|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On March 17 2023 03:08 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:
That is quite the flex. Russia downs a drone and the US responds by showing they have the ability to bomb the FSB headquarters from the inside. Another freak smoking accident.
I know that's the joke right now, but am I correct in assuming most people here are assuming the FSB incident, which you could call Putin's homebase of sorts, is retaliation for the drone?
It is a situation that Russia can't openly say was US sabotage, since the debris indicates the there was an explosion inside the building. If the US was able to quickly detonate an explosive inside FSB headquarters, it would be an enormous egg on Russia's face, and it would force Russia to essentially declare war, which they of course can't do.
So this all to me feels like the US signaling to Russia they can't just take free shots. They will hurt for it.
|
On March 17 2023 04:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 03:08 Gahlo wrote:On March 17 2023 00:11 Mohdoo wrote:
That is quite the flex. Russia downs a drone and the US responds by showing they have the ability to bomb the FSB headquarters from the inside. Another freak smoking accident. I know that's the joke right now, but am I correct in assuming most people here are assuming the FSB incident, which you could call Putin's homebase of sorts, is retaliation for the drone? It is a situation that Russia can't openly say was US sabotage, since the debris indicates the there was an explosion inside the building. If the US was able to quickly detonate an explosive inside FSB headquarters, it would be an enormous egg on Russia's face, and it would force Russia to essentially declare war, which they of course can't do. So this all to me feels like the US signaling to Russia they can't just take free shots. They will hurt for it. No, blowing up a building seems like way of an over-reaction and escalation to a drone being brought down.
|
The US has been walking on egg shells, trying to not escalate the situation for over a year. I doubt they're retaliate in such a way.
|
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue.
|
On March 17 2023 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue. Russia has been intimidating others for decades, way before this war. The drone isn't them sending a signal, its just Tuesday. Except this time the pilot fucked up and collided.
|
On March 17 2023 05:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue. Russia has been intimidating others for decades, way before this war. The drone isn't them sending a signal, its just Tuesday. Except this time the pilot fucked up and collided.
Exactly this. This is standard operating procedures for Russia, even before the war.
A non-exclusive list of shit Russia does repeatedly that could be used as an excuse to legally wage war if they didn't have nukes:
*Jamming coms at every NATO exercise
*Consistent state backed hacking of everyone and everything
*Consistently violating air space
*Having diplomats constantly try to run away to perform "spy" missions (It's always laughably badly done. They know that we know, we know that they know that we know, and no one cares. We just let them drive around and be obnoxious. Sit outside of any of our military garrisons for a day, and you'll see a black SUV with diplomatic number plate roll by)
*Having actual spies consistently get caught and returned (You won't believe some of the ridiculously stupid ways these guys manage to get caught. Protip: Skiboxes on the roof of black SUVs with international driver's plates, in the middle of summer, while renting the cheapest Airbnb around, while driving an expensive car, does not look inconspicuous)
*Automatically sponsoring the enemy of every US and NATO opponent since WW2
*Sometimes just straight up attacking US positions. No, your excuse of "Oh, those Russians aren't our men. They're just very enthusiastic freelancers" does not hold up
|
On March 17 2023 06:46 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 05:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2023 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue. Russia has been intimidating others for decades, way before this war. The drone isn't them sending a signal, its just Tuesday. Except this time the pilot fucked up and collided. Exactly this. This is standard operating procedures for Russia, even before the war. A non-exclusive list of shit Russia does repeatedly that could be used as an excuse to legally wage war if they didn't have nukes: *Jamming coms at every NATO exercise *Consistent state backed hacking of everyone and everything *Consistently violating air space *Having diplomats constantly try to run away to perform "spy" missions (It's always laughably badly done. They know that we know, we know that they know that we know, and no one cares. We just let them drive around and be obnoxious. Sit outside of any of our military garrisons for a day, and you'll see a black SUV with diplomatic number plate roll by) *Having actual spies consistently get caught and returned (You won't believe some of the ridiculously stupid ways these guys manage to get caught. Protip: Skiboxes on the roof of black SUVs with international driver's plates, in the middle of summer, while renting the cheapest Airbnb around, while driving an expensive car, does not look inconspicuous) *Automatically sponsoring the enemy of every US and NATO opponent since WW2 *Sometimes just straight up attacking US positions. No, your excuse of "Oh, those Russians aren't our men. They're just very enthusiastic freelancers" does not hold up
And when they piss off most of EU and US, then they say it's the evil west. They surely like to play the victim role or introduce a little oldschool whataboutism.
