Should Russia shoot down British reconnaissance planes over the Black Sea?

December 15 2025 10 948 56

Despite ongoing negotiations to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, NATO reconnaissance aircraft regularly monitor airspace in close proximity to Russia's borders. Specifically, today, an American Boeing P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft and a Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk high-altitude reconnaissance drone were operating west of Crimea.

Considering that virtually every such appearance of US manned and unmanned aircraft over the Black Sea results in a subsequent missile strike by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against targets on Russian territory, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tolerate such activity.

However, the United States is one of the main actors in the negotiation process on Ukraine, so Moscow is forced to exercise restraint.

But the situation is complicated by the regular appearance of British reconnaissance aircraft near Russia's borders. Given London's position on Ukraine, the "illustrative flogging" of a British spy seems entirely appropriate.

It's worth recalling here that the precedent of the "forced landing" of the American MQ-9 UAV in the Black Sea did not lead to serious consequences. However, it is quite difficult to predict London's reaction if a British RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft were shot down or even targeted by electronic warfare.

Should Russia shoot down British reconnaissance planes over the Black Sea?

However, it's hard to call Russia's actions inappropriate. Considering that London began "pulling Moscow's moustache" long before the NWO, its reaction should have been checked. Just in case.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Shooter

+6

15 December 2025 17: 20

Of course, you can shoot it down, but what if something happens with your “respected partners”?

This is the kind of squiggle that happens, you see.
Roman070280

+1

15 December 2025 17: 24
However, given that the United States is one of the main actors in the negotiation process on Ukraine, Moscow is forced to exercise restraint.

otherwise they might spank you..

Considering London's position on Ukraine, the "show flogging" of the British intelligence officer looks quite reasonable. appropriate step.

As they say, there's no harm in dreaming.

But It is quite difficult to predict London's reaction in the event of the British RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft being hit or at least affected by electronic warfare.

But It would be hard to call such actions by the Russian Federation inappropriate.

I bought this T-shirt in Adler back in 2009.
just the facts

+11

15 December 2025 17: 38

An unmanned head-on ramming of our uncrewed aircraft with their reconnaissance aircraft will solve all the problems. They were supposedly locked in electronic warfare and didn't "see" each other until the last second... it was all an accident... everyone is grieving... our crew "died," too.
Kiril

0

15 December 2025 17: 45

What kind of nonsense is this – shooting down planes in neutral waters? – then it would be easier to drop Kuzka's mother on London.
1. Botrops
  
  0
  
  21 December 2025 00: 50
  
  Well, like the states in Venezuela, they could declare a no-fly zone within a 100-kilometer radius of Crimea for the duration of the conflict. And film everything that's there.
Vladimir Tuzakov

+5

15 December 2025 17: 47

Whether or not the British reconnaissance planes should be shot down is impossible to determine without trying one. Conclusion: one definitely needs to be shot down over the neutral waters of the Black Sea.
1. Alexey Lan
  
  +3
  
  15 December 2025 18: 52
  
  The British ambassador should be summoned and a protest note issued, stating that the reconnaissance aircraft was conducting reconnaissance and target designation based on the intelligence data. If such aircraft appear over the Black Sea, we will shoot them down. Declare the Black Sea a combat zone. And if such an aircraft appears, shoot them down. And all submarines are at sea. Will the Anglo-Saxons react in their NATO capacity? Unlikely. Although, our ships in the Atlantic are guaranteed to be in trouble.
  1. Botrops
    
    +1
    
    21 December 2025 01: 00
    
    Well, their gas carriers could be in big trouble too. You yourself mentioned multipurpose submarines in the Atlantic.
2. lance is gone
  
  +5
  
  15 December 2025 19: 33
  
  After the tanker attack, the waters of the Black Sea are not neutral.
  1. Skipper
    
