A Facebook post claims that Russian and Chinese fighter aircraft flew into US airspace, but in reality, they only came close to but did not overfly Alaska and were eventually escorted back by American and Canadian interceptors. This has been happening for quite some time, and the only thing that’s new is that this is the first time that China has been involved in this case, while it was only Russia who did such things in the past.
A post on the social network Facebook begins like this:
There, they messed with that too, entered US airspace
The post further explains that it refers to the joint patrol exercise of the Russian and Chinese Air Force, recently staged over the Pacific Ocean near Alaska, USA, however, no one reported a violation of the airspace, not even the Russian media, which is notorious for propaganda.
On the contrary, everyone communicated that the planes were not a threat, but there are some harsh reactions such as the one of Alaska’s senator, Republican Dan Sullivan, who believes that this is an escalation and that the danger is increased due to the involvement of China, when it was only Russia that did things like this in the past. However, Sullivan is not the president of the US, so it is not as significant, and also, the cooperation between Russia and China, which is not ideal, is excessively emphasized.
The event was reported by the North American Aerospace Defense Command NORAD (a combined organization of the United States and Canada), as well as various global media: CNN, BBC, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, Al Jazeera, TASS, RIA Novosti, Rossiyskaya Gazeta and others. However, this is not breaking news.
If the post were true, such flying would be an extremely risky move that can lead to World War Three and that would be the key issue in all of global media, and surely in the UN, but there is no such thing. We had a similar disinformation in June.
The post that we are now reviewing is somewhat more grounded, in the sense that something really did happen, but the description of the event is biased and exaggerated.
As reported by NORAD, and by global media, on the 24th of July 2024 Russian and Chinese Air Force staged a joint patrol over the Pacific Ocean, with two Chinese bombers – Xian H-6 and two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (the post refers to the model as “Bear”, but that is a code name that the NATO forces use to refer to Tu-95, i.e. it is an exonym).
The closest point to the U.S. coast that they reached was about 200 miles (321.8 km) from Alaska and there was no question of flying over its territory.
They flew over a kind of “buffer zone” (English: Air Defense Identification Zone, abbreviated: ADIZ), which the United States has defined for itself, and which begins where their airspace ends and serves to timely detect aircraft that may threaten it.
If they enter that zone, they are tracked and contacted to determine their intentions, and if necessary, interceptor aircraft are sent to escort them back, as was done in this case with the US F-35 and F-16 and the Canadian CF-18. Several countries define such “buffer zones”, but this is not regulated by international norms.
Some are now making a sensation of the event, pointing out that these are bombers that can also carry nuclear weapons, as does the post we are reviewing:
The H-6 and the Tu-95 Bear are designed to deliver nuclear weapons.
But cases like this are not new, there was a similar one on the 2nd of May of this year. It also involved such aircraft, but only Russian and not Chinese.
One proverb says that a picture is worth a thousand words, but in the post there is a video clip that doesn’t share any insight. The post says the following about the clip:
China released footage of the joint Chinese strategic bomber H-6 and the Russian Tu-95 Bear “Freedom of Navigation Patrol” in international airspace near Alaska.
So, the footage is from international airspace, and not US airspace, so it doesn’t prove what the beginning of the post says. In the clip we can see planes taking off and landing (which is in Russia or China) and there’s nothing useful here. If this had been a historical event, it would have deserved a better clip, and this one lasts only a minute.
Finally, we conclude that something indeed happened here, however, it is not objectively described, so we assess the post as partially untrue.
