Norwegian and British fighters scrambled Thursday to intercept eight Russian bombers that neared the Nordic country's territory in the latest show of air power by the Kremlin, defense officials said.
The Tu-95 strategic bombers rounded Norway's northern tip over the Barents Sea and flew south over the North Atlantic before turning back, Norwegian defense officials said.
The Russian planes, known as "Bears" in NATO lingo, stayed inside international air space during the maneuvers, which officials described as an assertion of Russia's increasingly assertive posture on the world stage.
"This is a message that Russia is back as a superpower," Norwegian Deputy Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide said.
Norway did not see the increased activity as a threat "but a signal that Russia wants to be taken seriously by the West," he told The Associated Press.
British defense officials said four Royal Air Force fighters scrambled to monitor the flight, which did not enter British territory.
Lt. Col. John Inge Oeglaend, of the Norwegian Joint Headquarters, said two Norwegian F-16 fighters were sent up both times that the Russian aircraft approached the northern tip of Norway, in keeping with normal practice. He said it was the third time since mid-July that Norwegian fighters have scrambled to monitor Russian air maneuvers.
"They followed a normal route in international air space," Oeglaend said by telephone from the western Norway port of Stavanger.
Norway, a member of the NATO alliance, and Russia share land and ocean borders in the Arctic, including the vast Barents Sea.
Alliance spokesman James Appathurai said Norway and Britain launched quick-reaction interceptor and airborne-warning planes and tankers "as part of routine NATO procedure."
He added that the Russians had every right to carry out the maneuvers: "There is no controversy about this."
Russian news agencies quoted air force spokesman Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky as saying the Tu-95 bombers had begun patrols of distant areas of the globe late Wednesday, in accordance with plans announced by President Vladimir Putin for a resumption of the flights.
The long-range bombers began the patrols "over the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans involving in-flight refueling," ITAR-Tass and Interfax quoted Drobyshevsky as saying.
According to ITAR-Tass, he said the bombers were "flying over neutral waters, not approaching close to the air borders of foreign countries."
"About 20 NATO jets were scrambled to escort our strategic bombers, including F-16s and Tornadoes, but there were no excesses from the foreign planes," Interfax quoted Drobyshevsky as saying.
Putin said in August that he had ordered strategic bombers to resume regular long-range patrols, which analysts say signaled a significant change for Russian military policy.
Analysts said the increased activity shows that the Russians have the aircraft, the trained pilots, the fuel and the funds to use them, all of which were lacking in the years after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
Fredrik Westerlund, an analyst at the Swedish Defense Research Agency, said Russia was reviving maneuvers along Soviet-era routes down the North Sea and toward Guam in the Pacific.
"These are Cold War routes," he said. "These are the routes they had before for nuclear weapons strikes. ... The closest route to the U.S. is over the North Pole. And the route over the North Sea makes it possible to reach Great Britain.
Jakub M. Godzimirski, an expert on NATO and Russia at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo, said the increased activity is directed at the West in general.
"It shows they have the ability to do it, that they have the economic means and the political will to take steps that could increase tensions," he said by telephone.
In mid-August, Norwegian fighters scrambled to monitor a flight of 11 Russian bombers off western Norway in the biggest show of Russian air power over the Norwegian Sea since the early 1990s.
In recent months, there have been repeated incidents, including two of the RAF's new Typhoon Eurofighter jets last month shadowing a Tu-95 over the North Atlantic, and in July two Russian aircraft were warned off by RAF jets as they headed toward British airspace.
In May, two Tornado F3s were scrambled to intercept a Tu-95 observing the Royal Navy exercise Neptune Warrior.
Has Putin got dreams of rekindling a Russian Empire? Or does he just think Soviet Communism failed because he wasn't running it?
Discuss....
Originally posted by SMSBear716I'd equate this to his posturing with gas supplies last summer. Europe has taken care of that by bypassing much of its supply and securing alternative routes that are less susceptible to Russian interference. Putin has been trying to swing his d1#@ around to get people to pay attention for some time now. Domestic troubles are more easily dealt with when you can say the world is bullying your country. By posturing such as this, he's probably just trying to provoke political posturing on our side so that he can point and say that the west hasn't changed since the cold war and still wants to damage Russia. It would do some "good" from his perspective and help him quell the Kasparovs of his regime.
Norwegian and British fighters scrambled Thursday to intercept eight Russian bombers that neared the Nordic country's territory in the latest show of air power by the Kremlin, defense officials said.
The Tu-95 strategic bombers rounded Norway's northern tip over the Barents Sea and flew south over the North Atlantic before turning back, Norwegian defen ...[text shortened]... oviet Communism failed because he wasn't running it?
Discuss....
The post that was quoted here has been removedI agree with the majority of your assessment.
However, I don't have quite the faith you do in the "Power of the Market" (capitalism) being able to hold back a return to a communist dictatorship in Russia. This newly aquired "taste for property and money" you mention, could have the opposite effect and turn eyes to Putin's neighbors. An old saying is, "the more you get, the more you want."
Originally posted by MacSwainI never thought of Putin as missing the good ol' soviet days... I think he is longing for a strong mother Russia. Power... not ideology.
I agree with the majority of your assessment.
However, I don't have quite the faith you do in the "Power of the Market" (capitalism) being able to hold back a return to a communist dictatorship in Russia. This newly aquired "taste for property and money" you mention, could have the opposite effect and turn eyes to Putin's neighbors. An old saying is, "the more you get, the more you want."
