Utopia Talk / Politics / russia attacks US drone

Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 14 12:28:41 On patrol near black sea. Biden should immediately provide 1 billion in lethal aid to the ukraine.
jergul large member	Tue Mar 14 12:44:46 "the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner." Environmentally unsound? That is the straw that broke the camel's back. Though, knowing Russia, there is probably some rule the drone did not follow with the Russian aircraft having the right of way or something silly like that. Such edgelords. The area is not subject to normal flight control and I doubt anyone had their transponders turned on anyway.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 14 13:24:49 "Environmentally unsound?" Left wing weenies gotta used approved buzzwords and hit on woke causes at all times.
Paramount Member	Tue Mar 14 13:27:53 If it was spying on Russia, Russia was right to intercept and damage the drone, given the circumstances. They have to protect their nation and Russian lives.
murder Member	Tue Mar 14 13:59:59 There's only one proper response. We need to begin armed air patrols over the Black Sea. Also Ukraine needs longer range weapons. I hear that Tomahawks are pretty obsolete and non-threatening.
murder Member	Tue Mar 14 14:02:18 Actually they did something similar before when they fired a missile at a British fighter.
murder Member	Tue Mar 14 14:03:10 Not a fighter, a surveillance plane.
TheChildren Member	Tue Mar 14 14:26:55 ur dronez crashed russia says no russian jet got near ur drone.
Paramount Member	Tue Mar 14 15:08:37 Russian MoD statement regarding the US Reaper Drone On the morning of March 14. over the waters of the Black Sea in the area of ​​the Crimean peninsula, the airspace control of the Russian Aerospace Forces recorded the flight of an American MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle in the direction of the state border of the Russian Federation. The flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle was carried out with transponders turned off in violation of the boundaries of the area of ​​​​the temporary regime for the use of airspace, established for the purpose of conducting a special military operation, brought to all users of international airspace and published in accordance with international standards. In order to identify the intruder, fighters from the air defense forces on duty were raised into the air. As a result of sharp maneuvering around 9.30 (Moscow time), the MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle went into uncontrolled flight with a loss of altitude and collided with the water surface. Russian fighters did not use airborne weapons, did not come into contact with an unmanned aerial vehicle and returned safely to their base airfield. http://twi...?s=61&t=C7YI8upxCqhyhPMRv9y0zg
Habebe Member	Tue Mar 14 15:40:56 Sam, You are siding with Hillary Clinton here....re think this. Biden just got pwned by Xi anyway.
seb Member	Tue Mar 14 18:05:40 PAramount: "If it was spying on Russia, Russia was right to intercept and damage the drone, given the circumstances. They have to protect their nation and Russian lives." This is a novel but interesting interpretation of international law that would lead to a lot of sunk Russian ships and downed Russian warplanes. Regrettably you are incorrect, and if a plane is over international waters it can spy all it likes on you and you are not supposed to interfere with it. There are treaties that Russia and the US have signed up to that state that unequivocably.
seb Member	Tue Mar 14 18:07:41 Proximity detonating reapers.
murder Member	Tue Mar 14 19:54:04 ^ that
Pillz Member	Tue Mar 14 20:38:31 Lol
Paramount Member	Wed Mar 15 02:09:34 "if a plane is over international waters it can spy all it likes on you and you are not supposed to interfere with it" Sure. But if you are conducting a proxy war towards Russia and fly a military drone with your transponders turned off close to Russia and are heading towards their border, towards a war zone, you will also be intercepted. Russia were protecting their borders and Russian lives and it is possible that Russia stopped an attack on Crimea.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 04:28:55 Paramount: Cool. So the next Russian plane that flies with transponders off near NATO airspace - we just light it up right? You cool with that?
