[GK3]

While I fully share your opinion of the current administration's policy regarding Russia and NATO, IMO shooting down the Russia jets would be extremely foolish. 

What, exactly, is the current administration's policy towards Russia and NATO? Sounds like they believe that Ukraine can win back all their territory, that Putin's the enemy, that Russia's an economic disaster, that the administration believes in a strong commitment to NATO, etc.

Trump Pulls Jaw-Dropping 180 in Shocking Post Mocking Russia

Trump says he now thinks Ukraine can win back all territory taken by Russia

IMO the problem is that nobody, including high ranking Pentagon officials, knows what the US policy towards Russia and NATO actually is. Lots of public statements that seem to be contradictory leads to uncertainty among NATO members. It also creates uncertainty among  other nations trying to figure out what US policy towards Russia actually is. Until the above-referenced 180 degree change in direction (maybe), the "policy" that the US was seemingly following was to support Ukraine but not over-react to Russian provocations. To be fair, the current administration is not saying the US will shoot down Russian aircraft that violate NATO airspace, only that it is OK if other NATO nations do :-). Of course, the next question, which AFAIK nobody ask, is would the US fully participate in an Article 5 invocation made necessary by the Russian response to such a shoot-down. I don't know, and I suspect the NATO nations don't know either. They probably don't want to find out by doing the experiment.
 
For literally 75 years, through administrations of all political stripes, the simple rule was that the US would never, under any circumstances, make public comments that indicated we might not fully participate in an Article 5 invocation to defend NATO nations from an attack by Russia or any other major power. That was essential because the European NATO members themselves often publicly worried the US would not. They needed to be totally convinced. If they were not certain of US support, they would individually and collectively attempt to mitigate risk by cutting deals with Russia. Franklin's "If we do not all hang together we will certainly hang separately" statement applies in spades to NATO. The present administration has publicly indicated that the US will not necessarily participate in an Article 5 invocation if he doesn't think we should. Doing so has destroyed 75 years of ensuring the opposite. Even if both the current administration and subsequent administrations say "Oh, we didn't mean it", the possibility that we will not is now "real". FAD now exists, and will not go away soon. Nations are now going to be much more likely to ask "Do we bet our country that the US will help if Russia attacks us?". To a lesser or greater degree, all would now answer "no", and with good reason. Former Warsaw pact nations now have every reason to believe they might be "alone" (in the sense Ukraine now is) should Russia come after them. Not good, and not quickly fixable IMO.

Your point is well made, what is our policy.  If it was up to me I would simply say to Putin that if your aircraft or drones enter NATO country airspace they will be shot down, and then do just that.  IMO Putin only understands one thing, force. We have tried to be the nice guys since prior to WWI, but now we simply have to be willing to suck it up and do the right thing and tell Putin to back off or bring it on. Whoever blinks first, loses.

[GK3]

While I fully share your opinion of the current administration's policy regarding Russia and NATO, IMO shooting down the Russia jets would be extremely foolish. 

What, exactly, is the current administration's policy towards Russia and NATO? Sounds like they believe that Ukraine can win back all their territory, that Putin's the enemy, that Russia's an economic disaster, that the administration believes in a strong commitment to NATO, etc.

Trump Pulls Jaw-Dropping 180 in Shocking Post Mocking Russia

Trump says he now thinks Ukraine can win back all territory taken by Russia

IMO the problem is that nobody, including high ranking Pentagon officials, knows what the US policy towards Russia and NATO actually is. Lots of public statements that seem to be contradictory leads to uncertainty among NATO members. It also creates uncertainty among  other nations trying to figure out what US policy towards Russia actually is. Until the above-referenced 180 degree change in direction (maybe), the "policy" that the US was seemingly following was to support Ukraine but not over-react to Russian provocations. To be fair, the current administration is not saying the US will shoot down Russian aircraft that violate NATO airspace, only that it is OK if other NATO nations do :-). Of course, the next question, which AFAIK nobody ask, is would the US fully participate in an Article 5 invocation made necessary by the Russian response to such a shoot-down. I don't know, and I suspect the NATO nations don't know either. They probably don't want to find out by doing the experiment.
 
For literally 75 years, through administrations of all political stripes, the simple rule was that the US would never, under any circumstances, make public comments that indicated we might not fully participate in an Article 5 invocation to defend NATO nations from an attack by Russia or any other major power. That was essential because the European NATO members themselves often publicly worried the US would not. They needed to be totally convinced. If they were not certain of US support, they would individually and collectively attempt to mitigate risk by cutting deals with Russia. Franklin's "If we do not all hang together we will certainly hang separately" statement applies in spades to NATO. The present administration has publicly indicated that the US will not necessarily participate in an Article 5 invocation if he doesn't think we should. Doing so has destroyed 75 years of ensuring the opposite. Even if both the current administration and subsequent administrations say "Oh, we didn't mean it", the possibility that we will not is now "real". FAD now exists, and will not go away soon. Nations are now going to be much more likely to ask "Do we bet our country that the US will help if Russia attacks us?". To a lesser or greater degree, all would now answer "no", and with good reason. Former Warsaw pact nations now have every reason to believe they might be "alone" (in the sense Ukraine now is) should Russia come after them. Not good, and not quickly fixable IMO.

Your point is well made, what is our policy.  If it was up to me I would simply say to Putin that if your aircraft or drones enter NATO country airspace they will be shot down, and then do just that.  IMO Putin only understands one thing, force. We have tried to be the nice guys since prior to WWI, but now we simply have to be willing to suck it up and do the right thing and tell Putin to back off or bring it on. Whoever blinks first, loses.

[Mick]

I wonder if Ukraine is Putin's biggest problem. I don't even think NATO is Russia's biggest problem. Russia’s problem isn’t the West, United States and NATO. We don’t want Russian territory.

