Sweden says Russian warplane violated its airspace | Hacker News Reader

Sweden says Russian warplane violated its airspace

euronews.com

11 pointsbelter20 comments

Yawn. This happens all the time with NATO or Nato-associated airplanes, too.

You just don't see it on western media. ONLY on RT, Sputnik-News(which are censored/DNS-blocked for most europeans), or other russian-language media(which I don't follow).

With not so recent developments regarding photoshoppery/AI-fakery, and so on, I wouldn't give a shit, if I hadn't seen it myself. (With some overlay of accurate GNNS position/direction/bearing/ground-/airspeed on a map)

Some low-resolution snapshot does not count, even if it says 'copyright swedish government'.

Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents (scroll waay down), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_MS_Estonia , cough cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabo...

This all stinks like competitive dick wankery, so relax, have a Smørrebrød, or something.

edit: s/Just/ONLY + (With some overlay of accurate GNNS position/direction/bearing/ground-/airspeed on a map)

> This happens all the time with NATO or Nato-associated airplanes, too.

Can you provide a reference?

Even if its from the well known, press controlled, Russian news? We can then correlate the event with other sources...

From the top of my mind only https://www.rt.com/russia/578757-british-intercepted-black-s... and https://www.rt.com/news/574445-russia-shot-down-british-plan... by typing rc-135 into RT.com's search field.

But there have been more. I've just grown wary/tired of all that shit happening lately, and not having bookmarked any of that stuff way before it all escalated.

Also not limited to that type of plane alone, there have been some events involving these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_340_AEW%26C , some norwegian F-16s and some long-range british Tornadoes near Murmansk.

Those two links use a self signed certificate wont connect. The other link is info on the details of the airplane.

In 2023 this occurred 300 times: "NATO intercepted Russian military aircraft over 300 times in 2023" - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_221598.htm

I ask again, do you have an event we can refer to?

Dude... why is it my problem when something on your side won't connect?

Here it just worked. From an exit where RT is DNS-blocked, btw. No problem from Colorado either. Fix your cargo-culted setup. And I don't give a shit about what NATO says. There are some 'asymmetries' in which side does it more often, but that's it. I won't spoil my sunday by (re)digging deeper, just to spoon-feed you.

Just to state the facts. You could not provide one example of the thing you say happens all the time.

Yawn. I did. With the two ones YOU said they wouldn't load because of certificate error. And really didn't been in the mood to dig deeper into the shit I've not exactly lost interest in, but don't cherish to return to dig deeper. Also having not bookmarked them at the times when I did.

That would require finding and going back to sites of retired veterans from involved airbases at the times of cold war, where they sort of 'blog' about this, and honor the fallen where some plane didn't make it back, for various reasons, bad weather, mechanical failure, not being shot down.

But with very detailed, meanwhile declassified mission profiles. I think I may even have learned about some of those sites from comments here on HN. (not sure anymore), too lazy too seek.

This went on and on through the whole of cold war. Btw. what do you think have those U2 and SR-71 planes been doing? Maybe the russkies seeing that still as payback?

Whatever, that old crap wasn't even what I've been referring to, only meant about the last two decades. I'm not making this up. But still, not going to (re-)search that again. See it as PTSD...(not sorry)

Why didn't they shot it down?

They do this regularly to all NATO countries. Welcome to the club.

No, they stopped doing it in Turkey 9 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...

There’s a lesson in there for the West. Russia backs down if you don’t respond weakly to probes like this.

What are they going to do? Threaten nukes or some other retaliation for the 100th time?

Every time I see someone encourage escalation like this, I can only cringe.

Same here. In my opinion, it's a combination of mimicry of the pro-war western press (with its wildly optimistic faith in US military power) and an incomplete understanding of the history behind certain events like the genesis and resolution of WWII and the dissolution of the USSR.

It is literally the opposite of escalation. Show strength and shoot down the intruder like Turkey did and Russia will send a delegation to apologize. Or show cowardice and they'll continue violating your border and endangering civilian airliners while their diplomats openly mock you.