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 04:29:34 Also, crimea is internationally recognised as Ukrainian, not Russian.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 05:09:33 It is internationally recognised as a warzone closed to civil aviation because flying there is inherently dangerous.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 05:44:21 That doesn't provide a right to deliberately interfere and attack craft. I think a good US response might be too park an aegis destroyer in international waters and shoot down kakibir missiles launched by the Russian subs. After all, apparently it's ok to deliberately interfere with unmanned aircraft of parties you are not in conflict with in international waters & air space, provided it's a warzone.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 05:49:14 The US wording and unofficial comments suggest the US thinks a Russian pilot fucked up. It is apparently ok to give leeway for fuckups in a warzone. It is not even much of a fuckup. Nothing like the US bombing the Chinese Embassy, or strafing the Russian consulate evacuation in Iraq-2003 after all. The Black Sea is closed to entry for warships not returning to their home ports. But always interesting to hear your absolutely unbiased take on all things relating to Russia.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 05:52:19 Jergul: Clipping the prop was a fuck up. But dumping fuel on it and the fast pass that close were both intended to down it. First by introducing fuel into the engine air intakes, second by disrupting airflow. The fact they succeeded by accident isn't really the point.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 05:53:38 "But always interesting to hear your absolutely unbiased take on all things relating to Russia." Indeed, here you are arguing that it is fine to deliberately target assets of third parties. Something you'd never argue in other contexts.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 05:57:54 Also I believe the treaty permitting restriction only applies to warring states, and the US isn't party to the conflict. And apparently it wouldn't be if it started shooting down Russian missiles (or, if you like, using non kinetic means such as jamming etc) because apparently this has just been discovered to be a perfectly normal activity under customary law and not open hostilities.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 06:03:40 Seb I am arguing it was an entirely predictable incident in an active warzone. The area is closed to civic aviation because flying there is inherently dangerous. A Russian pilot on a combat mission fucked up while visually verifying drone was not actually a Ukrainian asset. He may very well have been trying to disconcert the New Mexican drone operator, but he still fucked up. The US is not exactly a third party to the conflict. I guess you missed how heavily the US is engaged in supporting Ukraine. An easy mistake to make. If you live on Jupiter.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 06:12:59 "After initial reluctance, attributed to the country's close ties with both Russia and Ukraine,[50] Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu announced on 27 February that his government would legally recognise the Russian invasion as a "war", which provides grounds for implementing the convention with respect to military vessels.[7] This blockage of naval vessels also applies to NATO powers who cannot now move their vessels from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. However, Çavuşoğlu reiterated that pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Turkey cannot block Russian warships based in the Black Sea from returning to their registered base.[50] Around February 27–28, Turkey refused permission for three out of four Russian warships to enter the Black Sea as their home base was not on the Black Sea." ============== Russia and Ukraine are not technically at war. Turkey is just not edgelording shit, so is calling as it is and not letting warships of fractions supporting Ukraine enter either.
Seb Member	Wed Mar 15 06:34:47 Jergul: Since when does identification involve two fuel dumps? This is obviously not the case. "The US is not exactly a third party to the conflic" This is an interesting view - are you saying that Russia is at war with NATO? If so, are you saying we should behave like we are at war, or that only Russia should behave like we are at war? We aren't parties to the conflict.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 06:42:03 Seb If true (and it sounds out landish. I suspect airwash exhaust condensation the drone operator mistook for a fuel dump), then "disconcert NM drone operator". The pilot certainly did fuck up though. It happens in combat zones. Nobody is at war with anyone. It is a special operation remember. I am however saying Nato is party to the conflict. More so in many ways than Ukraine. Ukraine cannot fund or source material or intel for the conflict. The only thing it is providing is a stage, stage direction (but not script research) and the bodies to fight on the stage. Very brave. No doubt. But the brave bodies are being pruned quite rapidly. Leaving the reluctant and poorly trained.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 06:44:04 And I definitely think we should do anything that Russia has not deterred us from doing. Wait. That is what we are doing! Yay!
LazyCommunist Member	Wed Mar 15 06:44:08 We acted within the law! http://www...lides-us-drone-black-sea-crash Mary Ellen O’Connell, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on international law and the use of force, noted that by dumping fuel and downing the drone, the Russian pilot was “further polluting the fragile Black Sea”, but she noted the US had not called the interception “unlawful”. “In all likelihood the Reaper was conducting surveillance for Ukraine. Under the laws of armed conflict Russia may disrupt such assistance,” O’Connell said.
jergul large member	Wed Mar 15 07:26:35 LC That logic is why Russian pilots bothered harrassing the drone in the first place, but actually downing the drone was more of an opsy-daisy. I think the fuel dump analysis wrong. Sounds stupid, convoluted and practically impossible. Just exhaust condensation in the airwash that hit the drone that the operator mistook for kerosene because where else could that liquid be coming from?
Seb Member	Thu Mar 16 06:07:15 http://twi...?t=4Qq2BjcQK705hwxpmB1xCg&s=19
Seb Member	Thu Mar 16 06:09:43 First example of a plane releasing chemicals and someone CTing it to be contrails?
jergul large member	Thu Mar 16 08:05:39 I saw the footage. Definitely fuel. And definitely stupid, convoluted, and practically impossible.
