Thread by @steffanwatkins

🇷🇺 On 2021-11-12 the Russian Air Force (#RuAF) made a long range aviation training sortie, which included 2x Tu-160 strategic bombers and tanker support, in international airspace.

Those are facts.

https://twitter.com/galandecZP/status/1459248324687585297?s=20

🇧🇪 In international airspace, they were shadowed by the Belgian Air Force.

https://twitter.com/BeAirForce/status/1459134224502599680?s=20

🇳🇴 In international airspace, they were shadowed by the Norwegian Air Force.

https://twitter.com/Luftforsvaret/status/1459229278755766284?s=20

🇬🇧 While in international airspace, Royal Air Force launched QRA fighters to intercept, but it is unclear if they caught up with the two RuAF Tu-160s as they turned around and RTB.

https://twitter.com/RoyalAirForce/status/1459257656993005575?s=20

#NATO confirms these flights, facts, and the countries involved; 🇳🇴🇧🇪🇬🇧. None of the RuAF aircraft entered #NATO airspace, all remained in international airspace. Their location is abundantly clear from the communications from each government, and NATO.

https://twitter.com/NATO_AIRCOM/status/1459216072171794446?s=20

How did the news media do? It was only weeks ago that the Chinese were operating in the Taiwanese #ADIZ, and @Reuters, @AP, +other news outlets were shamed into correcting their misleading and inaccurate articles saying they violated Taiwanese airspace, which they hadn't.

I've been correcting misinformation and disinformation about airspace vs the Air Defence Identification Zone (#ADIZ) for years, and the clickbait-driven press isn't getting any better at telling the story accurately.

Vice Motherboard - April 24, 2017 👇

https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/856466901337288710?s=20

Unfortunately there was no knowledge transfer between Reuters journalists or editors from the Taiwan ADIZ incident, so we're going to correct the article and those involved, and ask that immediate corrections be made by @reuters.

Heads up @anotherdeutsch, @lbsterling.

1) No, they did not enter any #NATO country's airspace, that's factually incorrect and needs an immediate correction.

2) No, the Dutch said no such thing, that's also factually incorrect and needs an immediate correction.

(I published the right quotes above)

3) They occasionally do, but they did not. This sentence makes it seem like they did, which is not true. They stayed in international airspace for the entire flight.

4) This is wordy and unclear; NATO QRA aircraft are scrambled when aircraft are unresponsive to ATC, haven't filed flight plans, or are operating without transponder enter their Air Defence Identification Zone #ADIZ / area of interest; not directly related to sovereign airspace.

Still the best explanation of the airspace vs ADIZ differences I've ever read was written up by @R_Ebbighausen of @dwnews weeks ago.

I hope @anotherdeutsch and @lbsterling take accuracy about volatile matters seriously, and make immediate corrections.

https://twitter.com/dw_hotspotasia/status/1445037820477902853?s=20

🇿🇦 Here we see how syndication spreads misinformation. Because the @Reuters piece contained false information, @SABCNews went to press publishing inaccurate information, and won't know when Reuters publishes a correction about the article's errors.

https://twitter.com/SABCNews/status/1459227124276076551?s=20

🇨🇦 The Canadian press (@CTVCalgary) got it wrong too, again, because of their trust in @Reuters syndication, which is usually accurate, but in this case wasn't.

https://twitter.com/CTVCalgary/status/1459211984587665409?s=20

FYI @DanT_ctv @toddcoyne

🇧🇪 It seems @Maajtee missed the previous Taiwan ADIZ vs airspace discussion, so rather than mark up her article with a red pen, I'll just ask that she review the thread and rewrite it.

FYI, The above @DWNews piece is an excellent explainer.

https://twitter.com/BrusselsTimes/status/1459204571113345025?s=20

I guess I do need to get out the red pen.

1) No, the RuAF did not enter their airspace.
2) No, they did not say that.

3) No, that statement is false.
4) No, they did not say that.

5) This is absolutely not what the Belgian Air Force wrote, and I don't even read Dutch. The planes were intercepted to prevent them from *possibly* entering their airspace, which they didn't do.

I would hope @Maajtee is willing to write, and @BrusselsTimes is willing to publish, updates to the article with the corrections needed to make it accurate.

Yes we do, every single time...

https://twitter.com/thomas_wiegold/status/1459271878850322439?t=iuKjjqBFEmTToOVW5stKOA&s=19