Russia responds to strength and those who deny it have not learned anything from history.

>like Turkey did and Russia will send a delegation to apologize

Which is not at all what happend. Turkey-Russia relations nosedived for a couple years and as a result quite a few Turks and Turkish allies died in Syria. And if anyone ended up apologizing over the incident it was Erdoğan.

Wait, Putin did apologize, later. “Oops.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Russian_Air_Force_Al-Bab_...

And again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Balyun_airstrikes

... have you seen Ukraine? They keep on coming, despite Ukraine showing plenty of "strength" by your measure.

Escalation leads to war and more unnecessary death and destruction.

Ukraine alone is too weak by any measure, but the way Biden acted before the war was escalatory. For example, he announced that "there will be no American boots on the ground" instead of leaving it at least ambigious. This lowered the risk for Russians who could be sure that US forces would not get directly involved. It was like an open invitation to attack Ukraine.

Had he used all available means to show that the US would get involved (eg paradropping 82nd Airborne into Hostomel for exercises with Ukrainians), the war could've been averted.

Ukraine is an excellent case study of how Russians act. They have used every "de-escalatory window" carved out for them to climb deeper into Ukraine instead of getting out. Refusals and delays in supporting Ukraine with tanks, artillery, air defense and other equipment have only escalated the war. Every ingenious "de-descalation" tactic has only made things worse, whereas "escalatory" steps like providing Patriots to Ukraine have reduced unnecessary death and destruction.

It is another failure to learn from history, combined with irrational (!) risk aversity.

First, you say to "shoot down the intruder" and not show cowardice. Ukraine has been doing exactly that, yet Russia continues its aggression. This clearly demonstrates that simply showing military strength does not necessarily deter an aggressor.

Let's address your claim of "cowardice" in Ukraine. Ukraine has shown immense resilience and strength in defending its sovereignty. If you believe that Ukraine's response has been weak, please provide concrete examples of this supposed cowardice. We'd all love to hear about it.

You then argue that Ukraine is "too weak" on its own and imply that Sweden is in a better position.

https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_Ukraine_vs_Sweden

However, if we compare the military capabilities of Ukraine and Sweden, it’s clear that Ukraine's military is significantly larger and more experienced due to ongoing conflict. If Ukraine, with its considerable military force, struggles to deter Russia, how can we expect a smaller country like Sweden to do better without causing a larger conflict?

Regarding Biden's pre-war actions, you claim his clear stance on not deploying American boots on the ground was an open invitation to Russia. Yet, history shows that ambiguity can lead to miscalculations and unintended escalations. Look at the lead-up to World War I, where a series of misunderstood intentions and alliances turned a regional conflict into a global war. Or the Cuban Missile Crisis, where clear communication and diplomacy prevented a nuclear disaster. Ambiguity isn't always a strength; it can often be a dangerous gamble. Your argument suggests that being cautious is "irrational risk aversity."

This is without even getting into Sweden now being a NATO member and the potential for massive escalation like nuclear war.

It seems you haven't fully grasped the lessons of history. Escalation leads to more unnecessary death and destruction. Advocating for it without considering the complex repercussions shows a dangerous lack of understanding.

Perhaps you're too happy about various economies being propped up by the military-industrial complex to care?

Let me simplify all this. There is a risk of escalation by doing something or nothing either way. What you do is tell Russia over 5-6 incursions is that planes will be shot down on the 7+ time. In between dialog, risk control.

Also nato should not enter Russian airspace. Flex when they screw up.

Russia for all their bs know pretty much where the line is. So let's not over react. Most of it like nk missile launches is cheap symbolism. They're barely handling Ukraine. They cannot anything else too.

>stance on not deploying American boots

No, clear announcement all Americans (and British for that matter) will be cleared before the inevitable invasion, so please come in and do as you please.

Imagine sitting in a park with friends. You all watch as a tweaker comes up to your group and starts ogling one of your friends. What do you do? Do you loudly proclaim ' I dont want no trouble sir I think I left laundry on' and hastily walk away?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com