LDS Freedom Forum

Story Highlights
Two Russian planes flew within 500 feet of U.S. Navy aircraft carrier

That flyover is lower than others Russians have made over U.S. ships this year

U.S. aircraft tried contacting Russian planes, but pilots didn't respond

U.S. fighter jets met up with Russian planes, flew with them until they left

Next Article in World »



From Mike Mount
CNN Senior Pentagon Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russian military aircraft flew just 500 feet over two U.S. Navy ships this week as the ships participated in a joint military exercise with South Korea in the Sea of Japan, according to U.S. military officials.


Two Russian Ilyushin IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft flew only 500 feet above a U.S. aircraft carrier.

On Monday, two Russian Ilyushin IL-38 maritime patrol aircraft, known as "Mays," overflew the U.S. aircraft carrier Stennis while it was in international waters in the Sea of Japan.

The Russian aircraft flew about 500 feet over the ship, lower than other flights the Russians have made over U.S. ships in the past year.

The USS Stennis was about 80 miles east of Pohang, South Korea, participating in the joint military exercise when the flyover occurred.

On Tuesday, the USS Blue Ridge, a lead command and control ship, and the Stennis were overflown by two Russian "Bear" long-range bombers multiple times, according to U.S. military officials.

The Bears overflew the ships at about 2,000 feet, officials said.

U.S. military officials said that in both cases, U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighters met up with the Russian aircraft about 70 nautical miles from the U.S. ships and flew alongside them until they left the area.

On both days, U.S. aircraft tried contacting the Russian planes on international air frequency radio channels, but the Russian pilots did not respond, officials said.

The last time Russian planes flew over a U.S. Navy ship was February 2008, when two Bears flew 2,000 feet over the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz south of Japan.

Russian long-range flights skirting U.S. or other nations' boundaries have also been common over the last year.

Although the Pentagon does not often talk about the overflights, there is nothing illegal about the actions, and they are generally seen by the United States as nothing more than muscle-flexing by the Russian military.
E-

I'm not sure if Obama actually believes it or not, but he says these aren't 'signals of weakness', they are 'gestures of friendship'. According to him, other nations(i.e. Russia/China/Iran) have been offended by our 'belligerent' posture as of late and will be more friendly if we show that we are willing to work with them.

This line of thinking views Russia and China in entirely different lights. It assumes that they are looking for a partnership/friendship/alliance, and that their recent hostile moves are merely a 'response' to our actions. Obama believes that Russia/China have at their core decent and honorable governments who do not wish for war and are satisfied with the current international structure.

I believe this is where TFPers/anti-Communists/conservatives et al and liberals/Democrats/progressives part ways radically. We believe that a nation is best represented by its form of government(i.e. democracy, dictatorship, totalitarian regime) and that one which is tyrannical to its people will be tyrannical to other nations if given the opportunity.

The other side believes that the structure of government is irrelevant. A democracy's actions can be interpreted in the exact same light as that of a dictatorship. Britain has the same motives as Libya, France to Iran, Sweden to China, etc..

This is perhaps the clearest point of division among the two groups. One values and cherishes democracy as the greatest form of government, while the other(whilst enjoying its benefits) gives it equal standing among repressive and totalitarian regimes.

Thus we return to Obama's folly. He views the actions of two dictatorships, namely Russia and China, as ultimately benign and innocent. He believes kindness will be repaid with kindness. He believes all enemies can be co-opted by diplomacy, negotiation, or overtures of kindness. This is perhaps the greatest fallacy of all.

It is a fallacy because there are two key differences between democracies and dictatorships. In a representative democracy or republic, such as the U.S., the elected officials are beholden(to a degree) to those who granted them power. Their power is not indefinite, is limited, and constantly under scrutiny.

In a dictatorship, a few privileged control the many. They have no accountability, no one to answer to, and no rule of law. They can imprison, detain, torture or kill without fear of reprimand or justice because they are the law. They are the government. Thus we encounter our first key difference between the two forms of government; the ability to enforce one's will upon the masses. It is near impossible in a democracy. It is almost without limit in a dictatorship.

So Obama hasn't seen one of the major differences between the U.S. and China/Russia. It's rather difficult for the political elite to crush their agenda down the people's throats(although they sure try).

Russia, on the other hand, can pass any law they want, imprison whoever they want(innocent or guilty), or kill whatever journalist they wish.

This brings us to the second distinction between the U.S. and Russia, or a democracy and a dictatorship. Democracies like the U.S. have traditionally eschewed a warlike position for imperial reasons, preferring solely national security causes. This is vastly different from the view of a dictatorship, which views military conquest as a natural extension of its domestic perspective, which is domination by any means.

Just as the U.S. flattened Japan and Germany in WWII and subsequently rebuilt them, America has no desire to annex nations and expand its 'empire'. Once built to a sustainable position, governance of Germany and Japan was handed over to its citizens.

A dictatorship, on the other hand, views foreign nations in much the same light that it views its citizens - that is, an element that must be brought into submission. Those that are not under its direct control pose a threat - not only as a source of inspiration to its suppressed citizenry, but also as a potential military threat for liberation means. Thus, the perspective of a totalitarian regime constantly views foreign nations as threats that must be eventually conquered and brought into subjection. Nowhere was this more evident than China's claims to Taiwan, North Korea's war against South Korea, Russia's former 'satellite states', Iraq's war against Kuwait and Iran, and the various Arab nations against Israel. Yes, there are varying factors of influence that play a role, such as religious ideology or economic interests, but the prevailing notion is one of control - control over a people, control over a nation, control over resources, control over a media.

This is the second key difference between democracies and dictatorships - namely, the clear intent for conquest and domination that is inherent in all totalitarian regimes. The goal of the Communist Party, a totalitarian ideology, is the clear domination of all nations and one world controlled by them. The welfare of their citizens is irrelevant to them; control and power is the key determinant in their thinking.

These are Obama's two fallacies. Capability and intent. He has failed to note that he is dealing with those who have both the capability and intent to conquer and destroy; he has failed to realize he is placating his executioner.
He projects the ideals, values and beliefs of a free people onto tyrants. While his power is checked, those he negotiates with have near unfettered movement within their regime. They can make the media say whatever they want. They can ruthlessly crush any opposition. In short, they can project an image which does not exist, an illusion, a facade. They can deceive, and quite skillfully so, because they are not beholden to the responsibilities of a dictatorship. Obama has made two crucial errors in his moves towards disarmament, and does not realize that the foundation for his thinking is made of clay and mud, and will soon crumble underneath him.