The bear from the East is awake once again.

[Haavarla]

This is only one of many many reports of this kind.
They frequently fly down our coast, in Internasional air space with the Tu-160 and some Sukhoi's.
They train on refueling in flight. They operates as far south as the borders of UK!

The Royal Norwegian Airforce have intercepted the Russian's with over 200 sorties only this year!



http://www.barentsobserver.com/fighter-pilot-teased-norway.4496618-58932.html

[Feanor]

Good. The Norwegian airforce (and the VVS) can shake some of their post-Cold War fat off. Oh and the link is dead.

[Aliph Ahmed]

Good. The Norwegian airforce (and the VVS) can shake some of their post-Cold War fat off. Oh and the link is dead.

Link is working fine. :)

It is good to see Russia starting to flex its muscles in a reminder that the world isnt uni polar. (Which actually, it never was)

[guppy]

Link is working fine. :)

It is good to see Russia starting to flex its muscles in a reminder that the world isnt uni polar. (Which actually, it never was)

But it is worrisome. Not that I believe a war will break out. But this is not good for Europe in my opinion.

cheers

Guppy

[nevidimka]

But it is worrisome. Not that I believe a war will break out. But this is not good for Europe in my opinion.

cheers

Guppy

Why is that worrisome? Its not like RUssia is gonna be launching UN unauthorised attacks on another state, or create a mess after doing it.

[guppy]

Why is that worrisome? Its not like RUssia is gonna be launching UN unauthorised attacks on another state, or create a mess after doing it.

Because it creates unnecessary tensions. Well, Russia has already launched unauthorised attacks on another state's aircraft - Georgia. It remains to be seen if they are not going to create a bigger mess. It is already messy enough right now. What can we imply from Russia's intentions and actions. No doubt that they are a rational state.

cheers

guppy

[Feanor]

Because it creates unnecessary tensions. Well, Russia has already launched unauthorised attacks on another state's aircraft - Georgia. It remains to be seen if they are not going to create a bigger mess. It is already messy enough right now. What can we imply from Russia's intentions and actions. No doubt that they are a rational state.

cheers

guppy

Georgian airplanes were violating airspace of a peacekeepers controlled region. It was the obligation of the peacekeeping forces there to shoot down the UAV's. Now it doesn't look like they were the ones to do it, because they didn't have the aircraft, but overall it's certainly a justifiable move. (i.e. technically it was the VVS not the CIS peacekeepers that shot it down, but the peacekeepers are Russian anyways so.... it's a formalistic point)

[guppy]

Georgian airplanes were violating airspace of a peacekeepers controlled region. It was the obligation of the peacekeeping forces there to shoot down the UAV's. Now it doesn't look like they were the ones to do it, because they didn't have the aircraft, but overall it's certainly a justifiable move. (i.e. technically it was the VVS not the CIS peacekeepers that shot it down, but the peacekeepers are Russian anyways so.... it's a formalistic point)

Yes, the airspace violation is true. But no, I do not seriously think that it is the obligation of peacekeepers to shoot down the drone, and I don't think a flanker or fulcrum was with archers were part of the peacekeeping force. A hostile act has been committed? Self defense? What about appropriate response? If every airspace violation should result in a shootdown, it would be a very dangerous world indeed.

My point would be that an objectionable and unhappy Russia is not beneficial to anyone in the long run. It only strengthens their desire to develop the capacity to disrupt order.

cheers

guppy

[Feanor]

Let me put it this way, if I was in charge of Russian forces in the KVO and I know Georgians are constantly doing airspace violations I would do the same thing.

[guppy]

Let me put it this way, if I was in charge of Russian forces in the KVO and I know Georgians are constantly doing airspace violations I would do the same thing.

Yes, but that would be escalatory in nature and not quite in line with peacekeeping operations unless there is good reason to believe that the georgian UAVs were attacking ground forces, or were supporting directly or indirectly military operations. Assuming that is true, why are the Russians hiding their involvement? If their intentions are above board, there is no need to deny their involvement. They could even have issued a formal warning to Georgia to stop airspace violations. I do not believe that the Russians peacekeepers intend to keep the peace.

cheers

guppy

[Feanor]

They're violating terms of the peace treaty and trying to use military force as well as NATO membership to put pressure on the breakaway provinces instead of negotiating. Russian peacekeepers are most certainly there to keep the peace. They're there to protect Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. And the best way to do that is to prevent war from happening. The longer they are de-facto independent the better. Not to mention that they're not willing to rejoin Georgia under any pretenses. Which means that if you remove the peacekeepers war is imminent.

[swerve]

I think you - and the Russian troops - are unclear about the nature of peacekeeping. Intervening to win a war for one side, & keeping troops in place to support that side, is not peacekeeping. If you wish to try to justify Russian actions in terms of the Abkhazians having legitimate grievances which Russia thought merited support, fine. But please do not call it "peacekeeping".

