I wonder if they re-use Lvov tank plant facility.
Ukraine airstrikes near Russian border
So pro-Russian groups in here tend to dismiss the coming Ukraine F-16's with retorts of Russian IADS will deter them and the more popular retort of Russian fighters armed with R-37M's will keep F-16's far away from frontlines yet we see here JDAM airstrikes likely from SU-27's or Mig-29's hitting targets pretty much at the Russian border. Yes I understand the s300/400 deployed in Belgorod was taken out but the Russians on paper do have a huge air force with very long range air to air missiles yet somehow outdated soviet era Ukraine fighters managed to get in JDAM range of Russian border. As US/Ukraine takes out Russian IADS especially in Crimea and other occupied territories Ukraine F-16's are going to have much success delivering their JDAM ordinance and other standoff-ish weapons.
Claims Ukraine air force involvedThe GBU-39 can be launched from a HIMARS or M270, which Ukraine is known to use. No fighter jets necessary.
Sneaking about at low level with the radar off completely negates most advantages of a fighter jet over high flying counterparts. For sure it can be done to lob a few bombs or surprise the Russians when they get complacent again, but they won’t be smiting the Russian Flankers from the skies.
It's a very different thing to know the concept in theory and apply it in practice. This not only in relation to the operators but also to the Ukrainian command.Ukraine probably also knew? They also had varied types of missiles at the start and modern AD systems to practice with. I don't think US had to tell Ukraine such basic things.
On what legal basis does Russia have this right?I still think the Russians are being too meek in just letting NATO ISR operate risk free in the Black Sea to blatantly co-ordinate attacks. Doing so gives Russia all the legal justification it needs to engage in active self defence and kill those NATO birds per the UN charter. Is NATO going to go to war over the shoot down of a UAV? Of course not. The Russians don’t really have much to loose in shooting down NATO drones when they are blatantly acting as the entire kill chain for Ukrainian attacks.
The GBU-39 can be launched from a HIMARS or M270, which Ukraine is known to use. No fighter jets necessary.
On what legal basis does Russia have this right?
How would Russia have this right if the attacks are carried out in territories illegally occupied under international law?Article 51 of the UN charter allows nations the right of self defence. Given that Russian has already suffered numerous actual attacks, a lot of the grey legal ground around Article 51 are bypassed as most of the debate is surrounding whether pre-emptive self defence is still allowed under Article 51.
Ironically, it is the US itself and allies that has done the most to expand the legal basis of pre-emptive self defence to allow them to kill civilians with phones and shovels by arguing that they were acting as spotters or bomb planters and thus can be deemed as active belligerents.
If Russia wanted to, it has a mountain of evidence to identify NATO as a co-party in the war in Ukraine, which actually gives it legal power to declare war on NATO member states.
Since it clearly does not want to do that, it can essentially kick the ball to the other corner by declaring that it will treat NATO ISR assets as part of Ukrainian kill chains and engage them as such and dare NATO to declare war over a drone. Which NATO clearly has no appetite for.
I can understand Russian reluctance to play escalation chicken with NATO and risk going down a slippery slope, but it’s current strategy of just doing nothing in response to NATO upping their involvement is clearly not working out for them either.
How would Russia have this right if the attacks are carried out in territories illegally occupied under international law?
The article justifies self-defense when a country suffers effective aggression against its territory - which was by no means the case in question.