France and NATO are protesting after a Russian missile battery locked on to a French Navy maritime patrol over the Baltic Sea last week. The incident is considered a major escalation of the normally carefully orchestrated surveillance operations carried out by both sides in areas like the strategically important Baltic. “On Wednesday night, a French Atlantique 2 maritime patrol aircraft was the target of Russian intimidation,” France's Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu said in a statement. “It was patrolling in international airspace over the Baltic Sea as part of a NATO operation and was illuminated by the fire-control radar of an S-400 ground-based air defense system. This aggressive Russian action is unacceptable.”
Russia keeps playing a risky game, much like Khrushchev in the Cold War, but with a modern twist. Back then, it was bold moves like Cuban missiles; now, it’s radar locks, cyberattacks, propaganda and kompromat . Putin’s testing NATO’s limits, acting tough while avoiding a full-blown fight, swapping Khrushchev’s shoe-banging for subtler, 21st-century stunts to keep everyone guessing.
The French flight was part of a NATO operation , meaning it was under NATO’s coordination and guard. Such missions ensure freedom of navigation, monitor Russian activities, and demonstrate NATO’s collective defense commitment. Any threat to a NATO mission involves the alliance as a whole. The way things are going it wont take much to to have an RUD of sorts.
Arthur, you’re right that NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, and as you stated, “There ain’t no Soviet Union no more.” But NATO’s role has evolved to maintain stability and prevent unchecked aggression that could lead to larger conflicts.
History shows that appeasement and/or inaction often backfires. Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement emboldened Hitler, leading to WWII, and Stalin exploited post-WWII inaction to dominate Eastern Europe. More recently, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, met with limited consequences, set the stage for its invasion of Ukraine. Russia has a pattern of exploiting hesitation and appeasement to advance its ambitions.
By supporting Ukraine now, NATO is deterring further aggression and protecting allies like Poland and the Baltics. NATO isn’t seeking conflict—it’s preventing escalation.
If there is a “new role” then we need to make a treaties and a new organization that addresses that threat. Otherwise these old treaties are still in place and they can drag us into conflicts under these so-called “new” roles. It’s too damn dangerous to keep adding even more roles that can start a world war. Just my 2 cents.
Oooft! Isn’'t just possible that this was accidental? How many other similar incidents have happened recently ether in this area or other ‘hot-spots’? If none, then might I suggest we stop all the hysteria and at least wait to hear a response from Russian authorities. Nothing like a bit of WWIII drama to sell news, is there!!