The original claims were:

> 1) the Russians run bombers to the airspace of Alaska all the time. 2) US jets intercept and turn them around. 3) It's the expensive version of the border crossings between India & Pakistan

If we're charitable, then in isolation #1 is reasonable. But not so much in the context of #2 and #3. Note that actual cross-border incursions are very common between India & Pakistan. As well as between India and China, for that matter, and a host of other country pairings. Moreover, the phrasing "turn them around" reflects connotations similar to phrasing like "escort", commonly used in popular news reports. But nobody is actually escorting here; that's propaganda. U.S. fighters aren't "escorting" Russian bombers any more than the Chinese "escort" U.S. SIGINT flights or naval water transits; the planes and ships continue on their same, planned courses--excepting occasional aggressive maneuvers were the Chinese behave like their going to ram a plane or ship.

AFAICT, no territorial violations are happening here, which IMO is what was implied. Moreover, especially during the Cold War, the U.S. had a long and sorted history of actual incursions into Russian and Soviet airspace; incursions far more numerous and serious than what the U.S. experienced.

I took umbrage with the claims because, while I believe as a general matter Russia is a far more prolific violator of international norms, including territorial incursions, when it comes to their dealings with the U.S. in this regard they've actually been sticklers for obeying boundaries, notwithstanding characterizations to the contrary. And at least since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has likewise been rather good about that as well. And these characterizations matter because they're at the center of Russian accusations regarding how the U.S. and NATO has treated Russian security interests.

Regarding this specific point:

> > 4) Are any of these to preserve "normative freedom of movement rights"?

> No.

I disagree. When Russia sends bombers toward the U.S., they're generally going to deliberately penetrate the "buffer zone", just like U.S. ships and planes will deliberately penetrate China's self-defined buffer zones. To do otherwise would be to risk legitimizing claims about the nature of those buffer zones. In other words, part of the exercise is to maintain the normalcy of the internationally recognized, more circumscribed sovereign claims.

I do concede that these flights by Russia happen far more often than once a year. I've been following foreign affairs for over 20 years and have known about these practices, but clearly judging their frequency by the frequency of reporting is especially error prone.

You're right. The examples I mention are not like the border crossings between India & Pakistan.

> they're generally going to deliberately penetrate the "buffer zone",

Yes. My comment concerned your earlier use of principally in "principally intended to preserve normative freedom of movement rights."

I believe they are principally done as surveillance flights, with freedom of movement rights as an important but secondary role.

Otherwise you could use something cheaper than a fully-crewed EP-3.

Besides planes, see "Soviet fishing trawlers" (" After the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs of Staff authorized a counter AGI program for United States destroyers to come alongside the AGIs to push against them, foul their screws with steel nets, and focus high power electromagnetic transmitters to burn out the amplifying circuitry of their electronic sensors." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_ship ).

Now that you two have finished, recall that per HN we are intended to grant the best interpretation of a statement and not the worst.

My comment stands and the misinterpretation has at least born fruit.

The 'border crossings' i mentioned might have been better referred to as 'border stations', where rehearsed performance occurs daily between guards. Not referencing physical incursions into disputed territories to maintain claim.

Then no, it's not like an "expensive version of the border crossings between India & Pakistan."

For one, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/us-f-22-intercep... comments that it could be a "routine" training exercise. ("a senior defense official stressed, last month, that they are "not a concern" and attributed the uptick to a recent lack of available Russian aircraft and need to boost training.")

While the example you give is not.

What?

Reread my comment.

'Not a concern' is certainly what I would consider high kick marching competitions between guardstations

You thought badcppdev might be nervous about the modern equivalent of high kick marching competitions?

After badcppdev pointed out the US historically flew nuclear armed bombers to the borders of the USSR 24 hours a day? Including with the deliberate goal of escalating the nuclear threat to the Soviet Union, in order to improve America' position at the negotiating table?

Your statement "US jets intercept and turn them around" is incorrect - these flights are not turned around.

"High kick marching competitions" are not training exercises. Nor are they surveillance operations.