Q"What? By what stretch of warped imagination do you work that out?"
A"The US said it
brought down the damaged drone after it became "unflyable" when a Russian jet clipped its propeller - but Moscow has denied these claims." - so Russia deliberately damaged the drone to cause it to crash.
A"The US says that it was downed by them following a collision" It's doubtful the US would deliberately crash a drone if it was not already crippled and beyond saving. The US `downing` the drone simply means it was crashed in a controlled manner. It's downing was still caused by the Russian action.
Q"the Russians say that it came down after maneuvering near the sea"
A. These drones operate at high altitude. It's unlikely without Russian aggression the drone would have been low. So either the Russian aggression caused it to descend and crash or it was crashing due to damage.
Q"It was in international airspace"
A. Irrelevant as to whether the Russian downing could be considered a combat action. Combat in this context being defined as an enemy military asset destroying the asset of another. I would also argue that the term `combat` doesn't have to include the firing of weapons. Combat in my original post meaning a military tactic to destroy an enemy asset.
A better argument would be to suggest the Russian aircraft accidentally hit the drone. I doubt that very much due to the reports of dumping fuel, clipping the prop etc.
"There were drones up there before, there are drones up there now, there will be drones up there tomorrow." - again irrelevant to my original post.
I still believe Russia engaging and destroying the drone was a valid tactic for them. Whether it was `politically correct`, `legal` or `polite` is another matter however.