9 ms·

>At approximately 7:03 AM (CET), one of the Russian Su-27 aircraft struck the propeller of the MQ-9, causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in inter

by mzs 4y ago

>At approximately 7:03 AM (CET), one of the Russian Su-27 aircraft struck the propeller of the MQ-9, causing U.S. forces to have to bring the MQ-9 down in international waters. Several times before the collision, the Su-27s dumped fuel on and flew in front of the MQ-9 in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner. This incident demonstrates a lack of competence in addition to being unsafe and unprofessional.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
We have been in a proxy war state for at least a year ( some could credibly argue that it was longer than that ), so this accident is hardly a surprise and more along the lines of 'it was bound to happen'. I have my own opinions and, for several reasons, I don't want Russian army to succeed in takeover of Ukraine, but, uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago ( re-institution of new axis of powers and effectively forcing Puting into the arms of XI, who, if no one remembers, has become defacto main target of future US policy ).
- rbanffy 4y ago
  The US and Russia have been in a proxy war state since WW2.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    You are technically right ( cold war ), but mostly wrong nonetheless. Can you substantiate that claim for after cold war debacle? There was a period and not a short one, where relations with Russia were a lot warmer and gave some hope for less crazy future.
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      Let's just assume the cold war cooled down for a couple years until Putin got a firm enough hold on his power he could rewarm it. And yes, the Age of Aquarius was remarkably short and I found it severely lacking.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        Even during initial Putin's reign there was a period of relative non-interference in each other's spheres. If, and I am assuming a little bit here, you are suggesting that regular spy-vs-spy constitutes a proxy war, then we have always been at war.. with everyone. Maybe the right question becomes: how would you define a proxy war then? I think our disagreement lies in a definition of a concept.
        rbanffy 4y ago
        > then we have always been at war.. with everyone. There is spy-vs-spy for getting information and there's spy-vs-spy with the intention of blocking the other country's interests. The first can be seen as merely defensive while the other is a bit more offensive. For instance, stealing secrets can be seen as defensive, while covertly supporting fringe political groups is squarely on the offensive side.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      Relations between the Soviet Union and America deteriorated almost immediately following Germany's surrender. Or are you talking about Détente or the 90s and early 00s? In the former case, the two sides were still overtly postured for war with each other. In the later case, the apparent "warm relations" were little more than the Russia being in such a disorganized state that the only thing they could really accomplish was the accepting of western investment/bribes. Not exactly a healthy relationship.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    That's more or less when the US got involved, but the broader conflict goes back more than a century before that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Seems it's been decided that we're all going to have one of those giga-meltdowns that leaves hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, dead.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I sincerely hope you wrong.
- layer8 4y ago
  We will also continue moving towards a bad place if we just let Russia do what it wants in Ukraine (and beyond). It will cost the West one way or the other.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I am not sure I agree, but if that is the case, then slowly boiling the frog is the wrong strategy to begin with. If that is true, then one big move and a show of force is the appropriate one. I think there is a clear misunderstanding of today's world order combined with a recognition that there is, clearly based on what is happening, a space to test its boundaries ( metaphorically and literally ). << It will cost us one way or the other. Full agreement. What is the lesser or at least more acceptable cost from US perspective?
    - layer8 4y ago
      NATO doesn’t want to become an actual war party if they can help it, and instead want to contain the conflict within Ukraine, hoping that will be sufficient. So they try to do what they can within that constraint, and within each member country’s domestic political constraints, as of course its citizens aren’t eager to get drawn into a war, or to otherwise suffer from their country’s involvement. At this point it’s also unclear what China will do should Russia start losing the war due to more direct NATO involvement; and finally there’s the nuclear risk. On the other hand, if you let Russia roam freely and restrict yourself to formal protest, that would set a very bad precedent, and would only encourage further military operations by Russia and other authoritarian parties wanting to expand their sphere of influence. Last but not least, Ukraine is a significant agricultural and mineral/metal producer in the world, which the West certainly doesn’t want to see under Russian control, not to speak of Ukraine’s role in the geostrategic importance of the Black Sea.
    - nradov 4y ago
      Slowly boiling the frog worked pretty well during the Cold War. There's no reason to think that it can't work again. If we keep the pressure on through proxy wars, diplomacy, and sanctions then the Russian empire may eventually disintegrate further.
- genman 4y ago
  We are not forcing Putin into anything. He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy. The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast. Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset. There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    << We are not forcing Putin into anything. Hmm, how so? I don't know about you, but if I was in his position I would be seeking allies that have a beef with US and, surprise, this is exactly what he did. So yeah, if he wants to survive politically ( and otherwise ) he is effectively forced by US ( and the generated coalition -- and we can discuss how willingly they went along to do that ) to seek those out. What I would not do is roll over as a practical measure to keep my life ( based on still fairly recent history ), where there is a clear path to perceived completion of a goal. So yeah. US is forcing Putin's hand in choosing allies ( and we could argue to what extent Orange Revolution changed his calculus ). Now, we could talk about what that means in practice, but I assure you the logical conclusions are even worse, because it does mean undermining Russia's new bestest friends or at least making their lives difficult. Regardless, that statement is factually plain wrong. << He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy. Eh. No. If he did make up his mind, it was about 're-uniting' Russia. Where he miscalculated was that US