Russia - General Discussion.

Vivendi said:

This is not correct. Airspace violations do not happen as often as some people seem to think. Some are mixing up aircraft entering ADIZ, with aircraft entering national airspace. For example Russian aircraft with their transponders turned off routinely enter Norwegian ADIZ and are greeted by Norwegian F-35. However it is extremely rare that they enter Norwegian airspace.

I am not aware that Russia and the US routinely violate each other airspace, at least not for the last 10 years or so. If I am wrong please provide links.

Click to expand...

There is lots of these and test there mostly as you said ADIZ it's fairly regular around Alaska Canada, it's also was come in Syria. Yes it's mostly ADIZ as you say but the it has also been more then that truth is the adzid is regarded as about the same. With the same military escort jets flying you out. These things happen on the sea lanes aswell and under it from time to time. To be honest the u.s is probably hands down the world's most prolific breaker of these rules as it basically didn't recognize them or in the cases were it does simply doesn't care. There are fairly safe not to as noone actually wants a war with the u.s by shooting at it's jets unless they believe the u.s is about to bomb them anyways.

Vivendi said:

Regarding the recent Russian provocations: they are clearly escalating their provocations. Sending 20 drones into Poland is a massive escalation. Also have 3 MiG-31 flying in NATO airspace for 12 minutes is a significant escalation compared to previous airspace violations. And yesterday Copenhagen airport and Oslo airport were temporarily closed due to drones. NATO cannot accept these escalations and must take action. Russia must understand they cannot keep on escalating this grayzone warfare (because that's what it is, when you include the increasing number of sabotage against water supplies, underwater cables, bombs on DHL planes, and GPS spoofing) without facing consequences.

Some things NATO can consider:
* stop providing tourist visa to Russians,
* increase support to Ukraine
* enforce sanctions
* inspect and if necessary arrest shadow fleet ships that enter territorial waters and that constitute an environmental risk and/or are not sea worthy
* provide long range missiles to Ukraine, and put no restrictions on their use
* If Russia keeps sending planes into NATO airspace then they should first be given warnings. If they don't immediately heed the warnings and turn back they should be shot down. Enough is enough.

If Russia keeps escalating, NATO should implement a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine and start helping Ukraine shoot down cruise missiles in Western Ukraine. North Korea and China are actively supporting Russia, and NK soldiers are now fighting in Europe, killing Europeans. NATO has since 2014 done "everything" to avoid escalation, and now we see the results. NATO must start to hit back, to send a clear message to Russia. Enough is enough.

Click to expand...

That's alot of response to a non incident it also opens the door to Russia responding to things like u.s and NATO weapons entering there airspace. They have not chosen this option so far why escalate the trio wire for impactful reactions to what is normally regarded as a non-even?
I ask you this seriously what is the goal here?
We're does it lead and what does it gain the west?

It's not going to change the war in Ukraine that would require much different acts from the west.
It does increase the chance of kinetic war with Russia something that rhetoric aside is self evidently not a goal
If we wanted war with Russia we would infact have that war right now. Russia has also proven this line with perceived NATO aggression against Russia has been firmly drawn on there part.
do we expect Russia to simply quietly accept the west and it's alies taking any excuse they can to attack Russia quietly and with out response? Do you have a very very good idea what that will be and what it won't be?
If you don't do you think it's a good idea to go all yolo with a nuclear armed stare that is already in a war a war it by the way sees as defending itself against the very organizations you intend to attack it with? One by the way we have proven we don't want to go-to war with, well the other side may not want to escalate itself and has proven that it has also proven it will fight rather surender without one.

And what is the gain here? We enter a world were air defence systems are set to fire first ask questions later. How is that a improvment over no harm no foul?

And lastly what about ligimet accents emergencys they do happen what does pushing this envelope do there raidar can't tell intent and frankly mistakes can start wars. There is a very good reason why this should be has been and I'm sure will be ignored. The only difference between this and the norm is some people in politics and media wanted to look tough and said some things they know are actually stupid. This by the way is also normal and periodically effective is making all kinds of bad situationions worse

Vivendi said:

NATO statement released today:



NATO - Official text: Statement by the North Atlantic Council on recent airspace violations by Russia, 23-Sep.-2025

As expected NATO is not doing anything that can have even the slightest risk of escalating the situation. However, the ball is now back in Russia's court. I believe Russia will keep escalating, I think the question is: will they keep escalating at the same rate or will they wait a few weeks or even months before escalating again?

Click to expand...

