the one time it was done the outcome was more positive than might be expected.
If the shooting the Russian plane down was not justified (as you seem to be implying, and Russia is claiming) then calling the result positive would not be my choice of words, even if it did not lead to retaliation or war.
No, I think Russia did violate Turkish airspace (I am generally disinclined to believe Russian claims, and in this specific instance I am inclined to believe both Turkey and the US) and that therefore Turkey was justified in the shooting both in the sense that borders mean something and in the sense that: it worked. Russian invasions of Turkish airspace have held at 0 for the past ten years and the cost to Turkey (AFAIK and I welcome correction) has been minimal.
Relatedly, I think the idea that Russia is “only” sending planes 10km over the border is a nonsense - a border is a border, and this kind of salami-slicing encroachment is a long-established Russian tactic (see, the Crimea) which needs to met head on. To say that the first 10km of incursion are to be accepted with nothing more than token protest is simply to move the border inwards 10km and effective cede airspace to Russia. If 10km, why not 12, or 15? And if 15, what do you do on the day that the warplanes come 16km? Is that now just 1km over the line, and therefore not justification for action? That logic never stops.