CMStPnP charlie hebdo We are dealing with an increasingly deranged man controlling vast amounts of deliverable nukes. That could be an act. Yeltsins advisor that knows Putin well and currently lives in one of the Baltics stated that is all a bluff aimed at the Western audience. Weather it is or is not, it's Russias problem who is the Captain at the helm making decisions. We should only be focused on the actions of the country vs individual. If we are going to focus on the individual vs country and believe he is crazy we should take him out as we attempted more than once with Khadaffi and Castro. Why we are sticking to the ridiculous restriction on assinnation of heads of state when we have broken it so many times in the past..........also ridiculous. Wasn't that Iranian General Solemani or whatever a head of state? Boom he is gone. In Putins case, three threats of Nuclear War is enough for a case of self-defense. I believe Putin is sane and rational and all that crazy stuff is Western Media picking up on his whole disinformation campaign. For someone crazy that does not care about his life, he still has a huge security detail and is keeping a distance from potential assassins, still has his huge financial stash of money, not killing people around him via paranoid suspicions without rationale (like a crazy person would)......Castro and Khaddafi both did that.
charlie hebdo We are dealing with an increasingly deranged man controlling vast amounts of deliverable nukes.
That could be an act. Yeltsins advisor that knows Putin well and currently lives in one of the Baltics stated that is all a bluff aimed at the Western audience.
Weather it is or is not, it's Russias problem who is the Captain at the helm making decisions. We should only be focused on the actions of the country vs individual.
If we are going to focus on the individual vs country and believe he is crazy we should take him out as we attempted more than once with Khadaffi and Castro. Why we are sticking to the ridiculous restriction on assinnation of heads of state when we have broken it so many times in the past..........also ridiculous. Wasn't that Iranian General Solemani or whatever a head of state? Boom he is gone. In Putins case, three threats of Nuclear War is enough for a case of self-defense.
I believe Putin is sane and rational and all that crazy stuff is Western Media picking up on his whole disinformation campaign. For someone crazy that does not care about his life, he still has a huge security detail and is keeping a distance from potential assassins, still has his huge financial stash of money, not killing people around him via paranoid suspicions without rationale (like a crazy person would)......Castro and Khaddafi both did that.
You act as though you are an expert or have accurate information sources. I see no evidence that you do. Nor are you in a better position to judge Putin's mental state than anyone on here.
Euclid I understand your point. The main reason I ask is that I sense that public pressure is building for directly help to Ukraine. That pressure is certainly understandable.
All I want to know is how aggressive NATO can be in providing help to Ukraine, considering that NATO is intended to be collective defense of NATO member countries, and Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
BackshopThey're also deluding themselves if they think that they could get away with a "limited" nuclear strike against a NATO country.
What do you mean by that? How would that play out in detail?
Euclid If Russia thinks it easier to hit the weapons while still in the donor country, I don’t think Russia would hesitate to do so.
Backshop Once again, NATO itself can't supply arms because it doesn't have any. As far as this statement " it was left to the judgment of each member state to decide how exactly it would contribute", all that means is that members have to help defend each other, there is no set amount that they have to contribute to the defense.
Once again, NATO itself can't supply arms because it doesn't have any. As far as this statement " it was left to the judgment of each member state to decide how exactly it would contribute", all that means is that members have to help defend each other, there is no set amount that they have to contribute to the defense.
But in any case, I don’t see that part “leaving it to the judgement” as meaning they are free to individually attack Russia under the terms of NATO. I see it as saying they can use their judgement to decide how to take part in the collective defense.
But my overall question has been regarding what individual NATO member countries can do about helping Ukraine. Judging by answers here, they can do anything they want to. They can provide weapons, they can attack Russia economically, they can provide advisors with the weapons, or they can go to war with Russia to drive them out of Ukraine.
Apparently the language addressing this in the NATO document I posted is only referring to what they are choosing to do now. That could change into doing more or less. Likewise, Russia can do anything they want to do depending on how they feel about NATO countries helping Ukraine.
Russia is likely to want to strike weapons being sent into Ukraine by NATO countries. This could be done once the weapons have crossed the border into Ukraine, or while the incoming weapons are still in the donor NATO country while heading for Ukraine. If Russia thinks it easier to hit the weapons while still in the donor country, I don’t think Russia would hesitate to do so.