I just want to point out we are financing and supling the war in Ukraine Russia is not directly attack us or even the supply lines. Economic escalations n against Russia is now down to punishing other states.
Yeah we should probably hold off on the final real escalation we have left. That is direct kinetic activity.
If Russia wants to take more or less peaceful actions to remind us that it's unhappy about this there are limits and pushing to far will have consequences. Well thats to be expected.

And NATO is probably right in its assessment that escalation on our part is alot more risky then Russian escalation notably because we're much farther the road of things we can do that aren't going to result in a war. We can't even really respond in kind because of the whole were sending so many arial threats into Russia via Ukraine they might just shoot it down accidently.

Vivendi said:

North Korea and China are actively supporting Russia, and NK soldiers are now fighting in Europe, killing Europeans.

Click to expand...

Some of the largest economies in the world are actively supporting Ukraine; hence, Russia is looking for support elsewher. This is neither strange nor irrational and should have always been in the calculations. To note, neither China nor North Korea provided (significant) capabilities that Russia didn’t already have. Iran contributed what turned out to be a game changer in this war that Russia effectively upgraded to make it their own. Ukraine is still in the fight because of the capabilities they didn’t have, from weapons to intelligence.

NK soldiers fighting in Europe killing Europeans… That is, NK soldiers fought in Russia killing Ukrainians and others fighting on the Ukrainian side. Is that what you are referring to? The thing is that anyone who wants to go fight in Ukraine (or Russia for that matter and some did) is welcome to do so. This is true for both, private citizens as well sovereign states. It appears that North Korea was willing to send their troops to the grinder in Russia, but not Ukraine. It seems thst no state is willing to do so for Ukraine. That’s just the reality. Moreover, they don’t even shoot down drones that “turn back” to Ukraine. In the post I quoted, you say that they should shoot down cruise missiles in Western Ukraine. In a previous post, you said that sending the UAV back was justified because Ukraine is more equipped to intercept it without wasting an expensive missile. This logic is strange to me simply because it is not a given that any UAV gets shot down by Ukraine and that one may have caused more damage than the expensive missile is worth. There is no doubt in my head that it should have been brought down. But anyway…

Redshift said:

I never actually said that they should be shot down, I just objected to the idea that doing something, almost anything (up to and including shooting down) , involving "enemy" warplanes over one's own territory could be described as "poking the bear".

Russian activity is the poke not the response to that activity.

Click to expand...

I didn’t say you said that. I asked what you thought was a more aggressive or hostile move in the described scenarios (that happened).

Sometimes, hostility does not involve any violations at all.

I am not sure why people use this term “poking the bear”. What does it even mean nowadays? It’s not like the “bear” is hibernating. But shooting down one or all of those jets would have been pretty crazy, in my opinion, for the reasons I had already stated.

Side note, Trump thinks those jets should have been shot down. Granted, he is insane and now also lacks cognitive abilities of a younger mind.



I will edit to add this: Wouldn’t it be extremely strange to be supplying Ukraine, that Russia is currently at war with, regardless of the reasons, hundreds of billions worth military equipment, intelligence, permission to operate factories on your soil, other aid worth hundreds of billions of dollars more and expect that there would be no consequences or “poking”? That would indeed be a very odd train of thought.

So what is happening with drones in Denmark? Sounds a lot like New Jersey some months ago - that is, Americans look up for the first time ever and see stars and airplanes. From what I read, sure seems like this is what might be happening. Provided the hysteria constantly projected by the governments…

In the meantime, there are three Russian ships under suspicion of launching drones. One is speculated to have the crew too big (“up to 14” vs usual 8 or so that is “normally” required for the ship of the size) and too young and… drum roll… some of them have tattoos. I am not attaching any sources, take it as rumours because this all it really is anyway.

crest said:

US scrambles fighter jets to intercept Russian spy pane n...

The North American Aerospace Defense Command sent four aircraft to intercept the surveillance plane flying in the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone.

www.newsweek.com

There is lots of these and test there mostly as you said ADIZ it's fairly regular around Alaska Canada, it's also was come in Syria. Yes it's mostly ADIZ as you say but the it has also been more then that truth is the adzid is regarded as about the same. With the same military escort jets flying you out. These things happen on the sea lanes aswell and under it from time to time. To be honest the u.s is probably hands down the world's most prolific breaker of these rules as it basically didn't recognize them or in the cases were it does simply doesn't care. There are fairly safe not to as noone actually wants a war with the u.s by shooting at it's jets unless they believe the u.s is about to bomb them anyways.

Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. As I already explained to you there is a significant difference between entering an ADIZ and an airspace violation.