would care (1) and (2) be able to convince Germany ( and other less willing allies ) to actually go along with attempt at alienate Russia on the global stage. << The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast. Eh again. This is the same argumentation I saw leading to Iraq, Afghanistan ( recent examples only ) and now, surprise, Russia. I mean, it is a great plan if you can make it work, but what, exactly are you proposing here? I don't want to put words in your mouth. << Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset. I don't want to assume again, so I would love to hear a little more than a sentence on this. I am familiar with this sentiment, but it is generously applied to just about any enemy of US ( and its variants also helpfully include ">they< only respect strength ( they referencing current enemy)" ). << There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not a shot, but "should" is likely not a great political or rhetorical tool. I would personally recommend trying to place yourself in Russians position geopolitically. Right now, China is an allied power that is actively helping Russia, where US and western powers are actively working against it. The moment you do, you will understand that your suggestion, while it sounds reasonable in US, has a low penetration rate in Russia.. suggesting that this opinion that is intended for US's market of ideas.. << This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions. I will admit that don't know them both as well to offer a definitive statement here.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  How again is it the US's fault that Russia invaded a sovereign country and refuses to leave even as his forces are repeatedly repelled and he even doubled down by """annexing""" another country's territory in a sham referendum?
  - spurgu 4y ago
    How about the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict? Trained and armed it for 8 years, boosting its confidence, building up for an all-out decisive attack against Donbass, forcing Russia's hand to intervene? Knowing that pitting Ukraine against Russia in a drawn-out conflict would be hugely beneficial for arms sales as well as a testing ground for equipment, and most importantly seen as weakening Russia in the same way as USSR was in Afghanistan?
    - maximinus_thrax 4y ago
      So let me get this straight: - Russia invades Ukraine in 2014 and takes Crimea - Ukraine gets aid and training and weapons - Russia goes for an all-out invasion in 2022 But the US is the guilty party, as: - the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict - forcing Russia's hand to intervene What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? I guess the ideal world order is one in which Russia is free to annex neighboring countries with no consequences, otherwise 'they'll be forced' to do even worse. As a former resident of a former communist country (which has been invaded by the Russians 13 times across its history), I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. I really hope these are puppets or bots or something.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        << I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. As a person of similar origin, I believe I am entitled to respond to this post. Whatever you may think of the invasion ( I am not a fan of war myself ), the reasons for it are not exactly hidden anywhere. Orange Revolution removed Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence by removing its puppet, which meant Russia lost control over its former satellite, which left Putin with few options. Now, use of force is kinda frowned upon these days, but it does not mean it does not happen and Ukraine is likely something that Putin was not willing to let go for one reason or another. I think you will agree that letting go of Crimea is almost as likely as letting go of Kaliningrad -- very unlikely unless basically forced to for strategic reasons. << What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? FWIW, HN seems more clearheaded about it than most forums on the net.
- sampo 4y ago
  > uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    > According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. Zeihan's predictions have an abysmal track record. He tends to predict the most sensational outcome. I would not take his word on whether or not Russia would invade a NATO country. There are reasons to support Ukraine that are more grounded in reality.
    - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
      Any other geopolitical youtubers you'd recommend?
  - selivanovp 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - mickotron 4y ago
      If Russia didn’t invade in 2014 this would all have been avoided, don’t you think?
      - ghostwriter 4y ago
        If the Ukrainian revolutionary government didn't get to work on the Sunday morning of 23rd Feb 2014 just to vote to abolish the law on language policies that had given the Russian, Romanian, and Hungarian languages the official status of regional languages in Eastern Ukraine, this might all have been avoided indeed. Crimea had only got annexed after 4 days of this stupid move against their own citizens of the "untrustworthy regions".
optimalsolver 4y ago
>environmentally unsound and unprofessional Ok, so just a strongly-worded letter in response to a deliberate attack on a USAF aircraft in international airspace?
- duxup 4y ago
  As opposed to war? I'll take strongly worded letter.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  This USAF aircraft in international airspace was almost certainly indirectly involved in an ongoing military conflict. It's not there for no reason. It's very likely providing intelligence to the Ukrainian military, which will cause deaths in the Russian military. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, just that we should not be surprised they are expressing their displeasure with us being there. They avoided using missiles for diplomatic reasons, but given that this is clearly an aircraft aiding a combatant in a war, it's understandable that they could just shoot it down. The only reason they are not is because they're being cautious about expanding the war, but we're already provoking an expansion of the war by using our aircraft in this way.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    That "expansion of the war" would be very ugly in multiple ways so both sides trying very hard to avoid it is good. That this was an unmanned drone also means it's downing is overall less serious.
- jonathankoren 4y ago
  What would you prefer? An armed strike over the loss of a remote controlled plane? Wait until you learn about Gary Powers’s “civilian” U-2, or the USS Pueblo, or the USS Liberty, or Korean Airlines 007 and Congressman Larry McDonald.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  We literally just shot down spy balloons from china. Downing unmanned spy resources is fair game.
brwck 4y ago
[flagged]
- justin66 4y ago
  These seem like apt words to characterize dumping fuel onto a drone and then accidentally crashing into it.
- riskneutral 4y ago
  They're being generous by saying it was merely a lack of competence. If they were in another mood, they could say that their aircraft was deliberately attacked in an act of war.

