Yep you are a Russian apologist, anything that they do is fine anything the West does is poking the bear.Let's be clear here a airspace violation is not a invasion. There also very commen things for large powers such as the u.s Russia and others. a good example is the u.s sails fleets thru the Taiwan strait, it does this despite following the one china policy which in effect makes the strait chinas waters. Infact the world with single digit exceptions follows the one china policy and therefore defacto recognize the Taiwan strait as Chinese.
But this happens regularly and is in fact provocation hell it's a dam gauntlet thrown down. I bring this up only to reinforce my point that were not going to war over a air violation in Estonia. Taiwan vastly outweighs Estonia in importance if the powder is kept dry there it should be nonexistent in this situation
Also worth noting Russia and the u.s routinely violate each other airspace.
But overall to directly answer your statement yes when a small nation attacks a vastly larger nation over basically a nothing burger it's poking the bear. There are other options like flying up and asking them to leave it's what my country Canada along with everyone else does. And you know what it works. Mostly because the point of them is to remind you that powerful countries follow these international laws because they choose to not because you force them to... Like I said violations are not invasions when done intentionally there basically diplomatic msgs and should be regarded as such.
Also there is this
As you can see the u.s just cut military aid for Estonia Latvia and Lithuania it's not a total cut off but it's fairly close.
As for your point about Russia invading Ukraine and that being wrong. i feel for the Ukrainian people but as to why Russia attacked that is a much larger answer then I have time for to post (tho I have posted before). Short answer is Russia didn't exactly want this war either.
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
No I'm a realist this air violation is literally not a issue, calling for Estonia to attack Russian plains over it? Are you serious man how in the hell will that help anything, it won't stop Russia from doing anything if you shoot down a plane. It sure won't stop Russia from actually bombing Estonia if they so choose to. (I doubt they might and would but they will do something at any rate)
It will however probably result in ending any chance of cooperation or talks with Russia and the whole of Europe and to a lesser degree the u.s.a for some time. Russia is not dumb they know Estonia isn't going to make the call to hit Russian jets themselves.
They may go as far as limiting the oil they let india sent to Europe. Or Hell they may just call the bluff take out Estonias air defences claiming they were attacked first which by th way would be just the off ramp everyone who dosnt want ww111 over a airspace violation in Estonia to take and prevent article 5 from activating since you know Estonia would be starting the war not defending itself and NATO is a defensive alliance. Heck they may go farther and just take the dam island they flew over well there at it. Think man I know you don't like Russia and that's fine. But having Estonia potentially start a war with Russia over a freaking airspace violation is dumb.
And yes a country like Estonia located in a place like Estonia attacking Russia is litterity the correct definition of poking the bear.
Last edited:
Under international law, the Taiwan strait is mostly international waters, regardless of whether Taiwan is part of the Chinese state. Territorial waters are limited to 12 nautical miles, or about 22km, & the strait is much wider than 40 km, & that's allowing for the small islands in the strait. China has signed UNCLOS, & thus agreed to that limit.
There's also a thing called the right of innocent passage, which allows naval ships to pass through the territorial waters of other countries as long as they follow certain rules. Note that China sometimes breaks those rules, e.g PLAN submarines have been known to sail between Japanese islands submerged, although the rules require subs to transit on the surface - though I think they stopped that after the JMSDF started sailing ships above them with a high power sonar turned full on aimed straight at the sub. Not damaging, but I'm told at close range it's painful for the crew. The Chinese couldn't complain, in the circumstances. But China also publicly exercises the right of innocent passage according to the rules, e.g. when it's sent ships to sail through British or French waters in the Strait of Dover, such as in August 2024.
Thanks I forgot all about the right of innocent passage .
so not the best example I gave but I stand by the general point a airspace violation is not a major international event and definitely not a cause for war unless you happen to be looking for one and don't have any yellow cake uranium around lol
Inverno
New Member
Technically possible, like with IDAS. "Throughout the entire mission, the system communicates graphical views of the environment perceived by the guided missile’s seeker and information on the targets to the operator in the submerged submarine via optical fiber."Moisture doesn’t matter (they fly in the rain). Not sure if cable sinking is an issue or how much if an issue rather.
