[M T]

I would agree with Goose's discussion.  Yes, it would be great to put air defense over Ukraine and take out all the drones headed far into Ukraine.  But what if Russia manages to shoot down one of NATO's jets?  How does NATO respond?   Would it also mean that Russia would start sending drones with warheads into Poland or other NATO countries, or to do more sabotage?

I do agree that Russia is already attacking the West in many ways.  But that can be increased, and it will, whenever Russia wants to.  

I can see an EU argument that protecting the skies of Ukraine (far from the front line) would be minimal risk with a big benefit for Ukraine.  But Russia has already claimed the position that such action would lead to Russia considering they are at war with the countries supplying that defense.  The West has been trying to squeeze Russia without giving it any stronger propaganda position to get the populace into the mindset of a tougher economy to protect the motherland.

OTOH, the tariffs are so slow in action that it encourages India (& Africa?) to move into camp with Russia & China.  That's perhaps even more problematic.

How about the US selling oil cheaply to India?  I have no idea if we can do that.  Or helping the Middle East to sell it cheaply to India.

[M T]

I would agree with Goose's discussion.  Yes, it would be great to put air defense over Ukraine and take out all the drones headed far into Ukraine.  But what if Russia manages to shoot down one of NATO's jets?  How does NATO respond?   Would it also mean that Russia would start sending drones with warheads into Poland or other NATO countries, or to do more sabotage?

I do agree that Russia is already attacking the West in many ways.  But that can be increased, and it will, whenever Russia wants to.  

I can see an EU argument that protecting the skies of Ukraine (far from the front line) would be minimal risk with a big benefit for Ukraine.  But Russia has already claimed the position that such action would lead to Russia considering they are at war with the countries supplying that defense.  The West has been trying to squeeze Russia without giving it any stronger propaganda position to get the populace into the mindset of a tougher economy to protect the motherland.

OTOH, the tariffs are so slow in action that it encourages India (& Africa?) to move into camp with Russia & China.  That's perhaps even more problematic.

How about the US selling oil cheaply to India?  I have no idea if we can do that.  Or helping the Middle East to sell it cheaply to India.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

[dabigv13]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

[GK3]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

From all I have read, the consensus is that this was a Russian effort to see what happens if we do this thing. Now they and Belaruss are conducting major war games and Poland is moving some 40,000 troops to the border. The Poles do not like the Russians.
I also saw an article that major Russian steel making firm is on the verge of going broke, their ability to provide the necessary steel for military weapons appears questionable. Hard to build a lot of military gear if your steel plants don't work.
Putin has some obvious problems.  He now has to pay recruits a lot of money so they can go to the Ukraine and die.  How long are the Russian youth willing to choose that option?
For what little its worth, I think Putin is running out of options, which is dangerous in itself.  If you reach the point where you can't pay enough to recruits to be willing to go to Ukraine and risk death, and you are no longer getting the income from oil and gas you once were, what is left to you? The question that hasn't been answered is what will Russia do if it runs out of economic options.

[GK3]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

From all I have read, the consensus is that this was a Russian effort to see what happens if we do this thing. Now they and Belaruss are conducting major war games and Poland is moving some 40,000 troops to the border. The Poles do not like the Russians.
I also saw an article that major Russian steel making firm is on the verge of going broke, their ability to provide the necessary steel for military weapons appears questionable. Hard to build a lot of military gear if your steel plants don't work.
Putin has some obvious problems.  He now has to pay recruits a lot of money so they can go to the Ukraine and die.  How long are the Russian youth willing to choose that option?
For what little its worth, I think Putin is running out of options, which is dangerous in itself.  If you reach the point where you can't pay enough to recruits to be willing to go to Ukraine and risk death, and you are no longer getting the income from oil and gas you once were, what is left to you? The question that hasn't been answered is what will Russia do if it runs out of economic options.

[Mick]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

From all I have read, the consensus is that this was a Russian effort to see what happens if we do this thing. Now they and Belaruss are conducting major war games and Poland is moving some 40,000 troops to the border. The Poles do not like the Russians.
I also saw an article that major Russian steel making firm is on the verge of going broke, their ability to provide the necessary steel for military weapons appears questionable. Hard to build a lot of military gear if your steel plants don't work.
Putin has some obvious problems.  He now has to pay recruits a lot of money so they can go to the Ukraine and die.  How long are the Russian youth willing to choose that option?
For what little its worth, I think Putin is running out of options, which is dangerous in itself.  If you reach the point where you can't pay enough to recruits to be willing to go to Ukraine and risk death, and you are no longer getting the income from oil and gas you once were, what is left to you? The question that hasn't been answered is what will Russia do if it runs out of economic options.

