[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.