But we are coming back again to the issue of territorial waters, distance, etc; or back to the same scenario as the FPVs flown from a truck or, in this case, freighter in the Russian waters
Edit: would the owner of the innocent freighter take offence to it being used as a weapon? Most definitely. It is a highly unlikely scenario, in my opinion.
Sea-to-Air Guided Missile System for U212A (IDAS)
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I am talking about cable sinking in terms of it actually sinking as the drone flies. Fibre optic cable is just coated glass, in simplest terms, so moisture will not affect the transmission. However, fibre optic drones have height limitations, for example. At a certain height, it’s going to start losing cable from the spool at a rate faster than it’s flight speed, greatly affecting its range. Does this come into play with a sinking cable over long ranges? Physics is no longer my strong suit, but I would think there is a point where the effect is the same. If someone has (informed) ideas, it would be interesting to hear them.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,827
It appears Spartan SUT armored cars were delivered to the Russian National Guard, including a specialized mortar variant. These vehicles are produced by Streit Group out of the UAE, who is also known for selling similar vehicles to Ukraine in the 2010s. The Spartan is, as far as I can tell, manufactured on a Ford chassis, meaning the Russian Armed Forces are receiving military hardware with US components openly. This isn't our first indication. We know the MVD took delivery of several armored vehicles from the UAE last year, apparently they took several variants of armored cars on different chassis and with different designs. They now appear to have selected one and are purchasing in some sort of bulk. I suspect what's happening is that National Guard units are passing their domestic-sourced equipment to Russian units engaged in the war, and are being re-armed with imported vehicles.
Personally I have a very poor opinion of vehicles like these. They're COTS chassis with armored hulls placed on top of them. This tends to result in subpar protection for the weight, poor mobility, and shorter overall service life as the chassis wasn't designed with this use in mind. I'm also not a fan of the term "infantry mobility vehicle" because it's often used to lump in things like this with proper MRAPs. I think Russia resorting to this move is not that different from Russia importing low quality DPRK artillery shells. And honestly there are some DPRK vehicles that I think would be of more use to Russia in this war. But like I wrote above, I think these are replacements for domestic security and counter-terrorism service, rather than vehicles meant for the war. It's also another clear indicator that Russia isn't isolated on the international arena, and that various OSINTers cheerfully counting down to some arbitrary point when Russia will "run out of armored vehicles" are delusional. It will be interesting to see if any other imported armored vehicles appear. So far we have the rare sighting of a DPRK sourced Bulsae ATGM carrier on some sort of wheeled APC chassis, and these Streit Group armored cars.
Personally I have a very poor opinion of vehicles like these. They're COTS chassis with armored hulls placed on top of them. This tends to result in subpar protection for the weight, poor mobility, and shorter overall service life as the chassis wasn't designed with this use in mind. I'm also not a fan of the term "infantry mobility vehicle" because it's often used to lump in things like this with proper MRAPs. I think Russia resorting to this move is not that different from Russia importing low quality DPRK artillery shells. And honestly there are some DPRK vehicles that I think would be of more use to Russia in this war. But like I wrote above, I think these are replacements for domestic security and counter-terrorism service, rather than vehicles meant for the war. It's also another clear indicator that Russia isn't isolated on the international arena, and that various OSINTers cheerfully counting down to some arbitrary point when Russia will "run out of armored vehicles" are delusional. It will be interesting to see if any other imported armored vehicles appear. So far we have the rare sighting of a DPRK sourced Bulsae ATGM carrier on some sort of wheeled APC chassis, and these Streit Group armored cars.
No you are a Russian troll.
If nobody wants ww3 why are the Russians violating other countries airspace? Your "logic" makes no sense whatsoever.
Nobody gets shot down if you actually just don't deliberately fly into anyone else's airspace.
You would probably be just fine if a Russia took out a NATO jet violating it's airspace.
I promise you the Russians aren't planning to start ww3 and honestly if they were they would probably do something slightly more dramatic then fly close to a island in the baltic sea as the opener. And just so we're rock solid here if Russia had a devious plot to start ww3 by violating Estonian territory they would probably use the land boarder as they share one....