But China might.

Tsarist Russia took A LOT of territory from China, specifically the pre-1858 Qing dynasty. They took outer Manchuria, Ili/Kuldja Valley, Eastern Kazakhstan Steppe, Transbaikal/Argun. All taken between 1689 and 1881, total land about 1.5 million square kilometers.

And Russia has what China needs. Oil and other natural resources, like water…Lake Baikal has 20% of the world’s fresh water, and China has used most of their fresh water in Northern China. Southern tip of Lake Baikal is 85 miles from the current Chinese border, and 1,500  feet +/- above sea level. They could build a 100-mile pipeline to Outer Mongolia or a 250-mile pipeline to Northern China (much of it at sea level) and take the water, if they had access.

Incidentally, Putin has said “if you really feel deeply about a place, forget about treaties and boundaries. You should just take it.” Might come back to haunt him.

Russia has depleted much of its ordnance, thanks to the Ukraine war. They are weakened.

War is not likely Xi Jinping's first choice, but...China needs the resources, and Russia is weakened. A hard bargain may be in the offing...

[Mick]

I wonder if Ukraine is Putin's biggest problem. I don't even think NATO is Russia's biggest problem. Russia’s problem isn’t the West, United States and NATO. We don’t want Russian territory.

But China might.

Tsarist Russia took A LOT of territory from China, specifically the pre-1858 Qing dynasty. They took outer Manchuria, Ili/Kuldja Valley, Eastern Kazakhstan Steppe, Transbaikal/Argun. All taken between 1689 and 1881, total land about 1.5 million square kilometers.

And Russia has what China needs. Oil and other natural resources, like water…Lake Baikal has 20% of the world’s fresh water, and China has used most of their fresh water in Northern China. Southern tip of Lake Baikal is 85 miles from the current Chinese border, and 1,500  feet +/- above sea level. They could build a 100-mile pipeline to Outer Mongolia or a 250-mile pipeline to Northern China (much of it at sea level) and take the water, if they had access.

Incidentally, Putin has said “if you really feel deeply about a place, forget about treaties and boundaries. You should just take it.” Might come back to haunt him.

Russia has depleted much of its ordnance, thanks to the Ukraine war. They are weakened.

War is not likely Xi Jinping's first choice, but...China needs the resources, and Russia is weakened. A hard bargain may be in the offing...

[Bruce Wang]

War is not likely Xi Jinping's first choice, but...China needs the resources, and Russia is weakened. A hard bargain may be in the offing...

A saying about cows and free milk comes to mind.

[Bruce Wang]

War is not likely Xi Jinping's first choice, but...China needs the resources, and Russia is weakened. A hard bargain may be in the offing...

A saying about cows and free milk comes to mind.

[fullmetal]

China is more likely to entrap Russia in a one-sided economic treaty or resource deal than it is to conquer territory.  Russia would certainly prefer not to have to send troops eastward, and Russia could end up receiving some substantial amount of materiel in exchange for Chinese access to a needle-moving amount of natural resources in whatever form the Chinese require.

[fullmetal]

China is more likely to entrap Russia in a one-sided economic treaty or resource deal than it is to conquer territory.  Russia would certainly prefer not to have to send troops eastward, and Russia could end up receiving some substantial amount of materiel in exchange for Chinese access to a needle-moving amount of natural resources in whatever form the Chinese require.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...00891.html

IMO this quote from the article (and the one immediately following) should put paid to the ideas about shooting down such Russian aircraft

The Estonian government does not assess that the situation merited a “kinetic” reply – one, after all, which could lead to far more explosive results in the small nation on the eastern Baltic coast that shares a 183-mile border with Russia.
The Russian jets were not heading towards the Estonian mainland, nor were they armed with missiles that could blow up targets on the ground.

The comments about the NATO air doctrine being a "Hodgepodge system" are IMO right on and the current situation does demonstrate that improvement is very necessary in this area. Hopefully this will happen.
 
Putin's objectives in these drone "attacks" and aircraft incursions is NOT to start a war with NATO. If he wanted that, he could have it in a heartbeat without pussyfooting around. His objectives for these actions are three-fold. First and foremost, he wants to deter NATO nations from supporting Ukraine in any way. Reminding the populations of these NATO nations that Russia is a proximate threat can lead to the governments of these nations deciding to do nothing that will irritate Putin. This can take the form of electing pro-Russian governments or the existing political class backing away from  assisting Ukraine.
 
The second goal is to distract NATO nations from helping Ukraine but instead concentrating on their own defense. This has already happened to some degree and public opinion in many NATO nations is clearly trending in that direction. One might think such strengthening of NATO defenses is not in Russia's interest. In the long term, indeed, it is not. However, if it results in weakening Ukraine it is of immediate benefit to Putin.
 
The third goal is to convince the Ukrainian population that the NATO states will abandon them in the near term. The US behavior has already been a bitter pill for them to swallow. If they see Poland and Germany turning more towards their own defense and away from Ukraine the population (or enough of it) in Ukraine will decide resistance is impossible.
 
NATO needs to make sure these three goals are not met. Shooting down Russian aircraft would be counter-productive. It would, at a minimum, increase the probability of war between Russia and NATO. The clamor of the European populations to protect themselves (and abandon Ukraine) would only increase. As a side benefit for Putin, he could use the increased danger of war with NATO to justify a general mobilization and all that goes with that. The Russian people may very well "buy in" to the danger of war. Of course Putin doesn't want a war. As the article above stated

Barely any Russian troops are stationed in the border regions of Leningrad and Pskov. “They’re all stuck in Ukraine,” said Mr Vseviov, with a smile.
Instead, Tallinn expects more “grey-zone”-style threats, like the blimp flown across the river towards the Estonian city of Narva, or the removal of buoys in its midst that mark the border line.

