By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A French military aircraft, conducting a NATO observation flight near suspected Russian damage to submarine cables, experienced a radar jamming attempt and illumination by fire control radar. This aggressive action, confirmed by the French Armed Forces, highlights Russia’s active response despite the lack of identified suspicious vessels during the mission. The French crew’s professional conduct prevented escalation, likely due to the potential consequences of attacking a NATO aircraft. The incident follows the suspected damage to an Estonia-Finland power cable, attributed to a Russian vessel.
Read the original article here
A French military aircraft was undertaking observations in the Baltic Sea region when Russian forces attempted to jam its communication systems and illuminate it with radar. This incident highlights a persistent pattern of aggressive Russian actions, pushing the boundaries of international airspace and potentially creating significant safety hazards.
The response from various actors has been varied and, to some, alarmingly insufficient. Many commentators express frustration with what they perceive as a lack of decisive retaliation from NATO and European nations. The calls for strong action are frequent and forceful, suggesting a widespread belief that current strategies are inadequate and embolden Russia to continue these provocative behaviors.
Some suggest a more assertive response is necessary, proposing actions such as increased military sorties near Russian borders to strain their resources, and highlight the hypocrisy of inaction while facing blatant aggression. Others suggest leveraging economic tools, for example, through increased scrutiny of Russian assets by regulatory bodies. These calls for active measures highlight a growing sense of urgency and frustration with the status quo.
The perceived passivity of European leaders is a recurring theme in the discussions. Concerns are raised about the potential for appeasement and a reluctance to escalate the situation, leading to a perceived emboldening of Russia. The lack of strong and visible countermeasures is seen as potentially encouraging further Russian aggression.
A significant point is the comparison to Turkey’s response to similar incursions, which are cited as a potential model for effective deterrence. The argument is that decisive action, as demonstrated by Turkey, is the most effective way to discourage further Russian attempts to violate international norms and challenge Western air power. It suggests that forceful retaliation is not only possible but may indeed be necessary to establish a clear red line and discourage further provocations.
However, there’s also a recognition of the complexity of the situation. Some suggest that a measured response is vital to avoid a significant escalation that could have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences. The risk of an unintended major escalation, with potential for wider conflict is a key concern for decision-makers.
There are also calls for a more subtle, yet still effective, responses. This includes clandestine operations and economic sabotage, suggesting that retaliation doesn’t always require overt military action. These are seen as potential methods of providing effective and proportionate response to Russian aggression without escalating the conflict unnecessarily.
The incident is described as symptomatic of a much larger geopolitical problem. The argument is made that the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, coupled with perceived Western appeasement, emboldens Russia to engage in these dangerous behaviors. The belief that a lack of a strong and immediate response will only invite further actions is a central point throughout.
Many voices call for a clear and decisive response, emphasizing that continued inaction will not only allow these types of incidents to repeat but will also damage the credibility and deterrent power of Western alliances. The risk is that if these actions are allowed to continue without consequence, Russia will increasingly test the boundaries, potentially escalating the situation toward a more serious confrontation.
The debate focuses not only on the immediate response to the incident but on the broader strategic implications of inaction. The concern is that a failure to address these aggressive actions effectively will have far-reaching consequences, potentially undermining the stability of the region and ultimately emboldening Russia and undermining Western resolve.
Ultimately, the incident involving the French aircraft serves as a potent illustration of the ongoing challenges in the Baltic region and the need for a clear, consistent, and effective response from NATO and European allies. While there are significant differences in opinion on the optimal response, the general consensus points toward the inadequacy of a purely passive strategy.