♪ laura: an unmanned u.s. drone crashed into the black sea on ter being pursued by russian fighter jets. it's the mos serious incident directly since t sta of the ukraine war. is it just a one-off, or a more serious escalation? this is "inside story." ♪ hello there and welcome to the program.

i am laura kyle. russia and the u.s. are presenting different versions of her a u.s. surveillance drone ended up in the black sea. it came down on tuesday after being pursued by russian fighter jets near the russian and next region of crimea. the u.s. defense department released edited video taken by the end cute reaper drone that shows a russian su-17 fighter jet approaching and mping fuel as ipasses. the u.s. says the unmanned drones propeller was struck, forcing it down and then be operating in international airspace. the russian defense spokesman has a different version of what happened. translator: on the morning of march 14th, 2023, russian air force control systems detected an american mq-9 drone flying over the black sea near the crimean peninsula towards the russian state border.with its td off, and violated temporary

restrictions to airspace usage set for the special military operation. those restrictions were passed to all international airspace users, and published in accordance with all norms. fighter jets from the un-duty air defense force were scrambled. as a result of sharp maneuvering, at around 9:30 muska time, the thank you nine drone went into uncontrolled flight and collided with the surface of the water. russian fighter jets did not use their onboard weapons, did not come into contact with the unmanned area vehicle, and returned safely to base. laura: close encounters between russian and u.s. military aircraft are not uncommon. but this is the first time to have happened during war. publicly, there has been little sign of reconciliation. secretary austen: on russian tuesday, aircraft again engaged in dangerous, reckless and

unprofessional behavior in the international airspace over the black sea. the two russian jet dumped funeral on an unmanned u.s. mq-9 aircraft conducting routine operations in international airspace, and one russian jet struck our mq-9 aircraft resulting in a crash. this hazardous episode is a part, part of a pattern of aggressive, risky and unsafe actions by russian pilots and international airspace. mr. lavrov: you have heard representatives of the pentagon and the joint chiefs of staff say the united states will continue to fly wherever it pleases, in accordance with international law. if you follow this logic then , the space around the united states has the same status as the space over the black sea. ♪ laura: let's bring in our guests now. in moscow, apple flag and how are that apple failed and how

are -- in moscow pavel , felgenhauer, a defence and military analyst. peter lee - author of "reaper force: inside britain's drone wars." and alexander titov, lecturer in modern european history at queens university in belfast. very warm welcome to all of you. pavel, let's start with you. the u.s. is saying that the video it released proves their version of events. what do you make of it? guest: more or less, yes, it apparently shows that one of the blades of the propeller of the american and cute nine drone was hit. it is deformed debate. that more or less shows that russian jets were flying very close, kind of skidding

the drone. of course, there is a lot of difference in speed. drones fly much lower speed than jets. the jet cannot fly at the speed of the drone, it falls out of the sky. it is far, far much quicker. that means that when they encounter, it is kind of a flyby on high speed. and that's dangerous. and apparently there was a small mistake in the piloting by the russian pilot. and there was a minor collision. the american drone did not disintegrate, it disintegrated when it hit the water. but it was -- the russian claimant did fly home. so no lives were lost, that is good news. laura: peter, the u.s. says it was reckless and unprofessional. we also think, as he says, that it was a mistake?

guest: yes, it was probably a deliberate act to get us as close as possible to the reaper drone. it is also reported that fuel was dumped on the drone, that was possible as well. and perhaps the russian pilots thought that if they flew close enough to the reaper, that the jet wash from the engine would be enough to throw the reaper into some kind of maneuver which would either down it or at least tdis-service its trajectory. so i think there was probably a miscalculation in going so close that eventually the russian aircraft hit the propeller and the propellers at that speed are very easy to damage. it does not need a great amount of contact in order to render the propeller dysfunctional. laura: alexander, if indeed there was a minor collision