Seb Member	Thu Mar 16 18:08:53 So, to be clear though, it doesn't matter because spraying jet fuel at an aircraft in international airspace isn't interference contrary to international law, it's just messing with the drone operator not attacking a us aircraft? So like, next time the Russian tuplevs do their dummy attack runs and pull up just short of the 12 mile line, NATO jets are ok to dump whatever they can into their engine intakes and that's all fine and dandy and within customary law? Come on - this is a bigger escalation than you are acknowledging. Its typical Russian edgelord bullshit. No different than if they'd shot it down.
jergul large member	Thu Mar 16 18:22:45 Seb Why not review what the Americans are saying officially? The US does not want it to escalate. Among the concerns is also the fact that the drone likely was indeed spying or Russia for Ukraine's benefit. As CL pointed out, the matter is not really clear-cut in international law. The cunning use of flags is after all not an iron clad plan. See Eddie Izzard for details.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 05:28:56 jergul: I know the US doesn't want to escalate. We are talking about the principle of it and precedent. We are exploring your strangely inconsistent positions on what is acceptable behaviour (irrespective of what participants chose to react) and the somewhat hypocritical accusations you throw out.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 05:35:06 I mean look at this: In response to: "That doesn't provide a right to deliberately interfere and attack craft." Jergul: "The US wording and unofficial comments suggest the US thinks a Russian pilot fucked up." Disingenuous - the statement of the US wording is clear that they think the interference was deliberate attempt to down the vehicle, but the actual clipping of the prop was an error. "It is apparently ok to give leeway for fuckups in a warzone. It is not even much of a fuckup. Nothing like the US bombing the Chinese Embassy, or strafing the Russian consulate evacuation in Iraq-2003 after all." Diversion and whataboutery intended to conflate unintended damage to embassies with deliberate interference of the vessel to establish the moral equivalence or indeed superiority of the Russians in this instance. "But always interesting to hear your absolutely unbiased take on all things relating to Russia." Rank hypocrisy and tired old "accuse your opponent of what you are doing to deflect from it" tactic.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 05:37:19 Seb Only strange to someone who thinks the cunning use of flags is an iron clad plan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Mt8n3pC5c The US was using the drone to spy on Russia and share that information with Ukraine. The US gets that it is in a murky area of international law, as per statements. It is currently reviewing its drone operations to weigh value of intel against risk to drones. I generally do not comment on the US droning intelligence or propaganda assets in random places either for that matter. It is not clear-cut. So you may have to look elsewhere for inconsistencies and hypcracy. Perhaps some introspection may be in order?
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 05:37:52 jergul: "As CL pointed out, the matter is not really clear-cut in international law." So what we are seeing by a Russian aircraft intentionally attacking a US aircraft is the Russians calling the US out as a participant to the conflict. Is that something Russia really wants? Unfortunate accidents can happen to Russian assets too.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 05:38:56 Seb I see your second post. You seem butthurt. May I suggest you pop down to the pharmacy for some ointment?
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 05:40:35 And a third post. Wow. Sure. Knock yourself out. It is pretty clear the West will do anything it likes that Russia is not deterring it from doing. Have the RAF shoot down a manned Russian plane. See how that plays out for you.
murder Member	Fri Mar 17 07:08:31 It would play out by the Russian plane going down in a fireball.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 08:24:00 Jergul when the west considers doing something outrageous: "Why that would be outrageous, all of international law is now irretrievably broken forever. Westphalia." Jergul when Russia does something outrageous: "This is a technical breach - we can assume bad faith actions justifies Russia's outrageous behaviour - so in fact we have no evidence at all for foul play, and any steps be taken to address this, it would be quite improper" Jergul to anyone discussing confrontation of Russia when it does something outrageous: "We can't possibly assume bad faith of the Russians, it would be quite illegal and irresponsible to respond to this obviously justified and proportionate act" Jergul when called out on this discrepancy: "Well you are obviously biased against Russia and butthurt"
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 08:26:30 Jergul: "Have the RAF shoot down a manned Russian plane. See how that plays out for you." An unfortunate in flight collision between a Russian Jet and a NATO drone due to the drone seeking to identify the Russian planes identity. All very regrettable but perfectly legitimate and normal part of air operations in an internationally recognised warzone where nobody is actually at war.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 08:48:35 Seb You should definitely write some fan fiction. I noticed you will not commit RAF to doing anything, but it is Nato. Because? Why will RAF not do anything? Then you can award the drone operator a Nato medal. Since you do not want to use British medals for some reason. I guess it just boils down to your cunning use of flags :D. "Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergey Shoigu has issued an order to bestow state awards on the pilots of the Su-27 planes who did not allow the US MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle to violate the airspace restricted for use during the special military operation," the ministry said in a statement." TASS
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 09:09:58 Murder It is Seb's fan fiction, so it will probably go down, hit Russian poisoners on the head, trigger a coloured revolution and dispose of Putin. Nevalnij will take over power and Russia will return all territory gained since 1923. Peace will ensue reparations to Ukraine will secure UK advisory and industrial contracts. Seb will work on such contracts, but be based in Switzerland on Lake Geneva. The cunning use of flags totally vindicated.
