1. Yes, we do that when we want to.
2. Ukraine would surely permit us that freedom openly if we wanted.
3. The Black Sea, where drones could orbit to see the area in question, is international airspace, not a "foreign country".
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
2. Ukraine would surely permit us that freedom openly if we wanted.
3. The Black Sea, where drones could orbit to see the area in question, is international airspace, not a "foreign country".
Kinda missing the point.
He asked why they would be squawking at 520 in international airspace and you gave a nonsense answer. What point am I missing? That you can't let a half witted but smart ass comment pass through your brain without making it's way onto this forum?
If you want to interact with me, you can adopt a more civil tone. In the interim, I’d encourage you to pull the EUCOM ACO and SPINS to better understand how a major air operation is managed in a coalition AO. It will, no doubt, price eye-opening to you.
It’s worth noting that manned military aircraft (from all NATO partners) appear to always orbit within Romanian airspace to “peek” over the horizon. The only NATO military aircraft “visible” over the Black Sea are UAVs and they are operating along a busy civilian air corridor. There is a group that has started tracking military transport aircraft (all reporting) that leave Germany and fly to an airfield just across the border of Lviv…six so far today!
Right, I'm sure it's my lack of understanding of the SPINS that makes your rudely-stated claim that a UAV flown by who knows what agency in international airspace is squawking because they're in a foreign country (which they aren't). Makes sense. Good recovery.
Aww, someone is having a case of the Mondays… and it’s not even Monday yet. ☹️
Hope your day improves soon!
What's the point, then?
Yes sir, Captain ?
My guess is you were right.. us squawking in that area is the safest thing to do to not get shot down, and we have no reason to hide that we're doing ISR there. As opposed to the many times we have flown in other countries' airspace secretly without following local ATC regulations or admitting we're there.
The lynch pin of that entire argument is IF Putin decides this is existential for Russia.Been swamped at work but wanted to get back to your question. Happened to see that Andrew Sullivan linked to that posting by Mike Mazarr. His take was on the Russian perspective that this could be an existential war to them. Noticed that Tom Nichols also posted the same exact article by Mazarr and expounded upon it here so this might be the analysis you want.
Got kind of curious after both of those mentioned Mr. Mazarr and found that he is a PhD at the Rand Corporation, formerly of the National War College so I reckon that is ok. Coincidentally, Mazarr also just had an article published today in Foreign Affairs. One part in particular caught my attention:
The second vulnerability of the postwar order is the growing influence of what can be termed the “hedging middle” in world politics—countries that prefer to avoid taking sides in the U.S.-Chinese and U.S.-Russian rivalries and therefore hesitate to enforce the norms of the order. These countries—including Brazil, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and Turkey—participate in and support many elements of the international system. They broadly support the order’s norms and typically respect them. Some of these countries are set to become major economic and military players. Yet if more of them come to see a Chinese-Russian axis as a useful counterweight to U.S. and Western dominance and therefore defect from U.S.-led institutions, the postwar order will be in deep trouble.
How to Save the Postwar Order
The United States should rethink its defense of the systemwww.foreignaffairs.com
Some of the analysis that I have found to be interesting is that Tom Nichols puts this whole invasion on Putin, while Peter Zeihan says this is a historical Russian strategy. Whether the Tsars, the Soviets or now Putin, it is all the same based upon geography and why Zeihan thinks that Kiev is less important than Odessa and that the Russians will continue to push west into Moldova - and perhaps come into conflict with NATO first in Romania. Both guys make solid cases - your thoughts?
He might, or he might not.
What I think the West is doing wrong is needlessly making this appear more of an existential war for Putin by openly amping up the rhetoric. All the “remove Putin” language and open, proud intelligence sharing with Ukraine seems to add fuel to the fire. I’m all for helping the Russians lose, but we could do (and have done) those things without being so overt and sanctimonious about it.
Meanwhile, the Russian military (and reputation) has been heavily damaged, leaving little room to escalate with NATO except to take things beyond the conventional.
So yes, I see the possibility. Unfortunately, it’s a very steep slope, and it’s hard to tell how close we are to the edge since I’m just an ordinary American living in the heartland.
I am curious to see what comes out of this “victory day” celebration, and if new Russian conscriptions will be announced. Realistically, I think this war is gonna drag on for a long time.
Last edited:
[Insert TACRON joke here]
Putting the squawk into IFF