between the jets and the drone, what kind of impact might that have had on the jet? guest: difficult to say. obviously the jet has returned to the base and there has been no crash, from what i have read, it's all very touch-and-go. a few centimeters either way. the jet would have damaged it sells more than it damaged the drone. so very high risk for both, for the pilot in the russian jet, and like in the american one. so this seems to be very kind of high-risk maneuver, probably not really intended. what we can say is that there was the intention to intercept the drone and to give a message to be quite aggressive, not necessarily bring it down, but certainly to interfere with its path of flight. so i guess for the russians, as

long as their own plane is not damaged or anything like that, that was a bonus that the whole thing came down and became quite a big event between russia and the united states. and the russians, they wanted to send a message. basically did that. laura: yes, i think it is important to mention, it wasn't just two flyby's we saw, this was going on for 13 to 14 minutes. quite a deliberate action, would you agree, peter? guest: yes, these kinds of actions with fast jets and other aircraft have gone on for generations. it's a cold war tactic. right after the present day, and in fact this last day or so near estonia, russian forces used aircraft to probe the the the airspace of other countries , either violating the airspace or flying very close to the airspace, to see how long it will take for a response, what

reaction will happen. this is part of an ongoing culture that the russian air force has of testing an opponent 's or adversary's speed of response, level of response, willingness to respond, to respond. so all of these factors will come into into consideration and it it is a bonus that the paper -- that the reaper went down. for the russian aircraft itself, the underside of a fast jet is actually very strong. the support for the landing gear, if you are hanging weapons underneath, it has to be incredibly strong. so, i would expect that structurally there would be little damage, perhaps a little bit of surface damage to the underside of the russian aircraft. laura: what sort of message do you think russia was trying to send to the u.s. through this incident? guest: like in previous encounters with nato ships and

with planes over the black sea, russians were kind of harassing those who they believe are going too close to crimea, in particular, in the hopes that they will turn around and go home. russia does not want their american, and there is also of course, british and french reconnaissance planes, also piloted planes, big ones, like the poseidon that are flying into those waters. they don't want them there, and they want to send the message that they could be harassed and that this will put pressure on the pilots on the command to turn around and go home. that is what they're trying to do. for a long time, they are over-flying, they intercepted the drone to pressure the pilot who was piloting it. of course, remotely.

to turn around and go home. this went a bit wrong because there was a minor collision. and that's very dangerous because the fighter plane costs much more than this reaper drone , and of course there is a pilot on board. training a pilot takes a decade. they were at risk. they could have been lost, and that would have been bad. but i don't believe this was a deliberate ramming, this was a mistake in an accident. laura: alex, can say you wanted to jump in. guest: you also have to bear in mind the statement by the russian ministry of defense saying that the drone was flying in what it declared to be an exclusive zone, discursive for special military operations. it is very confusing and also

potentially dangerous because, of course, russia claims crimea is its own territory. but it is not recognized by the united states. the united states goes by the letter of law and says it can fly over crimea or because of the ukrainian territory as far as america is concerned. there is international waters. but at the same time, russians are trying to expand the exclusion zone and sending the message to the united states and their allies that they are serious about retaining it. so, i would mention that apart from actually what happened, you had this issue of further potential for escalation between russia and the united states. this is why it is important, because it is the first time there's a direct clash between american military and the russian military, even if it was not manned.

just a reminder that this is a very precarious circumstance, and there is the potential for escalation if both sides make a decision to go for it. laura: he is disagreeing. that would just bring him in. guest: it was not really a crash because weapons systems were not used by any sites, it's not yet a clash. it's an accident. a clash could happen. yes, this was a dry rain. laura: so we have two sides, that it was an accident and it was a clash. peter, what do you think? guest: not a clash, because weapons were not used. weapons could be used. there could be american or british recon planes flying in the same area with fighter escorts. and that actually has already happened. we could see a clash between