Putin is counting on the fact NATO doesn't want a war either. In this, he is correct. NATO must not play into Putin's hand by letting him distract the world from the situation in Ukraine. That is where "kinetic" resources should be concentrated. They are at war with Russia and they can use such resources against Putin with little or no risk to NATO. That is where NATO should respond.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...00891.html

IMO this quote from the article (and the one immediately following) should put paid to the ideas about shooting down such Russian aircraft

The Estonian government does not assess that the situation merited a “kinetic” reply – one, after all, which could lead to far more explosive results in the small nation on the eastern Baltic coast that shares a 183-mile border with Russia.
The Russian jets were not heading towards the Estonian mainland, nor were they armed with missiles that could blow up targets on the ground.

The comments about the NATO air doctrine being a "Hodgepodge system" are IMO right on and the current situation does demonstrate that improvement is very necessary in this area. Hopefully this will happen.
 
Putin's objectives in these drone "attacks" and aircraft incursions is NOT to start a war with NATO. If he wanted that, he could have it in a heartbeat without pussyfooting around. His objectives for these actions are three-fold. First and foremost, he wants to deter NATO nations from supporting Ukraine in any way. Reminding the populations of these NATO nations that Russia is a proximate threat can lead to the governments of these nations deciding to do nothing that will irritate Putin. This can take the form of electing pro-Russian governments or the existing political class backing away from  assisting Ukraine.
 
The second goal is to distract NATO nations from helping Ukraine but instead concentrating on their own defense. This has already happened to some degree and public opinion in many NATO nations is clearly trending in that direction. One might think such strengthening of NATO defenses is not in Russia's interest. In the long term, indeed, it is not. However, if it results in weakening Ukraine it is of immediate benefit to Putin.
 
The third goal is to convince the Ukrainian population that the NATO states will abandon them in the near term. The US behavior has already been a bitter pill for them to swallow. If they see Poland and Germany turning more towards their own defense and away from Ukraine the population (or enough of it) in Ukraine will decide resistance is impossible.
 
NATO needs to make sure these three goals are not met. Shooting down Russian aircraft would be counter-productive. It would, at a minimum, increase the probability of war between Russia and NATO. The clamor of the European populations to protect themselves (and abandon Ukraine) would only increase. As a side benefit for Putin, he could use the increased danger of war with NATO to justify a general mobilization and all that goes with that. The Russian people may very well "buy in" to the danger of war. Of course Putin doesn't want a war. As the article above stated

Barely any Russian troops are stationed in the border regions of Leningrad and Pskov. “They’re all stuck in Ukraine,” said Mr Vseviov, with a smile.
Instead, Tallinn expects more “grey-zone”-style threats, like the blimp flown across the river towards the Estonian city of Narva, or the removal of buoys in its midst that mark the border line.

Putin is counting on the fact NATO doesn't want a war either. In this, he is correct. NATO must not play into Putin's hand by letting him distract the world from the situation in Ukraine. That is where "kinetic" resources should be concentrated. They are at war with Russia and they can use such resources against Putin with little or no risk to NATO. That is where NATO should respond.

[dabigv13]

Probably just posturing but FWIW reportedly Poland, Baltics, and US want to say they'll shoot down subsequent aircraft incursions. Germany prefers more conciliatary language.

NATO allies are divided over whether the alliance should make it a policy to shoot down Russian jets that violate NATO’s airspace, with some countries including the US, Poland and Baltic nations signaling that future violations should be met with force, while others, including Germany, urge more restraint.

The issue came to a head during an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council on Tuesday, which was called by Estonia after three Russian fighter jets violated Estonian airspace last week for 12 minutes.

Representatives from several countries, including Poland and Estonia, wanted the joint statement following the meeting to make clear that any additional violations by Russia, including from manned aircraft, would be met with force, according to two NATO officials familiar with the discussions— something that NATO has the authority to do if necessary.

But Germany and some southern European countries pushed to remove that language from the statement, the NATO officials said, worrying it was too escalatory.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/25/politics/...s-response

Until Putin faces consequences he will continue with this sort of stuff. They just flew drones over Danish air bases. Remember, Russia already considers itself at war with NATO. And Ukraine, in spite of stepping over all the red lines Russia states, and not having any nukes of their own, has had the most success by ignoring the red lines.

[dabigv13]

Probably just posturing but FWIW reportedly Poland, Baltics, and US want to say they'll shoot down subsequent aircraft incursions. Germany prefers more conciliatary language.

NATO allies are divided over whether the alliance should make it a policy to shoot down Russian jets that violate NATO’s airspace, with some countries including the US, Poland and Baltic nations signaling that future violations should be met with force, while others, including Germany, urge more restraint.

The issue came to a head during an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council on Tuesday, which was called by Estonia after three Russian fighter jets violated Estonian airspace last week for 12 minutes.

Representatives from several countries, including Poland and Estonia, wanted the joint statement following the meeting to make clear that any additional violations by Russia, including from manned aircraft, would be met with force, according to two NATO officials familiar with the discussions— something that NATO has the authority to do if necessary.

But Germany and some southern European countries pushed to remove that language from the statement, the NATO officials said, worrying it was too escalatory.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/25/politics/...s-response

Until Putin faces consequences he will continue with this sort of stuff. They just flew drones over Danish air bases. Remember, Russia already considers itself at war with NATO. And Ukraine, in spite of stepping over all the red lines Russia states, and not having any nukes of their own, has had the most success by ignoring the red lines.

[Mick]

China is more likely to entrap Russia in a one-sided economic treaty or resource deal than it is to conquer territory.  Russia would certainly prefer not to have to send troops eastward, and Russia could end up receiving some substantial amount of materiel in exchange for Chinese access to a needle-moving amount of natural resources in whatever form the Chinese require.

