Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[FourFans]

18 hours ago, jice said:

there are two three options to prepare for when the balloon goes up: pay in cash and risk now or pay by consuming a generation of humans later, or shoot the balloon down.

FIFY

[B52gator]

Whoopsie. Flanker and Reaper trading paint.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russian-jet-collides-with-american-drone-international-airspace-black-sea

[DirkDiggler]

32 minutes ago, b52gator said:

Whoopsie. Flanker and Reaper trading paint.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russian-jet-collides-with-american-drone-international-airspace-black-sea





 

With any luck the Flanker crashed and burned on landing.  Hopefully one less that the Ukrainians need to worry about.

[LiquidSky]

Statement from EUCOM on the incident.

"At approximately 7:03 AM (CET), one of the Russian Su-27 aircraft struck the propeller of the MQ-9, causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters. Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner. This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional. "

[FLEA]

14 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

Statement from EUCOM on the incident.

"At approximately 7:03 AM (CET), one of the Russian Su-27 aircraft struck the propeller of the MQ-9, causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters. Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner. This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional. "

Almost sounds like they were intentionally trying to bring it down without the public noise created by firing a missile. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by FLEA

[Clark Griswold]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NUKE]

The SIPR WSV of the intercepts and the collision are pretty amazing. Hopefully we declassify them ASAP to show that the Russians were lying when they said they didn’t hit the robot. Then again, it probably won’t matter…

[jice]

1 hour ago, NUKE said:

The SIPR WSV of the intercepts and the collision are pretty amazing. Hopefully we declassify them ASAP to show that the Russians were lying when they said they didn’t hit the robot. Then again, it probably won’t matter…

“Environmentally unsound” is definitely built for the European audience. Think they’re talking about the fuel dumping or the resultant littering and… littering and… smoking the Reaper?

[GKinnear]

12 hours ago, jice said:

“Environmentally unsound” is definitely built for the European audience. Think they’re talking about the fuel dumping or the resultant littering and… littering and… smoking the Reaper?

Goddammit...take my upvote, you earned it with that one

[uhhello]

Ol' Lindsey Graham just always itching to send others into harms way.  Don't think he's ever encountered a foreign policy choice where he doesn't choose force on force.  

https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-recommends-shooting-russian-jets-response-us-drone-1787812

Does Russia have a leg to stand on(LOAC)  if they can somehow prove that the reapers are providing intelligence to UKR and therefore is a lawful threat to be taken out?  

Edited March 15, 2023 by uhhello

[Biff_T]

18 hours ago, jice said:

“Environmentally unsound” is definitely built for the European audience. Think they’re talking about the fuel dumping or the resultant littering and… littering and… smoking the Reaper?

 

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, uhhello said:

Does Russia have a leg to stand on(LOAC)  if they can somehow prove that the reapers are providing intelligence to UKR and therefore is a lawful threat to be taken out?  

Valid consideration. 

[LiquidSky]

Bent prop visable in the last 2 seconds of the clip. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by LiquidSky
Image added.

[Danger41]

Must’ve been one of those UPTski 2.5 VR comrades that got Flankers instead of May’s to Siberia because of diversity, am I right? *high five*

[fire4effect]

19 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Valid consideration. 

 

21 hours ago, uhhello said:

Does Russia have a leg to stand on(LOAC)  if they can somehow prove that the reapers are providing intelligence to UKR and therefore is a lawful threat to be taken out?  

 

19 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

Valid consideration. 

As long as they don't decide the same thing with our crewed assets like say a P-8. Talk about something with tech they would certainly like to look at.  I really hope Putin isn't that crazy.

[VigilanteNav]

4 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

Bent prop visable in the last 2 seconds of the clip. 

Any confirmation the Russian pilot said "too close for missiles, switching to fuel" and if in the debrief the other pilot whispered to him "gutsiest move I ever saw Sergey"?   

[BFM this]

23 hours ago, uhhello said:

Ol' Lindsey Graham just always itching to send others into harms way.  Don't think he's ever encountered a foreign policy choice where he doesn't choose force on force.  

https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-recommends-shooting-russian-jets-response-us-drone-1787812

Does Russia have a leg to stand on(LOAC)  if they can somehow prove that the reapers are providing intelligence to UKR and therefore is a lawful threat to be taken out?  

If they do, then that could be a very slippery slope indeed.

Thinking of the legal review about a decade ago that looked upon service members in CONUS driving to work if that work included over the horizon ops in theater.

The droid was in international airspace.  Is it a lawful threat (target) if it is a sniffer platform (RC-135) orbiting over Poland?

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

If they do, then that could be a very slippery slope indeed.

Thinking of the legal review about a decade ago that looked upon service members in CONUS driving to work if that work included over the horizon ops in theater.

The droid was in international airspace.  Is it a lawful threat (target) if it is a sniffer platform (RC-135) orbiting over Poland?

All valid points.  Was just thinking out loud.  

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, BFM this said:

If they do, then that could be a very slippery slope indeed.

Thinking of the legal review about a decade ago that looked upon service members in CONUS driving to work if that work included over the horizon ops in theater.