[Haavarla]

I think you - and the Russian troops - are unclear about the nature of peacekeeping. Intervening to win a war for one side, & keeping troops in place to support that side, is not peacekeeping. If you wish to try to justify Russian actions in terms of the Abkhazians having legitimate grievances which Russia thought merited support, fine. But please do not call it "peacekeeping".


Chill people..
Norway and Russia has an good relationship today. It has always been so, even back in the cold war.
The excursion's with the Tu-160 and Flanker is pretty normal. It's just that they do it quit often these days. The need to train up their new pilots again sinse the 90's..

I quess if Norway was to send some AUV's over the Russian border, they would first ask us what the fuck are we up too! If we would continue, they would surly shot them down.. but i quess the similarity between Gerogia and Norway end's there..

[guppy]

They're violating terms of the peace treaty and trying to use military force as well as NATO membership to put pressure on the breakaway provinces instead of negotiating. Russian peacekeepers are most certainly there to keep the peace. They're there to protect Abkhazia and S. Ossetia. And the best way to do that is to prevent war from happening. The longer they are de-facto independent the better. Not to mention that they're not willing to rejoin Georgia under any pretenses. Which means that if you remove the peacekeepers war is imminent.

Yes, war may break out if the "peacekeepers" were to be removed. Georgia would also need to balance that act against risking NATO membership. But that would be the subject of a different thread.

Usually, peacekeepers intent on keeping the peace would formally warn the belligerent party that further violations would result in retaliatory actions. Then a shoot down might occur, and then the peacekeepers would publish details supporting their case. This did not happen here. One can only suspect ulterior motives, which I believe you are more familiar than I am.

Like Swerve said, this is not peacekeeping. I would call it more of an "intervention".

But my original point was that Russia's intentions in this new changing world is worrisome.

cheers

guppy

[Feanor]

I think you - and the Russian troops - are unclear about the nature of peacekeeping. Intervening to win a war for one side, & keeping troops in place to support that side, is not peacekeeping. If you wish to try to justify Russian actions in terms of the Abkhazians having legitimate grievances which Russia thought merited support, fine. But please do not call it "peacekeeping".

It is peacekeeping. A very simple kind of peacekeeping. Follow the rules and you won't get shot. :) Brutal, unnecessary, unfair? Sure. But peacekeeping. :)

Yes, war may break out if the "peacekeepers" were to be removed. Georgia would also need to balance that act against risking NATO membership. But that would be the subject of a different thread.

Usually, peacekeepers intent on keeping the peace would formally warn the belligerent party that further violations would result in retaliatory actions. Then a shoot down might occur, and then the peacekeepers would publish details supporting their case. This did not happen here. One can only suspect ulterior motives, which I believe you are more familiar than I am.

That doesn't change the facts, does it? Georgians violated the mandate. Russia (or maybe not Russia after all? the video wasn't really evidence, as it could have easily been faked) shot down the violating UAV.

Like Swerve said, this is not peacekeeping. I would call it more of an "intervention".

But my original point was that Russia's intentions in this new changing world is worrisome.

I'd balance those intentions against Russia's capabilities and all of a sudden the picture doesn't look so scary any more. It's not only about what you want to do, it's about what you can do. (like I want to buy a corvette, but instead I'm hoping I can get something decent for the 6, 000 $ I'll have saved up by september :D )

[guppy]

It is peacekeeping. A very simple kind of peacekeeping. Follow the rules and you won't get shot. :) Brutal, unnecessary, unfair? Sure. But peacekeeping. :)

Taken to the extreme, that might qualify nuclear weapons as peacekeepers too. ;)

That doesn't change the facts, does it? Georgians violated the mandate. Russia (or maybe not Russia after all? the video wasn't really evidence, as it could have easily been faked) shot down the violating UAV.

Even from the grainy video, it was clear that it was either a flanker or fulcrum. In fact, I believe that with a little more information, we can nail down the aircraft type. The missile trajectory looked quite genuine. And I think we should give UN some credit that they would do their work to see if the video is authentic.

I'd balance those intentions against Russia's capabilities and all of a sudden the picture doesn't look so scary any more. It's not only about what you want to do, it's about what you can do. (like I want to buy a corvette, but instead I'm hoping I can get something decent for the 6, 000 $ I'll have saved up by september :D )

Or you could do a carjack, rob a bank, kidnap somebody for ransom, or simply steal one. :) Especially if you knew you could get away with it.

I hope you are right that Russia is just a pain in the you know where and mostly harmless.

cheers

guppy

[Chrom]

I think you - and the Russian troops - are unclear about the nature of peacekeeping. Intervening to win a war for one side, & keeping troops in place to support that side, is not peacekeeping. If you wish to try to justify Russian actions in terms of the Abkhazians having legitimate grievances which Russia thought merited support, fine. But please do not call it "peacekeeping".
"win the war"? That would be occuping Georgia... NOT just keeping it at bay from conquering Abkhazia! This IS direct and indisputable job of peace keeping forces - insuring what where are NO combat between 2 sides, and both sides have nothing to do in each other land.

