By this point, you’ve likely seen the news of two Russian Su-27 fighter jets getting into an “incident” with an American MQ-9 Reaper drone over the Baltic Sea. The incident quickly turned into a diplomatic flap and if we’re lucky that’s as far as it will go. I didn’t want to jump on this story last night because of all of the conflicting reports that were coming out, but as of this morning at least some of the facts seem to be coming into focus. Here’s a brief, if incomplete summary from the AP.

A Russian fighter jet struck the propeller of a U.S. surveillance drone over the Black Sea on Tuesday in a “brazen violation of international law,” causing American forces to bring down the unmanned aerial vehicle, the U.S. said.

But Russia insisted its warplanes didn’t hit the MQ-9 Reaper drone. Instead, it said the drone maneuvered sharply and crashed into the water following an encounter with Russian fighter jets that had been scrambled to intercept it near Crimea.

The incident, which added to Russia-U.S. tensions over Moscow’s war in Ukraine, appeared to be the first time since the height of the Cold War that a U.S. aircraft was brought down after an encounter with a Russian warplane.

What Really Happened?

There are a couple of contradictory stories floating around out there and the one thing that is clear is that somebody isn’t telling the truth. Or they are badly distorting the facts at a minimum. I’ll never put it past the Russians to lie for propaganda purposes, but the current administration in Washington doesn’t exactly have a spotless record of providing the unvarnished truth to the public either. It’s probably a combination of both.

What’s clear is that the Reaper was flying over international waters yesterday when it was intercepted by two Russian Su-27 fighter jets. Of course, the Russians don’t even agree with that much of the story because they have apparently declared that some airspace over the Baltic near Crimea is “restricted airspace” during the “special military operation.” NATO allies have not recognized that airspace as being “restricted” so this was always going to be a mess.

The initial Russian story (which they are still sticking with) is that they never attacked the drone at all. They claim that their pilots were investigating the situation when the drone suddenly began behaving in an erratic fashion before rapidly plunging into the sea. This is the initial description of the events in question that I read from Tim McMillan yesterday, and he keeps very close tabs on these things.

For those who answered:
A. Russia will blame the US for running its own MQ-9 Reaper drone into a Russian fighter jet.

Unfortunately, you were wrong. Instead, the Kremlin says the unarmed surveillance drone simply fell out of the sky. pic.twitter.com/0VhLrvUm9t

— Tim McMillan (@LtTimMcMillan) March 14, 2023

But another version of the story quickly emerged and CNN fleshed it out last night. In this timeline, the Su-27s approached the drone very closely and tracked it for roughly half an hour. They then “dumped fuel onto it” twice. Then one of the Russian pilots closed on the drone from the rear, striking the propeller of the Reaper, damaging it badly and sending it hurtling toward the sea. (Unlike most conventional aircraft, the Reaper’s propellor is mounted behind the tail.) It’s unclear whether this was intentional or if the pilot simply misjudged his approach. This collision also damaged the Su-27, though it still managed to land safely at an undisclosed location.

Another interesting detail from CNN’s coverage is that the Russian Foreign Ministry is claiming that the Reaper was flying with its transponder turned off. If true, that would be an important aspect of the story. Flying with your transponders off is a very aggressive move, though it may not amount to an “act of war.” It goes against all military air traffic conventions. But even if true, it could lend credence to either version of this story. If the transponder was shut off intentionally, then the United States may have been acting covertly and could be seen as the aggressor. On the other hand, what if the transponder wasn’t “turned off,” but simply failed? That could support the claim that the Reaper was experiencing technical problems and may have been on its way to failure without any help from the Russians. I doubt we’ll ever know, even if the drone is recovered. (Which seems increasingly unlikely and Russia may have it already.)

So What Does It Mean?

I wanted to first include one element of the White House’s response to this event that makes us once again look patently ridiculous on the world stage. A statement released by the US Air Forces Europe and Air Forces Africa described the interaction as, “reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional.” Seriously? I assume they’re talking about the jets dumping fuel on the drone, but at a moment like this you’re going to focus on the “environmentally unsound” angle? We could be on the verge of war. I’m not sure if you want to lead with ‘but climate change‘ in our response.

With that said, just how serious was this and how concerned should we be? In one sense, this incident highlights the differences between military conflicts in the modern era versus what we were used to during the cold war. Back then, if one country took down another nation’s fighter jet in international airspace you could definitely be looking at a situation where one of your pilots was either killed or captured. That’s very much an “act of war” and such a thing can spur an immediate diplomatic crisis at a minimum. But now we’re playing with drones. Instead of losing a pilot, it’s more a case of ‘Hey! Russia took down one of our very expensive toys!‘ (The Reapers cost roughly $14 million each.)

So even if we assume that the CNN description of events is true and the Russian pilots attacked the drone and sent it into the sea, was this an “act of war?” As noted above, that’s a very complicated question. One side says that the drone was in international airspace while the other claims the region as restricted airspace under its control. Both sides are claiming that the other was the aggressor. We could argue over this question forever, and we likely will. But this will almost certainly not be seen as a reason for anyone to start warming up their nukes. (Fingers crossed, anyway.)

But before we brush this off as a nothingburger, I would remind everyone that this is just another example of how our proxy war against Russia in Ukraine could still turn into a hot war at any given moment. Much of that depends on how badly Vladimir Putin has lost control of his senses and the various elements inside his own government. But the man still has a metric ton of nukes at his disposal. (Technically far more than a ton, really.) Much like the situation with China and Taiwan, this could blow up in our faces both literally and figuratively at any moment. If there are American fighter jets flying over the Russian border at some point, even with Ukrainian pilots, that will turn up the temperature even more. Do we have the right people handling this situation from our side? How confident are we that this won’t end up in a world war three scenario? If we don’t address these questions in a serious fashion, we have only ourselves to blame if it all goes to hell in a handbasket.