3 ms·

So how do you know that NATO is just as reckless if it's never mentioned? The point isn't that it happens, it's that it's been increasing a lot lately both in

by ptr 12y ago

So how do you know that NATO is just as reckless if it's never mentioned? The point isn't that it happens, it's that it's been increasing a lot lately both in frequency and severity of each incident.

foobarqux 12y ago
Facts that support a particular narrative are made prominent, those that run counter to it are diminished. Here are two quick examples of incidents that, using the same standards as the CNN infographic, would have been classified as "high risk". http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81320 http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81320 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/02/us/us-spy-plane/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/02/us/us-spy-plane/index.html Finally, the rate of these incidents may have increased but I don't see any evidence of that in your link. Why do you say that they have?
- ptr 12y ago
  Yes, the first link is actually in the CNN article and the second one is about China. What's your point? Also please note that NATO and the US are != Sweden. The article doesn't mention that the incidents have increased, you're right. It's a lot of incidents in a short time frame though. For some Swedish sources on the increased rate of Russian activity: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/okad-rysk-militar-aktivitet-pa-ostersjon/ http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/okad-rysk-militar-aktivitet... http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2011/11/okad-aktivitet-over-ostersjon.html http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2011/11/okad-aktivitet-ov... According to http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2014/07/lattande-av-incidentberedskapens-forlat.html http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2014/07/lattande-av-incid... the QRF has taken off 50% more times this year than the previous. Which was the most intense year since the Cold War. Other than that you won't find much statistics on the activity of the Swedish Quick Reaction Force as it's not released to the public.
  - foobarqux 12y ago
    The point is the events are portrayed in a way that applies different standards to enemies of the west than the west itself. When a spy plane is intercepted who is the aggressor? Answer: always the enemy, regardless of whose spy plane it is. The China incident just shows that western forces do the same things as Russia is being criticized for.
    - ptr 12y ago
      OK; let's say there is an equal amount of aggression from NATO and Russia (and Sweden). Not that I think so. But which side would you be on? I'm with the ones that have the most democracy, freedom, life expectancy, and standard of living.
      - foobarqux 12y ago
        If you view the issue as choosing a side then your perspective will be distorted exactly in the way that we are discussing. At the end of the day everyone will choose a side that gives them the most benefit and that will be dependent on where they live.

by ptr 12y ago

So how do you know that NATO is just as reckless if it's never mentioned? The point isn't that it happens, it's that it's been increasing a lot lately both in frequency and severity of each incident.

foobarqux 12y ago

Facts that support a particular narrative are made prominent, those that run counter to it are diminished. Here are two quick examples of incidents that, using the same standards as the CNN infographic, would have been classified as "high risk". http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81320 http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=81320 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/02/us/us-spy-plane/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/02/us/us-spy-plane/index.html Finally, the rate of these incidents may have increased but I don't see any evidence of that in your link. Why do you say that they have?

ptr 12y ago
Yes, the first link is actually in the CNN article and the second one is about China. What's your point? Also please note that NATO and the US are != Sweden. The article doesn't mention that the incidents have increased, you're right. It's a lot of incidents in a short time frame though. For some Swedish sources on the increased rate of Russian activity: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/okad-rysk-militar-aktivitet-pa-ostersjon/ http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/okad-rysk-militar-aktivitet... http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2011/11/okad-aktivitet-over-ostersjon.html http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2011/11/okad-aktivitet-ov... According to http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2014/07/lattande-av-incidentberedskapens-forlat.html http://wisemanswisdoms.blogspot.se/2014/07/lattande-av-incid... the QRF has taken off 50% more times this year than the previous. Which was the most intense year since the Cold War. Other than that you won't find much statistics on the activity of the Swedish Quick Reaction Force as it's not released to the public.
- foobarqux 12y ago
  The point is the events are portrayed in a way that applies different standards to enemies of the west than the west itself. When a spy plane is intercepted who is the aggressor? Answer: always the enemy, regardless of whose spy plane it is. The China incident just shows that western forces do the same things as Russia is being criticized for.
  - ptr 12y ago
    OK; let's say there is an equal amount of aggression from NATO and Russia (and Sweden). Not that I think so. But which side would you be on? I'm with the ones that have the most democracy, freedom, life expectancy, and standard of living.
    - foobarqux 12y ago
      If you view the issue as choosing a side then your perspective will be distorted exactly in the way that we are discussing. At the end of the day everyone will choose a side that gives them the most benefit and that will be dependent on where they live.