US says Russian warplane hits American drone over Black Sea

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (88 posts)
  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
    Sharlee01posted 16 months ago

    https://hubstatic.com/16413350.jpg

    "KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian fighter jet struck the propeller of a U.S. surveillance drone over the Black Sea on Tuesday in a “brazen violation of international law,” causing American forces to bring down the unmanned aerial vehicle, the U.S. said.

    Moscow said the U.S. drone maneuvered sharply and crashed into water following an encounter with Russian fighter jets scrambled to intercept it near Crimea, but insisted its warplanes didn’t fire their weapons or hit the drone.

    The incident, which raised tensions over Moscow's war in Ukraine, appeared to mark the first time since the height of the Cold War that a U.S. aircraft was brought down after being hit by a Russian warplane.

    WHAT !    -----  "U.S. President Joe Biden was briefed on the incident by national security adviser Jake Sullivan, according to White House National Security spokesman John Kirby. He added that U.S. State Department officials would be speaking directly with their Russian counterparts and “expressing our concerns over this unsafe and unprofessional intercept." Please read more.  https://www.aol.com/news/russian-missil … 17233.html

    As I always say what is next?  Meant to be sarcastic.

    America is floundering, under this administration.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      What would you do if you were President, Sharlee?

      This act as provocative as it seems, appears more like an accident than a deliberate action on the part of Russia.

      I would be prudent in handling the matter bringing Moscow's attention to it, while not exacerbating an already tense situation with an impulsive response.

      So, what would you do that Biden is not doing?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        From the report from CBS it was no accident.  Over and over, Russian jets approached, diving under and then right back up in front, putting the $57M drone in their jet exhaust.  The last one clipped the propeller when diving.  The jets also dumped fuel on each pass, trying to harm or disable our drone.

        Personally, I would arm our drones and defend them.  Let Russia rattle their sabers and see if they wish to spread Ukraine to the rest of the world.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I think they are working on just that. Or at least knock us down a peg.

          I don't think this will become WW III. I don't think Biden will even address the issue more than he has today.

          White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said President Joe Biden had been briefed on the incident.

          “It is not uncommon … for there to be intercepts by Russian aircraft of US aircraft over the Black Sea,” Kirby told reporters.
          https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/1 … -black-sea

          “It is not uncommon … Yes intercepts   US aircraft over the Black Sea,” never forced an aircraft down. What a tool!

          What a ridiculous comment and I guess we have just never been aware of Russia intercepting our aircraft over the Black sea.

          I have never read anything about his claims. It would seem he out and out lied.

        2. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          "Personally, I would arm our drones and defend them.  Let Russia rattle their sabers and see if they wish to spread Ukraine to the rest of the world."
          ----------
          I can see this as a reasonable remedy to prevent this from happening again, without starting WW III.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            I don't think this will become WW III. I don't think Biden will even address the issue more than he has today.

            White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said President Joe Biden had been briefed on the incident.

            “It is not uncommon … for there to be intercepts by Russian aircraft of US aircraft over the Black Sea,” Kirby told reporters.
            https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/1 … -black-sea

            “It is not uncommon … Yes intercepts   US aircraft over the Black Sea,” never forced one down. What a tool !

            What a ridiculous comment and I guess we have just never been aware of Russia intercepting our aircraft over the Black sea.

            I have never read anything about his claims. It would seem he out and out lied.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think this will become WW III. I don't think Biden will even address the issue more than he has today.
              ----------
              I would rather avoid the precipice than to needlessly approach it, but again, that is just me.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                To "avoid" it likely means have no US presence in that area of the world.  Unacceptable - it is international waters and if we don't enforce our rights we will soon lose them.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  I did not say that, we are entitled to a presence within international airspace and waters.

                  Thus, we are within our rights to defend ourselves accordingly.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    And I agree completely.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image73
                Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                We are already in it.  There is no avoiding what has already begun.

                People in 1930 didn't see WWII coming, they had no clue, even as one event after another dragged nation after nation into it.