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 10:40:07 jergul: Why would the RAF shoot down a Russian drone in retaliation for them downing a US one, and how could I commit the RAF to do so? "It is Seb's fan fiction," Not really, it was you that suggested the RAF shoot down a Russian plane, so surely your fiction?
Seb Member	Fri Mar 17 10:43:09 The RAF solution to this problem was that our reconnaissance flights now go with armed escorts. They no longer bother us. Perhaps the next MQ-9 can go up with AIM-9Xs - they have the capability.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 11:36:17 More fan fiction. Keep it up. The mundane, boring solution the US has opted for today at least is by flying south of the area closed by Russia. I guess the US just does not have the cunning use of flags concept inbred into its national psyche. Too bad. Imagine all the fan fiction we are missing out on.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Mar 17 11:44:42 Well to someone who know almost nothing about jet engines, that seems like a strange place for fuel vent, like right at the afterburner. The after burner exhaust isn’t hot enough to ignite the fuel?
kargen Member	Fri Mar 17 16:55:42 "The US does not want it to escalate. Among the concerns is also the fact that the drone likely was indeed spying or Russia for Ukraine's benefit." The drone wasn't anywhere near Russia. Russia doesn't get to declare Ukrainian airspace closed.
murder Member	Fri Mar 17 17:25:39 "Russia doesn't get to declare Ukrainian airspace closed." It didn't. It's declared the airspace over the whole Black Sea closed.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 17:35:58 Kargen Just think of it as a no fly zone. You should be familiar with the terminology as your government uses it quite often.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 17:37:33 Murder Not really over the whole black sea. It follows a EW line more along the Crimean air control zone until it hits the romanian zone. http://gyazo.com/41164952f994937ca1158e89cc6fc3df
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 17:39:20 Russia has in other words not closed the Bucharest-sofia-instabul-ankara air control zones.
kargen Member	Fri Mar 17 17:50:19 "Just think of it as a no fly zone." No. I will think of it as international airspace. On a tangent the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. I bet he will give himself up any day now!
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 18:48:01 http://ihl...icle-67-71?activeTab=undefined There is a reason the administration has been so laid back about the affair in its commentary you know. An aircraft acting on behalf of a belligerent is considered a party to the conflict would sum it up. So, yah. The cunning use of flags does not cut it. If it is acting on behalf of Ukraine, then you might as well just have Ukrainians flying it waving Ukrainian flags for all the legal difference it makes.
jergul large member	Fri Mar 17 18:49:13 http://ihl...anual-1994?activeTab=undefined
murder Member	Fri Mar 17 19:10:26 "There is a reason the administration has been so laid back about the affair in its commentary you know." There is. Biden doesn't want to get pressured into retaliating.
kargen Member	Fri Mar 17 21:41:51 correction, the people working the strings don't want to get pressured into retaliating. Not because they mind being dragged into another never ending conflict but because they fear what President Biden will say when he has to answer for any action taken.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 18 01:32:33 The actual reason is that a "neutral" asset participating in a war becomes the asset of a belligerent and a legitimate target. Outrage has not legs to stand on. Using the drone to gather intel for Ukraine gifted that drone to Ukraine for all intents and purposes. The problem here is mainly that Russia has to check out if the drone is actually participating. A manned aircraft would have been directed to divert or land at a Russian airport. A drone is just a system however. As to the nogo zone. Russia is obligated to make widely known the combat exclusion zone so neutral vessels and planes do not stumble into it. The US knows all this, so is laid back on its statements. The drone was in the wrong.
murder Member	Sat Mar 18 19:14:32 Russia had no choice but to down the drone as it was a threat to all the unaccompanied minors in the war zone.
jergul large member	Sat Mar 18 19:44:42 I dont think there are any unaccompanied minors left in the war zone :D
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: