otisptoadwater wrote: The point is that the Russians have returned to long range aviation patrols at levels we have not seen since the 1980's. Why would Russia invest the funds and resources to conduct these long range patrols at heightened levels? They aren't doing it strictly because they can, fuel and maintenance on aircraft and infrastructure are expensive, never mind the international political implications. Aggressively approaching the recognized sovereign border of another nation in a military vehicle, be it an aircraft or a ship can result in an international incident and damage or the loss of personnel and assets. Is it to explore and record how Western forces respond to aggressive approaches to our borders or is there a real threat? How do you determine the difference between a real attack and an exercise?
We do it too, but not nearly to the extent the Russians have recently been testing our response to their incursions. Guam is a long way from Colorado so is the right response to just let the Russians do what ever they want in our sovereign airspace over Guam?
I am not understanding these flights either. These Bear bombers are very old prop plane technology who have been obsolete for decades. Plus these "Training flights" are very expensive fuel wise and maintaining these ancient planes.
Edit: Upon further research, per the Economist, it looks like Putin and the boys are rebuilding the US into a convienent enemy. First the ban on American couples adopting Russian orphans, now they are pointing the finger at US and the West to take attention off internal issues.
Looks like Hilary's "reset" button is being reset back to the 1960's. (Including flying Kennedy era bombers.)
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
