Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

nimic said:
Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Click to expand...

One thing I wanted to ask anyone in the know - is the reference to French Algeria still in the Treaty? Did they not bother to change it after the War of Independence?
 
Frosty said:
One thing I wanted to ask anyone in the know - is the reference to French Algeria still in the Treaty? Did they not bother to change it after the War of Independence?
Click to expand...

They did!


  1. Article 6 has been modified by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey.
  2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council modified this Treaty in its decision C-R(63)2, point V, on the independence of the Algerian departments of France.
  3. Documents on Canadian External Relations, Vol. 15, Ch. IV.
 
nimic said:
They did!


  1. Article 6 has been modified by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey.
  2. On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council modified this Treaty in its decision C-R(63)2, point V, on the independence of the Algerian departments of France.
  3. Documents on Canadian External Relations, Vol. 15, Ch. IV.
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
The BBC reports:

"Nato senior military officials say President Putin has clearly not achieved his military goals in Ukraine so far and "probably will not at the end of the day".

But they added that Russian forces still had the capacity to do "a lot of damage".

The defence officials said that while Russian forces had made gains in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, they had still failed to encircle Kyiv - which they said Russia had expected to do in a matter of days.

An expected Russian amphibious assault in the south near Odessa had also, so far, failed to materialise.

The Nato officials believe that Russia's original military plan had included taking all of Ukraine's Black Sea coast - right up to Moldova.

They assessed that Russia's invasion force was suffering from a lack of fuel and food as well as suffering losses. They said that President Putin was already looking for reinforcements.

One official said it was "highly likely" that would involve bringing in foreign fighters from Syria and private military contractors - such as the Wagner group - to Ukraine.

Another official added that Russia's military reserves "were not a secret weapon". He said that calling on reserve forces was "scratching the bottom of the barrel".

Nato officials say that allies and member states are continuing to send weapons to Ukraine. They said that included old Soviet weaponry, which Ukrainian forces would have been trained to use, as well as Western supplied anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles."
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The only scenario I see where it doesn't lead to nuclear escalation is a limited NFZ confined entirely to the (far) East and excluding Kiev. But it's all very risky especially if you take the view that Putin is basically deranged.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously see zero chance of Russia not deciding to end the world if NATO, or even US, decide to help Ukraine?

The perception that Putin will fire 5,000 nukes over entire world the very minute anyone tries to help Ukraine is exactly the reason why this will end in tears and he will get a free run at whoever he chooses next, if this is allowed to happen. Today we say he's not going to invade NATO because he fears escalation with them, but it may not be true in 3, 4, 5 years. There has to be a point where people in power may need to call the bluff and react, or are we just telling Putin 'pick whichever land you want to take but please don't use nukes'.

IMO without direct threat to Russia on their soil, which is never going to happen, chances of nuclear weapon being used are very small. But because they are not zero, US/NATO do not want to intervene - not because they think it is absolutely certain and there's totally no chance that it doesn't happen.
 
Last edited:
CNN report on situation on road leading to Odessa. It includes a Ukrainian soldier saying that - from what he's learned from captured soldiers - the Russian troops don't know why they are in Ukraine, fear being shot by their own side if they retreat back to where they came from, and so they either advance or surrender:

 
nimic said:
Still doesn't count, according to Article 6. It would count if it happens in the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic above the Tropic of Cancer, though, so there's always a chance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but let's follow the logical series of events that will follow...
 
Sarni said:
Do you seriously see zero chance of Russia not deciding to end the world if NATO, or even US, decide to help Ukraine?

The perception that Putin will fire 5,000 nukes over entire world the very minute anyone tries to help Ukraine is exactly the reason why this will end in tears and he will get a free run at whoever he chooses next, if this is allowed to happen. Today we say he's not going to invade NATO because he fears escalation with them, but it may not be true in 3, 4, 5 years. There has to be a point where people in power may need to call the bluff and react, or are we just telling Putin 'pick whichever land you want to take but please don't use nukes'.

IMO without direct threat to Russia on their soil, which is never going to happen, chances of nuclear weapon being used are very small. But because they are not zero, US/NATO do not want to intervene - not because they think it is absolutely certain and there's totally no chance that it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone in NATO or the EU has that perception. The risk is not an instant full-scale nuclear attack. Instead the risk is of tit-for-tat escalation ending in a full-scale nuclear exchange - e.g. NATO jet shot down by Russian missile over Ukraine > NATO destroys that missile base > Putin uses tactical nuke on Ukrainian city > NATO destroys several large Russian armoured columns around Kiev > Putin ... you get the picture.

Putin will not get a free run at wherever he next chooses because pretty soon he won't have the military power or money to try his luck elsewhere. Russia is slowly being bled dry, militarily, economically, politically and in diplomatic terms.

The "point where people in power may need to call the bluff and react" doesn't need to be established, because it has long already been established - it occurs if he attacks a NATO country.
 
Carolina Red said:
Yes, but let's follow the logical series of events that will follow...
Click to expand...

Soviet pilots shot down Americans in Korea, and Soviet anti-air operators shot down Americans in Vietnam. I'm sure it happened at other times too, and I'm sure the reverse happened at times as well.

American pilots being shot down in Ukraine might lead to WW3, but in any case it wouldn't be because article 5 was broken in the first instance. We can talk about escalations, obviously, and how they would lead to a strike on Nato soil, but that's not quite the same. If it were, then we could make the same argument about supplying arms leading to article 5, or sanctions, or all the other things Russia are whining about.
 
