September 7, 2007

Send Them The Bill

In yet another entry in the Russia Is Not Our Ally series, the UK had to scramble fighters to intercept eight Russian Tupolev-95 Bear bombers as they appeared headed for British airspace. The Russians have bragged about provoking NATO fighters in this manner, and it's becoming an expensive game, at least for the West:

The RAF scrambled to intercept eight Russian nuclear bombers heading for Britain yesterday in the biggest aerial confrontation between the two countries since the end of the Cold War.

The Tupolev-95 Bear bombers were approaching in formation when they were met by four Tornado F3 fighter jets. Defence sources said that the Russian pilots turned away as soon as they spotted the approaching Tornados and did not enter British airspace.

Norway had earlier sent four F16 jets to shadow the Russians as they neared its airspace in what Moscow insisted was a training mission. The bombers had flown over international waters from the Barents Sea to the Atlantic before heading for Britain.

Russian Bears flying in pairs have triggered several alerts this year as they neared the 12-mile British airspace zone, but this was the first time that so many bombers had simultaneously tested British air defences.

The immature pissing contest in which Vladimir Putin likes to engage makes him popular with the Russians, but it's running up a bill for NATO forces. Yesterday's jaunt cost the UK over $300,000 in Tornado air time, and that was just for the one exercise. Norway and the US have also complained about having to chase down Tupolevs, and it's expensive for everyone,

The Russians brag that they can now afford to return to the Cold War practice of testing Western air defenses. If that's so, they can afford to pay for our response as well. Western governments should start presenting a bill to the Russians for every scramble necessitated by provocative Russian bomber flights. If the Russians refuse to pay, that would provide an excellent excuse to kick Russia out of the G-8 and stop all aid programs, or at least deduct the costs from the aid and trade propping Putin.

Make no mistake -- allies do not test each other's air defenses. If the Russians want to act like enemies, then they have de facto declared themselves to be enemies. It's time that Western governments explain that to Putin, and have Putin look into their eyes and see the seriousness of the situation.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/12668

Comments (25)

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | September 7, 2007 6:36 AM

"The Russians brag that they can now afford to return to the Cold War practice of testing Western air defenses."
http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-49/toc.htm
" In the spring of 1984 Soviets were making ominous noises about breaking off negotiations if the U.S. insisted on deploying its missiles in Europe."
Then and now bluff and who blinks first.

Posted by David Ferguson | September 7, 2007 6:56 AM

Expensive? Who cares? A lost city or a crashed Bear Bomber in Britain is even more expensive. The real crime is that Britain does not retaliate. The amusing thing is that Russia is merely copying Iran in their provocation. Russia copying a third world tinpot. How the mighty have fallen.

Posted by Kim | September 7, 2007 7:00 AM

Captain

This shud be relative:
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1301
see below for quote

military experts conclude from the way Damascus described the episode Wednesday, Sept. 6, that the Pantsyr-S1E missiles, purchased from Russia to repel air assailants, failed to down the Israeli jets accused of penetrating northern Syrian airspace from the Mediterranean the night before.

The new Pantsyr missiles therefore leave Syrian and Iranian airsp

Just letting Putin know that his electronics still suck!

Posted by NavyspyII | September 7, 2007 7:12 AM

We'll not get any satisfaction in attempting to charge them for the cost of the response.

But we could very well throttle down the other monies we send to these 2-faced Communists.

The Maskirovka is slipping, and we're seeing that not much has changed since the bad-old-days.

We went from the Politburo to the Soviet version of La Costa Nostra, and now the pendulum is on the reverse arc.

Expect to see a lot more "brinksmanship" in the future. Putin thinks he compares favorably to Ol' Joe.

Posted by jerry | September 7, 2007 7:12 AM

Aside from the implications of Russian belligerency, their flights provide good training opportunities for NATO forces and serve to remind them that history has not ended.

I feel the same way about the Chinese submarine incident with the USS Kitty Hawk. The only way to effectively train your forces is to have your potential adversaries come out and play with you.

So if Vlad wants to flex his muscles by all means come out and play. You are just helping us sharpen our skills as you sharpen yours.

Posted by Bennett | September 7, 2007 7:54 AM

Russia an ally? Partners when there's been a certain confluence of strategic interests, yes. But an ally?