You're probably right. They're certainly cooperating on military terms.
Russia training Chinese air unit for possible Taiwan attack, analysts warn - The Washington Post

[Mick]

China is more likely to entrap Russia in a one-sided economic treaty or resource deal than it is to conquer territory.  Russia would certainly prefer not to have to send troops eastward, and Russia could end up receiving some substantial amount of materiel in exchange for Chinese access to a needle-moving amount of natural resources in whatever form the Chinese require.

You're probably right. They're certainly cooperating on military terms.
Russia training Chinese air unit for possible Taiwan attack, analysts warn - The Washington Post

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...00891.html

IMO this quote from the article (and the one immediately following) should put paid to the ideas about shooting down such Russian aircraft

The Estonian government does not assess that the situation merited a “kinetic” reply – one, after all, which could lead to far more explosive results in the small nation on the eastern Baltic coast that shares a 183-mile border with Russia.
The Russian jets were not heading towards the Estonian mainland, nor were they armed with missiles that could blow up targets on the ground.

The comments about the NATO air doctrine being a "Hodgepodge system" are IMO right on and the current situation does demonstrate that improvement is very necessary in this area. Hopefully this will happen.
 
Putin's objectives in these drone "attacks" and aircraft incursions is NOT to start a war with NATO. If he wanted that, he could have it in a heartbeat without pussyfooting around. His objectives for these actions are three-fold. First and foremost, he wants to deter NATO nations from supporting Ukraine in any way. Reminding the populations of these NATO nations that Russia is a proximate threat can lead to the governments of these nations deciding to do nothing that will irritate Putin. This can take the form of electing pro-Russian governments or the existing political class backing away from  assisting Ukraine.
 
The second goal is to distract NATO nations from helping Ukraine but instead concentrating on their own defense. This has already happened to some degree and public opinion in many NATO nations is clearly trending in that direction. One might think such strengthening of NATO defenses is not in Russia's interest. In the long term, indeed, it is not. However, if it results in weakening Ukraine it is of immediate benefit to Putin.
 
The third goal is to convince the Ukrainian population that the NATO states will abandon them in the near term. The US behavior has already been a bitter pill for them to swallow. If they see Poland and Germany turning more towards their own defense and away from Ukraine the population (or enough of it) in Ukraine will decide resistance is impossible.
 
NATO needs to make sure these three goals are not met. Shooting down Russian aircraft would be counter-productive. It would, at a minimum, increase the probability of war between Russia and NATO. The clamor of the European populations to protect themselves (and abandon Ukraine) would only increase. As a side benefit for Putin, he could use the increased danger of war with NATO to justify a general mobilization and all that goes with that. The Russian people may very well "buy in" to the danger of war. Of course Putin doesn't want a war. As the article above stated

Barely any Russian troops are stationed in the border regions of Leningrad and Pskov. “They’re all stuck in Ukraine,” said Mr Vseviov, with a smile.
Instead, Tallinn expects more “grey-zone”-style threats, like the blimp flown across the river towards the Estonian city of Narva, or the removal of buoys in its midst that mark the border line.

Putin is counting on the fact NATO doesn't want a war either. In this, he is correct. NATO must not play into Putin's hand by letting him distract the world from the situation in Ukraine. That is where "kinetic" resources should be concentrated. They are at war with Russia and they can use such resources against Putin with little or no risk to NATO. That is where NATO should respond.

I hear your points, but there is some risk that certain NATO countries or country will decide they have had enough of this Russian crap and will simply shoot down one of those Russian aircraft.  I agree that Russia is trying to distract NATO from the Ukraine but at the same time Ukraine is further reducing the Russians ability to supply petroleum products to its own people much less its client states.  Latest info says Putin has raised the VAT to try and reduce the negative balance of its economy.  My concern is that if push comes to shove and NATO goes to war with Russia, NATO has enough standoff weapons to really hurt Putins petroleum economy. Hard to fight a war today without fuel, unless the war is going to entirely be fought by drones or Nuclear Weapons.  This is all very risky business as it will not take much of a miscalculation to make matters much worse.  If we withdraw our support from Ukraine and ask the rest of NATO to provide it, I think you raise the risk of bad things happenings.
Putin's economy is  a mess and Ukraine is doing a nice job of screwing up Putins hydrocarbon econcomy. If he cannot provide his own people with adequate fuel, how is he going to ship more raw product overseas. Ukraine and the adjacent part of Russia has long been the bread basket of a good part of the world along with Canada and the USA. If weather and no fuel makes harvesting really hard lots of Russians are going to suffer.  I know they are good at doing that as they have done it for centuries, but that was then and then is now and I think Putin is trying to find someway to avoid haveing to settle with the Ukraine.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...00891.html

IMO this quote from the article (and the one immediately following) should put paid to the ideas about shooting down such Russian aircraft

The Estonian government does not assess that the situation merited a “kinetic” reply – one, after all, which could lead to far more explosive results in the small nation on the eastern Baltic coast that shares a 183-mile border with Russia.
The Russian jets were not heading towards the Estonian mainland, nor were they armed with missiles that could blow up targets on the ground.

The comments about the NATO air doctrine being a "Hodgepodge system" are IMO right on and the current situation does demonstrate that improvement is very necessary in this area. Hopefully this will happen.
 
Putin's objectives in these drone "attacks" and aircraft incursions is NOT to start a war with NATO. If he wanted that, he could have it in a heartbeat without pussyfooting around. His objectives for these actions are three-fold. First and foremost, he wants to deter NATO nations from supporting Ukraine in any way. Reminding the populations of these NATO nations that Russia is a proximate threat can lead to the governments of these nations deciding to do nothing that will irritate Putin. This can take the form of electing pro-Russian governments or the existing political class backing away from  assisting Ukraine.
 