|
|
|
United States43968 Posts
On March 17 2023 03:12 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 02:31 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2023 01:28 Ardias wrote:On March 16 2023 22:27 plasmidghost wrote:On March 16 2023 21:12 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
US government released footage from the reaper drone that got physically hit by russian fighter jets when they tried to dump fuel on top of it, pretty crazy footage
Christ that pilot's a complete imbecile How so? He was ordered to bring down the drone without legal troubles (i.e. opening fire), and he did it. Uh, what? How is it without legal troubles? Intentionally downing another nations aircraft in international airspace is not legal regardless of how you do it. The consequences may have been more drastic if he had actually fired upon the drone, but the legality is hardly better. Firing on an aircraft or ship in international waters (airspace above is considered basically the same) is basically act of piracy at least. While collision or fuel dumping could be easily passed as careless flying, techncal malfunction or whatever. It was regular Soviet and Chinese tactic to push US vessels out of their zone of control without causing tension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Black_Sea_bumping_incidenthttps://web.archive.org/web/20140729152940/http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_287.shtmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
Nah, this is above legality. Legal frameworks here are ultimately a made up thing that is imposed by a government and there is no government for international waters.
This incident is in the territory of “yeah, we did it, what are you going to do about it?” Zero difference whether they shot it down or not, they’re just being deliberately provocative because they’re guessing the US isn’t so interested in escalation.
It’s no different to how the US will give Ukraine a list of targets and a missile launcher and use US satellites to guide the US made missile onto Russians. The US says “technically a Ukrainian pressed the button” and Russia has to suck it up like bitches because the alternative is worse. It doesn’t mean what the US did was more legal than if they pressed the button themselves, it is what it is, law doesn’t come into it, Russia cannot escalate vs the US.
Russia knocked down a drone and they’re saying “technically it was a collision, not an attack” and the US can either take it like a bitch or escalate in response.
|
On March 17 2023 07:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 03:12 Ardias wrote:On March 17 2023 02:31 Ghostcom wrote:On March 17 2023 01:28 Ardias wrote:On March 16 2023 22:27 plasmidghost wrote:Christ that pilot's a complete imbecile How so? He was ordered to bring down the drone without legal troubles (i.e. opening fire), and he did it. Uh, what? How is it without legal troubles? Intentionally downing another nations aircraft in international airspace is not legal regardless of how you do it. The consequences may have been more drastic if he had actually fired upon the drone, but the legality is hardly better. Firing on an aircraft or ship in international waters (airspace above is considered basically the same) is basically act of piracy at least. While collision or fuel dumping could be easily passed as careless flying, techncal malfunction or whatever. It was regular Soviet and Chinese tactic to push US vessels out of their zone of control without causing tension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Black_Sea_bumping_incidenthttps://web.archive.org/web/20140729152940/http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_287.shtmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident Nah, this is above legality. Legal frameworks here are ultimately a made up thing that is imposed by a government and there is no government for international waters. This incident is in the territory of “yeah, we did it, what are you going to do about it?” Zero difference whether they shot it down or not, they’re just being deliberately provocative because they’re guessing the US isn’t so interested in escalation. It’s no different to how the US will give Ukraine a list of targets and a missile launcher and use US satellites to guide the US made missile onto Russians. The US says “technically a Ukrainian pressed the button” and Russia has to suck it up like bitches because the alternative is worse. It doesn’t mean what the US did was more legal than if they pressed the button themselves, it is what it is, law doesn’t come into it, Russia cannot escalate vs the US. Russia knocked down a drone and they’re saying “technically it was a collision, not an attack” and the US can either take it like a bitch or escalate in response.
To put it simply, international law is a way for big nations to impose their will on smaller ones.
|
On March 17 2023 05:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue. Russia has been intimidating others for decades, way before this war. The drone isn't them sending a signal, its just Tuesday. Except this time the pilot fucked up and collided.
When things blow up, we would think of an act from the USA first, because the USA have the capability to do it, or the "best" at doing such action. It does not help that we have too little information to work on, so all we can do is to speculate.
