Again, what does that mean? What’s the context to understand that statement in? It’s a very relative evaluation that has no grounding in fundamental facts about the incident. Maybe it is unjustified and unsafe, and maybe a Russian pilot is getting grounded as we speak with the possibility of being drummed out to follow. Maybe it’s a calculated risk the Russians took, relative to the behavior the American military plane was undertaking in their backyard. Bear in mind that a US Navy plane over the Black Sea does not represent the possibility of puppy dogs, soft music, and pillowy marshmallows for Russia. See the comments by @Purplecat and @Akimbo_NOT. Nationalism is a helluva drug, and it’s one that will make you look at your own military operating near other countries and have you arguing that those other countries are the instigators. Bear in mind that even the reporting of the incident is a political act. That too, is part of this dynamic. Countries complaining about interception of their aircraft over international waters and going, “Why I never! We were just minding our business!” is absolutely a part of this. The formal complaining is such a part of the routine that it surprises me that people still fall for it. Are you going to fall for it if a soldier shoots a Honduran immigrant because, “he had a rock?”
And look, if you’re going to maintain an empire, then you’ve gotta send planes to check in on your rivals and enemies. That’s just how it goes. But if you’re a citizen of said empire, even if you agree with the imperialism there is zero reason to drink the jingoistic Kool-Aid yourself. And let’s be clear: A lot of the liberal ire being directed at Russia is just jingoism wearing a pretty blue cape. It’s actually been really interesting to watch the proliferation of blue hawks after the 2016 election, and to watch this blog participate.