And if a NATO jet flew over Russian territory the Russians would send interceptors like they always do and escort them out. They may even fly "dangerously close to them" as they have to the amusement of all been accused of well in there own airspace escorting said fighters out. They have also had there planes shadowed by f-22 raptors without the pilots noticing. With pictures posted I believe None of these are big events. Now bomb something send a actual dedicated isr platform deep into either sides territory yeah then it's possible shots are fired. The rest is basically diplomacy
Also why do you think Estonia should shoot down a Russian plane but automatically think it's wrong if Russia started shooting down NATO planes? The concept of proportional response is kinda the underlying reason of why airspace violations only actually matter if someone gets hurt (or caught spying). Because if it didn't work that way ww3 would have happened many times over by now. And for the recorded no Russia would not shoot down a NATO jet for a airspace violation in all honesty if NATO chose now to do it they would probably get warning about live air defences in the area in order to prevent accidently shooting them down
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,831
You may not like the content of his posts, but it's pretty clear he's not trolling. He has taken a position you disagree with. Let's tone down the rhetoric please. And it doesn't hurt to remember that airspace violations in general rarely result in shootdowns. The current reaction is the norm, not some strange exception.
I'm of the opinion that Russia would be unlikely to immediately attempt to knock it down. I think it's far likelier that they would warn, or possibly try to force them to land, depending on how deep they had gotten in. And I think it would be very risky for Russia to take a shot at a NATO jet that enters Russian airspace briefly. Certainly playing with fire.
It might and if it does it can easily be adapted for by changing the coating to something that floats. Fly fishing line for example floats on water not sure if that is the answer but I'm sure something like that will even if you lose a little range for a thicker spool
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I think shooting down the planes in situation as such is a dangerous path. For one thing, it leads to Russia returning the favour when circumstances permit.
Here is what happened, according to the Estonian MoD:
The Migs (actually one of them as reported by Swedes, no word on the other two that I saw) were armed with short range A2A missiles (or was it medium range?). They posed no threat at any time of their flight to the allied assets. In my opinion, it was a calculated move and I still think this is signalling in order to reestablish conventional deterrence.
@Redshift, I would be interested to know, which act do you think is more “hostile”, the three jets discussed above or the following: in March 2023, a B-52 was flying the same path towards Russia and sharply turned south 200 km before St Petersburg, flying towards Kaliningrad, turning west just north of it. This is its partial flight pass (more can be found here):
To be clear, it never entered the Russian airspace.
A couple opinions that I generally agree with:
I this is not an unlikely outcome in the current paranoid environment:
This is a follow up to the first post by Foreman, provided the context of second (completely separate post):
Here is what happened, according to the Estonian MoD:
The Migs (actually one of them as reported by Swedes, no word on the other two that I saw) were armed with short range A2A missiles (or was it medium range?). They posed no threat at any time of their flight to the allied assets. In my opinion, it was a calculated move and I still think this is signalling in order to reestablish conventional deterrence.
@Redshift, I would be interested to know, which act do you think is more “hostile”, the three jets discussed above or the following: in March 2023, a B-52 was flying the same path towards Russia and sharply turned south 200 km before St Petersburg, flying towards Kaliningrad, turning west just north of it. This is its partial flight pass (more can be found here):
To be clear, it never entered the Russian airspace.
A couple opinions that I generally agree with:
I this is not an unlikely outcome in the current paranoid environment:
This is a follow up to the first post by Foreman, provided the context of second (completely separate post):
This is not correct. Airspace violations do not happen as often as some people seem to think. Some are mixing up aircraft entering ADIZ, with aircraft entering national airspace. For example Russian aircraft with their transponders turned off routinely enter Norwegian ADIZ and are greeted by Norwegian F-35. However it is extremely rare that they enter Norwegian airspace.
I am not aware that Russia and the US routinely violate each other airspace, at least not for the last 10 years or so. If I am wrong please provide links.