                WWIII can be seen coming, from a mile away, but most won't see it, don't want to see it.  We have everything we need, economies nearing collapse, a fading Super Power / Society being challenged by a up and coming Super Power / Society. Its a fight over resources and who controls them, its a fight over which currency the world is going to trade in, its a fight over which industrial alliances are going to supply the rest of the world.

                Russia is sitting on over 50 Trillion dollars worth of Natural Resources, Energy.  Russia and Ukraine are critical to China's Silk Road initiatives and access to Europe without the necessity of using the Seas.

                The stakes are enormous, the very dominance of the world going forward will lay in the hands of Russia and China, or remain in control of America.

                WWIII is here, its just taking its time, progressing like all major global conflicts have.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Ken, the idea is to stay in international waters and not trespass.

                  It has been almost 80 years since the end of WWII. The world has held together in spite of many, what can be called, close calls. The nuclear genie has not come out of the bottle since Nagasaki.

                  Putin is attacking a sovereign nation, with its independence agreed to by Moscow in 1991. What gives Putin the right to renege on it? What does he want, I mean really, short of total capitulation of the Ukraine. That, from a Ukrainian standpoint has to be non-negotiable.

                  No single nation gets to dominate the planet, rather, there will be spheres of influence.

                  Without a crystal ball, no one could have known what to expect in 1930. Hitler was increasing the numbers of his Nazi Party. And Japan's  " rape of China" was yet to come. And how much of a global threat was Mussolini, at the time?

                  Putin has had a year and has yet to subdue a nation of considerably lesser resources. If he intends to bring out the "big guns" what is he waiting for?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    You are arguing particulars, based on your perspective as an American.

                    Those facts, those perceptions, are not the same as those who are making the decisions in Russia, or China.

                    Russia has its perceptions, facts, on what was promised about NATO.

                    Russia has its perceptions, facts, on what was promised in regards to Ukraine. 

                    With that said, it is merely the excuse for the much larger war to come.

                    I stated many months ago, that this would escalate, that it was always the plan to escalate this conflict.

                    Saying this is about Ukraine is like saying WWII was about Poland.

                    This is just the starting point of what is to come. We are funding and arming a massive war effort on Russia's border... how the significance of that, the meaning of that, is not sinking in with you I don't know... you have military experience, you have travelled outside the US... you are not some typical isolated American that doesn't have those experiences to work with.

                    So many billions and so many weapons sent or going to Ukraine right now. More and more troops get deployed around Ukraine, more ships, more drones, etc. etc.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    "No single nation gets to dominate the planet, rather, there will be spheres of influence."

                    No single nation should be held predominately responsible for protecting the world either.

                    Perhaps, Biden should never get us into a war where we are now the predominant supporters and protectors. Perhaps the strength that most previous presidents showed, kept Putin at bay...  Note when and how this war started. Note choices could have been made long before Russian troops walked into Ukraine.

                    This administration has set America back in so many ways. Biden's foreign policies are at the top with inflation smack under it.

              3. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                I am hopeful Russia and China back away from saber-rattling. But, I don't think they will.

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Rattling sabers is part of the international game, but are either of them prepared to go to the brink, cross the line of no return?

        3. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          From what I read this type of drone is used armed and unarmed. I have not seen any reports that the address of the drone was armed or was not.

      2. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        The descriptions I have heard don't sound anything like an accident. It sounds like a provocation.

        But I'm with you on what the president should do. Standing firm without an escalatory reaction can also be a strong message.

        I bet we'll soon hear from people that do know what they're talking about (from both perspectives), but it won't be from the early presenters that are speculating, almost, as much as we are.

        To that point, one of the early talking points most stations were using described the Russian pilot's actions as; reckless, irresponsible, and incompetent.

        I don't think so. The descriptions of their actions brought to mind the flying in the movie 'Top Gun'. I think that if a pilot can maneuver to dump fuel in the drone's path, or ease up behind it and poke its propeller he sure as hell isn't incompetent.

        We're all guessing, but it sounds like a very purposeful and competently done action to me. Our response better be just as purposely calculated.

        GA

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          Got to ask --  "But I'm with you on what the president should do. Standing firm without an escalatory reaction can also be a strong message."