fighters of both sides. laura: it's an indication of what can happen, isn't it? guest: of what could happen in the future. laura: absolutely. ok, peter. guest: in any of these confrontations, there are interests happening at multiple levels at the same time. i actually think the the more interesting and possibly the most important part of this is not the physical contact between two aircraft and the downing of the reaper drone. i think possibly the most interesting and relevant aspect is the clash between the with the u.s. is interpreting international law, and the way russia is interpreting and trying to interpret international law. russia is claiming military operations, but that does not hold legal strength in the same way the historical right to fly in international airspace, above

international waters, within 12 nautical miles of the coast of a sovereign state dies. so we see russia trying to exert this right to declare an area of special interest, and the united states making a concerted effort to deny that right and to keep on exerting the the established norms in international waters. to fly over the waters and sale ships in the waters from -- and sail ships in the waters. it's the same thing the united states is doing in the far east, where it is denying china's claim to to parts of the south china sea. so the united states as well as its operations and interests in the ukraine-russia war, it also has a global interest in keeping the waters open of the world for civilian ships, for military ships to use, as long as they're in international waters. laura: which suggests, alex, that we might see the u.s. continue to fly drones in this

area, particularly to make the point that it does not recognize crimea as russian. guest: basically will keep flying drones. and with the united states defense budget, this could be treated as a disposable item. and i think that for the u.s. to be able to produce the video footage from the drone itself, that is a bit of a psychological and political and operational coup for the united states. they can actually demonstrate that the russian aircraft were certainly flying in an unsafe manner the pilot, never mind the drone, and that russia was in the united states side, breaching international law. i think they were breaching international law, but that will be disputed by the russian leadership. laura: alex? guest: there is honestly that

dimension, freedom of navigation and whatnot. but with these drone flights, of course they are gathering intelligence which they passed two ukrainians to use against russian forces. there is an important dimension. russia is extremely annoyed and worried about the amount of intelligence gathered via drones like that, which is being used by ukraine to attack russia and in crimea. there are discussions on russian channels and so forth, that every time there is an attack in crimea, there is heightened activity of civilian drones by nato, including america, britain and others, flying targets and looking at what the impact was. so there is quite a substantial element on top of a general discussion of freedom of navigation. it certainly is not a comfortable position to be, that

you want to keep going, russians want to send their message, americans want to send their message. at some point, you keep escalating. that is the path we seem to be heading towards. laura: if the tables were turned, and the russians, if and when they fly near the united states, fly similar surveillance drones near the united states, wouldn't one expect to see a similar reaction? guest: that is impossible because russia does not have drones that can fly near the united states. but russian planes to fly, especially if they are close to alaska, near california, but these are piloted planes, and quite often these are strategic nuclear bombers, they fly sometimes with an escort of writers and they are intercepted by american fighters from alaska.

that happens. and then of course, russian planes fly over the north sea, the norwegian sea towards britain. but again, these are piloted planes. they are intercepted, but the western fighters don't go anywhere close to have a collision. the threat of a collision is much higher, because we are talking about nuclear power, maybe even nuclear-carrying, strategic bombers, not just reaper drones. drones can fly at long distances. laura: peter, i won't touch an point that was raised in a discussion about this program earlier today, why are these surveillance drones used at all when satellites can give perhaps just as good readings, and will not be encountered by russian jets?

why are drones in particular being used? guest: drones are used for a number of reasons. firstly, the cameras, the most well-known is called the gorgon stare, which can be can provide very high definition footage of of what's happening on the ground and they can they can zoom in on a very particular point. they are manually controlled. if a satellite is in orbit and is moving around, you might not get the satellite exactly over the place you want to be looking at, depending on the type of satellite. if you have a drone, it can be used as a precise way to look at a bit of activity on a bit of ground or something like that, or maybe the satellite will get one angle looking at a particular situation and then the drone can give you a second visual angle. so the combination of the two can give you a richer

