Russian aircraft collides into US unmanned system in international waters

You are technically right ( cold war ), but mostly wrong nonetheless.

Can you substantiate that claim for after cold war debacle? There was a period and not a short one, where relations with Russia were a lot warmer and gave some hope for less crazy future.

That's more or less when the US got involved, but the broader conflict goes back more than a century before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game

I sincerely hope you wrong.

I am not sure I agree, but if that is the case, then slowly boiling the frog is the wrong strategy to begin with. If that is true, then one big move and a show of force is the appropriate one.

I think there is a clear misunderstanding of today's world order combined with a recognition that there is, clearly based on what is happening, a space to test its boundaries ( metaphorically and literally ).

<< It will cost us one way or the other.

Full agreement. What is the lesser or at least more acceptable cost from US perspective?

<< We are not forcing Putin into anything.

Hmm, how so?

I don't know about you, but if I was in his position I would be seeking allies that have a beef with US and, surprise, this is exactly what he did. So yeah, if he wants to survive politically ( and otherwise ) he is effectively forced by US ( and the generated coalition -- and we can discuss how willingly they went along to do that ) to seek those out.

What I would not do is roll over as a practical measure to keep my life ( based on still fairly recent history ), where there is a clear path to perceived completion of a goal.

So yeah. US is forcing Putin's hand in choosing allies ( and we could argue to what extent Orange Revolution changed his calculus ).

Now, we could talk about what that means in practice, but I assure you the logical conclusions are even worse, because it does mean undermining Russia's new bestest friends or at least making their lives difficult.

Regardless, that statement is factually plain wrong.

<< He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy.

Eh. No. If he did make up his mind, it was about 're-uniting' Russia. Where he miscalculated was that US would care (1) and (2) be able to convince Germany ( and other less willing allies ) to actually go along with attempt at alienate Russia on the global stage.

<< The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast.

Eh again. This is the same argumentation I saw leading to Iraq, Afghanistan ( recent examples only ) and now, surprise, Russia. I mean, it is a great plan if you can make it work, but what, exactly are you proposing here? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

<< Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset.

I don't want to assume again, so I would love to hear a little more than a sentence on this. I am familiar with this sentiment, but it is generously applied to just about any enemy of US ( and its variants also helpfully include ">they< only respect strength ( they referencing current enemy)" ).

<< There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over.

This is not a shot, but "should" is likely not a great political or rhetorical tool. I would personally recommend trying to place yourself in Russians position geopolitically. Right now, China is an allied power that is actively helping Russia, where US and western powers are actively working against it. The moment you do, you will understand that your suggestion, while it sounds reasonable in US, has a low penetration rate in Russia.. suggesting that this opinion that is intended for US's market of ideas..

<< This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.

I will admit that don't know them both as well to offer a definitive statement here.

How about the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict? Trained and armed it for 8 years, boosting its confidence, building up for an all-out decisive attack against Donbass, forcing Russia's hand to intervene? Knowing that pitting Ukraine against Russia in a drawn-out conflict would be hugely beneficial for arms sales as well as a testing ground for equipment, and most importantly seen as weakening Russia in the same way as USSR was in Afghanistan?

Ukraine was a friendly nation to Russia since 1991 (not to mention centuries of coexistence as part of the same country). It became hostile twice: first after 'color revolution' in 2004, when USA put their first puppet on Ukrainian throne, and the second one in 2014, when Nuland and K baked a bloody coup there to bring Ukraine into NATO. Crimea annexation was a response to it (new puppet government declared that Russia will be kicked out of Sevastopol base), Donbass war started in 2014 and reignited in 2022 when USA and other NATO countries started to pump more weaponry to the country, constructing naval base and refusing to sign a deal with Putin that Ukraine won't join NATO.

First, allow me to address the bad-faith re-interpretation of my post. Where, exactly, do I claim it is US's fault?

I said the decision has had clear strategic consequence that effectively makes you think of WW2 and you have to wilfully not want to see them to claim otherwise.

I get that some people think history started yesterday. It did not.

Eh, and that is before we get to the more amusing part that include vagaries of international law. I don't want to sound too cynical, but annexation is apparently only wrong when done by Russia[1]. I guess it all depends on who is doing the annexing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation

> According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next.

Zeihan's predictions have an abysmal track record. He tends to predict the most sensational outcome. I would not take his word on whether or not Russia would invade a NATO country.

There are reasons to support Ukraine that are more grounded in reality.