I've been concerned about this for some time. Backing a nuclear power, led by a frightened aging pseudo-Socialist, into a corner with decreasing options is not a recipe for success.

Given Russia's existing resources and shrinking population, they could reap immense rewards if they re-integrated into the modern world. But given Russia's leadership, that's the rough equivalent of changing the gravitational constant of the universe, so to speak.

So what are we going to do about it? Send 200 drones "inadvertently" into Russian air space? Congregate 100 top Russian political leaders and oligarchs with 100 western leaders with firm commitments from 1/3rd of the Global 2000 companies to invest in Russia (and Ukraine) once they lay down arms? Or just wait for ICBMs to fly?

[Mick]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

From all I have read, the consensus is that this was a Russian effort to see what happens if we do this thing. Now they and Belaruss are conducting major war games and Poland is moving some 40,000 troops to the border. The Poles do not like the Russians.
I also saw an article that major Russian steel making firm is on the verge of going broke, their ability to provide the necessary steel for military weapons appears questionable. Hard to build a lot of military gear if your steel plants don't work.
Putin has some obvious problems.  He now has to pay recruits a lot of money so they can go to the Ukraine and die.  How long are the Russian youth willing to choose that option?
For what little its worth, I think Putin is running out of options, which is dangerous in itself.  If you reach the point where you can't pay enough to recruits to be willing to go to Ukraine and risk death, and you are no longer getting the income from oil and gas you once were, what is left to you? The question that hasn't been answered is what will Russia do if it runs out of economic options.

I've been concerned about this for some time. Backing a nuclear power, led by a frightened aging pseudo-Socialist, into a corner with decreasing options is not a recipe for success.

Given Russia's existing resources and shrinking population, they could reap immense rewards if they re-integrated into the modern world. But given Russia's leadership, that's the rough equivalent of changing the gravitational constant of the universe, so to speak.

So what are we going to do about it? Send 200 drones "inadvertently" into Russian air space? Congregate 100 top Russian political leaders and oligarchs with 100 western leaders with firm commitments from 1/3rd of the Global 2000 companies to invest in Russia (and Ukraine) once they lay down arms? Or just wait for ICBMs to fly?

[TrumpCard]

Can any American business succeed in Russia as long as the FCPA remains in place?  How can businesses mitigate the risk of operating in kleptocracy where the rule of law is non-existent?  Would businesses send their people to a country where the government kidnaps foreigners for ransom?  I have many more rhetorical questions about the prospects of businesses choosing to invest and/or set up operations in Russia.

[TrumpCard]

Can any American business succeed in Russia as long as the FCPA remains in place?  How can businesses mitigate the risk of operating in kleptocracy where the rule of law is non-existent?  Would businesses send their people to a country where the government kidnaps foreigners for ransom?  I have many more rhetorical questions about the prospects of businesses choosing to invest and/or set up operations in Russia.

[GK3]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

From all I have read, the consensus is that this was a Russian effort to see what happens if we do this thing. Now they and Belaruss are conducting major war games and Poland is moving some 40,000 troops to the border. The Poles do not like the Russians.
I also saw an article that major Russian steel making firm is on the verge of going broke, their ability to provide the necessary steel for military weapons appears questionable. Hard to build a lot of military gear if your steel plants don't work.
Putin has some obvious problems.  He now has to pay recruits a lot of money so they can go to the Ukraine and die.  How long are the Russian youth willing to choose that option?
For what little its worth, I think Putin is running out of options, which is dangerous in itself.  If you reach the point where you can't pay enough to recruits to be willing to go to Ukraine and risk death, and you are no longer getting the income from oil and gas you once were, what is left to you? The question that hasn't been answered is what will Russia do if it runs out of economic options.

I've been concerned about this for some time. Backing a nuclear power, led by a frightened aging pseudo-Socialist, into a corner with decreasing options is not a recipe for success.

Given Russia's existing resources and shrinking population, they could reap immense rewards if they re-integrated into the modern world. But given Russia's leadership, that's the rough equivalent of changing the gravitational constant of the universe, so to speak.

So what are we going to do about it? Send 200 drones "inadvertently" into Russian air space? Congregate 100 top Russian political leaders and oligarchs with 100 western leaders with firm commitments from 1/3rd of the Global 2000 companies to invest in Russia (and Ukraine) once they lay down arms? Or just wait for ICBMs to fly?

