Archived

[…]

Asked […] if Estonia would be willing to host Britain’s future fleet of F-35A fighters, defence minister Hanno Pevkur replied, “I’m always open. The door is always open for allies.”

The comments follow the incursion of three Russian MiG-31s into Estonian skies last week. The aircraft, flying without transponders or flight plans, remained over the Gulf of Finland for twelve minutes before being escorted out by Italian F-35s from Ämari airbase.

[…]

Western leaders urged caution over escalating the stand-off. Mr Pevkur said NATO’s response should be “proportionate” and decided “case-by-case.” Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, struck a harder line, declaring: “We will shoot down any flying objects when they violate our territory and fly over Poland. There is absolutely no discussion over that.”

[…]

For Estonia, NATO’s smallest frontline state, the latest incursion [of Russian drones] was a stark reminder of its reliance on allied air power. “The question is not whether Russia will try again,” one official said, “but how we will respond.”

  • remon@ani.social
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Right, because they would immediately evacuate the bombs if that was even a remote possibility. A highly portable asset like a bomb just doesn’t work very well as symbolic “line in the sand”.

    If you actually want to show determination for defending a position you bring in hard-to-move assets. A battalion of tanks, air defense system, troops, infrastructure. Those you would actually have to defend.

    Also, if Russia would somehow get a hold of a B61, the damage would mostly be in prestige to the US and maybe some minor technology they could reverse engineer. But it wouldn’t fundamentally change the balance of power, so not even that argument makes much sense.

    • Quittenbrot@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Also, if Russia would somehow get a hold of a B61, the damage would mostly be in prestige to the US

      Exactly.

      • remon@ani.social
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        But my point was that this wouldn’t even be that bad. It’s an unlikely scenario, but I could see the US just abandoning some nuclear bombs at the front in case of a sudden invasion. Russia having a few more American nukes doesn’t really shift the power balance. You could brush that under the rug.

        On the other hand, imagine 5000 US troops stationed there, with heavy equipment with which they can’t just run away from a sudden invasion. So you either defend them or you have to deal with the political fallout of 5000 dead soldiers. Much harder to brush under the rug.