Even assuming the FSB building is being attacked, I don't think it is an act from the USA due to retaliation for downing the drone. As strong as the USA is, it will still take time to plan and prepare an attack. If you want to plant a bomb, you need to prepare, if you want to fire a missile, you need to sail your battle ship to that area. It is more than a click of a button.
What I suspect is that is the continuous of the drone attack from Ukraine, the Russian had reported Ukrainian drones were flown into Russia a few days before, it is well within the realm that the attacks were carried out by the Ukrainian, but this time, the Russian did not intercept everything.
As for downing the drone, what I am interested is whether the drone is flying closer to Russian side than usual, or the Russian felt the threat increased to the point it has to respond to (even if the drone just flown its "routine" route), or a combination of the above (plus other ) factor.
The Russian said the transponder of the drone was turned off. I hope someone can translate this to something that can be understand by layman.
It seems the Russian is trying to take the drone (recover from the sea), so I doubt downing the drone was a pure accident.
|
Russian Federation618 Posts
On March 17 2023 16:21 mounteast0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 05:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2023 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue. Russia has been intimidating others for decades, way before this war. The drone isn't them sending a signal, its just Tuesday. Except this time the pilot fucked up and collided. As for downing the drone, what I am interested is whether the drone is flying closer to Russian side than usual, or the Russian felt the threat increased to the point it has to respond to (even if the drone just flown its "routine" route), or a combination of the above (plus other ) factor. The Russian said the transponder of the drone was turned off. I hope someone can translate this to something that can be understand by layman. It seems the Russian is trying to take the drone (recover from the sea), so I doubt downing the drone was a pure accident.
Contact between Russian jets and Reaper reportedly happened just 60 km off the Crimean coast, so much closer than usual. US's Global Hawks often patrol the Black Sea gathering recon on Crimea and transferring it to Ukraine, but they normally do it much further than that, somewhere closer to the current air traffic lines over the sea (you could check them on Flightradar).
Transponder being turned off means that aircraft doesn't being identyfied properly (it may still be spotted on radar, but it requires closer inspection to understand what it is exactly) and could carry malicious intent (by the generally accepted rules of air traffic transponder should be turned on to avoid any accidents or misunderstanding).
And no, it wasn't accident. US decided to test Russian response by diving deeper into the declared no-fly zone, Russia responded in a manner to bring down drone without directly hostile means (i.e. opening fire).
To all others responding that it doesn't matter how exactly the drone was brought down - if there is no difference why our pilot was risking his life and aircraft by fuel spraying, when he could simply shoot it down?
|
United States43968 Posts
On March 17 2023 18:29 Ardias wrote:
To all others responding that it doesn't matter how exactly the drone was brought down - if there is no difference why our pilot was risking his life and aircraft by fuel spraying, when he could simply shoot it down?
Because that’s the game. It’s like a bully holding your wrist and slapping you with your own hand. They can say that technically they didn’t slap you but that doesn’t actually change anything, you’d still be fully justified in punching them. But you don’t think you can win the fight.
It’s just a game. It’s not like it’d be bullying if they slapped you with their own hand but by using yours they’ve found a secret loophole teachers can’t enforce.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On March 17 2023 20:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 18:29 Ardias wrote:
To all others responding that it doesn't matter how exactly the drone was brought down - if there is no difference why our pilot was risking his life and aircraft by fuel spraying, when he could simply shoot it down? Because that’s the game. It’s like a bully holding your wrist and slapping you with your own hand. They can say that technically they didn’t slap you but that doesn’t actually change anything, you’d still be fully justified in punching them. But you don’t think you can win the fight. It’s just a game. It’s not like it’d be bullying if they slapped you with their own hand but by using yours they’ve found a secret loophole teachers can’t enforce.