    +3
    
    15 December 2025 21: 37
    
    After today's underwater drone attack on Varshavyanka... successful... and who directed the drone and through what?..... while the shaved plane and the American one were hanging around as always... and directing... but God forbid we dare touch these... we need to move on... before we get a nuclear charge dropped on the city.
Serj Iff

+9

15 December 2025 18: 17

No, absolutely not shoot it down. The finances of our "esteemed friends" in London could suffer. It's easier to raise VAT by another 2%. And the reconnaissance plane could simply fly over the Black Sea. We're not like that. Trump should ban the British from flying over. And we'll pay him with rare earth metals.
kriten

+14

15 December 2025 18: 17

Britain is inviolable, even though it is the initiator of provocations and the organizer of the bombings of our cities and courts. How can this be possible when all the valuables of our ruling and near-government elite are kept there? And many of them even have their wives and children held hostage by Britain. So here's the question: how can a country win a war when its leaders are agents of enemy influence, or, more simply, potential traitors and traitors?
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  +4
  
  15 December 2025 19: 06
  
  potential traitors and betrayers
  
  Why potential? Would Uncle Sam really let them idle?
2. Vlad96
  
  +4
  
  16 December 2025 05: 50
  And the highest-ranking official fulfills the role of overseer of the well-being of the liberal oligarchs close to power (gray cardinals), coping with these duties 100%.
good winemaker

-1

15 December 2025 18: 24

It's high time to sink this Jewish vessel
Alexey Davydov

+8

15 December 2025 18: 25

The Russian colonial administration will not ruin the Anglo-Saxons' plans for Russia, in which they themselves are participating as a key element.
I think that any action against British reconnaissance aircraft is now possible only if they are included in the enemy’s plans as an element that he himself needs to aggravate the situation.
There's no other way for now. It will be different when and if we free ourselves.
1. Botrops
  
  -1
  
  21 December 2025 01: 05
  
  Well, they just recently killed a British soldier in Ukraine who was on active duty. Why didn't they take the plane away?)) Russian colonial administration?)) This is the first time I've heard that Russia has colonies. Are you sure you haven't confused it with Great Britain with its Gibraltar and the other Falkland Islands?))
Hiker

+12

15 December 2025 18: 26

The answer came faster than expected.
There is a Russian submarine missing in Novorossiysk, as Shariy reported.
Russia's impotence is simply staggering. How is this even possible?
Where are the Russian armed forces, perimeter security, and any technology?

Just one question for Putin: - Haven't we started yet?
1. Serj Iff
  
  +9
  
  15 December 2025 19: 32
  
  Don't distract Putin, he's getting ready for his appearance on Direct Line. He'll explain everything to you there. And he'll explain that everything is fine, everything is wonderful, we're winning... And as for the Varshavyanka submarine, it sank. Is this the first time?
  1. Dimy4
    
    +3
    
    15 December 2025 20: 24
    
    There he will explain everything to you.
    
    He'll tell you what a great guy he is!
Valera75

+5

15 December 2025 18: 48

Should Russia shoot down British reconnaissance planes over the Black Sea?

While some are still wondering whether it's worth it, the crests sank the Varshavyanka with an underwater drone in the port of Novorossiysk.
1. Skipper
  
  +1
  
  15 December 2025 21: 39
  
  which these planes were flying...but we...we can't...don't dare touch shaved heads and pints...that's sacred...
2. Botrops
  
  0
  
  21 December 2025 00: 53
  
  Where did you get the information that they sank? Our Ministry of Defense announced that no one from the surface ships or submarines was injured.
  1. Valera75
    
    0
    
    21 December 2025 02: 49
    
    That's what they originally wrote. Who knows what's wrong with her? When our ships were sunk, did anyone immediately confess?
    1. Botrops
      
      0
      
      21 December 2025 10: 33
      
      Of course. You can recall the episode with "Moscow." They announced it literally on the second day. And the Ministry of Defense has already issued an official statement—
      
      The Russian Ministry of Defense has denied reports from Ukrainian intelligence agencies regarding the alleged destruction of a Russian submarine in the bay of the Novorossiysk Naval Base. Captain 1st Rank Alexei Rulev, head of the Black Sea Fleet press service, stated that the information is untrue.
      According to the department, the enemy's attempt to sabotage the area using an unmanned underwater vehicle failed. None of the ships or submarines stationed in the bay, nor their crews, were damaged and are operating normally.
      