          What do you feel would be a firm action? "Stand firm"... What does that allude to?  A red line type of response?  History proves Russia loves red lines, does it not? Sanctions, have they worked thus far?  NO

          In my view, and not by any means am I trying to imply we should take any strong military action?  T hat water has long passed under the bridge.   We have a weak administration, with a man sitting in the White House that is clearly aged poorly, and not able to handle the job of  President of The United States.  He has weakened our reputation on the world stage and provoked rough nations to act while he is sitting in the White House. Rouge nations meaning Russia, and China. This mess is not his hands alone, he makes problems, and has no ability to solve problems.

          At this point, the US has no choice but to take what they hand up. In a strong administration, this proxy war would have not occurred. 

          So, please do offer your "standing firm" solution. Very much confused as to what that action would be.

          All I have heard thus far our of Washington is  words like --- "this was irresponsible"  "it is not unusual for Russia to intercept our aircraft",

          And this is where the media takes us  --A  Look here not there ploy to bury the serious nature of  Russia taking out one of our drones ---

          "Without getting to too much detail, what I can say is that we've taken steps to protect our equities with respect to that particular drone, that particular aircraft and its United States property," Kirby said. "We obviously don't want to see anybody getting their hands on it beyond us."

          I will be interested, in hearing what your stand-firm solution is. I guess maybe go retrieve our dead drone?

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            A while back I had an epiphany about second-guessing and armchair-quarterbacking. I generally choose my words to convey not only the obvious message but also the tone and inflection of that message. Kinda like purposely saying ain't instead of isn't, it adds a bit of flavoring to the message. Which can add inflection to the message—hopefully helping to define the message.

            So "Stand firm" didn't mean "firm action." Speculating on what firm action he should take is way above my paygrade. Asking for that speculation even before we have anything more than the first day's public media presentations of the 'facts." (surely you don't think the nations in Russia's sphere of influence are hearing the same presentation we are?)

            It also didn't allude to redlines or trigger points. It meant what it said, stand firm, don't reflexively react.

            The only response I have to your request for a 'standing firm solution' is one I already offered Credence2 in a tangent about arming the drones:

            Perhaps I watch too many movies, but surely there is some possible appropriate military response that doesn't hand Putin more reason to do something he already wants to do."

            GA

            1. Sharlee01 profile image90
              Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, that drone action was one wilderness put forth. I am a curious person. I like to assess the mindset of anyone I am observing in conversation. It leaves me open to being, well. "who the hell does she think she is?"

              I think one needs to put a bit of stuffing into who is on the other side of the keyboard.

              So, I think your answer helped n that respect. Thank you for responding.

              "Perhaps I watch too many movies, but surely there is some possible appropriate military response that doesn't hand Putin more reason to do something he already wants to do."

                 In my view, my blunt view, Putin needs no other reason than us paying for what  I feel is Quasi-War in simple terms. America is conducting its war against Russia just by using another nation's blood to conduct that war.

              In my view, this war was unnecessary, and most likely could have been prevented with a stronger US president. Russia reacted at the opportune time, as it did under Obama, moving swiftly into Crimea. Or perhaps a coincidence?

              In regards to getting more information or facts. Do you really think we will see much more on this issue?  I mean, have you not witnessed how quickly all issues with this administration become well and brushed well away before the next crisis occurs?

  2. Sharlee01 profile image90
    Sharlee01posted 16 months ago

    Moreover, what would have we done to prevent such a gesture? We have only had one aircraft shot down by Russia  -- Yes, they shot down the U-2. A spy plane that Flew so high that we thought the Russians could not reach it with their missiles. Anyway, they confronted Eisenhower who denied it, Not knowing at the time that the Russians had the wreckage and the pilot Gary Powers who had miraculously survived. When they presented the downed pilot at a press conference it was a huge embarrassment for Eisenhower to get caught lying on the world stage.

    It would appear that Biden is thought of as a weak do-nothing president. We had China pulling his strings with balloons, and now Russia. I am with Ken... We are a laughing stock at this point.

