• BigDill99
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What is China hoping to achieve with these goofy acts?

    • Bonehead@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Have you ever had a bully almost but not quite hit you, instead hitting something else, but you react as if you were about to be hit and flinch. And then one day you flinch and hit your head on something, but the bully didn’t hit you so they tell you it’s not their fault. Or worse…you flinch and accidentally hit them lightly, and now they have an excuse to really hit you. Yeah…

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      To raise the risk level for conducting military operations next to their airspace.

      • ProvableGecko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Tries to stir up shit next to China to prop up the Empire

        Gets intercepted

        Why would China do this?

      • halfwaythere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yup the West is always playing chicken with the east.

        When two people are playing chicken then it is normal when only one person is playing chicken that person is up to no good.

  • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Interceptions are common and, as the US puts it “routine” and “not seen as a threat.”

    Intercepts usually follow a basic script:

    Interceptor: “please go away”

    Interceptee: “I am conducting lawful military operations outside national airspace”

    The interceptor now pulls closer

    Interceptor: “go away”

    Interceptee: I am conducting lawful military operations outside national airspace"

    Repeat until one side gives in

    IIRC Russian and Chinese doctrine when they are the interceptee is to avoid escalation, but NATO doctrine is to stand behind the claim and push to the limit of international law. Similarly, when Russian and Chinese planes are the interceptor they expect NATO planes to avoid escalation, while NATO planes expect Russian and Chinese planes to follow them around until they push the border of territorial airspace. Thus, Chinese and Russian planes tend to escalate their interception because they perceived NATO plane behaviour as an escalation that they themselves wouldn’t do. Meanwhile, NATO planes see Chinese and Russian interceptions as increasingly aggressive because, by NATO doctrine, they’ve done nothing wrong. Neither doctrine is wrong, but the doctrinal mismatch is clearly causing problems because the other side doesn’t behave as expected.