> Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think?

It is an act of war. It is not a far stretch.

It is clearly not threatening "the territorial integrity of Russia", as Russia likes to call it. Because those planes get attacked over enemy territory.

What does that have to do with it? One military shooting down another military's aircraft is an act of war.

Clearly not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_sh...

Russia did nothing, as usual.

Unless NATO says sorry whenever they shoot down a Russian plane like Turkey did.

> If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".

That is literally a casus belli. It very much is an act of war.

According to Russia, even sending weapons is an act of war. It all has degrees. There is a clear difference between attacking Russia on their own territory vs defening Ukraine over Ukraine territory, with their consent. Russia would do nothing, just like when Moskva was sunk, just like when airfields on annexed Crimea were attacked.

Edit: So what would happen if Russia flies a fighterjet over NATO territory and they shoot it down. An act of war?