Regarding the recent Russian provocations: they are clearly escalating their provocations. Sending 20 drones into Poland is a massive escalation. Also have 3 MiG-31 flying in NATO airspace for 12 minutes is a significant escalation compared to previous airspace violations. And yesterday Copenhagen airport and Oslo airport were temporarily closed due to drones. NATO cannot accept these escalations and must take action. Russia must understand they cannot keep on escalating this grayzone warfare (because that's what it is, when you include the increasing number of sabotage against water supplies, underwater cables, bombs on DHL planes, and GPS spoofing) without facing consequences.
Some things NATO can consider:
* stop providing tourist visa to Russians,
* increase support to Ukraine
* enforce sanctions
* inspect and if necessary arrest shadow fleet ships that enter territorial waters and that constitute an environmental risk and/or are not sea worthy
* provide long range missiles to Ukraine, and put no restrictions on their use
* If Russia keeps sending planes into NATO airspace then they should first be given warnings. If they don't immediately heed the warnings and turn back they should be shot down. Enough is enough.
If Russia keeps escalating, NATO should implement a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine and start helping Ukraine shoot down cruise missiles in Western Ukraine. North Korea and China are actively supporting Russia, and NK soldiers are now fighting in Europe, killing Europeans. NATO has since 2014 done "everything" to avoid escalation, and now we see the results. NATO must start to hit back, to send a clear message to Russia. Enough is enough.
Some things NATO can consider:
* stop providing tourist visa to Russians,
* increase support to Ukraine
* enforce sanctions
* inspect and if necessary arrest shadow fleet ships that enter territorial waters and that constitute an environmental risk and/or are not sea worthy
* provide long range missiles to Ukraine, and put no restrictions on their use
* If Russia keeps sending planes into NATO airspace then they should first be given warnings. If they don't immediately heed the warnings and turn back they should be shot down. Enough is enough.
If Russia keeps escalating, NATO should implement a no-fly zone in Western Ukraine and start helping Ukraine shoot down cruise missiles in Western Ukraine. North Korea and China are actively supporting Russia, and NK soldiers are now fighting in Europe, killing Europeans. NATO has since 2014 done "everything" to avoid escalation, and now we see the results. NATO must start to hit back, to send a clear message to Russia. Enough is enough.
Many European leaders are now signaling that they will use force to stop future "clear-cut" airspace violations.
Poland will shoot down objects in clear-cut airspace violations, prime minister says | Reuters
Pål Jonson: Sweden prepared to act if airspace is breached — military response remains an option - Euromaidan Press
Czech president urges NATO to respond firmly to Russian airspace violations | Euractiv
Ukraine-Russia war latest: UK tells UN it will confront Putin’s planes if they violate Nato airspace | The Independent
Good that they are signaling like this; to make sure Russia understands that they have to stop their aggressive and provocative behavior. If Russia wants to not escalate, they can simply stop escalating. Simple as that.
Poland will shoot down objects in clear-cut airspace violations, prime minister says | Reuters
Pål Jonson: Sweden prepared to act if airspace is breached — military response remains an option - Euromaidan Press
Czech president urges NATO to respond firmly to Russian airspace violations | Euractiv
Ukraine-Russia war latest: UK tells UN it will confront Putin’s planes if they violate Nato airspace | The Independent
Good that they are signaling like this; to make sure Russia understands that they have to stop their aggressive and provocative behavior. If Russia wants to not escalate, they can simply stop escalating. Simple as that.
Yesterday Moldova detained 74 people, to stop a plot the police says were linked to Russia. Moldova detains 74 people over an alleged Russia-backed unrest plot around key election | AP News
Today Russia claims that "Europe" is planning to invade Moldova. So probably Russia is desperately looking for an excuse to invade Moldova after their plot failed miserably. Russia alleges NATO preparing invasion of Moldova, deploying troops near Odessa
Today Russia claims that "Europe" is planning to invade Moldova. So probably Russia is desperately looking for an excuse to invade Moldova after their plot failed miserably. Russia alleges NATO preparing invasion of Moldova, deploying troops near Odessa
I never actually said that they should be shot down, I just objected to the idea that doing something, almost anything (up to and including shooting down) , involving "enemy" warplanes over one's own territory could be described as "poking the bear".I think shooting down the planes in situation as such is a dangerous path. For one thing, it leads to Russia returning the favour when circumstances permit.