Russia doesn't really want to be our ally I don't think. So she will continue to do provocative acts like this because it is her way of making herself feel strong and relevant. Any true alliance with the West puts Russia in the subordinate position, because there is no parity in terms of military or economic strength. This is something Russia could never acknowledge or willingly accept.

Posted by xray | September 7, 2007 8:15 AM

I would wait until they got to UK airspace and then scramble and shoot them all down. Let's see if he can afford to replace all those trained airmen.

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2007 8:22 AM

There's a lot to be said for nipping problems like this in the bud, rather than allowing Russia's aggressive games to continue. Shoot down his bombers, toss him out of the G8, and cut off western aid to his nation. He wants to be an enemy, grant him his wish. A clear demonstration that things on that side of the fence are'nt nearly so rosy and bright as he might imagine.

Posted by Larry J | September 7, 2007 8:25 AM

When possibly hostile bombers are heading towards your airspace, you can't ignore it. Some variants of the Bear can carry long range cruise missiles. They don't have to come near your airspace before they launch. Waiting for them to penetrate your airspace would be very stupid.

As long as the Bears stay over international waters then their flights are perfectly legal. Provocative, yes but legal. The fighers watch the Bears to make sure they're staying friendly. They don't lock up their radar or do other hostile acts. Similarly, the Bear crews know not to point their guns at the fighters or look like they're getting ready to attack. Everyone smiles and takes pictures of one another. This sort of thing happened all of the time during the Cold War. It looks like Russia and Putin long for the bad old days.

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2007 8:25 AM

Oops....hit the 'post' button a little too soon.

......A clear demonstration that things on that side of the fence are'nt nearly so rosy and bright as he might imagine, will do more to prevent another long and expensive cold war, than playing diplomatic footsy with Putin, and his stalinist wet dreams.

Posted by Bennett | September 7, 2007 8:52 AM

"Shoot down his bombers, toss him out of the G8, and cut off western aid to his nation. He wants to be an enemy, grant him his wish."

Shooting down Russia's bombers for playing cute with NATO planes would prevent a cold war? Might it not just as easily provoke a hot one? The bear might be wounded but it's certainly not dead. And Russia could find friends in a lot of bad places. It doesn't necessarily need the West.

Sometimes you just have to let the bear growl.

Posted by Pho | September 7, 2007 8:54 AM

I think this idea of pulling those costs right out of any international aid going into Russia. No need to bother sending any bills that they're going to laugh off or use for raw meat for whipping up the Followers of Putin. Take it right out of his pockets up front, and let HIM complain about it and come to us to justify his actions.

I mean if they've got the cash to be throwing flights of bombers around to "probe" air defenses, they don't really need the aid do they?


Posted by LarryD | September 7, 2007 9:21 AM

Tit for Tat, the way to discourage this kind of provocation is to make it expensive in some way.

Like testing Russia's airspace in return.

Or kicking Russia out of G8.

Or subtracting our costs from Russian aid, up front.

Or making the probes hair raising for the Russian air crews (and more importantly, putting strain on their air frames and burning more fuel that they anticipated). I.e., they want to play, then kick up the game a notch, give our air crews live targets to make (non-shooting) practice runs at.

Posted by Orlando | September 7, 2007 9:22 AM

Why not have NATO scramble fighters every day into Russian airspace until the Russians run out of money. Surely they have less than NATO does.

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2007 9:32 AM

"Shooting down Russia's bombers for playing cute with NATO planes would prevent a cold war? Might it not just as easily provoke a hot one? The bear might be wounded but it's certainly not dead. And Russia could find friends in a lot of bad places. It doesn't necessarily need the West.

Sometimes you just have to let the bear growl."

We did that previously for forty years, and the world was in much greater danger because of it. Sometimes you have to bonk that bear on the nose, and let it know we're not going to play those games again.

Posted by Tom S | September 7, 2007 9:38 AM

Yes, it cost money to scramble the interceptors, but training exercises would occur anyway. A quick response time (every time) by NATO is the best result of these incidents.

I'm not so much worried about the expense as I am the reason for the incursions.

Posted by Bennett | September 7, 2007 9:44 AM

"Sometimes you have to bonk that bear on the nose, and let it know we're not going to play those games again."