Your points are well taken.  Unfortunately I think Putin has already backed himself into a corner he can't get out of unless he defeats Ukraine, and that seems unlikely at this point.  I do not think an Afgahanstan revisted withdrawl would work for him at this point. He has the tiger by the tail and no way can he let go. So he is in it for the long haul, which may not be so long.
Economic reports show that the Russian steel industry is under extreme duress financially and production is declining.  Hard to fight a modern war without steel. 
At this point I don't think the question is so much about what we do about it, but what the Oligarchs do about it. One item I read said that 500 Oligarchs control 99 percent of Russias wealth. This would seem to me to mean that they can put a lot of pressure on Putin.  Who could in answer to your question, launch a nuclear weapon at Ukraine as he dives out the window. Other question is whether the Russian Military would actually do it. There would be nothing in it for them to do so. 
I see no sensible reason for Putin to attack NATO, meaning mostly Poland and the Baltics.  The Poles might like the chance to show they can kick some Russian ***. The Poles have not forgotten the Katyn Forest Massacre. 
Lets hope the end solution is sensible and avoids all this semi disasterous endings.

[GK3]

https://x.com/MassDara/status/1965813427055816794

This thread has a map of all the drone flight paths the night of the incursions into Poland that I referred to in my earlier post.

From all I have read, the consensus is that this was a Russian effort to see what happens if we do this thing. Now they and Belaruss are conducting major war games and Poland is moving some 40,000 troops to the border. The Poles do not like the Russians.
I also saw an article that major Russian steel making firm is on the verge of going broke, their ability to provide the necessary steel for military weapons appears questionable. Hard to build a lot of military gear if your steel plants don't work.
Putin has some obvious problems.  He now has to pay recruits a lot of money so they can go to the Ukraine and die.  How long are the Russian youth willing to choose that option?
For what little its worth, I think Putin is running out of options, which is dangerous in itself.  If you reach the point where you can't pay enough to recruits to be willing to go to Ukraine and risk death, and you are no longer getting the income from oil and gas you once were, what is left to you? The question that hasn't been answered is what will Russia do if it runs out of economic options.

I've been concerned about this for some time. Backing a nuclear power, led by a frightened aging pseudo-Socialist, into a corner with decreasing options is not a recipe for success.

Given Russia's existing resources and shrinking population, they could reap immense rewards if they re-integrated into the modern world. But given Russia's leadership, that's the rough equivalent of changing the gravitational constant of the universe, so to speak.

So what are we going to do about it? Send 200 drones "inadvertently" into Russian air space? Congregate 100 top Russian political leaders and oligarchs with 100 western leaders with firm commitments from 1/3rd of the Global 2000 companies to invest in Russia (and Ukraine) once they lay down arms? Or just wait for ICBMs to fly?

Your points are well taken.  Unfortunately I think Putin has already backed himself into a corner he can't get out of unless he defeats Ukraine, and that seems unlikely at this point.  I do not think an Afgahanstan revisted withdrawl would work for him at this point. He has the tiger by the tail and no way can he let go. So he is in it for the long haul, which may not be so long.
Economic reports show that the Russian steel industry is under extreme duress financially and production is declining.  Hard to fight a modern war without steel. 
At this point I don't think the question is so much about what we do about it, but what the Oligarchs do about it. One item I read said that 500 Oligarchs control 99 percent of Russias wealth. This would seem to me to mean that they can put a lot of pressure on Putin.  Who could in answer to your question, launch a nuclear weapon at Ukraine as he dives out the window. Other question is whether the Russian Military would actually do it. There would be nothing in it for them to do so. 
I see no sensible reason for Putin to attack NATO, meaning mostly Poland and the Baltics.  The Poles might like the chance to show they can kick some Russian ***. The Poles have not forgotten the Katyn Forest Massacre. 
Lets hope the end solution is sensible and avoids all this semi disasterous endings.

[BostonCard]

The imminent demise of Vladimir Putin has been reported for ages.  Likewise the imminent collapse of the Russian economy has been reported since the beginning of the war.  One of these days one or both may prove to be correct, but I think at this point both have proved resilient enough that the default assumption ought not to be that they are collapsing imminently.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  I would not have bet on Bashar al-Assad’s fall and Syria’s collapse when it happened either.  Hopefully some day Putin will meet the same fate (and for Ukraine’s sake, sooner rather than later).  But for now, I see him trudging along.

