| ▲ | cookiengineer 8 hours ago |
| For the last 60 years, Russia behaved like this to test NATO's defenses constantly. Only once was an incursion to Turkish airspace. After a warning it was shot down. Never happened again. You tell me what's the better strategy to deal with Russia. If you give leeway to a bully, the bully's gonna keep on bullying. |
|
| ▲ | instagib 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nearly everyone does this testing each other, their equipment, responses, verify doctrines etc. “Unknown aircraft, you were detected…” then radar lock warning if they’re lucky. |
|
| ▲ | beefnugs 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why shoot a plane down when you can spend untold $trillians on superior everything for many years and write a fanfic story about it someday, just as russia gets good at unmanned drones and bypassess all that jazz the same year |
|
| ▲ | dist-epoch 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Turkish incident is more complex: > On 15 October 2015, the Deputy Commander of the Russian Air-Space Force (VKS) visited Turkey to meet his Turkish counterparts. They’ve agreed that Russia would give at least twelve hours’ advance notice of any flight that would take VKS aircraft close to the Turkish-Syrian border. A hotline was also set up for the Turks to use to warn the Russian military if their aircraft came too close to the border. > Even then, the Turkish tactical commanders played it safe: they called headquarters in Ankara and explained the situation. Two unknown aircraft were approaching, they could not be contacted, and the Russians had not announced any flights. > What a surprise the Turks then drew the logical conclusion: the two jets could only belong to the Syrian Arab Air Force. > It was only later - once the images from a Turkish TV team on site were published - that there was clarity: the AIM-120C has hit a Russian-, not a Syrian jet. > It’s a mistake to think that on 24 November 2015 the Turks have had enough of the Russians and thus opened fire. No. They’ve opened fire and shot down that Su-24 precisely because they’ve trusted the Russians: they’ve trusted the Russians would stick to their arrangement, they were convinced the Russians would never-ever do be as sloppy as to forget announcing their flight, and were convinced they’re shooting at the Assadists. https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/the-russian-sloppiness |
| |
| ▲ | torginus 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Wasn't Russia on Assad's side? The ally of my enemy is also my ally does read kinda weird. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | throwuxiytayq 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Very common but not very thoughtful sentiment. You are missing the frankly obvious point that Russia wants NATO to overreact, giving them the ability to continue internally escalating the conflict, to increase their already strained mobilization effort, et cetera. Do you think Russia somehow forgot about the Turkey situation? |
| |
| ▲ | rwyinuse 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's also pretty obvious that Russia respects only strength. If NATO doesn't react strongly enough, it is perceived weak by Russia, which increases the likelihood of them trying something against a NATO country. I don't think shooting down aircraft that severely violate NATO airspace is overreacting. It's what Russia would do to NATO aircraft violating their airspace. I think everything Russia does should be responded with a measure of similar size. Being overly careful with Russia hasn't worked very well at all historically. | | |
| ▲ | polotics 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Showing strength is also showing restraint. The Russian pilots now know that they owe their life to NATO's restraint, a restraint that they know they cannot expect from their own chain of deluded command. The releasing of this information to the Russian public demonstrates clearly who is what, and how foolish joining the ranks of the man-eating army of the losing side would be. |
| |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | throaway95 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Shooting down a plane violating NATO airspace is the correct reaction, not an overreaction. | | |
| ▲ | throwuxiytayq 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Think about it for a second. Is it really the "correct" reaction when it achieves precisely the outcome wanted by the Russian command? How is this a wise policy? | | |
| ▲ | frogperson 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Stop defending bullies. Russia will push a d take until someone says no. its just how they operate. | | |
| ▲ | throwuxiytayq 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | All of you silly internet people keep repeating the "Russia is just a bully" mantra like it's some sort of an important insight. Putin is playing chess while you guys are struggling to comprehend the rules for checkers. If NATO is to successfully defend against Russia, we need to do better than, uhh, whatever this is supposed to be. Since you completely failed to address anything I've said, I direct you back to my messages above. I also highly recommend William Spaniel's excellent analysis on this and related subjects if you care to catch up. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tim333 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was thinking that. The most plausible reasoning I've seen for Russia's recent behavior along those lines is Putin is mostly concerned with his personal power and position in Russia. The Ukraine war doesn't make him look very good in Russia - a lot of dead Russians and burning oil facilities in return for occupying some bombed out land where the people hate them. If he gets into a low level fight with NATO then he can sell it at home that they are in a noble war with a much larger enemy rather than getting beat up by a small and largely peaceful neighbor they chose to attack. The strategic option for NATO is probably to mostly ignore Russian planes and drones flying near them but respond by helping Ukraine win. (Or personally I'd like if they took out Putin but that doesn't seem the done thing. Better to kill a hundred thousand innocents than the guilty one seems to be the thing.) |