JayBeeEuclid don't worry about what the other members of NATO might or might not do. None of them will take any action without the US agreement.
charlie hebdoWe are dealing with an increasingly deranged man controlling vast amounts of deliverable nukes.
All you need to know about the Finns is contained in this video.
Video
kgbw49 One wonders how long it will take the Russian army to launch an offensive to cut the Ukraine supply lines from the west. They would not even have to take Lviv, only take control of about a 30-mile-wide corridor along the western boundary of Ukraine.
One wonders how long it will take the Russian army to launch an offensive to cut the Ukraine supply lines from the west. They would not even have to take Lviv, only take control of about a 30-mile-wide corridor along the western boundary of Ukraine.
Euclid don't worry about what the other members of NATO might or might not do. None of them will take any action without the US agreement. Could Russia pick a fight with NATO, absolutely. It might help him drum up support among his own people, but I doubt that China would think highly of the idea. He needs China much more than China needs him. With the departure of the Oil Field services companies, Russian production of Oil and Gas will fall. All of Russia's Oil and Gas production in Siberia is in very difficult locations and to drill in these areas they need western experts.
Russia has closed down any outside information getting into the country and is broadcasting propaganda to drum up the fervor of the citizens of Russia to hate the Ukrainians. In order to not have Russians see what is happening to it's soldiers fighting in Ukraine, they are leaving them where they fall and are not repatriating their bodies back to Russia where the population could see the funerals.
blue streak 1 One country that is an EU member but not a NATO country is Finland. Since the USSR invaded parts of Finland more than once you can imagine Finland's concern. That is why previously Finland citizens were against joining NATO. Have not seen what the citizens' thoughts are now but there has been some unofficial talk about a quick joining? The long rboder with Russia and Putin would certainly make me to worry.
One country that is an EU member but not a NATO country is Finland. Since the USSR invaded parts of Finland more than once you can imagine Finland's concern. That is why previously Finland citizens were against joining NATO. Have not seen what the citizens' thoughts are now but there has been some unofficial talk about a quick joining? The long rboder with Russia and Putin would certainly make me to worry.
There's some question whether the Russians would be able to extend their supply lines to Ukraine's western border without the use of the Ukraine's rail network. The Russians seem to have their problems with keeping their trucks running.
Other problem with being wihin 30 miles of the western border is that NATO forces can conduct a lot of aerial reconaissance from NATO airspace.
Backshop Quit making things up. NATO isn't attacking anyone, least of all Russia. Supplying arms is totally different, and legal. It is being done by individual nations, who just happen to be part of NATO. It is now being said that China is supplying Russia with munitions. Does that make China part of the war? No!
Quit making things up. NATO isn't attacking anyone, least of all Russia. Supplying arms is totally different, and legal. It is being done by individual nations, who just happen to be part of NATO. It is now being said that China is supplying Russia with munitions. Does that make China part of the war? No!
If we can see that, Russia can see that and they almost surely have plans to eventually interdict and cut off those supply lines from the west, but have not yet executed any operation, thankfully. While they are moving ponderously and slowly, they are still on the offensive across almost every other area of the country except Kviv, where it appears they are going to conduct a siege of the city.
With a limited air force that can't interdict Russian supply lines, and artillery that must be getting low on their supply of Russian-made shells for their Russian-made artillery, Ukraine is hanging on by the unimpeded supply lines from the west.
Lending your neighbor your water hose when his house is on fire is a far cry from actually helping put his fire out. All the west is doing is providing aid. They're not on the front lines doing the fighting in this war.
Putin will do what he wants to do. I don't see military aid altering that to any great degree. Sure, he'll happily use it for an excuse to justify his actions. But if we sat by idle, he'd still be out there doing the same things and just coming up with a different set of excuses to flimsily justify his actions.
Yet by lending Ukraine our hose, we appear to have a chance of seeing Ukraine wreck his ambitions. I don't see how we can't help out with supplies and equipment with so much at stake. Heck, even Germany is finally coming around and seeing the light.
charlie hebdo JayBee It would be grounds for invoking Article 5. Article 5, which began: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” While this commitment to collective defense lay at the heart of NATO, it was left to the judgment of each member state to decide how exactly it would contribute.
JayBee It would be grounds for invoking Article 5.
It would be grounds for invoking Article 5.
Article 5, which began: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…” While this commitment to collective defense lay at the heart of NATO, it was left to the judgment of each member state to decide how exactly it would contribute.