BC

[BostonCard]

The imminent demise of Vladimir Putin has been reported for ages.  Likewise the imminent collapse of the Russian economy has been reported since the beginning of the war.  One of these days one or both may prove to be correct, but I think at this point both have proved resilient enough that the default assumption ought not to be that they are collapsing imminently.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  I would not have bet on Bashar al-Assad’s fall and Syria’s collapse when it happened either.  Hopefully some day Putin will meet the same fate (and for Ukraine’s sake, sooner rather than later).  But for now, I see him trudging along.

BC

[GK3]

The imminent demise of Vladimir Putin has been reported for ages.  Likewise the imminent collapse of the Russian economy has been reported since the beginning of the war.  One of these days one or both may prove to be correct, but I think at this point both have proved resilient enough that the default assumption ought not to be that they are collapsing imminently.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  I would not have bet on Bashar al-Assad’s fall and Syria’s collapse when it happened either.  Hopefully some day Putin will meet the same fate (and for Ukraine’s sake, sooner rather than later).  But for now, I see him trudging along.

BC

Your points are well taken, I do not think that there is an imminent chance of the Russian government collapsing.  As you say Putin will trudge along until he can't.  When does can't come into play?  When he either dies of natural causes or other causes or the Oligarchs get tired ofr watching their Russian assets decline in value.  I do believe that at some point the Oligarchs will make the hard decision and change things.  And do so before things really get out of hand.

[GK3]

The imminent demise of Vladimir Putin has been reported for ages.  Likewise the imminent collapse of the Russian economy has been reported since the beginning of the war.  One of these days one or both may prove to be correct, but I think at this point both have proved resilient enough that the default assumption ought not to be that they are collapsing imminently.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  I would not have bet on Bashar al-Assad’s fall and Syria’s collapse when it happened either.  Hopefully some day Putin will meet the same fate (and for Ukraine’s sake, sooner rather than later).  But for now, I see him trudging along.

BC

Your points are well taken, I do not think that there is an imminent chance of the Russian government collapsing.  As you say Putin will trudge along until he can't.  When does can't come into play?  When he either dies of natural causes or other causes or the Oligarchs get tired ofr watching their Russian assets decline in value.  I do believe that at some point the Oligarchs will make the hard decision and change things.  And do so before things really get out of hand.

[Mick]

The imminent demise of Vladimir Putin has been reported for ages.  Likewise the imminent collapse of the Russian economy has been reported since the beginning of the war.  One of these days one or both may prove to be correct, but I think at this point both have proved resilient enough that the default assumption ought not to be that they are collapsing imminently.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  I would not have bet on Bashar al-Assad’s fall and Syria’s collapse when it happened either.  Hopefully some day Putin will meet the same fate (and for Ukraine’s sake, sooner rather than later).  But for now, I see him trudging along.

BC

I wonder whether whoever follows Putin will be worse...

[Mick]

The imminent demise of Vladimir Putin has been reported for ages.  Likewise the imminent collapse of the Russian economy has been reported since the beginning of the war.  One of these days one or both may prove to be correct, but I think at this point both have proved resilient enough that the default assumption ought not to be that they are collapsing imminently.

That doesn’t mean it can’t happen.  I would not have bet on Bashar al-Assad’s fall and Syria’s collapse when it happened either.  Hopefully some day Putin will meet the same fate (and for Ukraine’s sake, sooner rather than later).  But for now, I see him trudging along.

BC

I wonder whether whoever follows Putin will be worse...

[M T]

I wonder whether whoever follows Putin will be worse...

Considering that Russia has little diversity in the political arena (but perhaps that is just in my mind due to Western news), it seems like any replacement would come from either the military or from someone backed by the oligarchs.

In either case, the person or party would have to win/force the support of the other half (military or oligarchs).  That might be a mediating effect.

The oligarchs are probably unhappy with the West for taking their assets but they might be realistic enough to know that working with the West is better than fighting against it.  OTOH, they have the Chinese market to consider as well.

Anyone from the military is going to know that their standing army is only barely standing.  It would take an utterly insane person to use nuclear weapons, especially with the Ukraine war showing that Russian weapon systems have generally not lived up to their claims.   They may be hard line, but I don't think they can be hard line in the near term.

I imagine there are those that long for the days of the USSR and control of the now-separated countries.  They might be a problem, going in the same direction as Putin.

One area that Russia could continue to expand is in cyberwarfare.  I don't know how close the Russian-China-West sides are to mutually assured destruction in the cyber arena, but an all-out war between any two would likely be devastating to the economies. 

Is there anyone that Putin has groomed to be his successor?

[M T]

I wonder whether whoever follows Putin will be worse...