    I have hopes Ken will comment on this thread, he predicted these kinds of issues would be happening for Russia and China a bit back. I guess China and Russia are hell-bent on putting the US in its place. They got the right administration to do that, and they can see that. As I always say, what next?

       Oh well, your logic escapes me.

    To be blunt -   I will leave it at that, not much chance I can respect your view on this one.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I am not ready to dangerously escalate our involvement situation over a drone. As wilderness suggests, warn Russia and arm the drone to provide defense to the extent that they can be for next time.

      Very similar to the way we had to arm our shipping that moved between the US and Europe after WWII began to protect against Nazi U-boats even as we were neutral. The acts were defensive in nature. We were not at war with Germany, but had an interest in defending our ships and cargoes. Such is the case now, as we are supposedly neutrals in international waters.

      That is ok, we don't have to agree, I come at things from a different angle.

      1. Sharlee01 profile image90
        Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

        "I am not ready to dangerously escalate our involvement situation over a drone. As wilderness suggests, warn Russia and arm the drone to provide defense to the extent that they can be for next time."

        I very much agree. However, with Biden's attitude do you think he will do anything?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          What about Biden's attitude? I will have to wait and see what he does. I believe that there will be a reprisal of sorts, but not of the nature that would aggravate the situation unnecessarily.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image90
            Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

            A red line type of response?  Been there and done that -  History proves Russia loves red lines, and smears are faces into red lines.

            In my view, and  I am not by any means trying to imply we should take any strong military action.  We have a weak administration we have no choice but to take what Russia, and China hand up. In a strong administration, this would have not occurred.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              If Biden does what I suggested, we could avoid strong military action such as one would expect from a combatant rather than a neutral. But, I will see if there is to be any reprisal from the administration, measured and commensurate to the Russian offense.

              It is only you and right that consider Biden a weak leader, while I say that he is prudent one. Again, my perspective will always be different from any right wing leaning person, but that is a given.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                Biden has done what he is going to do --- go clean up the mess the drone made in the black sea. He is retrieving the drone. He is not going to do anything else. Hopefully, they keep him well away from the public stage. Who knows what he will say to denature our foreign standing?

                Prudent? Prudent would have been to not have let this war ever come to fruition. Note who was in power each time that Russia decide to move on its neighbors.  (In February and March 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula, taking it from Ukraine.)

                We had a weak do nothing leader, as we do now.  Maybe Joe could offer up a red line to try that failed ploy. Russia loves red lines.

                And please don't read me wrong -- I do not want this administration to do anything about the current mess they have us in. They are scary as hell, and hopefully don't do anything. Because thus far they have created one big ass mess all around.

                Hey --- what next?

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  What should Biden do? The South Carolina senator suggested that we shoot down a Russian aircraft in retaliation. That is over the top. Is there a diplomatic solution? I doubt it. My point is that it is obvious that the attack on the drone was deliberate and needs to be address by putting Moscow on notice, or otherwise retaliating in some way. As GA mentions, we don't want to give Putin anymore justification and encouragement in this case. But, we cannot simply ignore it.

                  Putin has failed to subdue a second rate military force for over a year. With his having to draft prisoners, it does not sound much like a crack military unit to me. What is next? What will he do in desperation?

                  Did Biden say that he was going to do nothing? Is there a link for that?

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    I think you are reading me wrong. I suggest doing nothing, we are in no position to do anything at this point we are well-cornered. We have no cards at this point to play.

                    My point, the time for doing is well past. Russia should have never been let to cross into Ukraine period. This is where we had a chance to stop a war. We have a war now. The strength of NATO with the US should have never, I mean never let Russia move into Ukraine.

                    Your last question is profound --- What will he do in desperation?

                    In my view, Bden will do nothing. Because there is nothing he can do. Maybe this should be our main concern. We have a president that creates unnecessary problems, and when his problems become insurmountable he hides.

            2. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              I don't think the administration is weak, it is just a current challenge that his predecessor never faced, no credit to him. It was just the way the cards were dealt during Biden's watch.

              Just keep putting on the conventional pressure until something breaks, always being wary of not provoking an escalation toward nuclear exchange.