And according to me that's sensationalist bullshit - the Ukraine crisis is clearly a local one, one that has been brewing for a very very long time. And incidentally one that the US has been keen on nurturing due to its detrimental effects to Russia, but western propaganda portrays Russia as wanting this (for imperialistic reasons or whatever).

Russia isn't taking on Nato, they just wanted to expand their sphere of influence, and they never thought that Ukraine would stand a fighting chance against them. Hell, we didn't either. It was only after Russia bungled the invasion that nato really started helping them.

Russia attacking nato would be an absolute death sentence for them.

Also for what it's worth, Zeihan tends to talk way beyond his core competencies. Any time you hear him talking about green energy or military matters, take it with a huge grain of salt

That "expansion of the war" would be very ugly in multiple ways so both sides trying very hard to avoid it is good.

That this was an unmanned drone also means it's downing is overall less serious.

Yeah, over our own territory, not over international waters.

Small correction on your first sentence: only one (the huge one shot down off the coast of SC) was confirmed to be a spy balloon from China.

The other three (Alaska, Yukon, Lake Huron) were explicitly referred to as "objects, not balloons" initially. This was later updated to "intelligence agencies believe they were civilian research platforms/balloons" but not from China. That seems to be where the story ends with no further updates. Feds say that no debris was ever located for any of the last three.

Off-topic and/or pedantic but I followed the story pretty closely and don't understand why people lump the first shoot down (of the confirmed spy balloon from China) with the latter three. The circumstances and details emerging in the aftermath were wildly different.

At least according to the article:

>Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner.

That could be argued to be more intentional than just faffing about.

Given how much command incompetence Russia has demonstrated so far, I'm not sure why you think that's a less likely explanation than pilot incompetence. It also seems like the collision happened after several other actions consistent with an order along the lines of "bring down that drone without firing on it"

Interesting thread.

Are these marginal costs? Or with R&D amortisation?

I stumbled on a video yesterday about the battle of Khasham, after a bit of research it is probably mostly hyperbola but there are some truths in there, one of which was that the first shots to stop the convoy were via mq-9.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viuUzGGac5M

It is a dark subject but I admit I laughed when the video got to the part where a b-52 was involved, a hulking monster of a strategic bomber, "Ahh man you tactical bombers get to have all the fun. Ok, get your lumbering ass over here, we are trying to send a message, so you get to drop some bombs too."

I'm not convinced Russia doesn't want escalation. The leadership seems suicidally insane - like an old guy who starts a bar fight because he wants to prove he's still one of the Big Dogs, even though he hasn't been sober for decades and can barely stand.

It's plain old post-imperial narcissism, Which is not an emotional state known for its rationality and foresight.

I was joking, but even if the US shot down a couple Russian planes, it doubt it would lead to any more direct US involvement. The US isn't interested, and the Russians definitely don't want any part of that.

So if a us ship were in international waters monitoring North Korea and passing on the Intel to South Korea, it would be ok for North Korea to sink that ship?

This was in international waters. The drone had every right to be there.

Is that a reference to Shakespeare, i.e. "beware the ides of march"?

The ides, you say?

The harassment was intentional. Making a “mistake” during an intentional act does not suddenly wipe away that root intention.

We don’t know that it was or wasn’t intentional. Harassing the drone is a problem to start with, running into it intentionally or not an extension of the core problem. Whether it was an accident or not probably isn’t much of a difference. Safer to assume it was intentional since we’d never get the truth out of the Russians.

Good news is that incidents like this will increase US military support for Ukraine.

According to the article:

>Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner.

That seems more intentional than a simple fly-by anyway.

Oh absolutely, it's all about realpolitik. We've already seen how far the west will go to avoid a war with Russia, so I wasn't expecting this to bring about a declaration of war.

But if this were a manned aircraft, that would be a major thing. The question is, what's the important element here.

It isn't necessarily the killing, if a plane were shot down, and the pilot ejected without harm it would still be a major thing, so there must be some element of, attacking a foreign nations military hardware is a no-no. But then the rhetoric doesn't seem to match that.

Oh, shut up with this BS. There are no hundreds of billions given and giving military aid doesn't mean that we are in the war. Unless of course you are some Russian troll spreading their fake news here.

This we are war with NATO is a message to common Russians just to make then feel warm from the inside and not feel ashamed how their army is getting slaughtered by "inferior khohols". At the same time they are fed with high amount of genocidal propaganda.

We are doing too little to put end to this genocidal war against Ukrainians. I believed that "no more again" actually means something.