By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NATO allies are reportedly considering a tougher stance against Russia, discussing measures such as easing restrictions on pilots to allow them to shoot down Russian aircraft and deploying armed drones. These discussions, initiated by frontline NATO members and supported by France and Britain, come amid escalating tensions due to alleged airspace violations, drone activity, and sabotage plots. Concerns over the cost of intercepting drones and a perceived need for stronger deterrence are driving the discussions. Russia has warned that shooting down its aircraft would escalate the situation, while the EU is also preparing its own responses to the ongoing provocations.
Read the original article here
NATO allies discussing letting pilots open fire on Russian aircraft: Report, this is a topic that understandably sparks a lot of strong opinions, and it seems like a lot of people are frustrated by the idea that this is even up for debate. The common thread seems to be: isn’t this something that should have been decided already? The sentiment echoes a weariness with what’s perceived as excessive discussion and a lack of decisive action, especially in the face of continued Russian incursions into NATO airspace.
The core of the issue is pretty straightforward: if a Russian aircraft violates NATO airspace, should NATO pilots be authorized to shoot it down? The general feeling seems to be a resounding “yes.” The primary argument for this is that Russia only respects strength. Waiting, discussing, and issuing warnings, according to these views, only emboldens Russia and invites further transgressions. Several comments point to Turkey’s actions back in 2015, when they shot down a Russian jet. The observation is, since that incident, Russia has been noticeably absent from Turkish airspace. It’s presented as a clear case of cause and effect.
The perceived slow pace of decision-making is a major source of contention. It’s suggested that these discussions should have happened years ago, perhaps even before the current conflict escalated. The repeated phrase of “why is this even a discussion?” highlights the frustration felt by many. Some believe that existing protocols already allow for shooting down intruding aircraft, while others feel that stronger actions are necessary to deter further aggression. There’s a belief that this inaction is detrimental, giving the impression of weakness.
There’s also a sense of incredulity that NATO isn’t acting more forcefully, with some suggesting that the hesitancy is driven by economic interests. There’s an underlying feeling that if NATO acted with more resolve, it would garner more respect from Russia. The idea is that decisive action, like shooting down an intruding aircraft, would send a clear message.
The potential consequences of shooting down a Russian aircraft are also considered. While there are genuine concerns about escalation, the prevailing opinion seems to be that Russia wouldn’t dare to start a wider conflict because they are already bogged down in Ukraine. The perception is that Putin would use the event as propaganda for his own people, but he wouldn’t want to open another front while they are so committed in their current war.
The suggested alternative of issuing warnings and escorting aircraft out of airspace is not viewed as sufficient. The consensus seems to be that it only invites further violations. The idea is that these methods give the appearance of weakness. The view is that the only language Russia understands is the language of force and strength.
The concept of a “red line” is also alluded to. If a Russian aircraft crosses this line, the automatic response should be to shoot it down. It’s a simple, direct approach, a means of deterring further incursions. The general idea here is: establish the rule, make it clear, and then be prepared to enforce it.
The call for decisive action goes beyond just airspace violations. Some feel that NATO needs to demonstrate its strength in other areas, like economic pressure. There is a widespread perception that the organization has shown a lack of leadership. The overall takeaway seems to be that NATO needs to be more assertive and less reactive.
The final point that keeps coming up is the idea of not being an aggressor but being prepared to defend one’s airspace. The consensus is that there’s no need to seek out conflict, but when airspace is violated, a firm and immediate response is required.