      2. GA Anderson profile image88
        GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        My first thought is that arming the drones 'for self-defense' (now and relative to this instance, not as a general operational thing) could make things worse. It might be the type of response Putin wants.

        Consider this: from an adversarial perspective, what is the difference between a drone armed for self-defense and one armed for attack? Then consider this incident on, or in the fuzzy area on each side of the international waters line. Same encounter, except that our drone 'defends' itself and shoots a Russian plane that crashes in Ukrainian or Russian (Crimean) waters.

        Giving Putin such a situation to exploit, primarily nationally but also globally, doesn't sound like a good idea. That's just saber-rattling on our side. If that is our level of response, Putin will have brought things down to his level and will beat us with experience. (yeah, that's a butchered Twain thought)

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

          GA, interesting view...

          The difference between a drone armed for self defense and one armed for attack is only found in the intent of the operator.

          History has revealed at least during Hitler's rise that there was a lot of neutrality sentiment here, fearing that arming ourselves and taking "aggressive" defensive posture might offend Hitler.

          If we stayed in international waters and airspace, our defensive posture should be no more provocative than that of anyone else.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            Alright, damn it. You need another poke. There is no reason to introduce "Hitler."  Your point could have been as equally clearly made with a simple reference to previous wars, specifically WWII if that was the finger you wanted to point.  Readers would have recognized what you were talking about.

            To clear some of that 'Hitler' fog (which came from a misunderstanding of the comment), my thought about arming the drones has nothing to do with neutrality or strength or weakness. It was about the danger of this specific action—arming surveillance drones.

            Once a drone is armed it is no longer just a "surveillance" drone, now it is also an attack drone.

            Consider the political and public implications of that change. Even if the specific Russian pilots' actions are disputed, and even if the geolocation, whether that location is in or out of international waters is disputed, the one undisputed fact—that also credits the non-aggressor's (us) presentation of 'facts' vs. 'Putin's claims that our facts are wrong, is that it was an unarmed surveillance drone.

            Now consider if that drone had been armed and Putin could legitimately falsely (figure out that apparent contradiction, it works for the point) claim that our armed attack drone entered his territorial waters.

            That was my point. We would be handing Putin an opportunity that is dangerous and bad for us and is one we don't have to give him.

            He is already (reported to be?) using the incident (blaming the US) to hold up the deal for Ukraine grain exports.

            Perhaps I watch too many movies, but surely there is some possible appropriate military response that doesn't hand Putin more reason to do something he already wants to do.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Let's use Iran and the Persian Gulf, if you don't like Hitler.

              I guess that I am missing your point, why am I at fault for wanting to protect my asset within international waters?

              The fact that this was an unarmed drone in international waters gives credibility to the fact of its non-aggressive purpose. But can Putin be allowed to shoot our drones down with impunity? Where do we ever allow for such a thing?

              Putin blames us for everything that has gone wrong in Ukraine militarily anyway. Putin would still find grounds to destroy such a drone even if it were unarmed and engaged in reconnaissance activity. They are not just flying around for nothing.  So, how do you win? Surveillance activity is justification in itself to shoot done the drone, we surely wanted to do that with the Chinese balloon. Whether we entered his territorial waters or not is immaterial because Putin can easily lie about that, as an excuse to shoot down anything that is contrary to his goal.

              Putin is without honor and to impugn that he has any is the first mistake. He is going to do what he wants, regardless.

              I say that something has to be done in response to the deliberate attack on our drone short of exacerbating the conflict toward any deeper involvement. It should be measured and appropriate, but it has to be something.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, you missed the point, twice. None of what you vented about relates to the point of my comment.

                I didn't say we shouldn't protect our "assets," I said I didn't think we should do that by arming them and turning them into a more serious threat as an attack vehicle. I think it's a bad idea.

                From listening to the military talking heads, this kind of escapade, minus the actual contact, has been fairly common since the war started. We haven't heard a lot about them before this, so maybe, militarily and politically, those provocations are viewed as just part of 'the game.'

                So, if this incident, involving an unarmed surveillance drone is making such a national and global fuss, imagine if the drone had been armed. We would have handed Putin a kernel of truth to put into whatever claims he makes. And in the worse case, a vehicle that could be claimed to have fired upon or shot down a Russian plane flying to innocently check out an intrusion into Russian territorial waters.