|
|
| ▲ | hnaccount_rng 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| But neither was it only one incursion into Turkish airspace, not did Turkey not pay a price for it |
| |
| ▲ | ivandenysov 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | What price did Turkey pay for shooting down a Russian military plane on their territory? | | |
| ▲ | amelius 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I didn't read it yet, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... | |
| ▲ | rainworld 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... Including but not limited to: A Turkish supply convoy, reportedly carrying small arms, machine-guns and ammunition, was bombed by what is believed to have been Russian airstrikes in the northwestern town of Azaz, in north-western Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Russian_Air_Force_Al-Bab_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Balyun_airstrikes | | |
| ▲ | stavros 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've seen this rhetoric of "Russia made Turkey pay just two short years later!" on reddit as well, and it sounded just as farfetched there as it does here. | |
| ▲ | libertine 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that? Look at the Turkish support in Ukraine, or look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east. | | |
| ▲ | rainworld 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > And what makes you think Russia didn't pay a price for that? That wasn’t the question and you’re putting words in my mouth. > look at Syria - they literally removed Russia from the middle east. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c201p2dd6r4o They were warm words from two men seeking a good working relationship. Russia wants continued access to its Tartous naval port and Hmeimim military airbase on Syria's Mediterranean coast. Sharaa suggested he would allow this, saying Syria would "respect all agreements concluded throughout the great history" of their bilateral relations. In turn, he wants help to consolidate his power in Syria, secure its borders and rescue a parlous economy with access to Russian energy and investment. Plus ça change. | | |
| ▲ | libertine 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your counter argument are words? Where are the concrete actions? Is Russia going to surrender their puppet and the stolen assets? Is Russia going to pay for the reparations of their destruction? Those words mean nothing. Do I need to grab the quote from Putin stating that no one will interfere in Syria or they will have to face Russia? (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point) At this level of diplomacy it's actions that matter, not words. You have these guys say one thing one day, and do the opposite the other day. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | themgt 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can skim through the wikis for some color, but tldr Turkey is generally playing amoral "middle power dilemma" politics rather than the Marvel universe fan fiction version: In June 2016, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sent a letter, on the recommendation of Farkhad Akhmedov[123] to Russian President Vladimir Putin expressing sympathy and 'deep condolences' to the family of the victims. An investigation was also reopened into the suspected Turkish military personnel involved in the incident.[124] Three weeks later (in the meantime, there had been a coup d'état attempt against him), Erdoğan announced in an interview that the two Turkish pilots who downed Russian aircraft were arrested on suspicion that they have links to the Gülen movement, and that a court should find out "the truth" On 12 September 2017, Turkey announced that it had signed a deal to purchase the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system; the deal was characterised by American press as ″the clearest sign of [Recep Erdoğan]′s pivot toward Russia and away from NATO and the West" that ″cements a recent rapprochement with Russia″.[109] Despite pressure to cancel the deal on the part of the Trump administration, in April 2018 the scheduled delivery of the S-400 batteries had been brought forward from the first quarter of 2020 to July 2019.[110] In September 2019, Russia sent the Sukhoi Su-35S and the 5th Generation stealth fighter Su-57 to Turkey for Technofest Istanbul 2019. The jets landed at Turkey's Atatürk Airport, weeks after Recep Tayyip Erdoğan went to Moscow and discussed stealth fighter with Vladimir Putin.[111] In November 2021, Russia offered assistance to Turkey in developing new-generation fighter jet to Turkey.[112][113] Some Turkish officials have also shown interest to buy Russian jets if the US F-16 deal fails.[114][115][116][117][118] In 2024, Washington warned Turkey of potential consequences if it did not reduce exports of US military-linked hardware to Russia, critical for Moscow's war efforts. Assistant Commerce Secretary Matthew Axelrod met Turkish officials to halt this trade, emphasizing the need to curb the flow of American-origin components vital to Russia's military. The issue strained NATO relations, as Turkey increased trade with Russia despite US and EU sanctions since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Axelrod urged Turkey to enforce a ban on transshipping US items to Russia, warning that Moscow was exploiting Turkey's trade policy. Despite a rise in Turkey's exports of military-linked goods to Russia and intermediaries, there was no corresponding increase in reported imports in those destinations, suggesting a "ghost trade."[119] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Turkey_relation... |
|
|