Either way, if peace keepers are not allowed to use they weapon to stop violence... then how would we call UN & NATO troops in Kosovo? In Lebannon? in dozens other places where peacekeepers DO use weapon?

[Chrom]

Taken to the extreme, that might qualify nuclear weapons as peacekeepers too. ;)



Even from the grainy video, it was clear that it was either a flanker or fulcrum. In fact, I believe that with a little more information, we can nail down the aircraft type. The missile trajectory looked quite genuine. And I think we should give UN some credit that they would do their work to see if the video is authentic.


guppy Funny thing, special UN commission couldnt determine it with all information available to them. That alone speak volumes.

According to same commission, Abkhazia AD network is perfectly capable to track and destroy such UAV's.

[Feanor]

Taken to the extreme, that might qualify nuclear weapons as peacekeepers too. ;)

Oh but they are. Absolutely. Anyways the job of peacekeepers is to keep the two sides from hitting each other. How? Superior force. And if the two sides don't listen, what do you do? You slap them on the wrists. It's just that Western peace keepers slap on the wrists gently, while Russian ones like to use a metal ruler to do it. :)

Even from the grainy video, it was clear that it was either a flanker or fulcrum. In fact, I believe that with a little more information, we can nail down the aircraft type. The missile trajectory looked quite genuine. And I think we should give UN some credit that they would do their work to see if the video is authentic.

They said that it was "most likely Russia". Which of course means nothing. No solid accusations were made. Nothing else came of it.

Or you could do a carjack, rob a bank, kidnap somebody for ransom, or simply steal one. :) Especially if you knew you could get away with it.

Oh but I know I can't :*(

Wanna donate some money to my car fund? I'll even call it an international relief effort and post lots of pictures of me and you smiling and shaking hands. :p:

[guppy]

Oh but they are. Absolutely. Anyways the job of peacekeepers is to keep the two sides from hitting each other.

But usually without taking sides, and by at least trying to act justly, and without integrating breakaway states (Yes, has not happened yet). Nuclear weapons seem to fit that role. So, you are right, they are peacekeepers.

Oh but I know I can't :*(

Wanna donate some money to my car fund? I'll even call it an international relief effort and post lots of pictures of me and you smiling and shaking hands. :p:

Another way would be to marry a rich old lady that is about to kick the bucket.:) Reasonably more ethical, and definitely not criminal.

cheers

guppy

[guppy]

"win the war"? That would be occuping Georgia... NOT just keeping it at bay from conquering Abkhazia! This IS direct and indisputable job of peace keeping forces - insuring what where are NO combat between 2 sides, and both sides have nothing to do in each other land.

Either way, if peace keepers are not allowed to use they weapon to stop violence... then how would we call UN & NATO troops in Kosovo? In Lebannon? in dozens other places where peacekeepers DO use weapon?

Why would "win the war" mean occupying Georgia? I am not too familiar with the politics in the area. However, if the political objectives of the Russian government was to re-integrate the two breakaway states, and the Russian military was tasked to prevent Georgia from intervening, then keeping the line would be considered a military victory for the Russians.

Obviously, peacekeepers are allowed to use their weapons, but what aim and objective did they have in mind when they took out a couple of georgian drones? Were ppl on the ground directly threatened? Were actions escalatory or de-escalatory in nature? What if all this provokes a massive build up of forces on both sides, reminiscent of the cold war? Is that still considered peacekeeping? Of course we know it will not happen due to the current state of world affairs, but what if someone miscalculates some time down the road?

I will just say that the russians there are not regular peacekeeping forces as the western world is used to. I think there is a difference between intimidation and peacekeeping, like there is a difference between the mafia and the police.

btw, why not read what wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping#cite_note-0) has to say.

cheers

guppy

[guppy]

Funny thing, special UN commission couldnt determine it with all information available to them. That alone speak volumes.

According to same commission, Abkhazia AD network is perfectly capable to track and destroy such UAV's.

I do not doubt the credibility of the UN commission. However, there appears to be several aspects to this issue.

Firstly, with intimate knowledge of the optical system on the drone, it might be possible to determine the focusing distance of the attacker. Perform angle measurements on wingspans, do some trigonometry and compare against known figures for flankers and fulcrums. Now, was Georgia able to or willing to provide the UN with such data? Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it.

The 2nd aspect is this: does it matter whether it is a fulcrum or a flanker? Is it worth all the trouble to figure out which is it? Which airforce in that region flies two tailed fighters and have a motive to attack the drone? All the evidence is circumstantial, so they can't issue a statement that says,"the russians did it!".

cheers

guppy