First is testing the response times, locations, scale, etc… If you intentionally violate air space, you can measure how long it takes for your future opponent to scramble their own response. You can see what kind of equipment they send to respond. You can see where the response comes from. You can see how many combatants they send to respond. That is all valuable info if you’re planning potential attacks in the future.
Second is creating a “boy who cried wolf” situation. Repeatedly violate their airspace, and they’ll begin to see the violations as routine. They’ll stop treating them as genuine threats, and will simply start treating them as just another annoyance. None of the violations ever result in an attack, so why would this one be any different? Then when the actual attack comes, your opponent is caught with their pants down because they weren’t fully responsive.
Third is money. In the grand scheme of things, flying a single drone around is a drop in the bucket. In contrast, a sudden scrambled response costs a lot. It’s a lot of sudden manpower and logistics to coordinate. Especially when the violation turns out to be a nothing-burger. If you want to begin straining your opponent before a war even begins, make them start counting pennies before you attack.
Fourth, it could be posturing. Look at how weak our enemy is! They can’t even patrol their own border. They’re afraid of us and let us into their airspace. Etc…
Fifth could be intimidation. Remind them that they’re within poking distance. Especially since they’de supporting Ukraine. Want to discourage that support? Encourage them to circle the wagons and bring their support home instead.
The problem with most of these is that Russia isn’t going to invade EU territory. Everything you said wouldn’t make up the sheer quality difference between their military and that of EU countries.
You are presenting something as truth that is far from clear. Russia very much has the ambition to conquer the Baltics. Are they stupid and going for total war? Of course not. They play on many fronts, a main one is propaganda and help their people in the EU (Le Oen, AfD, FPÖ etc) get into power, let the US regime functionally betray NATO (no need to actually leave it) and then do some semi hybrid raoid attack to create facts.
Okay let me slightly correct myself: Russia won’t invade EU territory unless they’re 100% sure the EU won’t do anything about it. This makes things like measuring response time and the like in the broader EU pointless, because if they have to deal with that they’ve already lost. I’m not denying the existence of the propaganda war, but victory there would make most of Carl’s proposed goals superfluous.
A few reasons.
First is testing the response times, locations, scale, etc… If you intentionally violate air space, you can measure how long it takes for your future opponent to scramble their own response. You can see what kind of equipment they send to respond. You can see where the response comes from. You can see how many combatants they send to respond. That is all valuable info if you’re planning potential attacks in the future.
Second is creating a “boy who cried wolf” situation. Repeatedly violate their airspace, and they’ll begin to see the violations as routine. They’ll stop treating them as genuine threats, and will simply start treating them as just another annoyance. None of the violations ever result in an attack, so why would this one be any different? Then when the actual attack comes, your opponent is caught with their pants down because they weren’t fully responsive.
Third is money. In the grand scheme of things, flying a single drone around is a drop in the bucket. In contrast, a sudden scrambled response costs a lot. It’s a lot of sudden manpower and logistics to coordinate. Especially when the violation turns out to be a nothing-burger. If you want to begin straining your opponent before a war even begins, make them start counting pennies before you attack.
Fourth, it could be posturing. Look at how weak our enemy is! They can’t even patrol their own border. They’re afraid of us and let us into their airspace. Etc…
Fifth could be intimidation. Remind them that they’re within poking distance. Especially since they’de supporting Ukraine. Want to discourage that support? Encourage them to circle the wagons and bring their support home instead.
Damn good post Carl
There’s a reason he’s the number one Crawler
God dammit Dohnut.
The problem with most of these is that Russia isn’t going to invade EU territory. Everything you said wouldn’t make up the sheer quality difference between their military and that of EU countries.
You are presenting something as truth that is far from clear. Russia very much has the ambition to conquer the Baltics. Are they stupid and going for total war? Of course not. They play on many fronts, a main one is propaganda and help their people in the EU (Le Oen, AfD, FPÖ etc) get into power, let the US regime functionally betray NATO (no need to actually leave it) and then do some semi hybrid raoid attack to create facts.
Okay let me slightly correct myself: Russia won’t invade EU territory unless they’re 100% sure the EU won’t do anything about it. This makes things like measuring response time and the like in the broader EU pointless, because if they have to deal with that they’ve already lost. I’m not denying the existence of the propaganda war, but victory there would make most of Carl’s proposed goals superfluous.