The second goal is to distract NATO nations from helping Ukraine but instead concentrating on their own defense. This has already happened to some degree and public opinion in many NATO nations is clearly trending in that direction. One might think such strengthening of NATO defenses is not in Russia's interest. In the long term, indeed, it is not. However, if it results in weakening Ukraine it is of immediate benefit to Putin.
 
The third goal is to convince the Ukrainian population that the NATO states will abandon them in the near term. The US behavior has already been a bitter pill for them to swallow. If they see Poland and Germany turning more towards their own defense and away from Ukraine the population (or enough of it) in Ukraine will decide resistance is impossible.
 
NATO needs to make sure these three goals are not met. Shooting down Russian aircraft would be counter-productive. It would, at a minimum, increase the probability of war between Russia and NATO. The clamor of the European populations to protect themselves (and abandon Ukraine) would only increase. As a side benefit for Putin, he could use the increased danger of war with NATO to justify a general mobilization and all that goes with that. The Russian people may very well "buy in" to the danger of war. Of course Putin doesn't want a war. As the article above stated

Barely any Russian troops are stationed in the border regions of Leningrad and Pskov. “They’re all stuck in Ukraine,” said Mr Vseviov, with a smile.
Instead, Tallinn expects more “grey-zone”-style threats, like the blimp flown across the river towards the Estonian city of Narva, or the removal of buoys in its midst that mark the border line.

Putin is counting on the fact NATO doesn't want a war either. In this, he is correct. NATO must not play into Putin's hand by letting him distract the world from the situation in Ukraine. That is where "kinetic" resources should be concentrated. They are at war with Russia and they can use such resources against Putin with little or no risk to NATO. That is where NATO should respond.

I hear your points, but there is some risk that certain NATO countries or country will decide they have had enough of this Russian crap and will simply shoot down one of those Russian aircraft.  I agree that Russia is trying to distract NATO from the Ukraine but at the same time Ukraine is further reducing the Russians ability to supply petroleum products to its own people much less its client states.  Latest info says Putin has raised the VAT to try and reduce the negative balance of its economy.  My concern is that if push comes to shove and NATO goes to war with Russia, NATO has enough standoff weapons to really hurt Putins petroleum economy. Hard to fight a war today without fuel, unless the war is going to entirely be fought by drones or Nuclear Weapons.  This is all very risky business as it will not take much of a miscalculation to make matters much worse.  If we withdraw our support from Ukraine and ask the rest of NATO to provide it, I think you raise the risk of bad things happenings.
Putin's economy is  a mess and Ukraine is doing a nice job of screwing up Putins hydrocarbon econcomy. If he cannot provide his own people with adequate fuel, how is he going to ship more raw product overseas. Ukraine and the adjacent part of Russia has long been the bread basket of a good part of the world along with Canada and the USA. If weather and no fuel makes harvesting really hard lots of Russians are going to suffer.  I know they are good at doing that as they have done it for centuries, but that was then and then is now and I think Putin is trying to find someway to avoid haveing to settle with the Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

Zelensky reportedly requested Tomahawk missiles from Trump, who was perhaps open to it.

Will believe it when I see it, particularly as the people running DOD seem to prefer to use Tomahawks in Yemen. Would be great if it happens.

https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/

[dabigv13]

Zelensky reportedly requested Tomahawk missiles from Trump, who was perhaps open to it.

Will believe it when I see it, particularly as the people running DOD seem to prefer to use Tomahawks in Yemen. Would be great if it happens.

https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/

[Goose]

Zelensky reportedly requested Tomahawk missiles from Trump, who was perhaps open to it.

Will believe it when I see it, particularly as the people running DOD seem to prefer to use Tomahawks in Yemen. Would be great if it happens.

https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/

Agree it would be great. Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to do a lot in terms of their own cruise missiles. However, they continue to lack adequate mass to really shut down petroleum exports and even refining for local consumption. The production targets announced by Ukraine have obviously been missed so far. If they were accurate, Russia would be in a world of hurt right now and would be trying to end this mess.
 
Tomahawks delivered in 100s quantity would give Ukraine the necessary mass to actually shut down refining in Eastern Russia completely, at least for awhile. The threat of more deliveries would promise that the production problems would become permanent. Russia has enough refining capability beyond Tomahawk range to survive, but not the transportation capability in place to distribute it immediately. Putin (and his army) would be immobilized. He can't let that happen, so he may be forced to "negotiate". However, if that happens he must not be allowed to stall for time. Without US involvement to at least credibly threaten consequences that stalling may well work.

[Goose]

Zelensky reportedly requested Tomahawk missiles from Trump, who was perhaps open to it.

Will believe it when I see it, particularly as the people running DOD seem to prefer to use Tomahawks in Yemen. Would be great if it happens.

https://kyivindependent.com/in-private-u...h-reports/

Agree it would be great. Ukraine has demonstrated the ability to do a lot in terms of their own cruise missiles. However, they continue to lack adequate mass to really shut down petroleum exports and even refining for local consumption. The production targets announced by Ukraine have obviously been missed so far. If they were accurate, Russia would be in a world of hurt right now and would be trying to end this mess.
 
Tomahawks delivered in 100s quantity would give Ukraine the necessary mass to actually shut down refining in Eastern Russia completely, at least for awhile. The threat of more deliveries would promise that the production problems would become permanent. Russia has enough refining capability beyond Tomahawk range to survive, but not the transportation capability in place to distribute it immediately. Putin (and his army) would be immobilized. He can't let that happen, so he may be forced to "negotiate". However, if that happens he must not be allowed to stall for time. Without US involvement to at least credibly threaten consequences that stalling may well work.

