As we all know now, on March 14, a United States Air Force MQ-9 “Reaper” drone (presumably the latest Block 5 variant) was downed approximately 70 km off the coast of the Crimean Peninsula in southern Russia. The political West keeps insisting that a pair of Russian Su-27 jets (most likely the heavily modernized SM3 version) shot it down through “reckless, unprofessional and environmentally unsound” maneuvering.
Needless to say, the latter is most likely the “gravest crime” of the Russian pilot, as he should’ve certainly taken climate change prevention as a priority over protecting his own country. It should also be noted that the Russian military probably had nothing to do with the aforementioned jets.
New intelligence reviewed by anonymous Russian officials suggests that “a pro-Russian group from within the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) hijacked two Su-27s and went on a vigilante mission to patrol Russian airspace”. At least that’s what the New York Times would be claiming if its latest report on the Nord Stream terrorist attack were to be taken into account.
However, in all seriousness, the Russian military rejects the allegations that one of its Su-27 jets supposedly dumped fuel on the US drone, claiming that it went down due to its erratic maneuvering, while the Russian jets never came into direct contact with the drone or used weapons to intercept it.
The Russian VKS also noted that the UAV had its transponders off while heading toward Russian airspace. Moscow slammed Washington DC for violating the agreed protocols for avoiding escalation. However, the US insists that its drone was “merely conducting routine operations in international airspace over the Black Sea and posed no threat to anyone”.
However, as the Pentagon claims that the MQ-9 was unarmed, this leaves us only with the option that it was carrying out ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) over critically important Russian military infrastructure. Considering this information is then shared directly with the Neo-Nazi junta forces, enabling precision strikes, it can hardly be considered a “nonthreat”.
Quite expectedly, Washington DC warhawks were quick to call for a world-ending thermonuclear war over a single drone, with the “famously pacifist” Senator Lindsey Graham calling for the downing of Russian fighter jets. “What would Ronald Reagan do right now? He would start shooting Russian planes down, if they were threatening our assets,” he told Sean Hannity during a Fox News interview.
On the other hand, top Russian officials, such as Nikolai Patrushev, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, are adamant that the incident proves America’s direct involvement in the conflict. And indeed, as previously mentioned, the US battlefield data is directly shared with the Neo-Nazi junta, causing thousands of Russian military and civilian deaths.
On March 12, a bus station in the town of Perevalsk (LPR) was struck by a single rocket fired from the US-made HIMARS. At least three civilians were killed, including a 17-year-old, with at least 16 others injured. A day before, the Kuybishev district of Donetsk (DPR) was also targeted, resulting in the death of an eight-year-old boy and his father. The child, Nikita Safonov, was killed on his birthday on March 11. The family was about to celebrate the occasion when they were killed. The father, just under the age of 30, was instantly killed, while his son died on the way to the hospital.
Weapons such as the rockets used by the HIMARS are PGMs and, as the name suggests, are designed for precision strikes. This means that the aforementioned civilian deaths were entirely intentional, making them an unadulterated war crime. And while the Neo-Nazi junta has been openly threatening to conduct its genocidal policies towards the people of Donbass for nearly a decade, the US claims it’s “merely helping Ukraine defend itself”. However, how exactly does providing targeting data for the senseless murder of civilians going to school, work or celebrating their child’s birthday help “defend Ukraine”? The only logical conclusion is that it’s all intentional.
The belligerent thalassocracy claims that it “doesn’t seek direct confrontation with Russia” and that it would “prefer to avoid escalation”. Considering the aforementioned war crimes, such statements are monstrously hypocritical. On the other hand, NATO ISR assets have also contributed to the vast majority of Russian military deaths, while prolonging the conflict. This means that the US and NATO don’t even need to fire a single bullet to kill Russian soldiers and civilians. However, while the Kiev regime forces are pulling the trigger, it is the political West’s “eyes” that are targeting them. And, according to the Neo-Nazi junta itself, they are also the ones issuing commands. Considering these facts, Mr. Patrushev is certainly right. NATO is a party to the conflict and downing its ISR platforms is certainly saving thousands of lives.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.