[upsidesinclude]

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.

[eesmith]

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.

[upsidesinclude]

What?

Reread my comment.

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

[eesmith]

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.