KipPotapych said:

Some of the largest economies in the world are actively supporting Ukraine; hence, Russia is looking for support elsewher. This is neither strange nor irrational and should have always been in the calculations. To note, neither China nor North Korea provided (significant) capabilities that Russia didn’t already have. Iran contributed what turned out to be a game changer in this war that Russia effectively upgraded to make it their own. Ukraine is still in the fight because of the capabilities they didn’t have, from weapons to intelligence.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was "strange". My point was that European countries need to step up and do much more to push back against the aggressive Russian activities. They should draw some clear red lines and tell Russia that if they break those lines there will be severe consequences. European leaders should also do more in the Information Space. Russia is spreading disinformation at a massive scale, this is having a malignant and destructive impact on European democracies. Many people simply don't understand the risks posed by a very aggressive and imperialist Russia. If they did, they would be much more willing to open their wallets and support a much hard push-back against Russia.

One red line should have been NK soldiers on European soil.

Another red line should have been the Russian kidnapping of more than 20,000 Ukrainian kids, to brainwash them and force them into military training. Ukrainian children have been taken to more than 200 facilities in Russia, new report finds

Another red line should have been the non-stop attacks on civilians, including "human safaris" and "double-tap" to kill firemen and medics who rush to the scene to help.
UN probe: Russia’s ‘human safari’ in Ukraine is a crime against humanity - Atlantic Council
Ukraine Says Russia Hits Firefighters With 'Double-Tap' Strike

Another red line should have been illegal chemical warfare. Russia further intensifies its use of chemical weapons in Ukraine | News item | Defensie.nl

Another red line should have been Russia's weaponization of migrants into European countries. Putin’s Migrant Weapon: How Russia Is Staging Europe’s Next Border Crisis — UNITED24 Media

Europe really needs to step up and take a much harder line against the Russian aggressors and war criminals. Russia will not stop their aggressive and malignant behavior until they are stopped.

Danish Armed Forces has released a very brief statement regarding the drone incursions in Denmark. They are referring to drones operating close to military installations only. So, a number of drone observations are now confirmed both close to civilian airports and military installations.

Regarding drones over Denmark

KipPotapych said:

Some of the largest economies in the world are actively supporting Ukraine; hence, Russia is looking for support elsewher. This is neither strange nor irrational and should have always been in the calculations. To note, neither China nor North Korea provided (significant) capabilities that Russia didn’t already have. Iran contributed what turned out to be a game changer in this war that Russia effectively upgraded to make it their own. Ukraine is still in the fight because of the capabilities they didn’t have, from weapons to intelligence.

NK soldiers fighting in Europe killing Europeans… That is, NK soldiers fought in Russia killing Ukrainians and others fighting on the Ukrainian side. Is that what you are referring to? The thing is that anyone who wants to go fight in Ukraine (or Russia for that matter and some did) is welcome to do so. This is true for both, private citizens as well sovereign states. It appears that North Korea was willing to send their troops to the grinder in Russia, but not Ukraine. It seems thst no state is willing to do so for Ukraine. That’s just the reality. Moreover, they don’t even shoot down drones that “turn back” to Ukraine. In the post I quoted, you say that they should shoot down cruise missiles in Western Ukraine. In a previous post, you said that sending the UAV back was justified because Ukraine is more equipped to intercept it without wasting an expensive missile. This logic is strange to me simply because it is not a given that any UAV gets shot down by Ukraine and that one may have caused more damage than the expensive missile is worth. There is no doubt in my head that it should have been brought down. But anyway…



I didn’t say you said that. I asked what you thought was a more aggressive or hostile move in the described scenarios (that happened).

Sometimes, hostility does not involve any violations at all.

I am not sure why people use this term “poking the bear”. What does it even mean nowadays? It’s not like the “bear” is hibernating. But shooting down one or all of those jets would have been pretty crazy, in my opinion, for the reasons I had already stated.

Side note, Trump thinks those jets should have been shot down. Granted, he is insane and now also lacks cognitive abilities of a younger mind.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1970546874630189446

I will edit to add this: Wouldn’t it be extremely strange to be supplying Ukraine, that Russia is currently at war with, regardless of the reasons, hundreds of billions worth military equipment, intelligence, permission to operate factories on your soil, other aid worth hundreds of billions of dollars more and expect that there would be no consequences or “poking”? That would indeed be a very odd train of thought.

Click to expand...

Your two scenarios weren't even vaguely comparable (one being in international airspace .. something the Russians do to the UK on almost a weekly basis, the other a violation of territorial airspace which is extremely rare) so I didn't bother to answer that question.

"Poking the bear" was used by Crest regarding taking action against armed Russian jets overflying another's territorial airspace, and suggesting that daring to defend one's own territory was somehow an aggressive move.

I have just done a quick glimpse of this article but Putin’s invasion seems to have another significant cost to Russia wrt to a brain drain of scientists.