Considering that Russia has little diversity in the political arena (but perhaps that is just in my mind due to Western news), it seems like any replacement would come from either the military or from someone backed by the oligarchs.

In either case, the person or party would have to win/force the support of the other half (military or oligarchs).  That might be a mediating effect.

The oligarchs are probably unhappy with the West for taking their assets but they might be realistic enough to know that working with the West is better than fighting against it.  OTOH, they have the Chinese market to consider as well.

Anyone from the military is going to know that their standing army is only barely standing.  It would take an utterly insane person to use nuclear weapons, especially with the Ukraine war showing that Russian weapon systems have generally not lived up to their claims.   They may be hard line, but I don't think they can be hard line in the near term.

I imagine there are those that long for the days of the USSR and control of the now-separated countries.  They might be a problem, going in the same direction as Putin.

One area that Russia could continue to expand is in cyberwarfare.  I don't know how close the Russian-China-West sides are to mutually assured destruction in the cyber arena, but an all-out war between any two would likely be devastating to the economies. 

Is there anyone that Putin has groomed to be his successor?

[BostonCard]

Interesting article…

If/when the war ends, demobilizing the Russian army could be a major problem.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/her...dium=email

The last time this happened (a lot of Afghan war veterans) they came back to a country that was falling apart and many turned to organized crime.

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting article…

If/when the war ends, demobilizing the Russian army could be a major problem.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/her...dium=email

The last time this happened (a lot of Afghan war veterans) they came back to a country that was falling apart and many turned to organized crime.

BC

[dabigv13]

I think it's impossible to really predict what comes after Putin. As we saw in Syria, a regime can appear stable right up to the point it all collapses. Same with Nepal just this past week, a revolt which apparently entirely sprung out of disaffected youths on online chat forums.

[dabigv13]

I think it's impossible to really predict what comes after Putin. As we saw in Syria, a regime can appear stable right up to the point it all collapses. Same with Nepal just this past week, a revolt which apparently entirely sprung out of disaffected youths on online chat forums.

[BostonCard]

Ditto Bangladesh last July, and even Ukraine itself back in 2014.  On the other hand, you might have hoped that Belarus was going through something similar in 2020/21, and it petered out.  Likewise, there was a lot of hope that protests against the Maduro regime in Venezuela in 2024 would lead to regime change, but alas…

Political scientists have put a lot of thought into trying to predict where revolutions succeed and where they fail.  There are some broad rules of thumb, but it is hard to predict with certainty.  And, as pointed out, often times it looks like things are not going well and the regime reaches a tipping point where it collapses very quickly.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ditto Bangladesh last July, and even Ukraine itself back in 2014.  On the other hand, you might have hoped that Belarus was going through something similar in 2020/21, and it petered out.  Likewise, there was a lot of hope that protests against the Maduro regime in Venezuela in 2024 would lead to regime change, but alas…

Political scientists have put a lot of thought into trying to predict where revolutions succeed and where they fail.  There are some broad rules of thumb, but it is hard to predict with certainty.  And, as pointed out, often times it looks like things are not going well and the regime reaches a tipping point where it collapses very quickly.

BC

[fullmetal]

How much do you want to bet that the pro-Western movement in Belarus caved in because Russian resources were funneled into propping up Lukashenko?  Russia wants that ring of buffer states again, and Ukraine was supposed to have gone the way of Belarus...except it didn't.

[fullmetal]

How much do you want to bet that the pro-Western movement in Belarus caved in because Russian resources were funneled into propping up Lukashenko?  Russia wants that ring of buffer states again, and Ukraine was supposed to have gone the way of Belarus...except it didn't.

[BostonCard]

How much do you want to bet that the pro-Western movement in Belarus caved in because Russian resources were funneled into propping up Lukashenko?  Russia wants that ring of buffer states again, and Ukraine was supposed to have gone the way of Belarus...except it didn't.

Absolutely, and in Syria, the regime collapsed when Hezbollah fighters were occupied fighting Israel and Iran and Russia didn’t prop up the Assad regime.

BC

[BostonCard]

How much do you want to bet that the pro-Western movement in Belarus caved in because Russian resources were funneled into propping up Lukashenko?  Russia wants that ring of buffer states again, and Ukraine was supposed to have gone the way of Belarus...except it didn't.

Absolutely, and in Syria, the regime collapsed when Hezbollah fighters were occupied fighting Israel and Iran and Russia didn’t prop up the Assad regime.