                Surely you don't think it's a good idea to give him that opportunity. Even if the fact it was an armed drone is true and everything else is false, consider the audiences of the world. That one kernel of truth might be all it would take to cause a pause and consideration, And just that little pause is to Putin's benefit.

                Scale the percolation of that little pause. Up from the folks, to their elected Reps, to the nation's diplomats and decision-makers. Once again, a pause at those levels is a plus for Putin. Also once again, we don't need to give it to him. Just find another way that has more substance than the simple saber-rattling of arming the drones.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Well, i disagree with your standpoint on this occasion.

                  If I were sitting where Joe Biden is, I would gather officers from the State Department and DOD and ask, what are you going to do to prevent this from happening again? I don't want a policy of appeasement and I am on the hot seat if the people believe that I am going to do nothing. Doing nothing has no substance at all. Who gives Putin any credibility now?

                  Arming the drones is just a suggestion, but I believe that something has to be done, so we don't have a repeat performance.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    I also believe we must respond in some manner. I am not promoting a 'turn the other cheek' response. I think that is the point you missed and the misapplied reasoning behind your disagreement.

                    GA

            2. Ken Burgess profile image73
              Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Actually, what is "non aggressive" about America?

              How is America "neutral"?

              Are we not funding the Ukrainian efforts?

              Are we not arming them?

              Are we not providing Intel, drones, internet, without which, their efforts would falter?

              Without American intervention hundreds of thousands of Russians would be alive today.

              From a Russian perspective, this is America's war, Russia and much of the rest of the world, OPEC, China, India, etc recognize this fact.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                I'm not sure where the 'non-aggressive' thought came from, it wasn't in my comment. With a couple of clarifications, I agree with most of the points you listed.

                Using the invasion as a starting point, America has been very aggressive in its support of Ukraine and opposition to Putin. We were never neutral.

                We are funding and arming them, but so are most other Western/NATO nations. and even beyond all the intel and training stuff, I see the probability that we also have 'unofficial' trainers on the ground.

                We also got some civilian support: wasn't Musk responsible for providing internet access for their military operations? (and civilians)

                Considering that I am speaking of post-invasion circumstances, I think all of those actions are good ones. The arguments of whether we should have gotten involved, or purposely promoted our involvement, are secondary. They became secondary once the invasion started.

                From that perspective, your other points about who would be alive or dead or which part of the world believes what, are 'yeah, but . . .' tangents to the issue.

                GA

                1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                  Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  See my above recent post to Credence in regards to context.

                  Our involvement began long before the "invasion".

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Ken,  It would appear the US has really cornered itself. I can't see any logical response that the US could make in regard to the drone being taken down, can you?

                    I find it actually very silly of some in Washington to call for action, yet offer no suggestions. Blowing off steam.

                    I guess we have cornered ourselves pretty well. We could threaten a red line, we have witnessed that failed ploy with Seria. We could just bluster a bit and threaten Putin, or we could put more meaningless sanctions.

                    Or we could start a world war... We sure F---ed this one up.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    I haven't disputed that we were involved long before the invasion. I would argue the point that the US has pushed that involvement, rather than being pulled into it by Ukraine. We don't disagree on those points.

                    GA

    2. Ken Burgess profile image73
      Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Russia hasn't deployed troops along America's borders.

      America HAS deployed troops along Russia's borders.

      Russia, as far as I know, is not flying drones in or near American airspace.

      America IS flying drones in or near Russian airspace.

      Russia, as far as I know, is not supporting Mexican or Canadian efforts against America in a war.

      America is spending hundreds of billions, and sending its best weapons, into a war against Russia.

      You have to be pretty thick not to see who the aggressor is, when it comes to who is at fault, Russia or America.  And there is no question this will escalate, you are correct, I said it would, its been planned.

