"Russian jet collides with US drone over Black Sea"
The following users liked this post:
It was an unmanned aircraft just like the ballon was, It's not like it was an airliner over the Persian gulf with the loss of many innocent people.
Guest
Q. "Would you honestly want to live in a nation that was not terrified of a nuclear war?"
A. I do live in a country that ISNT terrified of nuclear war. Terrified implies that it consumes our every waking moment to the point of being irrational. No, I am not terrified of the prospect of a nuclear war because there is nothing I can do about it and quite frankly I doubt it will happen.
I may be terrified during a nuclear war but that's a different matter.
Q. "Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it"
A. A country doesn't have to be terrified, i.e. having it consume their every rational thought to be engaged in actively trying to prevent one. Trying to prevent nuclear war, or any war is the default position of most democracies.
Q. "but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?"
A. Yes I am aware. So is America and the West. Not intervening with direct military action is more about avoiding escalation into a bloody conventional or nuclear conflict rather than being terrified, Terrified implies an irrational behaviour that doesn't include calm and calculated decision making. USA is a democracy. It requires consultation and agreement at a political level to engage in conflict. Again rational decision making not terror. If the USA was `terrified` why would it give considerable amounts of military equipment to Ukraine including intel from drones?
Q "The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the consequences."
A. This is a fallacious statement. The USA and the West is avoiding escalation. This is a rational thought process using calm and calculated decision making. It's not born out of terror or being terrified.
"the US is permitting ", no it isn't. Russia invaded without the USA's or anyone's prior permission. It was an aggressive act.
Q "To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing."
A. This is just your opinion. You have no way of knowing what the feeling is in the White house but I would suggest no one is `terrified`. Concerned for sure but no one is hiding under their desks.
A. I do live in a country that ISNT terrified of nuclear war. Terrified implies that it consumes our every waking moment to the point of being irrational. No, I am not terrified of the prospect of a nuclear war because there is nothing I can do about it and quite frankly I doubt it will happen.
I may be terrified during a nuclear war but that's a different matter.
Q. "Really? If I was you, I would pray that my Government was absolutely terrified of the prospect and would do anything to avoid it"
A. A country doesn't have to be terrified, i.e. having it consume their every rational thought to be engaged in actively trying to prevent one. Trying to prevent nuclear war, or any war is the default position of most democracies.
Q. "but hey, that's just me. Honestly, do you have eyes? Are you seeing the Russians slaughter Ukranian civilians on a daily basis?"
A. Yes I am aware. So is America and the West. Not intervening with direct military action is more about avoiding escalation into a bloody conventional or nuclear conflict rather than being terrified, Terrified implies an irrational behaviour that doesn't include calm and calculated decision making. USA is a democracy. It requires consultation and agreement at a political level to engage in conflict. Again rational decision making not terror. If the USA was `terrified` why would it give considerable amounts of military equipment to Ukraine including intel from drones?
Q "The US is refusing to militarily engage in the war in Ukraine, despite the fact that they could save thousands of Ukrainians by unleashing the might of the US, and annihilating the Russian forces there, but they won't. Why? Because they are terrified of the consequences!!!...or do you honestly believe that better wording is ' the US is permitting the slaughter of free and innocent people because we are respectful of the consequences."
A. This is a fallacious statement. The USA and the West is avoiding escalation. This is a rational thought process using calm and calculated decision making. It's not born out of terror or being terrified.
"the US is permitting ", no it isn't. Russia invaded without the USA's or anyone's prior permission. It was an aggressive act.
Q "To my earlier point, I listened to the live briefing today by the Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman, Gen Milley, was asked if this was 'an act of war', and he shut the question down without answering it - he refused to even discuss it. My point exactly, the USA are terrified of confrontation with Russia and will deny, obfuscate, confuse and deflect - he did it today for all to see. This is not my opinion or agenda, it is pure fact - just watch the press briefing."
A. This is just your opinion. You have no way of knowing what the feeling is in the White house but I would suggest no one is `terrified`. Concerned for sure but no one is hiding under their desks.
Last edited by uxb99; 16th Mar 2023 at 05:09.
The following users liked this post:
I did not suggest comitting US forces to defend a drone, I suggested that the US was refusing to commit forces to prevent the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, and this is is a fact. Ukranians are being slaughtered by a military force that the US could annihilate in short order, but they refuse to do so. Why? Do you believe the US want Ukranians to be slaughtered? If not, then ask why the US refuses to do so...it's because they are terrified of the Russian reaction. This is a fact. There is almost nothing Russia cannot do that the US will not ignore, deflect or otherwise describe as anything other than an act of war. The facts speak for themselves - the US is absolutely petrified of conflict with Russia and will allow them to do almost anything in an attempt to prevent it. Watch mark Milley today - he point-blank refused to answer if the drone attack was an act of war - he was too scared to even go there ...the chairman of the joint chiefs FFS. The US is now just nothing but a hollow voice.
Bottom line: Russian propaganda even before the invasion claimed that the The West/NATO/US already had designs and plans to attack and destroy Russia. This dates back at least to the most recent expansion of NATO. "NATO is out to get us, so invading Ukraine is our only defence."
Therefore, the US is being very careful to disprove the Russian/Putin Party Line - by never making a direct attack on Russian forces with NATO or US forces. Why reinforce Russian propaganda?
If Russia resorts to using nuclear devices against Ukraine, then the US might use that as the justification to directly attack and (easily) wipe out Russian conventional occupying forces with conventional forces of our own, but not before. The US wants to make sure that Russia is always - always - "the bad guy" in any escalation, for diplomatic/political/historical reasons.