by mzs 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

We have been in a proxy war state for at least a year ( some could credibly argue that it was longer than that ), so this accident is hardly a surprise and more along the lines of 'it was bound to happen'. I have my own opinions and, for several reasons, I don't want Russian army to succeed in takeover of Ukraine, but, uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago ( re-institution of new axis of powers and effectively forcing Puting into the arms of XI, who, if no one remembers, has become defacto main target of future US policy ).

rbanffy 4y ago
The US and Russia have been in a proxy war state since WW2.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  You are technically right ( cold war ), but mostly wrong nonetheless. Can you substantiate that claim for after cold war debacle? There was a period and not a short one, where relations with Russia were a lot warmer and gave some hope for less crazy future.
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Let's just assume the cold war cooled down for a couple years until Putin got a firm enough hold on his power he could rewarm it. And yes, the Age of Aquarius was remarkably short and I found it severely lacking.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      Even during initial Putin's reign there was a period of relative non-interference in each other's spheres. If, and I am assuming a little bit here, you are suggesting that regular spy-vs-spy constitutes a proxy war, then we have always been at war.. with everyone. Maybe the right question becomes: how would you define a proxy war then? I think our disagreement lies in a definition of a concept.
      - rbanffy 4y ago
        > then we have always been at war.. with everyone. There is spy-vs-spy for getting information and there's spy-vs-spy with the intention of blocking the other country's interests. The first can be seen as merely defensive while the other is a bit more offensive. For instance, stealing secrets can be seen as defensive, while covertly supporting fringe political groups is squarely on the offensive side.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    Relations between the Soviet Union and America deteriorated almost immediately following Germany's surrender. Or are you talking about Détente or the 90s and early 00s? In the former case, the two sides were still overtly postured for war with each other. In the later case, the apparent "warm relations" were little more than the Russia being in such a disorganized state that the only thing they could really accomplish was the accepting of western investment/bribes. Not exactly a healthy relationship.
- stametseater 4y ago
  That's more or less when the US got involved, but the broader conflict goes back more than a century before that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Seems it's been decided that we're all going to have one of those giga-meltdowns that leaves hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, dead.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I sincerely hope you wrong.
layer8 4y ago
We will also continue moving towards a bad place if we just let Russia do what it wants in Ukraine (and beyond). It will cost the West one way or the other.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I am not sure I agree, but if that is the case, then slowly boiling the frog is the wrong strategy to begin with. If that is true, then one big move and a show of force is the appropriate one. I think there is a clear misunderstanding of today's world order combined with a recognition that there is, clearly based on what is happening, a space to test its boundaries ( metaphorically and literally ). << It will cost us one way or the other. Full agreement. What is the lesser or at least more acceptable cost from US perspective?
  - layer8 4y ago
    NATO doesn’t want to become an actual war party if they can help it, and instead want to contain the conflict within Ukraine, hoping that will be sufficient. So they try to do what they can within that constraint, and within each member country’s domestic political constraints, as of course its citizens aren’t eager to get drawn into a war, or to otherwise suffer from their country’s involvement. At this point it’s also unclear what China will do should Russia start losing the war due to more direct NATO involvement; and finally there’s the nuclear risk. On the other hand, if you let Russia roam freely and restrict yourself to formal protest, that would set a very bad precedent, and would only encourage further military operations by Russia and other authoritarian parties wanting to expand their sphere of influence. Last but not least, Ukraine is a significant agricultural and mineral/metal producer in the world, which the West certainly doesn’t want to see under Russian control, not to speak of Ukraine’s role in the geostrategic importance of the Black Sea.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Slowly boiling the frog worked pretty well during the Cold War. There's no reason to think that it can't work again. If we keep the pressure on through proxy wars, diplomacy, and sanctions then the Russian empire may eventually disintegrate further.
genman 4y ago
We are not forcing Putin into anything. He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy. The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast. Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset. There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << We are not forcing Putin into anything. Hmm, how so? I don't know about you, but if I was in his position I would be seeking allies that have a beef with US and, surprise, this is exactly what he did. So yeah, if he wants to survive politically ( and otherwise ) he is effectively forced by US ( and the generated coalition -- and we can discuss how willingly they went along to do that ) to seek those out. What I would not do is roll over as a practical measure to keep my life ( based on still fairly recent history ), where there is a clear path to perceived completion of a goal. So yeah. US is forcing Putin's hand in choosing allies ( and we could argue to what extent Orange Revolution changed his calculus ). Now, we could talk about what that means in practice, but I assure you the logical conclusions are even worse, because it does mean undermining Russia's new bestest friends or at least making their lives difficult. Regardless, that statement is factually plain wrong. << He has already long time ago made up his mind that US and the West will become his enemy. Eh. No. If he did make up his mind, it was about 're-uniting' Russia. Where he miscalculated was that US would care (1) and (2) be able to convince Germany ( and other less willing allies ) to actually go along with attempt at alienate Russia on the global stage. << The only way we actually can win him over is by beating him decisively and fast. Eh again. This is the same argumentation I saw leading to Iraq, Afghanistan ( recent examples only ) and now, surprise, Russia. I mean, it is a great plan if you can make it work, but what, exactly are you proposing here? I don't want to put words in your mouth. << Yes, that is the paradox of Russian mindset. I don't want to assume again, so I would love to hear a little more than a sentence on this. I am familiar with this sentiment, but it is generously applied to just about any enemy of US ( and its variants also helpfully include ">they< only respect strength ( they referencing current enemy)" ). << There is another way. An idea should creep into the minds of common Russians how Chinese will come and eff them over. This is not a shot, but "should" is likely not a great political or rhetorical tool. I would personally recommend trying to place yourself in Russians position geopolitically. Right now, China is an allied power that is actively helping Russia, where US and western powers are actively working against it. The moment you do, you will understand that your suggestion, while it sounds reasonable in US, has a low penetration rate in Russia.. suggesting that this opinion that is intended for US's market of ideas.. << This is not impossible considering their commonly heavily xenophobic mindset and their current experience in far east Siberia where Chinese just pour in in millions. I will admit that don't know them both as well to offer a definitive statement here.
mrguyorama 4y ago
How again is it the US's fault that Russia invaded a sovereign country and refuses to leave even as his forces are repeatedly repelled and he even doubled down by """annexing""" another country's territory in a sham referendum?
- spurgu 4y ago
  How about the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict? Trained and armed it for 8 years, boosting its confidence, building up for an all-out decisive attack against Donbass, forcing Russia's hand to intervene? Knowing that pitting Ukraine against Russia in a drawn-out conflict would be hugely beneficial for arms sales as well as a testing ground for equipment, and most importantly seen as weakening Russia in the same way as USSR was in Afghanistan?
  - maximinus_thrax 4y ago
    So let me get this straight: - Russia invades Ukraine in 2014 and takes Crimea - Ukraine gets aid and training and weapons - Russia goes for an all-out invasion in 2022 But the US is the guilty party, as: - the US convinced Ukraine that it could actually beat Russia in a conflict - forcing Russia's hand to intervene What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? I guess the ideal world order is one in which Russia is free to annex neighboring countries with no consequences, otherwise 'they'll be forced' to do even worse. As a former resident of a former communist country (which has been invaded by the Russians 13 times across its history), I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. I really hope these are puppets or bots or something.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      << I am appalled at the level of discourse I sometimes find on Hacker News about the (more recent) Russian invasion. As a person of similar origin, I believe I am entitled to respond to this post. Whatever you may think of the invasion ( I am not a fan of war myself ), the reasons for it are not exactly hidden anywhere. Orange Revolution removed Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence by removing its puppet, which meant Russia lost control over its former satellite, which left Putin with few options. Now, use of force is kinda frowned upon these days, but it does not mean it does not happen and Ukraine is likely something that Putin was not willing to let go for one reason or another. I think you will agree that letting go of Crimea is almost as likely as letting go of Kaliningrad -- very unlikely unless basically forced to for strategic reasons. << What is this? Geopolitics amateur hour? FWIW, HN seems more clearheaded about it than most forums on the net.
sampo 4y ago
> uhh, we are moving into a very bad place I predicted few years ago According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. But because modern Russia is so bad at war, a Nato-Russia confrontation would be like 1:1000 casualty ratio in conventional war. So nuclear weapons wold be Russian's only option. In conclusion, the safest option is to stop Russia in Ukraine, and not let them win, not let then proceed to next target. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79uneUEfjM
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  > According to Peter Zeihan, if Russia were to win in Ukraine, they would continue and Poland might be next. Zeihan's predictions have an abysmal track record. He tends to predict the most sensational outcome. I would not take his word on whether or not Russia would invade a NATO country. There are reasons to support Ukraine that are more grounded in reality.
  - wing-_-nuts 4y ago
    Any other geopolitical youtubers you'd recommend?
- selivanovp 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - mickotron 4y ago
    If Russia didn’t invade in 2014 this would all have been avoided, don’t you think?
    - ghostwriter 4y ago
      If the Ukrainian revolutionary government didn't get to work on the Sunday morning of 23rd Feb 2014 just to vote to abolish the law on language policies that had given the Russian, Romanian, and Hungarian languages the official status of regional languages in Eastern Ukraine, this might all have been avoided indeed. Crimea had only got annexed after 4 days of this stupid move against their own citizens of the "untrustworthy regions".

