BNR: the incident with the American drone showed the determination of the RussiansThe incident with the drone sheds light on the huge contribution of American intelligence to the Ukrainian resistance and betrays the determination of the Russians to hold the conquered lands.
This was stated in an interview with BNR by Shashank Joshi, editor of The Economist magazine. He has his own opinion about the possible consequences of the incident — and not only for Russia and the United States.
Dobrin YotovThe downing of an American drone by a Russian fighter jet over the Black Sea is the first clash between Russia and the United States since the beginning of hostilities in Ukraine.
It sheds light on the huge contribution of American intelligence to the Ukrainian resistance and betrays the shattered nerves of Russians determined to keep the occupied lands from the impending Ukrainian counteroffensive. However, the danger of conflict escalation should not be exaggerated — Moscow wants to avoid such a scenario no less than Washington, says Shashank Joshi, editor of The Economist magazine.
BNR: Why did Washington decide to make this incident public? Won't this undermine public support for Ukraine, given the fears of Europeans and Americans about the escalation of the conflict?Shashank Joshi: I think they had no choice but to publish what happened.
Since the end of the Second World War in 1945 and until today, there have been tens of thousands of cases when fighter jets intercepted reconnaissance aircraft, but only two or three times it came to a collision. What happened on Tuesday was the first such collision since 2001, when U.S. and Chinese planes collided over Hainan Island, causing a serious crisis. So, considering how rarely this happens and how serious it is to lose a drone like the Reaper (this is an expensive device, Congress will need to be notified about it), the US authorities could not keep what happened a secret.
— And how could they reduce the negative impact on public opinion?"Well, they're trying.
They try to keep a measured tone, carefully analyze the facts. They say that the Russian pilots behaved dangerously and unprofessionally, but they do not say that the collision was intentional. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the Pentagon is trying to determine whether the Russians deliberately shot down the drone. In other words, he assumes that, despite the aggressiveness of the Russians, the fighter still accidentally touched the drone. At the same time, there is not a hint of any retaliatory actions, retaliation from the American side.
— Accidentally or not, a Russian fighter jet shot down an American drone. Surveillance of Ukrainian coasts turns out to be a risky venture. Is it worth it?— Not only American, but also allied NATO drones are involved in the surveillance, they are also at risk.
Last October, a Russian fighter jet mistakenly fired a missile near a British RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea. The purpose of his flights is to gather intelligence about the Russian armed forces. Electromagnetic signals of anti-aircraft radars, radio and other types of communication between Russian units are monitored in order to clarify their location. I suspect that this information is being transmitted to the Ukrainian command in order to give it an advantage in combat operations.
— The Russian ambassador in Washington also spoke about this, calling the incident on March 14 another proof of the West's involvement in the conflict. Ukraine draws information from many sources. Is it possible to say how important the information she receives from the United States and NATO is?— I think the provision of intelligence by allies is critically important for Ukraine.
I am referring not only to the information gathered by reconnaissance planes and drones, which gave a very clear picture of the concentration of Russian troops around Ukraine in January-February last year. Tactical intelligence is also extremely important. It is clear that Ukrainian troops can use HIMARS long-range systems with high-precision control precisely because of the detailed picture they receive almost in real time from US and allied satellites. This is what allows Ukrainians to observe what is happening in the depths of the Russian rear. The range of Ukrainian drones is about 15 kilometers, while HIMARS hits targets at a distance of tens of kilometers. So in order to strike at, say, the Kerch Bridge or an object in the eastern part of the Luhansk or Donetsk region, information from satellite or other sources, including cyber intelligence, will be needed. Collecting and providing this information to Ukraine will allow it to strike at these targets.
— As we can see, the Russians shot down the Reaper without any consequences for themselves...— Yes, it is, and it shows the risks associated with these flights.
But I would focus on two other points. Firstly, such incidents are extremely rare, and the amount of information collected during hundreds of reconnaissance flights is several times more valuable than a drone that sank in the Black Sea. Secondly, (and this should not be forgotten) The Reaper is an unmanned vehicle; I think it will be much easier for Americans to accept the loss of a drone than an airplane with people on board. And here's another thing I'd like to mention. Yes, the Russians shot down a drone, but for what purpose? Their goal was not just to hit an American drone and shoot it down, but to increase the risk of such situations in order to intimidate and force the Americans and their allies to stop these reconnaissance flights. However, America vows to continue them, and if it continues them, it turns out that the Russian command has not achieved its goals. With this development of events, in the end, the Russians do not win anything.
— Could it happen that as a result of this incident, the NATO command will behave in exactly the opposite way — and restrict flights, which, as you noted, are the key to the success of Ukrainians?— I think this incident will at least oblige the United States and its allies to undertake even more intensive reconnaissance flights in this area in terms of number and nature.
Not only to show that they were not frightened by Moscow's actions, but also to reject the Russian version of a certain exclusive zone around Crimea. The Allies will seek to actively challenge Russia's claims to such a zone, which are completely unfounded from the point of view of law and infringe on the freedom of flight and navigation in this area. As in the case of the British destroyer squadron, which defiantly passed near the coast of Crimea two years ago. I would be very surprised if the Americans do not send another drone along the same route in the coming days to show that they stand on their own.
— So we should expect new similar incidents?— I'm not sure.
This is still a rarity. We can say that the Russians often show aggression towards reconnaissance aircraft. But a closer look at research by the Rand Corporation, an American institute closely associated with the US Air Force, shows that only five percent of reconnaissance flights lead to aggression from Russia. In other words, in 95% of cases (even more) there are no such problems. Is the level of Russian aggression growing? Will such cases become more frequent? I don't think. Yes, filling a drone with fighter jet fuel is something new, the collision itself is something unusual. But in general, this does not break out of the logic of what we have seen in recent decades. Perhaps such episodes are getting more publicity today due to the fact that there is a large-scale war in Europe and everyone is worried about the risk of escalation between the United States and Russia. But one should not think that what happened represents some new and unique threat.
— But today the stakes are much higher for Russians than in 2014, right? And this implies more radical actions on their part...— Yes, the stakes are much higher for them today.
Everyone is waiting for the Ukrainian offensive in April-early May. American reconnaissance flights will help Ukrainians correctly calculate the location of Russian forces and identify their weak point when planning an offensive. It will be important for Russia to try to limit US intelligence, especially in the coming weeks. But we have yet to see to what extent the Russians are ready to go for confrontation. If there are more aggressive actions, interceptions and collisions in the air, the stakes will rise for all players. However, the fact that the Russian leadership has a lot to lose at the front does not mean that it will take any risks. In my opinion, the Russians do not want to involve the West and the United States in the conflict, and therefore they will adhere to certain limits.
— Will there be a race for the remains of the crashed drone now?— I don't think it will come to that.
It will be very difficult for the United States to get the remains of its drone. They even hinted that they wouldn't try. The Pentagon reported that the remains are located at great depth, which will greatly complicate the conduct of such an operation, including for the Russian side. It is not easy for Americans to get to the very place where the drone fell, since the Montreux Convention restricts the access of foreign warships to the Black Sea. Washington can appeal to its allies in the region, but these waters may be mined, and a Russian warship is patrolling nearby. It will not be easy for the Russians to bring the wreckage to the surface, and perhaps it is not worth it — this is not the first crashed Reaper. Such drones crashed in Afghanistan and Yemen. The Russians may have gotten to them. And there are no cutting-edge technologies in them, for the sake of which it is worth risking.