Until then, the US and NATO will not make a military move directly against Russian forces. Russia will have to attack a NATO member's territory first. That is the realpolitik that will put the blame for any conflict between US/NATO and Russia, up to and including WW3, on Russia's tombstone, not ours.
It is quite possible that Russia's attacks on civilians are intended exactly to goad NATO and the US into crossing the line into direct warfare with Russia - which seems to be what you desire. Thereby proving Putin's propaganda claims and making the West "the bad guys." Or they may simply be intended to terrorize Ukraine into submission (a forlorn hope - but possibly the only tool Putin has left in his arsenal, short of nukes).
The - whatever it was - involving the UAV may also have been a ploy to force an ill-considered move against something Russian by forces other than Ukraine's.
Fortunately, we are smart enough to avoid such temptations, and just keep providing Ukraine with the defensive tools to protect themselves, and enough short-range offensive tools to clear their territory of Russians, without being an actual military threat to Russia itself (outside of Putin's fantasies).
Last edited by pattern_is_full; 16th Mar 2023 at 05:38.
The following 2 users liked this post by pattern_is_full:
Given that Putin had to get a Dutch salvage company to recover the Kursk submarine I'd be a little surprised if they could do that without putting the job out to tender.
This makes an interesting watch though.
This makes an interesting watch though.
The following users liked this post:
The Russians have acknowledged that the event took place, albeit they are putting a very different spin on what happened, and the video doesn't actually disprove (nor prove) their account, so why haven't they posted it ?
Presumably because, given that the identity of the drone is visible, it would be very easy for the US to demonstrate that it's old footage - either by showing that the Reaper in the video is still intact, or with evidence that it had perished on a previous occasion.
If Crimea's 2014 takeover by Russia was never recognized internationally, that could make anywhere over the Crimean peninsula international airspace. If the drone had its transponder turned off, though that means we have no basis for believing the US announcements. Russia however is not disputing the 'international airspace' claim, however, which might mean that part of the story is true.
Looking at a bathymetric map of the Black Sea General Milley's '4~5,000 feet deep' waters are actually quite close to the coastlines of both Crimea and the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
1.1. Black Sea bathymetry... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
Looking at a bathymetric map of the Black Sea General Milley's '4~5,000 feet deep' waters are actually quite close to the coastlines of both Crimea and the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
1.1. Black Sea bathymetry... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The USA won’t go to war over losing a drone - they use drones because of the risk and accept the losses as the cost of operating where they use them.
Iran shot down an RQ-4 in 2019 and the USA did nothing except protest.
https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/20...ontested-zone/
Iran shot down an RQ-4 in 2019 and the USA did nothing except protest.
https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/20...ontested-zone/
Yes, I think the fact that the video, while circulating widely on social media, hasn't (AFAIK) been officially posted by the Russians is significant.
The Russians have acknowledged that the event took place, albeit they are putting a very different spin on what happened, and the video doesn't actually disprove (nor prove) their account, so why haven't they posted it ?
Presumably because, given that the identity of the drone is visible, it would be very easy for the US to demonstrate that it's old footage - either by showing that the Reaper in the video is still intact, or with evidence that it had perished on a previous occasion.
The Russians have acknowledged that the event took place, albeit they are putting a very different spin on what happened, and the video doesn't actually disprove (nor prove) their account, so why haven't they posted it ?
Presumably because, given that the identity of the drone is visible, it would be very easy for the US to demonstrate that it's old footage - either by showing that the Reaper in the video is still intact, or with evidence that it had perished on a previous occasion.
If Crimea's 2014 takeover by Russia was never recognized internationally, that could make anywhere over the Crimean peninsula international airspace. If the drone had its transponder turned off, though that means we have no basis for believing the US announcements. Russia however is not disputing the 'international airspace' claim, however, which might mean that part of the story is true.
Looking at a bathymetric map of the Black Sea General Milley's '4~5,000 feet deep' waters are actually quite close to the coastlines of both Crimea and the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
1.1. Black Sea bathymetry... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
Looking at a bathymetric map of the Black Sea General Milley's '4~5,000 feet deep' waters are actually quite close to the coastlines of both Crimea and the eastern shores of the Black Sea.
1.1. Black Sea bathymetry... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
On April 26, 1954 The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.
"Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet decrees:
To approve the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian SFSR Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukrainian SSR Supreme Soviet on the transfer of the Crimea Province from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR".
The following 2 users liked this post by fdr:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,046
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
It shows the fuel dumping and then the collision, when you lose the feed and get the coloured bars let the video run as it comes back on showing the wrecked prop. Surprised they didn't dump fuel head on, not come at it from the rear.
I wonder if it headed for Odesa to bring any Russian recovery vessels under the range of Odesa's missile systems
Linky
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-64974825
I wonder if it headed for Odesa to bring any Russian recovery vessels under the range of Odesa's missile systems
Linky
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-64974825
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t imagine that the Flanker pilot would have been intending to collide. But to fly on a collision course with a high rate closure and rely on a last second break away while belly-up to the target…. that’s gross ineptitude. They wouldn’t last a minute in a shooting match. I hope Putin realises that.
It would be interesting to know which part of the SU-27 made contact, possibly the tail boom or one of the stabilisers on the underside of the fuselage? I'd have thought a shredded stabilator would make flying home a challenge.
I can’t imagine that the Flanker pilot would have been intending to collide. But to fly on a collision course with a high rate closure and rely on a last second break away while belly-up to the target…. that’s gross ineptitude. They wouldn’t last a minute in a shooting match. I hope Putin realises that.
Seems both sides try to minimize the incident.
The following users liked this post:
Put it this way, I doubt it was an intentional collision unless they’re so short of missiles they are using aeroplanes instead. Footage more embarrassing (for Russia) than anything else...