You are completely right that it is a game. But Ardias is completely right hat shooting down the drone would be a very different move in this game than dropping fuel on it, and will in turn provoke a different reaction. So it does matter how the drone was brought down, even if in the end there is a drone at the bottom of the Black Sea either way.
|
United States43968 Posts
On March 17 2023 21:09 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 20:48 KwarK wrote:On March 17 2023 18:29 Ardias wrote:
To all others responding that it doesn't matter how exactly the drone was brought down - if there is no difference why our pilot was risking his life and aircraft by fuel spraying, when he could simply shoot it down? Because that’s the game. It’s like a bully holding your wrist and slapping you with your own hand. They can say that technically they didn’t slap you but that doesn’t actually change anything, you’d still be fully justified in punching them. But you don’t think you can win the fight. It’s just a game. It’s not like it’d be bullying if they slapped you with their own hand but by using yours they’ve found a secret loophole teachers can’t enforce. You are completely right that it is a game. But Ardias is completely right hat shooting down the drone would be a very different move in this game than dropping fuel on it, and will in turn provoke a different reaction. So it does matter how the drone was brought down, even if in the end there is a drone at the bottom of the Black Sea either way.
Does it? What if they shot it down and claimed they thought it was a duck and the whole thing was just a hunting accident. Ultimately it’s an unmanned drone, the calculation over whether to escalate is easy.
What matters is the forms. If they shoot it down and say that they didn’t mean to then it’s all some kind of misunderstanding and nobody nukes anyone. If they’d shoot it down and say that this is their first move in WW3 and that they want the world to know that it’s go time then it’s go time.
|
|
|
On March 17 2023 18:29 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2023 16:21 mounteast0 wrote:On March 17 2023 05:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 17 2023 04:58 Mohdoo wrote:
They didn't blow up the whole building. There was an explosion within the building. It probably targeted something symbolic to send a clear signal to Putin. The event is small enough to sweep under the rug, but likely understood well enough for FSB to get the signal. Just like with Russia downing the drone, the goal is to send a signal without causing a diplomatic issue. Russia has been intimidating others for decades, way before this war. The drone isn't them sending a signal, its just Tuesday. Except this time the pilot fucked up and collided. As for downing the drone, what I am interested is whether the drone is flying closer to Russian side than usual, or the Russian felt the threat increased to the point it has to respond to (even if the drone just flown its "routine" route), or a combination of the above (plus other ) factor. The Russian said the transponder of the drone was turned off. I hope someone can translate this to something that can be understand by layman. It seems the Russian is trying to take the drone (recover from the sea), so I doubt downing the drone was a pure accident. Contact between Russian jets and Reaper reportedly happened just 60 km off the Crimean coast, so much closer than usual. US's Global Hawks often patrol the Black Sea gathering recon on Crimea and transferring it to Ukraine, but they normally do it much further than that, somewhere closer to the current air traffic lines over the sea (you could check them on Flightradar). Transponder being turned off means that aircraft doesn't being identyfied properly (it may still be spotted on radar, but it requires closer inspection to understand what it is exactly) and could carry malicious intent (by the generally accepted rules of air traffic transponder should be turned on to avoid any accidents or misunderstanding). And no, it wasn't accident. US decided to test Russian response by diving deeper into the declared no-fly zone, Russia responded in a manner to bring down drone without directly hostile means (i.e. opening fire). To all others responding that it doesn't matter how exactly the drone was brought down - if there is no difference why our pilot was risking his life and aircraft by fuel spraying, when he could simply shoot it down?
I find it interesting that the way that this incident is framed in the media I'm consuming is very different from your version.
First, from what I've read, the drone was over international water (haven't heard anything about "declared no-fly zone" or it "testing" the Russians).
Second, the Russian jet probably didn't try to outright destroy the drone. It was more like an attempt to make a statement; that the direct hit was more likely an accident since the plane was flying slowly and was hard to control properly.
|
If they didn't try to destroy the drone, why did they dump (attempt to dump) fuel on it? This doesn't speak to me as accident. This was a deliberate attempt at downing it.
|
Russians are testing Denmark and Sweden so regularly with practice bombing runs and attack vector runs towards Bornholm and Gotland that it doesn't even make the news. Imagine the outrage if a similar strategy was employed. Nah, this BS is the typical Russian might makes right BS - do what you want and make up the story after - like Lavrov claiming Ukraine attacked Russia first. It is the same mentality at play when Ardias congratulates the pilot for a job well done.
|
On March 17 2023 23:00 Silvanel wrote:
If they didn't try to destroy the drone, why did they dump (attempt to dump) fuel on it? This doesn't speak to me as accident. This was a deliberate attempt at downing it.
Well, from what I read, it would most likely force it to turn around rather than destroy it. Potato, potato, perhaps, but the difference in intent is quite important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