BC

[M T]

I doubt any of us are surprised by Russia testing NATO's defense and resolve.  First, drones; now, fighters (3 in Estonia for 12 minutes and 2 violating a safety zone in Poland).  The question is, whether Russia wants NATO to shoot down a jet, with Russia desiring that to bolster support by the people.   I suspect so.

And, today, there's a report of a Kenyan athlete, who was a tourist in Russia.  When he was offered a "job" in Russia to extend his stay, he agreed and was forced to sign papers written in Russian.  He was immediately taken to a military training camp for a week.  The training was how to use an assault rifle.

Apparently the 3 Russian Mig-31 (top speed Mach 2.8) spent 12 minutes in the air space of an Estonian island. My question would be what they were doing, flying in circles, waiting for NATO's reaction.

[M T]

I doubt any of us are surprised by Russia testing NATO's defense and resolve.  First, drones; now, fighters (3 in Estonia for 12 minutes and 2 violating a safety zone in Poland).  The question is, whether Russia wants NATO to shoot down a jet, with Russia desiring that to bolster support by the people.   I suspect so.

And, today, there's a report of a Kenyan athlete, who was a tourist in Russia.  When he was offered a "job" in Russia to extend his stay, he agreed and was forced to sign papers written in Russian.  He was immediately taken to a military training camp for a week.  The training was how to use an assault rifle.

Apparently the 3 Russian Mig-31 (top speed Mach 2.8) spent 12 minutes in the air space of an Estonian island. My question would be what they were doing, flying in circles, waiting for NATO's reaction.

[dabigv13]

We should shoot their jets down. That's what Turkey did after a Russian bomber was in their air space for 20 seconds in 2015. Guess what, Russia hasn't done it again. No big war. No nukes got launched. Bully got punched in the nose and backed down.

Of course the problem is the US is not really on the same side as Estonia right now, so when I say "we" should shoot down the Russian jets, I'm really speaking more in terms of a fantasy world where the US is in a defensive military alliance with NATO against an agressive and expanionist Russian dictatorship.

[dabigv13]

We should shoot their jets down. That's what Turkey did after a Russian bomber was in their air space for 20 seconds in 2015. Guess what, Russia hasn't done it again. No big war. No nukes got launched. Bully got punched in the nose and backed down.

Of course the problem is the US is not really on the same side as Estonia right now, so when I say "we" should shoot down the Russian jets, I'm really speaking more in terms of a fantasy world where the US is in a defensive military alliance with NATO against an agressive and expanionist Russian dictatorship.

[Goose]

Apparently the 3 Russian Mig-31 (top speed Mach 2.8) spent 12 minutes in the air space of an Estonian island.  My question would be what they were doing, flying in circles, waiting for NATO's reaction.

They were undoubtedly flying in a circular path, probably more like a racetrack. They undoubtedly were operating at their cruising speed, about 500 knots +/-. That allows them to cover about 120 miles. They definitely intended to be seen. It is improbable that they intended to gather any real intelligence data. It wasn't anything like an attack profile. They were just sending their message of "We are here, we are close, and we can make things difficult for you if you keep helping Ukraine."

We should shoot their jets down. That's what Turkey did after a Russian bomber was in their air space for 20 seconds in 2015. Guess what, Russia hasn't done it again. No big war. No nukes got launched. Bully got punched in the nose and backed down.

IMO you should reconsider your thinking here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russi..._shootdown At the time this occurred Türkiye and Russia were involved in an active shooting proxy war in Syria. As the article states, Syrian clients of Russia had previously shot down an RF-4E belonging to Türkiye. At that time Türkiye announced a "zero-tolerance" policy for trespassing inside its airspace. The Russian aircraft was given 10 warnings to change its heading. It did not. Türkiye went above and beyond the minimum requirements before they acted as the had previously warned they would.
 
Russia already had all the war with Türkiye that it wanted. It didn't need any more. Türkiye and Russia both realized that the Russian aircraft had unintentionally and stupidly violated the airspace of Türkiye. Unlike what is going on in Estonia or Poland today, this was not a Russian provocation. It was just horrible airmanship meeting an air defense system that was on hair-trigger alert due to proxy hostilities already in progress and previous shootdown of the RF-4E. Russia kept on doing exactly what it intended to do in Syria. They didn't back down one inch. It was a loss due to operations from their point of view, nothing more. While both sides postured and moved around some hardware as a "statement", it was meaningless.
 
