This article is not about the US. firstOrder's comment is a example of a "whataboutism" response[1]. While "what about the US" is a valid concern, it's offtopic in this thread and should be placed on its own thread.
In this discussion, it is important to have the context that many governments engage in this behavior. Not so that it can be excused, but so that when we discuss how to deal with it, we can do it in a way that's informed and tackles the actual issues including the nuances of escalating bilateral cycles.
While I think it is perfectly reasonable to make a moral and ethical judgement based on a unilateral context, but it is a mistake to examine the foreign policy without discussing the bilateral or multilateral interactions that help create and sustain it.
I mean, this says it all, right here:
"In April 2001 the U.S. rammed a Lockheed EP-3 into a Chinese plane just outside the PRC border, killing the Chinese pilot, then landed on PRC territory without permission."
The only way you can possibly think that a four-engined turboprop can "ram" a fighter jet is if you have a bias so large that its gravitational field affects the orbits of nearby planets.
To add to your original comment: the US pilot insisted that the plane was on autopilot (and thus he was hit by the Chinese pilot, not vice versa), the Chinese pilot had a history of flying way too close to US planes, and the US plane "landed without permission" because it was so damaged after the event that the crew was on the verge of bailing out.
Your elaboration is exactly right on all counts. And to add a bit more, even if none of that were true, it still makes no sense for a lumbering reconnaissance plane to "ram" a maneuverable fighter jet that intercepted it. It would be like a container ship "ramming" a jet-ski. Even if it wanted to, it simply can't maneuver to make it happen.
No slight taken. I was still in middle school when the Hainan Island incident happened, and I figured there's a sizable young population on HN that's in the same boat. Young kids tend not to pay as much attention to the machinations of foreign policy.