[Goose]

https://united24media.com/latest-news/uk...city-12098
 
A 38% reduction in capacity is far from insignificant. Ukraine has also seemingly managed to repeat strikes frequently enough that the accumulated damage is significant enough to make repairs very time consuming. This level of attacks, if sustained, could substantially damage the Russian GDP. The lack of fuel for transport for sure reduces economic activity. Obviously expanding the set of refineries damaged is desirable, but not at the expense of letting Russia restore production at now offline refineries. Hit them again!

[Goose]

https://united24media.com/latest-news/uk...city-12098
 
A 38% reduction in capacity is far from insignificant. Ukraine has also seemingly managed to repeat strikes frequently enough that the accumulated damage is significant enough to make repairs very time consuming. This level of attacks, if sustained, could substantially damage the Russian GDP. The lack of fuel for transport for sure reduces economic activity. Obviously expanding the set of refineries damaged is desirable, but not at the expense of letting Russia restore production at now offline refineries. Hit them again!

[GK3]

https://united24media.com/latest-news/uk...city-12098
 
A 38% reduction in capacity is far from insignificant. Ukraine has also seemingly managed to repeat strikes frequently enough that the accumulated damage is significant enough to make repairs very time consuming. This level of attacks, if sustained, could substantially damage the Russian GDP. The lack of fuel for transport for sure reduces economic activity. Obviously expanding the set of refineries damaged is desirable, but not at the expense of letting Russia restore production at now offline refineries. Hit them again!

The obvious tactic would as you point out would be to keep hitting those installations supporting the petroleom industry.  My guess is that certain critical parts are hard to come by and if you keep making it harder and harder it can't hurt. It certainly screws up their economy and ability to continue the war.
Isn't it harvest time in Russia now?  If they lack fuel to harvest wheat and other similar crops that is another negative for their economy.

[GK3]

https://united24media.com/latest-news/uk...city-12098
 
A 38% reduction in capacity is far from insignificant. Ukraine has also seemingly managed to repeat strikes frequently enough that the accumulated damage is significant enough to make repairs very time consuming. This level of attacks, if sustained, could substantially damage the Russian GDP. The lack of fuel for transport for sure reduces economic activity. Obviously expanding the set of refineries damaged is desirable, but not at the expense of letting Russia restore production at now offline refineries. Hit them again!

The obvious tactic would as you point out would be to keep hitting those installations supporting the petroleom industry.  My guess is that certain critical parts are hard to come by and if you keep making it harder and harder it can't hurt. It certainly screws up their economy and ability to continue the war.
Isn't it harvest time in Russia now?  If they lack fuel to harvest wheat and other similar crops that is another negative for their economy.

[M T]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

[M T]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

[Goose]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter if the tanker was actually involved.The tanker is impounded until the charges are litigated. The gears of French justice can grind very slowly.
 
One problem with stopping shadow fleet vessels in European waters is that Russia can start escorting them. PITA for Russia, but I doubt that France would risk such a confrontation. Much better to grab them in the IO. Of course that would be difficult for France to pull off for the same reasons Russia couldn't escort the shadow fleet that far.

[Goose]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter if the tanker was actually involved.The tanker is impounded until the charges are litigated. The gears of French justice can grind very slowly.
 
One problem with stopping shadow fleet vessels in European waters is that Russia can start escorting them. PITA for Russia, but I doubt that France would risk such a confrontation. Much better to grab them in the IO. Of course that would be difficult for France to pull off for the same reasons Russia couldn't escort the shadow fleet that far.

[Mick]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter if the tanker was actually involved.The tanker is impounded until the charges are litigated. The gears of French justice can grind very slowly.
 
One problem with stopping shadow fleet vessels in European waters is that Russia can start escorting them. PITA for Russia, but I doubt that France would risk such a confrontation. Much better to grab them in the IO. Of course that would be difficult for France to pull off for the same reasons Russia couldn't escort the shadow fleet that far.

Does Russia have the assets to do that?

[Mick]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter if the tanker was actually involved.The tanker is impounded until the charges are litigated. The gears of French justice can grind very slowly.
 
One problem with stopping shadow fleet vessels in European waters is that Russia can start escorting them. PITA for Russia, but I doubt that France would risk such a confrontation. Much better to grab them in the IO. Of course that would be difficult for France to pull off for the same reasons Russia couldn't escort the shadow fleet that far.

Does Russia have the assets to do that?

[Goose]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter if the tanker was actually involved.The tanker is impounded until the charges are litigated. The gears of French justice can grind very slowly.
 
One problem with stopping shadow fleet vessels in European waters is that Russia can start escorting them. PITA for Russia, but I doubt that France would risk such a confrontation. Much better to grab them in the IO. Of course that would be difficult for France to pull off for the same reasons Russia couldn't escort the shadow fleet that far.

Does Russia have the assets to do that?

Theydo not. More importantly they do not have the support structure for blue water operations far from Russian ports. Power projection was never the Russian Navy's thing.
 
France would be in a slightly better position to operate in the IO, but not much better. They probably could do it for a month. In reality NATO nations have relied upon having US assets available to provide beans, fuel and air support. France has their own air, but how long it could remain in the IO would undoubtedly be limited by the escort's endurance.

[Goose]

It is interesting that the shadow fleet tanker that was boarded by France, and the captain arrested, may be tied to the drones in Denmark.  No strong evidence mentioned yet, but a ship offshore (it was 50 miles from Copenhagen) is a plausible source.

That's right up there with destroying undersea cables.

The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter if the tanker was actually involved.The tanker is impounded until the charges are litigated. The gears of French justice can grind very slowly.
 
One problem with stopping shadow fleet vessels in European waters is that Russia can start escorting them. PITA for Russia, but I doubt that France would risk such a confrontation. Much better to grab them in the IO. Of course that would be difficult for France to pull off for the same reasons Russia couldn't escort the shadow fleet that far.

Does Russia have the assets to do that?

Theydo not. More importantly they do not have the support structure for blue water operations far from Russian ports. Power projection was never the Russian Navy's thing.
 
