http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/04/30/Russian-aircraft-barrel-rolls-US-Air-Force-plane-second-time-in-a-month/ [login to see] 476/?spt=hs&or=tn_int
What you will note from this article (generally the "news feed" for the others) is that this article retains the 'exculpatory' "the U.S. plane did not enter Russian territory" and the 'But He Did It Back First' "... Russian military aircrafts have repeatedly been involved in dangerous air and sea traffic incidents throughout the last year.".
I suppose that they are in there in the pious hope that 90+% of the people will overlook the facts that:
[1] The Russians never said that the US aircraft was in "Russian Territory".
[2] The US aircraft WAS in a Russian ADIZ AND the US also has ADIZs.
[3] The expectations of the US government as to how an aircraft (regardless of type or nationality) will behave in an American ADIZ is identical to the expectations of the Russian government as to how an aircraft (regardless of type or nationality) will behave in a Russian ADIZ.
[4] Prior to the US government inventing them, there was no such thing as an ADIZ known to international law - and there still isn't.
PS - According to (reasonably) reliable information, it is NOT unknown for USAF aircraft to intrude into the airspace above the actual territory of other countries without any notice to the governments of those countries and to refuse to identify themselves if challenged. This has NOT YET resulted in some USAF cowboy being deliberately shot down by an aircraft of an allied nation who was well aware that the "non-responsive intruder" was flying an aircraft that "looked almost like an __[REDACTED]__ and had markings that resembled those found on USAF aircraft but which was conducting flight operations in __[REDACTED]__ airspace and refusing to acknowledge radio signals and hand signals". [No comment about whether the USAF was "painted and locked onto" prior to being forced to land (and having to pay for the refuel with his own credit card) is being made here.]