This would only work if the bear decided to take the bonk passively and do nothing about it. If you want to call shooting down its planes a mere "bonking on the nose." There's nothing I can think of that would indicate Russia has suddenly become passive. There's a reason Putin does this stuff. And it's not just to tweak us, it's to feed the respect of his own people. Some may think only Putin has "Stalinist wet dreams" but I think it's just as likely the Russian people themselves yearn for the glory days.

We can play bigfoot, sure, but your premise that Russia will crawl into a corner and cry meekly if we do it isn't supported by that country's history. And certainly our true allies in Eastern Europe would not be in favor of this bonking. Since they live a lot closer to the bear than we do.

It's this "let's kick 'em where it hurts" attitude that explains in part why Russia keep Iran on a string. She's been playing this game a lot longer than we have.

Posted by Christoph | September 7, 2007 12:29 PM

The Russians brag that they can now afford to return to the Cold War practice of testing Western air defenses. If that's so, they can afford to pay for our response as well. Western governments should start presenting a bill to the Russians for every scramble necessitated by provocative Russian bomber flights.

That is the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

Invoice Putin saying, "It's all right that you're doing well financially, but this is a lot of money for us!"

Absolutely retarded. It would be embarrassing -- if you were serious -- and if the Russians aren't are ally... and they are not... they simply don't have an obligation to reduce Western military costs.

Indeed, they will want to raise them.

Posted by chris edwards | September 7, 2007 3:50 PM

it looks to me that Putin is re-making his stalinist predecessor and spending the family jewels, I guess gas prices will go up to pay for his war games untill he bankrupts the country again, what a dipshit. Also is the Times pit a photoshop as the report says the Russians went as the fighters approached but pic shows different, surley the press dont lie???

Posted by patrick neid | September 7, 2007 8:49 PM

Never, ever forget that Putin is KBG. He means to reconstitute the collapsed Soviet Union. That's right folks, taking over all the current ex republics. Will he succeed, I don't think so. But will he try? Absolutely. With the current bull market in commodities, especially oil, he has the means to go along with the mind set.(murder and mayhem)

He's even reviving stalin.

http://reason.com/news/show/122319.html

Could you imagime Merkel in Germany reviving Hitler? That should tell you all you need to know about Mr Putin.

Posted by jaeger51 | September 7, 2007 10:07 PM

Kind of sad that the once glorious RAF, and the former British Empire, is complaining about having to intercept Bears because of the cost...wonder how much more they spent the same day on subsidizing useless if not positively harmful citizens? Don't really know what Russia's point is with this...strategic attacks against a country with air defenses with Bears are rather pointless. Bears, like the B-52, are really only useful any more as bomb trucks in a situation where you have complete air supremacy. Seems like a waste of Russian money.

Posted by Terry Morrical | September 7, 2007 10:21 PM

Along with flexing their muscle for the home crowd, its a valuable intelligence gathering tool also. I recall during the cold-war years that the russians and other eastern bloc countries would fly routine missions along the "borders" and then turn as if to penetrate friendly airspace with an attack posture. Their myriad satellites and other intelligence gathering services would then record what radars, target acquisition systems, et al "lit up". Along with how many planes scrambled, from where, response time, etc.

Of course, just as they're about to cross the border, or otherwise be intercepted, they'd veer off and head back home.

Probably a bit of the same thing going on today.

Posted by Christoph | September 8, 2007 11:20 AM

Kind of sad that the once glorious RAF, and the former British Empire, is complaining about having to intercept Bears because of the cost...

We won the cold war precisely because of our greater economic productivity, moral clarity, and military resolve.

Are we now going to complain about costs and let the Russians outspend us?

Because, if so, we'll lose and they'll win for the exact same reason we won the first time.

Posted by Publius Hamilton | September 8, 2007 5:27 PM

The Russians will not be our "friends" while under the almost dictatorial rule of a former KGB Colonel. However, I would prefer to deal with this Russia than the one under Comrade Boris that was in chaos, while still responsible for the control and security of thousands of nuclear weapons...

Methinks some of Bad Vlad's muscle flexing is for internal political consumption. However, we should still heed that timeless advice of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer".

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall in Kennebunkport when Vlad and W had a nice little chat and speedboat ride.

Posted by TL Edwards | September 8, 2007 11:03 PM

If we can discuss possibly presenting a bill to the Russians per NATO scramble, perhaps the US should consider presenting a bill(s) to Mexico for all of our expenses incurred at the hands of its 'illegals' within our country.

Post a comment