This is a viewpoint on the drone, which I haven’t heard, but about which I had been wondering; what was the drone doing in that area?
1 Like
As has been noted, " Nobody gains from a spiral of increasingly dangerous interactions".
1 Like
The Russians attacked and destroyed a US military aircraft flying in international air space.
It is an act of war.
The US needs to respond to it as such.
1 Like
So we should go to war directly with Russia?
What are the choices?
Here is an article (I suppose it could be called that) that goes into much detail about the process of determining such instances to be lawful or unlawful and consequences of the incident.
Perhaps a worthy site to visit for thorough explanations.
It would appear that this should not be considered an act of war, but:
The more viable option is the taking of countermeasures. While countermeasures are not permissible once an incident is over, they are to secure any reparations that might be due (ASR, arts. 31, 34). If the Russian action qualifies as an internationally wrongful act, which, as explained above, it likely does, the United States may engage in proportionate, non-forcible countermeasures until Russia provides reparations for the downed Reaper.
In this regard, it is important to note that countermeasures need not be in-kind. For instance, the United States could mount cyber operations that violate Russian sovereignty until Russia makes good the loss it has suffered, at least so long as those operations have a reasonable chance of succeeding at inducing Russia to pay. Another possibility would be to close U.S. territorial waters to the transit of certain Russian-flagged vessels, such as warships.
Finally, the United States may engage in acts of “retorsion,” a term that denotes unfriendly but lawful actions. The paradigmatic example in the context of the Ukraine conflict is economic sanctions.
I agree. If China’s spy balloon was not an act of war upon the US and our eventual downing of that balloon was not an act of war upon China, then it seems to me that the drone incident should not be an act of war. Especially not a war that could morph into a global war.
1 Like
Ah. You link to somebody again.
What do you think the thousands of American unmanned drones that fly about the globe every day do? What do you think it was doing there over international waters?
The article implies that the drone was attacking Russia - or at least that Russia was entitled to believe so.
The article implies many things. It implies that Russia had placed a legitimate “no-fly” order over international waters. It implies that the presence of the US drone is evidence of the US entering directly into the war, provoking a legitimate Russian reaction. It implies that Russia was within its rights to damage the drone. It implies that Russia is within its rights to be in Crimea. It implies that it would be a great mistake for western countries to give air defense support to Ukraine, because Russia will take it out.
On that last implication: the timing of the downing of the drone is significant, because Poland has just agreed to send four MiG-29 fighter jets in “full working order” to Ukraine in the next few days. Since the beginning of the war, NATO countries have been reluctant to provide Ukraine with fighter jets because of the perceived risk of escalation from Moscow in response. The US nixed the first attempts by Poland to send MiGs to Ukraine, and is still nixing and slow-walking weapons supplies to Ukraine - precisely to reassure Moscow that it is NOT entering the war directly. There is an idiocy here: every time NATO countries act to avoid provoking Moscow to escalate, they are confirming Moscow’s right to escalate whenever it decides that their actions are provocative.
The damage to the US drone occurred within the context of supporting Ukraine’s air defense. The Kremlin has long said that if western countries provide Ukraine with fighter jets they will take that as the western countries entering directly into war against Russia. Damaging the drone is timely military theatre to reinforce the NATO countries’ fear that Moscow will escalate in response to a perceived direct entry into the war. Russia’s cheap thrill sky drama against the drone is telling the US and NATO countries that it will take the presence of NATO countries’ aircraft in “its” airspace as acts of war against Russia. It shows how confident Russia is that the US will not escalate the war.
Now would be the time for the US - instead of squawking about the “unprofessional (!)” action of Russia - to say that Moscow’s downing of the drone is an act of war directly against the US, and that the US will respond at a time and in a manner of its choosing. It should demand compensation. And it should stop preventing Poland and other NATO countries from sending fighter jets. The escalation poker game must stop - Russia is winning.
Claire, the first was a viewpoint…opinion piece, but not without merit. The second was a follow-up of legality as to what is and is not an “act of war.”
The contrary viewpoint on this forum was Jillian’s saying it was an act of war, and my offering that it was not an act of war.
1 Like
Jeanne, my first comment was a response to that viewpoint, which did not, in my view supply an unbiased answer to your “wondering” what the drone was doing in that area. The implication was that Russia’s action in damaging it was a defensive response to an escalatory provocation. I wrote and posted my first response unaware of your second link, so my “act of war” discussion was not in response to your second link at all. There was no need to explain it, or its part in the discussion to me.
That link looks at whether damaging the drone should be an “act of war.” It is perfectly standard legal analysis for a law-of-war moot court. I disagree with him that the US should not declare it an “act of war”. Declaring that a direct hostile act is an “act of war” is not a declaration of war - it still leaves open the retaliatory “viable options” described in the article, but widens the range of potential actions.
Such a declaration signals to Russia that it will match “hostile acts” with counter-hostile acts, assuming hostile intent in any direct attack against its military assets. No more weak defensive legal responses exonerating Russia from intentional hostility (“unprofessional” conduct!). No more playing Mr. Conciliatory Guy. Russia should think twice about where and how their pilots intercept American aircraft and what sort of retaliation this would invite.
Such a declaration reimposes American military deterrence, which has seriously been eroded - not least because of all the lawyering in the war-room. Neither Putin nor the Wagner Group have a team of lawyers working at their side to restrain any unlawful aggression or provocative hostile acts. But they do appreciate the busy efforts of American lawyers weighing the ins and outs, pros and cons, carefully considering this and that statute in the light of this or that context. They will book-mark the paragraphs musing that if the surveillance intel gained by the drone is given to the Ukrainians to use in hostile acts against Russia, the Russians may argue that they are within their rights to self-defense to put it out of action to prevent this.