      And even if this statement had not been made, to claim that the Varshavyanka was sunk or damaged, based only on this - “Who knows what happened to her?” - is simply not serious.
      1. Valera75
        
        0
        
        21 December 2025 17: 16
        
        Look at the date of my post; I wrote it right after the video started circulating online. The video is 100% true, and if you believe the Ministry of Defense, then it means everything went smoothly. And the crests were apparently just testing it out. And everyone knows what Ukrainian drone "wrecks" are up to.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        21 December 2025 17: 31
        
        Well, I saw that video too. And it clearly shows that the BEK crashed into the pier, not the submarine, which remained significantly clear of the explosion. And frankly, I can hardly imagine that the plastic fragments of the BEK's hull could have penetrated the titanium hull of a Project 636.
        
        Valera75
        
        0
        
        22 December 2025 04: 23
        
        Quote: Botrops
        And frankly speaking, I can hardly imagine that the plastic fragments of the BEK case could break through the titanium case of the 636 pro
        
        Does the Varshavyanka have a titanium hull? And how do you know what the back's internals were? Well, if you consider the enemy stupid, then, as they say, no problem. Meanwhile, they're sinking our fleet and tankers with plastic, even though they don't have a fleet of their own at sea.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        22 December 2025 07: 58
        
        Well, many of our submarine designs have titanium hulls. I can't speak for the Varshavyanka, as my naval education focuses on surface ships, but it's entirely possible that's the case. The unmanned submarine (LSU) was most likely armed with a high-explosive charge. What's the point of having another charge on board if you're hunting a surface ship or a submarine? Besides, I repeat, our command has already issued an official statement that neither the surface ship nor the submarine were damaged by the explosion.
        Ukraine, albeit a poor one, had its own navy before the start of the Central Military District. Let's be completely objective. But Russia destroyed it in the first months of the Central Military District.
        The fleet, however, which has anti-ship missiles and a targeting and reconnaissance system, will continue to sink, regardless of whether it's ours or, say, American. Until an effective defense against BAKs and UAVs is found, the tradeoff will always be unfavorable for the fleet. However, any shipping on the approaches to Ukrainian ports could easily be stopped by mining the approaches from Varshavyanka, for example, or, even more simply, by using Bastion forces to sink any vessel detected in the area. Why this isn't being done is hard to say.
twigs

+2

15 December 2025 19: 15

However, the United States is one of the main actors in the negotiation process on Ukraine, so Moscow is forced to exercise restraint.

When we are not brave enough (cowardly) we tend to console ourselves with the thought that we are prudent enough!
rotkiv04

+3

15 December 2025 21: 29

Of course not, we have to wait until the Black Sea Fleet ceases to exist and then we'll respond.
Rustam 86

+3

15 December 2025 22: 18

Act as last time, fly nearby, and test the latest electronic warfare systems, and also pour fuel.
Gray 51

+3

15 December 2025 22: 22

They should have been jammed with electronic warfare long ago; it would destroy all the avionics and equipment. A couple of them would be burned out, and they wouldn't fly anymore, and the satellites, too.
vlad127490

-1

15 December 2025 22: 31

It's illegal to shoot down an airplane; there are numerous international laws and agreements. UAVs are in a legal gray area. It's legal to shoot down UAVs in neutral airspace. However, Russia can't shoot them down; they fly in NATO airspace. You wouldn't fly to shoot down aircraft in the economic or territorial zones of Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Finland, or Norway. The Baltic countries are questionable; they're in NATO, and the Kremlin acknowledges it, but that's for now.
1. Ales
  
