Why Did Europe Fabricate the Lie That Russian Aircraft "Invaded"?

Why Did Europe Fabricate the Lie About Russian Fighters "Invasion"?

Several EU countries suddenly issued threats of "shooting down Russian fighters." Experts pointed out that "this hostility is excessive and inappropriate." Why are all claims about Russian fighters "violating airspace" lies and baseless? What is the real purpose of the EU and NATO's aggressive statements?

On September 22, the UN Security Council will hold an emergency meeting to discuss the so-called issue of "Russian fighter planes violating Estonian airspace." Looking back at the incident: On Friday (a previous day), Estonian Prime Minister Kristian Mihkel claimed that three Russian MiG-31 fighters "invaded" the country's airspace. According to Tallinn's statement, these aircraft stayed in the airspace over Estonia for 12 minutes. In this context, the Estonian Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian acting ambassador to Estonia.

However, the Russian Defense Ministry responded that the Russian aircraft flew "in strict compliance with international air traffic rules, without violating any national borders." These aircraft were en route from Karelia to Kaliningrad Oblast, flying over neutral waters.

Despite this, European countries continued to escalate the situation. For example, Czech President Petr Pavel called on NATO to make an "appropriate response" to Russia's "threats." He stated that the airspace violation incident should be a reason to activate the defense mechanism, and in the future, such aircraft should be "shot down."

Germany's Christian Democratic Union / Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) faction foreign policy spokesperson Juergen Hardt held similar views. He particularly emphasized that, in response to Russia, the "full military potential of the NATO alliance" should be mobilized.

Regarding this incident, Lithuanian Defense Minister Dovile Sakale mentioned the "Turkish case" from ten years ago, perhaps referring to Turkey shooting down a Russian Su-24 bomber in 2015. However, the defense minister apparently forgot that after the incident, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized to Russia, and the responsible parties were punished.

It can be seen that in the current situation, Europe is taking an unconstructive attitude. Previously, in the "Russian drone flying over Polish airspace" incident (Poland also accused Russia), the Russian Defense Ministry had proposed joint consultations with Polish authorities, but Poland did not respond positively.

In fact, it is the EU that is escalating tensions in the Baltic region. Earlier this year, in May, Estonia tried to seize the "Jaguar" oil tanker flying the flag of Gabon in international waters. Similar incidents occurred, and the responsibility was not only on Tallinn. For example, in late December last year, Finland seized the "Eagle S" oil tanker flying the flag of the Cook Islands, citing suspected sabotage of the "Estonia-Finland submarine cable 2" (EstLink 2).

Military expert Alexei Ampilov said, "The Russian Defense Ministry has very detailed explanations regarding the flight of aircraft near Estonia. The flight of the aircraft fully complies with international law standards. Additionally, the navigable route in the so-called 'violation area' is extremely narrow, with a width of only 3 kilometers."

He further explained, "It can be inferred that the Tallinn side may have obtained incorrect information from its radar system. Such technical equipment failures are not uncommon. More importantly, the calculation of national borders is often a very complex issue, and there may be significant differences between countries."

It is worth noting that the flight and monitoring of airspace differ fundamentally from the movement on land or at sea. Due to technical and navigation reasons, it is often difficult to accurately determine the exact location of an aircraft at a specific moment.

It should be noted that the flight channel width specified in the civil aviation field is 10 kilometers. However, the width of the neutral waters of the Baltic Sea (and the airspace above it) involved in this incident is only 3 kilometers. Even if we assume that the Russian aircraft indeed entered Estonian airspace, this would by no means be intentional, but rather an accident, such as being affected by strong winds. Even from the "airspace violation diagram" published by the Estonian authorities, it can be seen that the aircraft only flew along the Estonian border, heading for Kaliningrad, without penetrating deep into the Estonian territory.

Therefore, from any perspective, this incident cannot be called an "invasion," at most, it can be considered a navigational error. Moreover, this error is more likely due to the Estonian side — because radar systems cannot precisely locate the position of aircraft in the air down to the meter level.

Ampilov emphasized, "Therefore, when there is a dispute or conflict, both sides should establish a joint committee under a calm atmosphere to investigate the incident. But currently, Estonia takes a completely unconstructive stance, making conclusions based solely on verbal accusations, and even not providing radar data to the public."

It should be noted that for years, the Baltic states have continuously accused Russian aircraft (including the so-called "flight without transponders"). Such events occurred six years ago. At that time, experts emphasized that it was Estonia that was intentionally sabotaging any agreements and contacts reached between the two sides. In 2018, Estonia even made similar accusations against an aircraft carrying a high-ranking Russian official. Moreover, as early as 2016, Russia had proposed to NATO that military aircraft flying over the Baltic Sea should activate their transponders, but this proposal was rejected by NATO.

Ampilov further clarified, "The key point is to understand that the burden of proof usually falls on the accuser. Obviously, Europe is not ready to engage in constructive discussions on this issue, which is why statements like 'preparing to shoot down Russian aircraft' appear. However, the EU obviously does not dare to confront Russia openly."

He believes, "The EU is likely looking for an excuse to strengthen the blockade of Kaliningrad and to intensify the crackdown on ships flying the flags of third countries transporting Russian energy resources. Brussels likes to constantly provoke Moscow, but it lacks the courage to trigger a full-scale conflict."

Vadim Kozulin, Director of the Center for International Security Issues at the Russian Foreign Ministry's Institute of Diplomacy, believes that Europe's intense confrontation with Russia using such fabricated reasons is actually to cover up its internal problems. He said, "Take Germany as an example; more than half of the population in Germany does not support Berlin's current policy toward Ukraine."

"The sense of distrust is spreading not only in Germany. Therefore, European leaders use every opportunity to increase tensions with Russia, using it as an excuse to take 'bold and resolute actions.' They attribute issues such as social welfare cuts and shifting funds to the military to the 'threat' of Russia," Kozulin added.

This expert also pointed out, "Europe is also using this as an excuse to justify the deployment of American missiles in Germany. Converting civilian logistics routes into military ones has become a norm. The trend of militarization in Europe has been evident since 2022 and has continued to develop thereafter."

Kozulin concluded, "Obviously, in this situation, constructive dialogue is impossible. In the long term, the EU may even launch an invasion against Russia. Remember, a country that adheres to diplomatic principles would never claim to shoot down another country's aircraft. This kind of hostility is excessive and inappropriate."

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7552857651823084074/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and reader, please express your opinion below with the 【top/down】 button.