The droid was in international airspace.  Is it a lawful threat (target) if it is a sniffer platform (RC-135) orbiting over Poland?

I'm admittedly not familiar with the theater anymore--since I separated last year, the current SPINS, etc.....

However..... if it were the US in Russia's shoes, prosecuting a war in a country with coastal lines in the Black Sea..... a water body that encapsulated critical sea lanes necessary to our supply chain, we would have declared a JOA that likely would have incorporated large portions if not all of the Black Sea. There would be NOTAMS and other types of communications circulated to the international community that the geographic confines of the JOA were apart of an armed conflict between us and whatever state we are warring with and warning third party air traffic that flight into the conflict zone would be extremely high risk and safety couldn't be guaranteed. 

I'm trying to imagine this in the context of Korea, where if we kicked that off, we would likely declare most of the Yellow Sea and parts of the East China Sea as part of that JOA. And if we knew, for instance, China was operating assets in that JOA that were offering materiel wartime support to North Korea, how would we address that. Especially if we knew that support included information that directly contributed to the kill-chain cycle of the state we are warring with. TBH I don't know?

From another lens: Geneva only describes two statuses for "people" in a conflict zone. They are either combatants, or non-combatants. And either status can operate either legally, or illegally. It doesn't really outline the case of an RPA though that is not a person and is simply a materiel asset. However, with a manned aircraft, in international waters, from a non state party to the conflict, those members aboard that aircraft would be considered non-combatants. The general thing about Geneva from my understanding is that to maintain lawful status, non-combatants are expected to act as non-combatants which means not performing actions that directly involve themselves in the conflict. Providing intelligence that relates to targeting to one party of the conflict would almost definitely undermine that status and I think the case could be made at that point that you might be a combatant or an illegal non-combatant. With the former you could be lawfully targeted, with the later, you could be held criminally accountable. 

[FLEA]

Just now, FLEA said:

I'm admittedly not familiar with the theater anymore--since I separated last year, the current SPINS, etc.....

However..... if it were the US in Russia's shoes, prosecuting a war in a country with coastal lines in the Black Sea..... a water body that encapsulated critical sea lanes necessary to our supply chain, we would have declared a JOA that likely would have incorporated large portions if not all of the Black Sea. There would be NOTAMS and other types of communications circulated to the international community that the geographic confines of the JOA were apart of an armed conflict between us and whatever state we are warring with and warning third party air traffic that flight into the conflict zone would be extremely high risk and safety couldn't be guaranteed. 

I'm trying to imagine this in the context of Korea, where if we kicked that off, we would likely declare most of the Yellow Sea and parts of the East China Sea as part of that JOA. And if we knew, for instance, China was operating assets in that JOA that were offering materiel wartime support to North Korea, how would we address that. Especially if we knew that support included information that directly contributed to the kill-chain cycle of the state we are warring with. TBH I don't know?

From another lens: Geneva only describes two statuses for "people" in a conflict zone. They are either combatants, or non-combatants. And either status can operate either legally, or illegally. It doesn't really outline the case of an RPA though that is not a person and is simply a materiel asset. However, with a manned aircraft, in international waters, from a non state party to the conflict, those members aboard that aircraft would be considered non-combatants. The general thing about Geneva from my understanding is that to maintain lawful status, non-combatants are expected to act as non-combatants which means not performing actions that directly involve themselves in the conflict. Providing intelligence that relates to targeting to one party of the conflict would almost definitely undermine that status and I think the case could be made at that point that you might be a combatant or an illegal non-combatant. With the former you could be lawfully targeted, with the later, you could be held criminally accountable. 

Also worth noting the legal implications of LOAC are somewhat meaningless... what really matters is the strength of support whatever action has among the International Community. Lawyers will legal-jutsu there way through a maze to make something sound like it makes sense, and if you get enough western countries that want something to sound a certain way they will certainly make it sound that way. 

[jice]

I enjoy this discussion. I also think this is not the place for it. Anonymity of any individual is questionable. Identity of the demographic is pretty certain. There are some quotable quotes here that could be misconstrued (obviously).

[ClearedHot]

Some of the reports coming out of the Bakhmut region are staggering. 

Ukraine claims (and has been loosely validated), that they killed 1090 Russian soldiers in a single day.  For certain we know the Russians have turned to meat grinder human wave tactics of old ("Keep going until you are killed"), and U.S. Intel has suggest upwards of 30,000 Russian KIA or wounded or wounded since the attack on Bakhmut began.   No problem, Putin is trying to recruit another 400,000 contract soldiers.

[Guest nsplayr]

 

[DirkDiggler]

NATO Edges Closer to Expansion as Finland Wins Over Holdouts (msn.com)

  And in other not great news for the Russians, Finland's NATO bid is gaining steam.

[hindsight2020]

Been a while since I've found videos on the maritime side of things, but found this one today. Let's see if another "localized storm and high seas" leads to another sinking...in the harbor lol. No details as to the tonnage and type yet. The guerrilla navy continues to deliver.

👍

Edited March 23, 2023 by hindsight2020