  +2
  
  16 December 2025 10: 35
  
  Look around—what laws are there? Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Iran—sanctions, the seizure of ships. Since the collapse of the USSR, the primary law is the law of force! And there will be no other, laws will not work until the world has a monopoly on the use of force, similar to the laws in individual states where the state has the right to suppress illegal actions by force. Until there is a state, or association of states, in the world that has the will to impose the order they desire by force. In this specific case, it is necessary to warn everyone that, due to the SVO, the territory bordering the dangerous zone (where the Ukrainian Armed Forces could potentially strike) is a no-fly zone for NATO military aircraft, period.
2. Botrops
  
  0
  
  21 December 2025 00: 58
  
  What's a reconnaissance drone doing in a NATO economic zone? The range of a Global Hawk is about 100-150 km. So, to obtain information about the situation in Crimea, reconnaissance drones must be located over neutral waters. Here, the US could do what it did in Venezuela: declare a no-fly zone (100 km from Crimea) for the duration of the conflict and film everything a drone flies there.
  1. vlad127490
    
    0
    
    21 December 2025 12: 52
    
    You can shoot down a UAV in neutral airspace without declaring or asking permission. International law applies to vessels (airplanes, helicopters, airships, tankers, bulk carriers, yachts, etc.) with a person on board.
    1. Botrops
      
      0
      
      21 December 2025 17: 39
      
      Here's what Andrei Klintsevich, who positions himself as a military expert and political scientist, says about this:
      
      — Last March, we already "dropped" an American MQ-9 Reaper reconnaissance drone, which sank in the Black Sea after a kerosene "shower"...
      
      "There was a nuance. It entered airspace that we had restricted. Crucially, it wasn't prohibitive. That is, we can't just take over and prohibit access to certain areas in international airspace, in international (neutral) waters. We can only, following specific regulations, notify that we'll be conducting exercises in that area. And in accordance with established international practice, we stipulate that flying there doesn't guarantee safety. If you crash there, it's your problem, so to speak. The Americans decided to test it anyway: let's fly!"
      
      As the expert says, our planes were conducting exercises there, including practicing emergency fuel dumping.
      
      "The MQ-9 Reaper crashed during such maneuvers. We warned them about this. Our fighters, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, did not use their onboard weapons and did not engage the American drone."
      
      So, if we're to believe him, we can't even shoot down UAVs over neutral waters, that is, in international airspace. My question then is: why can the US?)) Just now Venezuela has declared a no-fly zone.)) So how are we any worse off?
      Or the area adjacent to Crimea could be declared a zone for ongoing exercises to destroy Ukrainian UAVs. And if a Global Hawk is hit by an S-350 interceptor missile...well...they warned us. That's what happened.
      1. vlad127490
        
        0
        
        21 December 2025 20: 12
        
        They found someone to cite. He's not a scientist. He's just a ranting fan.
        International airspace and neutral waters cannot be used for military purposes. Fly, walk, observe, and monitor, but you cannot use the data you obtain in combat, nor can you transfer it to third parties or countries that would use it in a war. By transferring it, you automatically become a participant in the war. In this case, NATO countries are participants in the Ukraine-Russia war.
        The pro-Western government in Russia will never enter into conflict with the West. This government is terrified, even theoretically, of declaring the closure of airspace over the Black Sea due to the war in Ukraine. If NATO doesn't like it, it shoots down its missiles. China shoots down its missiles too.
        