information. there are a number of reasons why drones are particular helpful in this situation. laura: ok. alex, this particular drone that has been lost at sea, we have both of russia in the u.s. think they are looking for it. how valuable would it be if indeed it is even found? guest: well, i think it would be a big coup for russia if they got their hands on an actual piece of u.s. equipment. and i think the russians are the only ones who are actually able to retrieve it because american ships are not allowed through the dardanelles due to the monroe doctrine. i just want to mention that we're talking about drones and satellites, but we didn't mention the balloons. if you want to look at the reaction of what americans would feel like if the russian just flying 20 nautical miles of new york or whatever, look at the panic around the chinese balloon , which flew over the united

states. so it's all very kind of touch -- there's a lot of symbolism in those things, including into retrieval. including into areas of exclusion and so forth which either side tried to claim for themselves. for russia, it's a big thing if they can get their hands on the actual hardware from the bottom of the sea, which they claim they have located where it fell down, and it will be an extra bonus on top of everything else that has happened. laura: a kremlin spokesman has said that this caused relations between the u.s. and russia to hit four "their lowest point." that is quite a statement isn't it? do you agree with it? guest: relations are very bad,

and that is not news. that was said many times by dmitry peskov, putin's press spokesman and press secretary and deputy chief of his administration. so this -- things did not get that much worse, but they of course did not get much better. there have been acrimonious exchanges. the good news is that there were telephone talks between defense ministers and between the chief of staff valeria garrgirasanov, and the american chairman of the joint chiefs. so that is the good news, that there was high-level contact to try to de-escalate and not have such incidents in the future. we'll have to see how effective the de-escalation is going to be. so not all bad happened, some good happened, too.

gathering the drone, russia will try, but not much. i think it disintegrated when it hit the sea surface. floating pieces of the plastic outer cover of the drone may be floating around, and something can be found. they are about two kilometers deep. and that is apparently where it went down, more than 100 kilometers off of crimea. that would need equipment that russia has, but maybe doesn't have it in the black sea, and bringing it then from the bering sea. but with the closed bosphorus , that is a big problem. laura: peter, how provocative do you think this incident has been? it does seem that neither side is particularly interested in escalating it. now that the u.s. has released

this video, do you think that changes the tone somewhat? guest: it is quite hard for the russian ministry to continue to state a position that is demonstrably wrong, that is factually wrong. but also i think the heat and pressure of the war that is ongoing at the moment between russia and ukraine adds to the tension. but i think it is nowhere near the lowest point that russia, or the former soviet union as it was, has reached with the united states. memories are very short, but even looking back a few decades to afghanistan and in the 1980s when the mujahedin at the time or being supplied by vast numbers of american shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles and they were shooting down hundreds and hundreds of of soviet union aircraft and helicopters. so there have been tensions much more, much greater than we are seeing at the moment. it is just that the immediate

problem is usually the one people concentrate on. if you go a bit further back in history and that is before you even get the nuclear tension over cuba, there are lots of examples of much bigger tensions that now, bigger risks athan now. this is in an age of 24 hours news with much more footage available. so i think the context now is not as serious as presented. and i think it will slowly quiet down over the next few days. i think both sides want. laura: indeed. alex, the last word to you. you agree, will receive more incidents like this? are they going to a flare up, these incidents again? guest: first of all, this is quite dangerous and more

dangerous than afghanistan, because the americans are providing way more advanced heavier weapons. there is a path more than they have ever done before anywhere else against russians directly. the path was for the sending of heavy weapons including tanks. then of course you have the ability of those weapons to be used against russia in its own territory. so there is a path towards escalation that is much more serious than it has been in the past. but i think it really is, both sides are staking claims. if they can reestablish, where they are trying to do now is reestablish new rules of the game because the game is anyone. if -- is a new one. if both sides ignore them, and i can see a potential.

but the calls from the secretary of defense to the russian minister of defense and from his counterpart in moscow suggests that both sides, particularly the american side, actually want to not escalate it further. laura: ok. it has been a fascinating discussion. thank you very much all of you for joining us today. and thank you too for watching. you can see the program again anytime by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page. that is facebook.com/aj inside story. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. from me, laura kyle, and the whole team here in doha. bye, for now. ♪ ññow úç