FWIW, pilots who successfully defected from the Soviet Union stated that the reason Russian fighters could not monitor or transmit on the internationally recognized "Guard" frequencies (121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz) is that it made it very hard to defect. You could not tell the air defense sent to intercept you what your intentions were. You could in theory surrender by lowering your wheels, but the air defense may not get close enough to see your lowered wheels before you get shot down. US air defense undoubtedly would get close enough, but you couldn't receive and follow instructions from them. Indeed it made it harder.

Of course the problem is the US is not really on the same side as Estonia right now, so when I say "we" should shoot down the Russian jets, I'm really speaking more in terms of a fantasy world where the US is in a defensive military alliance with NATO against an agressive and expanionist Russian dictatorship.

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. The fact is that both the US and Russia violate each other's airspace occasionally. Sometimes it is accidental, other times it is very intentional. It is also an open secret that US submarines operate deep inside Russian waters at times, e.g. Ivy Bells. Both sides, while deploring the other's behavior, so far realize that it isn't worth a war. The problem with retaliating against these Russian incursions by striking Russia assets is that is an escalation of the conflict. Overflights don't kill anybody or damage any property. Shooting down the violator does. That may draw an even bigger escalation by Russia. The probability of a chain of escalation producing an accidental war is just way too high. It is not in our interest to go there.
 
One might say "Putin will never do that". Of course, the Germans thought that Britain would not go to war over "a scrap of paper" in WW I and they also though Britain and France would not fight to defend Poland in WW II. We don't want to be in this position. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ultimatum.htm. Fighting a war because of a miscalculation of you opponent's resolve is NEVER a good thing.
 
The appropriate IMO response to the Russian overflights is the deployment of a strong air defense detachment into the region by the United States. It needs to be resourced with enough assets that the MIG-31s will have an escort before they reach NATO territory, baring the way. This must happen not just once, but every time Russia pulls this stunt. We can send back the message "Yes, you are here, but if we don't want you to be, you won't be. Our choice, not yours." It works for the US ADIZ.  We should ensure it works for Estonia too. That response is proportional. It would send the message we are serious but not trying to start a war. It also would increase our ability to defend Estonia if we had to do so.

[Goose]

Apparently the 3 Russian Mig-31 (top speed Mach 2.8) spent 12 minutes in the air space of an Estonian island.  My question would be what they were doing, flying in circles, waiting for NATO's reaction.

They were undoubtedly flying in a circular path, probably more like a racetrack. They undoubtedly were operating at their cruising speed, about 500 knots +/-. That allows them to cover about 120 miles. They definitely intended to be seen. It is improbable that they intended to gather any real intelligence data. It wasn't anything like an attack profile. They were just sending their message of "We are here, we are close, and we can make things difficult for you if you keep helping Ukraine."

We should shoot their jets down. That's what Turkey did after a Russian bomber was in their air space for 20 seconds in 2015. Guess what, Russia hasn't done it again. No big war. No nukes got launched. Bully got punched in the nose and backed down.

IMO you should reconsider your thinking here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russi..._shootdown At the time this occurred Türkiye and Russia were involved in an active shooting proxy war in Syria. As the article states, Syrian clients of Russia had previously shot down an RF-4E belonging to Türkiye. At that time Türkiye announced a "zero-tolerance" policy for trespassing inside its airspace. The Russian aircraft was given 10 warnings to change its heading. It did not. Türkiye went above and beyond the minimum requirements before they acted as the had previously warned they would.
 
Russia already had all the war with Türkiye that it wanted. It didn't need any more. Türkiye and Russia both realized that the Russian aircraft had unintentionally and stupidly violated the airspace of Türkiye. Unlike what is going on in Estonia or Poland today, this was not a Russian provocation. It was just horrible airmanship meeting an air defense system that was on hair-trigger alert due to proxy hostilities already in progress and previous shootdown of the RF-4E. Russia kept on doing exactly what it intended to do in Syria. They didn't back down one inch. It was a loss due to operations from their point of view, nothing more. While both sides postured and moved around some hardware as a "statement", it was meaningless.
 
FWIW, pilots who successfully defected from the Soviet Union stated that the reason Russian fighters could not monitor or transmit on the internationally recognized "Guard" frequencies (121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz) is that it made it very hard to defect. You could not tell the air defense sent to intercept you what your intentions were. You could in theory surrender by lowering your wheels, but the air defense may not get close enough to see your lowered wheels before you get shot down. US air defense undoubtedly would get close enough, but you couldn't receive and follow instructions from them. Indeed it made it harder.

Of course the problem is the US is not really on the same side as Estonia right now, so when I say "we" should shoot down the Russian jets, I'm really speaking more in terms of a fantasy world where the US is in a defensive military alliance with NATO against an agressive and expanionist Russian dictatorship.