France would be in a slightly better position to operate in the IO, but not much better. They probably could do it for a month. In reality NATO nations have relied upon having US assets available to provide beans, fuel and air support. France has their own air, but how long it could remain in the IO would undoubtedly be limited by the escort's endurance.

[Goose]

https://united24media.com/latest-news/uk...ssia-12373

I have been wondering what the Ukrainian F-16s had been doing, as I imagine have others. It appears they have been doing a workmanlike job defending against air-breathing attacks on Ukraine. Given their very limited numbers this is probably all one can expect, but it is good to know it is actually ongoing. It also appears Ukraine is managing to operate the F-16s from dispersed airfields. The F-16s ventral air intake has always been assumed to preclude such operations due to its vulnerability to FOD. Ukraine has made it work, and also is apparently successfully maintaining the jets in austere conditions. What could have been!

[Goose]

https://united24media.com/latest-news/uk...ssia-12373

I have been wondering what the Ukrainian F-16s had been doing, as I imagine have others. It appears they have been doing a workmanlike job defending against air-breathing attacks on Ukraine. Given their very limited numbers this is probably all one can expect, but it is good to know it is actually ongoing. It also appears Ukraine is managing to operate the F-16s from dispersed airfields. The F-16s ventral air intake has always been assumed to preclude such operations due to its vulnerability to FOD. Ukraine has made it work, and also is apparently successfully maintaining the jets in austere conditions. What could have been!

[dabigv13]

Neat video of Ukraine using a "Vampire" SAM system which uses very cheap laser guided APKWS rockets to take out a Russian cruise missile. These had previously only been seen targeting much slower/cheaper Shahed type drones. If they can also successfully target cruise missiles this will be a very important development- a ~$20k rocket taking out ~$500k cruise missile. Should help Ukraine conserve their more expensive interceptor missiles.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1976687565060309018

[dabigv13]

Neat video of Ukraine using a "Vampire" SAM system which uses very cheap laser guided APKWS rockets to take out a Russian cruise missile. These had previously only been seen targeting much slower/cheaper Shahed type drones. If they can also successfully target cruise missiles this will be a very important development- a ~$20k rocket taking out ~$500k cruise missile. Should help Ukraine conserve their more expensive interceptor missiles.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1976687565060309018

[Goose]

Neat video of Ukraine using a "Vampire" SAM system which uses very cheap laser guided APKWS rockets to take out a Russian cruise missile. These had previously only been seen targeting much slower/cheaper Shahed type drones. If they can also successfully target cruise missiles this will be a very important development- a ~$20k rocket taking out ~$500k cruise missile. Should help Ukraine conserve their more expensive interceptor missiles.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1976687565060309018

Yes, this has been going on for quite a while now. https://www.twz.com/air/f-16s-have-been-...0Red%20Sea. The use of the APKWS with the F-16 allows the F-16 to carry many more missiles than it can AIM-9X or AMRAAMs. The cost advantage is also obviously a bonus. It must be noted however that the APKWS is not a "fire and forget" weapon. The pilot (or ground operator) has to keep the laser designator on the target. In most cases the high speed and relatively short range (12 km at between 700 ms/s and 1 km/sec) of the APKWS missile itself make the time of flight short enough that is not a big challenge. It should be noted that the aircraft velocity in the direction of the target adds to the speed of the missile, allowing the missile to close even faster (although not significantly increasing the range).
 
The APKWS can in theory intercept anything the laser is illuminating. The problem is (or at least was) that the missile has no ability to  "pull lead" on the target. It is always going to follow the shortest path target at any given moment, leading to an curved intercept trajectory. With targets that are much slower than the APKWS the slightly curved trajectory is no problem. The "extra" path length is a very small fraction of the APKWS missile range and can be ignored. As the target gets faster, the problem becomes greater. Typically cruise missiles are much faster than Shahed-136 drones. This produced the concern that the APKWS would not be effective against "normal" cruise missiles. It is undoubtedly true that in some cases the geometry allows an intercept and in other cases it does not. Being directly behind the target of course results in a straight path to the target no matter what its speed is. F-16s can make that happen. SAMs are stuck with whatever geometry nature gives them.
 
I also would not be surprised to hear the Ukrainian SAM operators are firing the missile dumb and relying on its ballistic trajectory to fairly closely approach the cruise missile at a given predicted point in space. The missile will therefore not "see" the designator until it is real close to the target and the curved path will be too short to matter. The operator has to calculate the appropriate "Kentucky windage", but they probably have an app for that :-).

[Goose]

Neat video of Ukraine using a "Vampire" SAM system which uses very cheap laser guided APKWS rockets to take out a Russian cruise missile. These had previously only been seen targeting much slower/cheaper Shahed type drones. If they can also successfully target cruise missiles this will be a very important development- a ~$20k rocket taking out ~$500k cruise missile. Should help Ukraine conserve their more expensive interceptor missiles.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1976687565060309018

Yes, this has been going on for quite a while now. https://www.twz.com/air/f-16s-have-been-...0Red%20Sea. The use of the APKWS with the F-16 allows the F-16 to carry many more missiles than it can AIM-9X or AMRAAMs. The cost advantage is also obviously a bonus. It must be noted however that the APKWS is not a "fire and forget" weapon. The pilot (or ground operator) has to keep the laser designator on the target. In most cases the high speed and relatively short range (12 km at between 700 ms/s and 1 km/sec) of the APKWS missile itself make the time of flight short enough that is not a big challenge. It should be noted that the aircraft velocity in the direction of the target adds to the speed of the missile, allowing the missile to close even faster (although not significantly increasing the range).
 