      My only surprise is it has taken this long... if a few more banks go under, they will likely start WWIII with gusto, to distract from the collapsed economy... heck, they will blame the Russians, of course. Might even drag in the Chinese as well.  Make it a challenge (insert eye roll)

      1. Sharlee01 profile image90
        Sharlee01posted 16 months agoin reply to this

        I feel you are 100% correct. I mean why aren't more Americans more aware of the writing on the wall?  This war is a proxy war, and Russia is not going to back away as so many predicted. The media from the beginning has been playing down Russia's abilities to keep this war raging. In fact, many had predicted that Russia is losing the war greatly. Yet have they backed off, are they even willing to talk... No

        In my view, Russia will become more aggressive against the US, and it's coming fast. They can and have seen from the start the war they are fighting is against the US.

    3. Ken Burgess profile image73
      Ken Burgessposted 16 months ago

      Yeah!  Cause like, its our American right to fly drones in or near Russian airspace!

      Russians want WWIII we will give it to them!

      Who the F do they think they are, we're F'n America, if we want to fly those drones over Moscow they better damned well roll out the red carpet for them. Or else!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, we have the right to fly "near" Russian airspace.  Meaning, of course, international territory.

    4. DmitryLevichev profile image60
      DmitryLevichevposted 16 months ago

      It was not an ordinary drone that flew to Crimea, but an air object stuffed with reconnaissance equipment or weapons, and therefore representing a clear danger.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image73
        Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Of course and then surprise, surprise, there is a hit in Crimea on a Russian Train delivering missles.

        A good watch you may find interesting regarding this conflict and other related issues:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2F0lrdyOhA

    5. Readmikenow profile image93
      Readmikenowposted 16 months ago

      If you want to know the truth of what is happening in Crimea right now here is an article from the Ukrainian newspaper called "The Day."

      I think it has a translation tab on it to translate it into English.

      https://day.kyiv.ua/article/polityka/kr … s-chekayut

      1. DmitryLevichev profile image60
        DmitryLevichevposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        It's a fake copy. Yesterday Putin was in Crimea. He freely traveled by car around the cities, met people, went to visit people who called him to them. Everyone says thank you that Crimea is being built, the salaries are good and they are glad that no one else will touch or seize them.

        1. Readmikenow profile image93
          Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          I don't think so.

          Russians control their media and what is posted very carefully. I believe what people saw was probably staged. It wouldn't be the first time the Russians staged a media event.  It is part of being part of the Russian media.

          1. DmitryLevichev profile image60
            DmitryLevichevposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            If the Ukrainian troops did not kill civilians, none of this would have happened. They robbed churches, killed priests. They just caught men on the street and sent them to fight. Do you think anyone would want to live in such a country? So they asked Putin to intervene... And it started 10 years before the war.

            1. Readmikenow profile image93
              Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              That is some good Russian propaganda you are stating.

              NONE of it is true. 

              "Inside the Kremlin's Year of Ukraine Propaganda"

              "But researchers say the deepfake is just one example of a barrage of disinformation, manipulated imagery, forged documents, and targeted propaganda unleashed by Russia and pro-Kremlin activists that may have had a significant impact on audiences over the last year of war."

              https://time.com/6257372/russia-ukraine … formation/

              1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                Yeah, we have plenty of disinformation, manipulated imagery, targeted propaganda right here in the US of A.

                In fact, there is no country better at it, then the US of A.

                But you know that, I've seen you trying to counter plenty of those lies over the years.

                Time is a rag of misinformation right there with the rest of them.

                Who was their "Man of the Year?" ... Zelenskyy

                No bias or propaganda there.

                1. Readmikenow profile image93
                  Readmikenowposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  At least you don't deny the intense propaganda efforts of Russia to its people concerning the war in Ukraine. I've spoken to many Russian people who are very upset by the lies told to them.

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image73
                    Ken Burgessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    I approach this from a different perspective.

                    You see this FAR more personally, from the perspective of a certain side in the Ukraine conflict.

                    I see it from the perspective of what this will cost Americans, how we are paying the price for this power/political tug of war between America and Russia, between BRICS and the Dollar, I also see how the world, outside of UK & EU is aligning against us... OPEC, BRICS, are working closer together and in a collaborative effort to offset the efforts of America and its allies against Russia.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)