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. The fact is that both the US and Russia violate each other's airspace occasionally. Sometimes it is accidental, other times it is very intentional. It is also an open secret that US submarines operate deep inside Russian waters at times, e.g. Ivy Bells. Both sides, while deploring the other's behavior, so far realize that it isn't worth a war. The problem with retaliating against these Russian incursions by striking Russia assets is that is an escalation of the conflict. Overflights don't kill anybody or damage any property. Shooting down the violator does. That may draw an even bigger escalation by Russia. The probability of a chain of escalation producing an accidental war is just way too high. It is not in our interest to go there.
 
One might say "Putin will never do that". Of course, the Germans thought that Britain would not go to war over "a scrap of paper" in WW I and they also though Britain and France would not fight to defend Poland in WW II. We don't want to be in this position. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ultimatum.htm. Fighting a war because of a miscalculation of you opponent's resolve is NEVER a good thing.
 
The appropriate IMO response to the Russian overflights is the deployment of a strong air defense detachment into the region by the United States. It needs to be resourced with enough assets that the MIG-31s will have an escort before they reach NATO territory, baring the way. This must happen not just once, but every time Russia pulls this stunt. We can send back the message "Yes, you are here, but if we don't want you to be, you won't be. Our choice, not yours." It works for the US ADIZ.  We should ensure it works for Estonia too. That response is proportional. It would send the message we are serious but not trying to start a war. It also would increase our ability to defend Estonia if we had to do so.

[Mick]

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. The fact is that both the US and Russia violate each other's airspace occasionally. Sometimes it is accidental, other times it is very intentional. It is also an open secret that US submarines operate deep inside Russian waters at times, e.g. Ivy Bells. Both sides, while deploring the other's behavior, so far realize that it isn't worth a war. The problem with retaliating against these Russian incursions by striking Russia assets is that is an escalation of the conflict. Overflights don't kill anybody or damage any property. Shooting down the violator does. That may draw an even bigger escalation by Russia. The probability of a chain of escalation producing an accidental war is just way too high. It is not in our interest to go there.
 
One might say "Putin will never do that". Of course, the Germans thought that Britain would not go to war over "a scrap of paper" in WW I and they also though Britain and France would not fight to defend Poland in WW II. We don't want to be in this position. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ultimatum.htm. Fighting a war because of a miscalculation of you opponent's resolve is NEVER a good thing.
 
The appropriate IMO response to the Russian overflights is the deployment of a strong air defense detachment into the region by the United States. It needs to be resourced with enough assets that the MIG-31s will have an escort before they reach NATO territory, baring the way. This must happen not just once, but every time Russia pulls this stunt. We can send back the message "Yes, you are here, but if we don't want you to be, you won't be. Our choice, not yours." It works for the US ADIZ.  We should ensure it works for Estonia too. That response is proportional. It would send the message we are serious but not trying to start a war. It also would increase our ability to defend Estonia if we had to do so.

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

[Mick]

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. The fact is that both the US and Russia violate each other's airspace occasionally. Sometimes it is accidental, other times it is very intentional. It is also an open secret that US submarines operate deep inside Russian waters at times, e.g. Ivy Bells. Both sides, while deploring the other's behavior, so far realize that it isn't worth a war. The problem with retaliating against these Russian incursions by striking Russia assets is that is an escalation of the conflict. Overflights don't kill anybody or damage any property. Shooting down the violator does. That may draw an even bigger escalation by Russia. The probability of a chain of escalation producing an accidental war is just way too high. It is not in our interest to go there.
 
One might say "Putin will never do that". Of course, the Germans thought that Britain would not go to war over "a scrap of paper" in WW I and they also though Britain and France would not fight to defend Poland in WW II. We don't want to be in this position. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ultimatum.htm. Fighting a war because of a miscalculation of you opponent's resolve is NEVER a good thing.
 
The appropriate IMO response to the Russian overflights is the deployment of a strong air defense detachment into the region by the United States. It needs to be resourced with enough assets that the MIG-31s will have an escort before they reach NATO territory, baring the way. This must happen not just once, but every time Russia pulls this stunt. We can send back the message "Yes, you are here, but if we don't want you to be, you won't be. Our choice, not yours." It works for the US ADIZ.  We should ensure it works for Estonia too. That response is proportional. It would send the message we are serious but not trying to start a war. It also would increase our ability to defend Estonia if we had to do so.

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

[Goose]

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.

[Goose]

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.