Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

To be honest, it's not like this isn't standard practice around the world, and they have the right to send their bombers wherever they want as long as its over international water.

[nenjin]

It's a show of force, to demonstrate how they're not intimidated by sanctions, and it's tacit threat that they could act militarily if they wanted to. The US has done effectively the same thing in other regions like around the Arabian Peninsula....but Russia is basically circling western nations with their planes and warships and submarines as the only option left to them internationally: posturing.

[Sheb]

Not entirely true, they have other options, like their current sucking up to collaboration with China.

[olemars]

To be honest, it's not like this isn't standard practice around the world, and they have the right to send their bombers wherever they want as long as its over international water.

It's somewhat problematic when they fly through civilian air lanes with their ATC transponders switched off.

[nenjin]

Not entirely true, they have other options, like their current sucking up to collaboration with China.

That's not really the option I'm talking about. Sure, they can arrange deals to shore up some domestic issues, but they can't do anything about the sanctions. (Other than, you know, quit being shady with the entire world so they're lifted.) Since they won't do that though, the best they can manage is to puff up their chest and try to intimidate the rest of the world into lifting sanctions. Which they should well know by now, won't work.

To be honest, it's not like this isn't standard practice around the world, and they have the right to send their bombers wherever they want as long as its over international water.

It's somewhat problematic when they fly through civilian air lanes with their ATC transponders switched off.

Yeah. It's behavior like that which can turn their bluster into a real tragedy. As if the situation in Ukraine, and the jet liners that were already shot done, weren't tragic enough already.

[Helgoland]

Well, either that or Putin had some very bad air travel experiences as a child.

[Sheb]

First of all, by "The Rest of the World", you mean the West, right? Because, sorry to break it out to you, but most of the world is not imposing sanctions on Russia. The sanctions we did impose are also, well, fairly mild. It's going to hurt, but it's not going to crash their economy like we crashed Iran's. Falling oil prices may do that though.

Also, while endangering civilian airliners is a dick move (they almost collided with a swedish airliner recently IIRC), AFAIK Russia hasn't shot any airliner. Sure, you had the Malaysian Airline plane (singular) shot down by their proxies, which isa tragedy, but rebels!= Russia.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

rebels!= Russia.

Except when Russia gives them free military vehicles to shoot down civilian airliners

[Sergarr]

rebels!= Russia.

Except when Russia gives them free military vehicles to shoot down civilian airliners

are you psychic

because I don't see any markings on that vehicle that would identify it as Russian

Ukraine's got plenty of Buks too, you know.

[miljan]

Yeah. It's behavior like that which can turn their bluster into a real tragedy. As if the situation in Ukraine, and the jet liners that were already shot done, weren't tragic enough already.

Yea, it was tragic. History repeats it self (not 100% same, but still).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html


Fights on Donetsk air port (pro russian got hit by a UK tank)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dP5vCW00gI&list=UUG2L5r9T5iYCH0Mmgq85jNQ

[Sheb]

nenjin: Just because you arm someone doesn't mean you're automatically responsible for all the shit they do. Else, the US has killed way more people than that in Syria.

[Helgoland]

But one could make a fair case that the rebels are controlled by Moscow, giving the Kremlin a great degree of responsibility for their actions, almost on the same level as the responsibility for the actions of its own troops.

[Sheb]

Well, no one believe they were given an order to shoot down an airliner. If they were Russian troops, Russia would be responsible for the training of its troops, but one can hardly pretend that this apply here, right?

[miljan]

But one could make a fair case that the rebels are controlled by Moscow, giving the Kremlin a great degree of responsibility for their actions, almost on the same level as the responsibility for the actions of its own troops.

Fair case would be if you really know are they under direct control of Moscow. And do you think anyone would give order to shoot down a civil air plane, and who would get benefits from that? Think about it a little.

[Helgoland]

If German troops shot down a plane, Berlin would have to answer for that, even if it was a mistake. The same holds for Washington, for Ankara, and for every other nation's troops. So if Russian troops shot down a plane by mistake, Moscow would still be responsible.
The separatists aren't proper Russian troops, of course, but since the separatists are exclusively supplied, equipped, and directed by Moscow - do you really think they start any major military operations without getting Putin's okay first? - there is a similar, if lesser, degree of responsibility here.
Direct control is not necessary for responsibility, and neither is a direct order.