I'd say Putin probably did enjoy and largely support the Soviet Union. Just take a look at some of the video footage of his reaction to the collapse - devastation. However, Putin is not stupid, communisim is not a feasible government anymore even a different form wouldn't have enough international and civil supprt. It's power Putin's after, achiveing international glory and strength is always a good cover for internal problems of poverty etc.
Originally posted by PhelimIf communism, isn't a viable form of government anymore, one should tell that to Chavez, he isn't convinced.
I'd say Putin probably did enjoy and largely support the Soviet Union. Just take a look at some of the video footage of his reaction to the collapse - devastation. However, Putin is not stupid, communisim is not a feasible government anymore even a different form wouldn't have enough international and civil supprt. It's power Putin's after, achiveing international glory and strength is always a good cover for internal problems of poverty etc.
As for Putin, he wants to remain in charge no matter who the President of the Russian Federation is. He wants to be holding the strings of power. It wouldn't surprise me to see Putin or his puppet sucessor attempt to reabsorb some of the old Soviet Republics into the Russian Federation.
After all, if Russia went after the Ukraine for example through whatever methods, including military force ... what would NATO do? What would the EU do? or the Useless Nations (UN) do? I doubt any of them would want to back the Ukraine militarily in a struggle. After all, the logic would be, where is their national security at risk? And would they be willing to shed the blood of their people in a conflict? Doubtful. And guess who the world would look to to act forcefully ... once again
Originally posted by SMSBear716First off, if you reqd the qrticle you yourself posted, NATO was very quick to scramble fighters, which you don't do unless you're going to use them should the need arise. The UN isn't technically a military force, it's for peacekeeping and prevention, which if you had known that, maybe you'd have thought twice before saying it. The EU, particularily Germany, Britain (given the stresses recently), and yes, even France given the potential for Uranium prices spiking would likely get involved very quickly. While you may think that France doesn't get involved in wars, that's just your wars, when the lebanon blew up last year they were in like a shot. Take your blinkers off and you may see that your not the only boy at the party, we're well able to defend ourselves if necessary. As for the logic of wehre our national security would be at risk, well, economically, politically and militarily to be honest. Russia shares a border with us, aggressive actions against the Ukraine particularily in light of our close ties with it would cause waves.
After all, if Russia went after the Ukraine for example through whatever methods, including military force ... what would NATO do? What would the EU do? or the Useless Nations (UN) do? I doubt any of them would want to back the Ukraine militarily in a struggle. After all, the logic would be, where is their national security at risk?
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ukraine/intro/index.htm
not wanting to go off topic here, but why is this more of a concern than the US attacking Irak? Russia hasn't invaded anything, hasn't bombed anything. We are so used to Russia being the paranoid, always on the verge of war country. We scream when Russia makes acts of aggression yet we choose to ignore Amerika's acts.
If taking some bombers for a ride in international waters makes some worry of a new Russian Empire, then that means that Amerika has already started building its empire.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYes, Russia never invaded anywhere. The list since the revolution is certainly short now isn't it? I guess we will dismiss the invasion of Afghanistan. That was just a sideshow, for what 10 years?
not wanting to go off topic here, but why is this more of a concern than the US attacking Irak? Russia hasn't invaded anything, hasn't bombed anything. We are so used to Russia being the paranoid, always on the verge of war country. We scream when Russia makes acts of aggression yet we choose to ignore Amerika's acts.
If taking some bombers for a ride i ...[text shortened]... f a new Russian Empire, then that means that Amerika has already started building its empire.
Yes and the US just invaded Iraq to take its oil, now get over it, Saddam was just a sweet angel he ignored how many Useless Nations (UN) resolutions? And the rest of the world just stood idly by, well most of them.
How many years was Romania a Soviet(Russian) puppet state, by the way.
Originally posted by agrysonThe Useless Nations (UN) is a bloated, corrupt bureacracy, generally good for nothing except flapping their jaws, and waggling their fingers. Thier record of failure speaks for itself. If most members had their way Saddam would still be in power and we'd up to 30 or 40 resolutions seeking his compliance.
First off, if you reqd the qrticle you yourself posted, NATO was very quick to scramble fighters, which you don't do unless you're going to use them should the need arise. The UN isn't technically a military force, it's for peacekeeping and prevention, which if you had known that, maybe you'd have thought twice before saying it. The EU, particularily Germany ...[text shortened]... h it would cause waves.
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/ukraine/intro/index.htm
Originally posted by SMSBear716It's very effective for the US protecting Israeli interests with it's veto power.
The Useless Nations (UN) is a bloated, corrupt bureacracy, generally good for nothing except flapping their jaws, and waggling their fingers. Thier record of failure speaks for itself. If most members had their way Saddam would still be in power and we'd up to 30 or 40 resolutions seeking his compliance.
Hugo Chavez isn't a communist. He's a socialist in opposition to U.S. aggresion. In fact he is against the Venezuelan Communist party. Americans are just too quick to proclaim any one a communist that isn't as greedy as them and shows some independent strength lke Vladimir Putin. Putin flies a few planes around Norway and you start wetting yourselves. Whilst America supports Venezeulan armed coups, invades Iraq and Afghanistan, wants to invade Iran and supprts oppresive Isreal. Which is worse?