optimalsolver 4y ago

>environmentally unsound and unprofessional Ok, so just a strongly-worded letter in response to a deliberate attack on a USAF aircraft in international airspace?

duxup 4y ago
As opposed to war? I'll take strongly worded letter.
epicureanideal 4y ago
This USAF aircraft in international airspace was almost certainly indirectly involved in an ongoing military conflict. It's not there for no reason. It's very likely providing intelligence to the Ukrainian military, which will cause deaths in the Russian military. I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, just that we should not be surprised they are expressing their displeasure with us being there. They avoided using missiles for diplomatic reasons, but given that this is clearly an aircraft aiding a combatant in a war, it's understandable that they could just shoot it down. The only reason they are not is because they're being cautious about expanding the war, but we're already provoking an expansion of the war by using our aircraft in this way.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  That "expansion of the war" would be very ugly in multiple ways so both sides trying very hard to avoid it is good. That this was an unmanned drone also means it's downing is overall less serious.
jonathankoren 4y ago
What would you prefer? An armed strike over the loss of a remote controlled plane? Wait until you learn about Gary Powers’s “civilian” U-2, or the USS Pueblo, or the USS Liberty, or Korean Airlines 007 and Congressman Larry McDonald.
mrguyorama 4y ago
We literally just shot down spy balloons from china. Downing unmanned spy resources is fair game.

brwck 4y ago

[flagged]

justin66 4y ago
These seem like apt words to characterize dumping fuel onto a drone and then accidentally crashing into it.
riskneutral 4y ago
They're being generous by saying it was merely a lack of competence. If they were in another mood, they could say that their aircraft was deliberately attacked in an act of war.