The APKWS can in theory intercept anything the laser is illuminating. The problem is (or at least was) that the missile has no ability to  "pull lead" on the target. It is always going to follow the shortest path target at any given moment, leading to an curved intercept trajectory. With targets that are much slower than the APKWS the slightly curved trajectory is no problem. The "extra" path length is a very small fraction of the APKWS missile range and can be ignored. As the target gets faster, the problem becomes greater. Typically cruise missiles are much faster than Shahed-136 drones. This produced the concern that the APKWS would not be effective against "normal" cruise missiles. It is undoubtedly true that in some cases the geometry allows an intercept and in other cases it does not. Being directly behind the target of course results in a straight path to the target no matter what its speed is. F-16s can make that happen. SAMs are stuck with whatever geometry nature gives them.
 
I also would not be surprised to hear the Ukrainian SAM operators are firing the missile dumb and relying on its ballistic trajectory to fairly closely approach the cruise missile at a given predicted point in space. The missile will therefore not "see" the designator until it is real close to the target and the curved path will be too short to matter. The operator has to calculate the appropriate "Kentucky windage", but they probably have an app for that :-).

[GK3]

Neat video of Ukraine using a "Vampire" SAM system which uses very cheap laser guided APKWS rockets to take out a Russian cruise missile. These had previously only been seen targeting much slower/cheaper Shahed type drones. If they can also successfully target cruise missiles this will be a very important development- a ~$20k rocket taking out ~$500k cruise missile. Should help Ukraine conserve their more expensive interceptor missiles.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1976687565060309018

Yes, this has been going on for quite a while now. https://www.twz.com/air/f-16s-have-been-...0Red%20Sea. The use of the APKWS with the F-16 allows the F-16 to carry many more missiles than it can AIM-9X or AMRAAMs. The cost advantage is also obviously a bonus. It must be noted however that the APKWS is not a "fire and forget" weapon. The pilot (or ground operator) has to keep the laser designator on the target. In most cases the high speed and relatively short range (12 km at between 700 ms/s and 1 km/sec) of the APKWS missile itself make the time of flight short enough that is not a big challenge. It should be noted that the aircraft velocity in the direction of the target adds to the speed of the missile, allowing the missile to close even faster (although not significantly increasing the range).
 
The APKWS can in theory intercept anything the laser is illuminating. The problem is (or at least was) that the missile has no ability to  "pull lead" on the target. It is always going to follow the shortest path target at any given moment, leading to an curved intercept trajectory. With targets that are much slower than the APKWS the slightly curved trajectory is no problem. The "extra" path length is a very small fraction of the APKWS missile range and can be ignored. As the target gets faster, the problem becomes greater. Typically cruise missiles are much faster than Shahed-136 drones. This produced the concern that the APKWS would not be effective against "normal" cruise missiles. It is undoubtedly true that in some cases the geometry allows an intercept and in other cases it does not. Being directly behind the target of course results in a straight path to the target no matter what its speed is. F-16s can make that happen. SAMs are stuck with whatever geometry nature gives them.
 
I also would not be surprised to hear the Ukrainian SAM operators are firing the missile dumb and relying on its ballistic trajectory to fairly closely approach the cruise missile at a given predicted point in space. The missile will therefore not "see" the designator until it is real close to the target and the curved path will be too short to matter. The operator has to calculate the appropriate "Kentucky windage", but they probably have an app for that :-).

Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down?  I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.

[GK3]

Neat video of Ukraine using a "Vampire" SAM system which uses very cheap laser guided APKWS rockets to take out a Russian cruise missile. These had previously only been seen targeting much slower/cheaper Shahed type drones. If they can also successfully target cruise missiles this will be a very important development- a ~$20k rocket taking out ~$500k cruise missile. Should help Ukraine conserve their more expensive interceptor missiles.

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1976687565060309018

Yes, this has been going on for quite a while now. https://www.twz.com/air/f-16s-have-been-...0Red%20Sea. The use of the APKWS with the F-16 allows the F-16 to carry many more missiles than it can AIM-9X or AMRAAMs. The cost advantage is also obviously a bonus. It must be noted however that the APKWS is not a "fire and forget" weapon. The pilot (or ground operator) has to keep the laser designator on the target. In most cases the high speed and relatively short range (12 km at between 700 ms/s and 1 km/sec) of the APKWS missile itself make the time of flight short enough that is not a big challenge. It should be noted that the aircraft velocity in the direction of the target adds to the speed of the missile, allowing the missile to close even faster (although not significantly increasing the range).
 
The APKWS can in theory intercept anything the laser is illuminating. The problem is (or at least was) that the missile has no ability to  "pull lead" on the target. It is always going to follow the shortest path target at any given moment, leading to an curved intercept trajectory. With targets that are much slower than the APKWS the slightly curved trajectory is no problem. The "extra" path length is a very small fraction of the APKWS missile range and can be ignored. As the target gets faster, the problem becomes greater. Typically cruise missiles are much faster than Shahed-136 drones. This produced the concern that the APKWS would not be effective against "normal" cruise missiles. It is undoubtedly true that in some cases the geometry allows an intercept and in other cases it does not. Being directly behind the target of course results in a straight path to the target no matter what its speed is. F-16s can make that happen. SAMs are stuck with whatever geometry nature gives them.
 
I also would not be surprised to hear the Ukrainian SAM operators are firing the missile dumb and relying on its ballistic trajectory to fairly closely approach the cruise missile at a given predicted point in space. The missile will therefore not "see" the designator until it is real close to the target and the curved path will be too short to matter. The operator has to calculate the appropriate "Kentucky windage", but they probably have an app for that :-).

Do you think the President's threat to give Ukraine tomohawk missles is a real threat, or just one trying to get the Russians to back down?  I think that if the Ukraine got their hands a good number of those missles, Russia would have its hands full and the risk of further escalation would rise. While I am all in on giving the Russians as much pain as possible, Tomohawks might be over doing it.