Slashdot Mirror
Finland To Fly "Open Skies" Surveillance Flight Over Russia
jones_supa writes Inspectors from Finland will conduct an observation flight on March 23-27 over the Russian territory within the framework of the Treaty on Open Skies. During the flight that will be conducted along the mutually agreed route, Russian specialists on board of the aircraft will ensure strict compliance with the agreed flight schedule and monitor the use of the equipment stipulated by the treaty. The flight will be conducted on a Swedish SAAB 340 observation aircraft that is not equipped with any weaponry. Both the plane and the equipment installed in it have been examined by the international inspection, including Russian specialists. The treaty on Open Skies is designed to enhance mutual understanding by allowing unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the territories of its 34 current member states.
How does crap like this get +Insightful? The idea of the treaty is not that you're not forced to disclose all your secrets but show enough to give some verification that you're not amassing an invasion force next to the border. Arguably, I suspect that at least the US (and probably Russia too) have satellites with better capabilities than these flights. The treaty just gives countries without military satellites the means to at least do something.
The timing makes me think that Finland is trying to figure out to what extent Russia was faking it when flexing its military muscle in exercises close to Finland not too long ago. Now they have to quickly move back lots of gear to show it once again.
The purpose of the treaty is to provide mutual assurance between party states that the other members are not preparing for war against them. More or less, "I'll let you fly over my country and see that I don't have troops amassing in preparation for an invasion if you let me do the same." It was originally proposed as a means for reducing tension between the US and Soviets during the Cold War, but didn't come into effect until decades later.
Towards that end, it really doesn't do much, other than allow nations to see if a large force is building up. The sensor systems must all be commercially available ones that any of the member states can purchase (i.e. no super-fancy x-ray sensors to see inside buildings), so unless you catch the other side unawares (which can't happen, since you have to schedule the flights with them), you're not going to see anything unless they really are building up such a massive force that they're simply unable to hide it.
Anyway, this is actually a pretty routine occurrence, by all accounts. The UK alone has had 40+ such flights over their territory since the treaty came into force in 2002. The US has likewise had dozens of flights over their territory. Ditto for Russia. And the same for the rest of the member states, by and large.
Reminder: Finland is not a member of NATO. It's not an enemy of Russia like NATO is. It's not looking for venues to attack Russia and therefore looking to scout out defensive positions already in place. As a result, it's goals are completely different and while I would probably agree that for a NATO this would be mostly "wasted fuel", for us it's not.
Because this is about ensuring peace on the long border by letting both sides know what medium and long term installations are already in place and that no agreements already in place are being violated. With no reason for any kind of tensions or conflict on the border and around it, these kinds of actions ensure peace and stability in the region.
The cases listed show no evidence of the only violation of international laws that you suggest (invading international space without reason such as avoiding a storm), instead showing that US aircraft did in fact commit to territorial airspace violations during those actions.
Specific example, straight from material linked by you:
On 18 July 2014 an American surveillance plane conducting operations near Kaliningrad was chased into Swedish air-space after being approached by Russian fighters. This evasive action took place without Sweden’s prior approval that the US aircraft could enter Swedish airspace.
Note how "surveillance plane conducting operations" is viewed as a neutral, but aircraft scrambling to intercept it are apparently a hostile move if intelligence aircraft is US one and intercepting aircraft is Russian. And if it's the other way around, it's "oh those evil Russians in the international airspace".
Quite a good demonstration of the severe propagandist bias in related reporting. Thank you for providing such clear example.
That's the point of these flights. Any kind of long term installation would be visible, as would major troop movements. These flights are about showing both sides that neither side is making any significant changes to status quo around the border.
Finland has a very long history of living with Russia on its borders, and unlike our hysterical neighbours in the West and South, we actually know how to communicate with them to defuse conflicts. Comes with being a neutral European state with huge border with Soviet Union that isn't a part of NATO, as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.
No, it is not funny. It is actually quite amazing how carefully you have to read the article to understand that the incident was in international airspace, and how little "nearly collided" means.
It reminds me of the CNN report about the Russian missile inscribed "To be delivered personally in Omaba's hands" . You know, the one that our ex-ambassador twitted about, the one that showed how Putin is threatening the United States, the one pundits were discussing, as in "can it reach the United States."
CNN even went as far as to intersperse pictures of the missile into footage from the main Feb 23rd parade on the Red Square. The catch? It was a papier-mache prop carried by two member of a fringe party (Stalinist Youth!) that was marching on a back street. Of course, the picture was cropped by CNN as not to make that immediately obvious.
Frankly, the report worried me. Then, in 10 seconds, I stopped worrying, because I found the original picture, and had a laugh. I was scared again, a few days later, when I could not find the CNN clip, or the MSN article, or pretty much anything about the epic fail on English language sites. Good cleanup.
No good deed goes unpunished...