Here is what happened, according to the Estonian MoD:
View attachment 53544
The Migs (actually one of them as reported by Swedes, no word on the other two that I saw) were armed with short range A2A missiles (or was it medium range?). They posed no threat at any time of their flight to the allied assets. In my opinion, it was a calculated move and I still think this is signalling in order to reestablish conventional deterrence.
@Redshift, I would be interested to know, which act do you think is more “hostile”, the three jets discussed above or the following: in March 2023, a B-52 was flying the same path towards Russia and sharply turned south 200 km before St Petersburg, flying towards Kaliningrad, turning west just north of it. This is its partial flight pass (more can be found here):
View attachment 53545
To be clear, it never entered the Russian airspace.
A couple opinions that I generally agree with:
View attachment 53546
I this is not an unlikely outcome in the current paranoid environment:
View attachment 53547
This is a follow up to the first post by Foreman, provided the context of second (completely separate post):
Russian activity is the poke not the response to that activity.
Norwegian government today made a press release stating that Russia has violated Norwegian 3 times this year. This has not been made public until today. Interesting to note that before these three violations, the previous violation happened more then 10 years ago. So very seldom.
The press release also mentions that Russian airspace violations have also happened in Finland, Lithuania and Latvia, in addition to the well knowns in Estonia, Poland and Romania.
Norway joins NATO in condemning Russia’s violation of Allied airspace - regjeringen.no
I asked ChatGPT about violations of Russian airspace the last 10 years:
For the period 2015 - 2021: No clear single entry in official Russian public records (open sources) of a foreign manned aircraft crossing into Russian sovereign airspace.
2021- 2025: numerous reports from Russian authorities about drones violating Russian airspace; most of them Ukrainians but in a couple of instances Russia claimed the US and/or Turkey violated Russian airspace, see below.
April 2023: U.S. MQ-9 Reaper — Russia said the drone violated temporary restrictions around Crimea / approached Russian border. The US said the MQ-9 was in international airspace; the drone crashed in the Black Sea after an intercept.
August 2023: Russia reported detection / escort of MQ-9 and TB2 (Turkish-made Bayraktar) UAVs near Crime. Western accounts said aircraft were operating in international airspace and described Russian intercepts as unsafe.
Compare this to what Russia is doing in Ukraine, Estonia, Poland, Romania, the Baltics, Finland, and Norway, and the difference should be clear.
The press release also mentions that Russian airspace violations have also happened in Finland, Lithuania and Latvia, in addition to the well knowns in Estonia, Poland and Romania.
Norway joins NATO in condemning Russia’s violation of Allied airspace - regjeringen.no
I asked ChatGPT about violations of Russian airspace the last 10 years:
For the period 2015 - 2021: No clear single entry in official Russian public records (open sources) of a foreign manned aircraft crossing into Russian sovereign airspace.
2021- 2025: numerous reports from Russian authorities about drones violating Russian airspace; most of them Ukrainians but in a couple of instances Russia claimed the US and/or Turkey violated Russian airspace, see below.
April 2023: U.S. MQ-9 Reaper — Russia said the drone violated temporary restrictions around Crimea / approached Russian border. The US said the MQ-9 was in international airspace; the drone crashed in the Black Sea after an intercept.
August 2023: Russia reported detection / escort of MQ-9 and TB2 (Turkish-made Bayraktar) UAVs near Crime. Western accounts said aircraft were operating in international airspace and described Russian intercepts as unsafe.
Compare this to what Russia is doing in Ukraine, Estonia, Poland, Romania, the Baltics, Finland, and Norway, and the difference should be clear.
NATO statement released today:
As expected NATO is not doing anything that can have even the slightest risk of escalating the situation. However, the ball is now back in Russia's court. I believe Russia will keep escalating, I think the question is: will they keep escalating at the same rate or will they wait a few weeks or even months before escalating again?
NATO - Official text: Statement by the North Atlantic Council on recent airspace violations by Russia, 23-Sep.-2025
As expected NATO is not doing anything that can have even the slightest risk of escalating the situation. However, the ball is now back in Russia's court. I believe Russia will keep escalating, I think the question is: will they keep escalating at the same rate or will they wait a few weeks or even months before escalating again?