        Botrops
        
        +1
        
        21 December 2025 23: 46
        
        He's a politician. At least that's how he positions himself. And he held government positions in the past. Which means he's on the ball. As for NATO's involvement in the war, I completely agree. I also consider NATO a participant in the war. Even though they deny it, for obvious reasons. But we're allowing them to get away with it with our soft-hearted stance. It's long past time to launch conventional strikes against transit points in Poland and Romania, against Great Britain, which supplies weapons in the midst of the conflict. Perhaps even to deorbit American satellites providing intelligence, not to mention UAVs conducting reconnaissance. Is it scary to declare the closure of airspace? What was the point of getting involved in the Central Military District back then? To fight without fear of crossing a red line. Especially since the enemy crosses them freely and regularly.
        
        vlad127490
        
        0
        
        22 December 2025 00: 11
        
        The Tsar of Moscow decided to install his godfather as Tsar in Kyiv and called it the SVO. It turns out the Brits were in on it and caught him. Now anyone can say whatever they want.
Ales

+6

15 December 2025 23: 13

Recently, our guarantor stated that he has a rule:

There's one general rule that's my rule, and it's well-known: I try to do what I consider not just necessary, but what I have no right not to do. No matter what.

So, Putin has the right not to interfere with enemy aircraft targeting Russia—a country whose guarantor he is, or whose guarantor he is? But I don't have the right to directly say what I think about all this without getting banned.
Alexpan

-2

16 December 2025 01: 40

It's all ridiculous. Is there an undeclared war with NATO? Yes. Is England an enemy? Yes. Is England provoking a reaction? Yes. Are British spy agencies acting against Russia's security interests? Yes. The answer should be simple. However... sanctions are rife, so be patient, Ivan, be patient...
1. Vladimir Tuzakov
  
  0
  
  16 December 2025 21: 32
  
  Note: People with this kind of behavior are called weaklings. Put your enemy's balls in a vice and squeeze them, shoot down that small-time scout hanging around the SVO... Let him become a weakling, a weakling will be constantly beaten and beaten. Sanctions for Russia, regardless of his behavior, will not be lifted... It seems your comment is coming from unfriendly Israel.
AC130 Gunship

-1

16 December 2025 02: 05

Reconnaissance aircraft from Sigonella have been flying there and in the Mediterranean since time immemorial. Only a seriously deranged person would come up with the idea of shooting down enemy aircraft flying over the neutral zone.
1. Vladimir Yaitsky
  
  0
  
  20 December 2025 23: 11
  
  Times are changing. In the Mediterranean, that's the Mediterranean's business. But in Crimea, we need to be more careful.
  1. AC130 Gunship
    
    0
    
    21 December 2025 03: 19
    
    Once again, for those who haven't read Dostoevsky's famous novel, combat aircraft from both NATO and Russia have always flown and will continue to fly over neutral waters.
    Very close to Crimea there are several NATO countries.
Alexander

+1

16 December 2025 06: 50

Should Russia shoot down British reconnaissance planes over the Black Sea?

A pointless question... I haven't and won't knock it down. I'm a bit weak-willed.
horseradish

0

16 December 2025 14: 48

I wonder what he will tell us on December 19th.
kriten

+2

16 December 2025 14: 50

Absolutely not. They'll immediately find drugs on the children and wives of our ruling and near-government elite, the most patriotic in the world, who just happens to live in London.
deny2505

+1

16 December 2025 15: 59

Announce naval exercises and, under this pretext, declare a no-fly zone.
As an option.
Achilles

0

16 December 2025 16: 42

Il faut créer un trou noir électronique au dessus de la mer noire. Ils se perdront à chaque fois qu'ils s'y frottent.
Alexpan

0

16 December 2025 23: 02

Quote: Vladimir Tuzakov
It seems that your comment comes from unfriendly Israel.

This is called sarcasm. I have nothing to do with Israel.
AlexisT

0

17 December 2025 00: 48

No way! Peskov's kids are studying in London.
Vladimir T.

0

17 December 2025 05: 49

They simply have to shoot it down! It flew, drones came, and even an underwater drone made it to Novorossiysk. Luckily, they didn't manage to destroy the submarine. Kill it! And recall the ambassador, and kick their ass out.
Vladimir Yaitsky

0

20 December 2025 23: 05

At least one must reach the bottom of the Black Sea. And that will be what they're aiming for.