https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508

<quotes>

A Russian pilot tried to shoot down an RAF surveillance plane after believing he had permission to fire, the BBC has learned.

Russia had claimed the incident last September was caused by a "technical malfunction".

Ben Wallace accepted the Russian explanation, saying: "We do not consider this incident to constitute a deliberate escalation on the part of the Russians, and our analysis concurs that it was due to a malfunction."

But now three senior Western defence sources with knowledge of the incident have told the BBC that Russian communications intercepted by the RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft give a very different account from the official version.

The intercepted communications show that one of the Russian pilots thought he had been given permission to target the British aircraft, following an ambiguous command from a Russian ground station.

However, the second Russian pilot did not. He is said to have sworn at his comrade, effectively asking him what he thought he was doing.

Yet the first pilot still released another missile.

</quotes>

These things happen; it's not like America hasn't shot down civilian aircraft, allied fighters.

The most interesting aspect is Wallace claiming it to be a malfunction when clearly knowing it wasn't.

I don't blame him. In fact I believe it was the right thing to do.

I find it reassuring that we don't want World War III, that we will find any excuse to avoid that, and that can only be a good thing. Except for war-mongers and those in Kiev who want to drag us into it.

As I have said, it's uncertain what the west's response would be if Russia did nuke Kiev.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:28:38 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
>
> <quotes>
>
> A Russian pilot tried to shoot down an RAF surveillance plane after
> believing he had permission to fire, the BBC has learned.
>
> Russia had claimed the incident last September was caused by a
> "technical malfunction".
>
> Ben Wallace accepted the Russian explanation, saying: "We do not
> consider this incident to constitute a deliberate escalation on the part
> of the Russians, and our analysis concurs that it was due to a
> malfunction."
>
> But now three senior Western defence sources with knowledge of the
> incident have told the BBC that Russian communications intercepted by
> the RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft give a very different account from
> the official version.
>
> The intercepted communications show that one of the Russian pilots
> thought he had been given permission to target the British aircraft,
> following an ambiguous command from a Russian ground station.
>
> However, the second Russian pilot did not. He is said to have sworn at
> his comrade, effectively asking him what he thought he was doing.
>
> Yet the first pilot still released another missile.
>
> </quotes>
>
> These things happen; it's not like America hasn't shot down civilian
> aircraft, allied fighters.
>
> The most interesting aspect is Wallace claiming it to be a malfunction
> when clearly knowing it wasn't.
>
> I don't blame him. In fact I believe it was the right thing to do.
>
> I find it reassuring that we don't want World War III, that we will find
> any excuse to avoid that, and that can only be a good thing. Except for
> war-mongers and those in Kiev who want to drag us into it.
>
> As I have said, it's uncertain what the west's response would be if
> Russia did nuke Kiev.

I think we'd try to separate Russia from its remaining allies and trade
associates by reminding them that only one guy has to go to change
Russia's leadership and he's not getting any younger. We could remind
them that they could end up sanctioned along with Russia just to stand by
a leadership that might not be around in another few years and might see
rebuilding relations with the West as a priority.

We might instead consider Ukraine a loss and remind all the non-NATO
countries on Russia's border that Putin yearns for a greater Russia with
NATO far away and Russia achieved that once before by invasion and
occupation of countrise like themselves. They might just want to sign
up. I'm not sure who's left that isn't a member or getting ready to
join. After the invasion of Ukraine no border nation could say thay
handn't had fair warning.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:31:31 GMT
TWP <ngspammersad@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 11:28:38 +0100, The Happy Hippy wrote:
>
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66798508
> >
> > <quotes>
> >
> > A Russian pilot tried to shoot down an RAF surveillance plane after
> > believing he had permission to fire, the BBC has learned.
> >
> > Russia had claimed the incident last September was caused by a
> > "technical malfunction".
> >
> > Ben Wallace accepted the Russian explanation, saying: "We do not
> > consider this incident to constitute a deliberate escalation on the
> > part of the Russians, and our analysis concurs that it was due to a
> > malfunction."
> >
> > But now three senior Western defence sources with knowledge of the
> > incident have told the BBC that Russian communications intercepted
> > by the RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft give a very different
> > account from the official version.
> >
> > The intercepted communications show that one of the Russian pilots
> > thought he had been given permission to target the British aircraft,
> > following an ambiguous command from a Russian ground station.
> >
> > However, the second Russian pilot did not. He is said to have sworn
> > at his comrade, effectively asking him what he thought he was doing.
> >
> > Yet the first pilot still released another missile.
> >
> > </quotes>
> >
> > These things happen; it's not like America hasn't shot down civilian
> > aircraft, allied fighters.
> >
> > The most interesting aspect is Wallace claiming it to be a
> > malfunction when clearly knowing it wasn't.
> >
> > I don't blame him. In fact I believe it was the right thing to do.
> >
> > I find it reassuring that we don't want World War III, that we will
> > find any excuse to avoid that, and that can only be a good thing.
> > Except for war-mongers and those in Kiev who want to drag us into
> > it.
> >
> > As I have said, it's uncertain what the west's response would be if
> > Russia did nuke Kiev.
>
>
> I think we'd try to separate Russia from its remaining allies and
> trade associates by reminding them that only one guy has to go to
> change Russia's leadership and he's not getting any younger. We
> could remind them that they could end up sanctioned along with Russia
> just to stand by a leadership that might not be around in another few
> years and might see rebuilding relations with the West as a priority.

And they'll shrug, say 'same as it ever been', and ask whether we are going to take revenge or just let Russia get away with it.

And I don't think 'align with us or you're next for being cancelled' will be anything new to those who don't support the west. They know that, and China is using that to good effect to turn those countries against the west. We are basically handing it them on a plate.

> We might instead consider Ukraine a loss and remind all the non-NATO
> countries on Russia's border that Putin yearns for a greater Russia
> with NATO far away and Russia achieved that once before by invasion
> and occupation of countrise like themselves. They might just want to
> sign up. I'm not sure who's left that isn't a member or getting
> ready to join. After the invasion of Ukraine no border nation could
> say thay handn't had fair warning.

There seems to be some fanciful thinking here, that Russia's neighbours should sign up to NATO so, if they are ever invaded, we'll be entering into World War III on their behalf, despite clearly doing our utmost to avoid that.

I don't believe Putin will try to take over Europe but let's say he does, nukes Helsinki.

I guess it's repeat and rinse the above.

I'm not as convinced that as many Brits will embrace, "let's kill ourselves and take as many Russians with us as we can" as you are.