Sarni said:
What the hell is this nonsense? They are really getting to ridiculous levels in their propaganda, I don't like it at all.
Click to expand...


Completely agree. I understand that it's propaganda aiming to boost morale for Ukrainians and deflate Russian soldiers, but this is too much. Like trying to glorify mass killers now. Or maybe that is reserved for Chris Kyle and US.
 
LARulz said:
It's stupid to begin with but even more so now. People are literally treating this like a game and these are characters and upgrades
Click to expand...

It might be silly, but it's not like this kind of propaganda is a new thing, and definitely not when it comes to snipers. The Finns, Soviets and Germans all venerated their (supposedly) best snipers, and they were all exaggerated in propaganda. Same with pilot aces. It's got nothing to do with the modern world and gamification (characters and upgrades).
 
Smores said:
Binding is doing a lot of work there. I mean come on Russia don't give a single feck.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but it does give several hundred fecks about the cumulative, snow-balling effects of ever-increasing economic, military, political and diplomatic pressure. Putin will deny it publicly, but the everyone around him will know - as will increasingly more and more ordinary Russians - that they are heading rapidly towards a national disaster.
 
Last edited:
golden_blunder said:
I used to work with an old Vietnam vet whose job was as a sniper, protecting LZs. He would literally lie in undergrowth for days staring into a jungle. I couldn’t imagine what type of focus you’d need, it would surely send you crazy
Click to expand...

I've seen a few documentaries on the Army Ranger's sniper division. You have to be some kind of special breed to go through such training. Extremely high fail rate.
 
nimic said:
It might be silly, but it's not like this kind of propaganda is a new thing, and definitely not when it comes to snipers. The Finns, Soviets and Germans all venerated their (supposedly) best snipers, and they were all exaggerated in propaganda. Same with pilot aces. It's got nothing to do with the modern world and gamification (characters and upgrades).
Click to expand...

Yeah I think we all get propaganda is common and most of the stories can be taken with a pinch of salt. But there has to be a dose of realism to what is put out there.
 
GlastonSpur said:
That still boils down to mere hope on Ukraine's part, not a guarantee. It's not enough.
Click to expand...
It’s a reasonable hope though. And Russia will get out of this war very weak. But I agree with your position and it’s very likely Ukraine will reject this deal.
 
The BBC reports that UK is now supplying its Starstreak anti-aircraft missile systems - high velocity surface-to-air - to Ukraine.
 
nimic said:
Soviet pilots shot down Americans in Korea, and Soviet anti-air operators shot down Americans in Vietnam. I'm sure it happened at other times too, and I'm sure the reverse happened at times as well.

American pilots being shot down in Ukraine might lead to WW3, but in any case it wouldn't be because article 5 was broken in the first instance. We can talk about escalations, obviously, and how they would lead to a strike on Nato soil, but that's not quite the same. If it were, then we could make the same argument about supplying arms leading to article 5, or sanctions, or all the other things Russia are whining about.
Click to expand...
The key difference being in Korea and Vietnam, the USSR had a 3rd party to insulate them from a direct engagement with the US. Soviet pilots flew MiGs for the NK Air Force and the NV Air Force. In Ukraine, air combat due to a NATO enforced NFZ would be the Russian Air Force vs NATO Air Forces… directly. And yes, that does lead us down the logical route of escalating actions.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
Completely agree. I understand that it's propaganda aiming to boost morale for Ukrainians and deflate Russian soldiers, but this is too much. Like trying to glorify mass killers now. Or maybe that is reserved for Chris Kyle and US.
Click to expand...
Yes. War heroes were invented by an American corporation in the 1950s.
 
Smores said:
Binding is doing a lot of work there. I mean come on Russia don't give a single feck.
Click to expand...

It's just more of the same to them. Gestures by the West that don't really affect the Russian elite and most likely won't go through to the Russian public - at least not those who support the war.

I think that's what the West should be working on. Russia has given us quite a few examples how to inflate conspirac theories against the reports of the mainstream media in Europe and the US. Maybe we should apply some of the same techniques to actually spread some truth for a change.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
What I was doing was pointing out the logical outcome of a NFZ in the context of Zelenskyy's invocation of MLK. The original invocation is itself inverted, as MLK was a pacifist. Zelenskyy's demand for a NFZ is belligerent and is framed as non-belligerent by distorting the original value of MLK's speech. But it was one comment that wasn't intended to provoke, but was intended to summarize the corruption of MLK when tied to a demand that could, very easily, lead to nuclear escalation. That being said, I'm happy to let anyone read it how they want as a two-page exchange on the topic serves only to derail.
Click to expand...

No, that would just have been a plain speaking post declaring your opinion of the matter. What you were doing was more insidious and entirely designed to provoke. Clearly Zelensky does not want his cities blown up in a nuclear exchange, clearly what he does want is a stop to the bombing. You know that, I know that and so, probably does anyone else reading.

I agree it's a digression but the result is a shame; I think we share many of the same views but have such a different fidelity towards honesty it's fruitless to further engage.
 
Carolina Red said:
Fastest short range anti-aircraft missile on the market. That's a big deal.
Click to expand...

It's laser guided though. Not sure how that works against fast flying aircraft. Airplanes themselves use radar or infrared-imaging missiles against other planes and laser guiding is usually for ground targets (i.e. static or slow moving)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.