CMStPnP Euclid But I thought the general premise here was that NATO is neutral and will stay out of this war unless Russia attacks a NATO country. So if that is the case, it strikes me as odd that NATO members, being part of the NATO agreement of neutrality, would be allowed to go out on a freelance basis to individually choose to provide weapons to Ukraine and risk triggering a war between Russia and NATO. We just backed down from being involved in supplying jets to Ukraine because that would be seen as too provocative, and might trigger a war with Russia. Regardless of Russias attempts to redefine international law which is mostly along the lines of complete BS. First, you cannot publicly accuse NATO of provoking a war and then in the other had say you view it as a neutral and only will view it as neutral if it follows your rules to the letter.....that is complete BS by the Russians and they know it. They are attempting to get something for nothing and they are partly succeeding with the ploy. Red Cross / Crescent defines neutrality pretty clearly and NATO is not now nor has ever been neutral to this conflict. Providing arms or material support to another legitmate country that is requesting them via legitimate means might be considered a violation of Red Cross defined neutrality but if the arms agreements or arms relationships preceeded the war it is a continuation of commerce in my view. NATO or NATO countries supplying Ukraine preceeded this war. Why should they stop? Because Russia does not like it? Well boo-hoo, in almost every war we have fought Russia had no qualms about continuing to arm the other side and there were no limits with what arms it would sell or in what volumes, during those conflicts Russia did not consider that participating in a war. So this recent redefinition should be disregarded as Russia attempting to apply rules it does not follow itself. Why NATO or the DoD is even debating which convential arms might offend Russia and which conventional arms might not is just sillyness and don't expect Russia to ever return that favor being done for them.
Euclid But I thought the general premise here was that NATO is neutral and will stay out of this war unless Russia attacks a NATO country. So if that is the case, it strikes me as odd that NATO members, being part of the NATO agreement of neutrality, would be allowed to go out on a freelance basis to individually choose to provide weapons to Ukraine and risk triggering a war between Russia and NATO. We just backed down from being involved in supplying jets to Ukraine because that would be seen as too provocative, and might trigger a war with Russia.
Regardless of Russias attempts to redefine international law which is mostly along the lines of complete BS. First, you cannot publicly accuse NATO of provoking a war and then in the other had say you view it as a neutral and only will view it as neutral if it follows your rules to the letter.....that is complete BS by the Russians and they know it. They are attempting to get something for nothing and they are partly succeeding with the ploy.
Red Cross / Crescent defines neutrality pretty clearly and NATO is not now nor has ever been neutral to this conflict. Providing arms or material support to another legitmate country that is requesting them via legitimate means might be considered a violation of Red Cross defined neutrality but if the arms agreements or arms relationships preceeded the war it is a continuation of commerce in my view. NATO or NATO countries supplying Ukraine preceeded this war. Why should they stop? Because Russia does not like it?
Well boo-hoo, in almost every war we have fought Russia had no qualms about continuing to arm the other side and there were no limits with what arms it would sell or in what volumes, during those conflicts Russia did not consider that participating in a war. So this recent redefinition should be disregarded as Russia attempting to apply rules it does not follow itself. Why NATO or the DoD is even debating which convential arms might offend Russia and which conventional arms might not is just sillyness and don't expect Russia to ever return that favor being done for them.
I think you both are missing the historical context. Neutrality or NATO or fairness aren't the real issues. This is not a rational question. NATO was never a neutral organization. We are dealing with an increasingly deranged man controlling vast amounts of deliverable nukes.
Great post, CMStPnP.
Also, Flintlock's link shows that Putin's remarks about Ukrainians and Russians as being one people is a lie.
EuclidBut I thought the general premise here was that NATO is neutral and will stay out of this war unless Russia attacks a NATO country. So if that is the case, it strikes me as odd that NATO members, being part of the NATO agreement of neutrality, would be allowed to go out on a freelance basis to individually choose to provide weapons to Ukraine and risk triggering a war between Russia and NATO. We just backed down from being involved in supplying jets to Ukraine because that would be seen as too provocative, and might trigger a war with Russia.
Euclid I don’t know that NATO is incapable of providing arms to Ukraine just because they don’t have them. It seems to me that they could obtain them and then provide them to Ukraine. I assume they are refraining in order to be neutral.
NATO's budget is smaller than you think, all it consists of is the Secretary- General and a small amount of admistrative staff. Everybody else is loaned by the members, and those people are paid directly by the loaning member country. Besides some buildings scattered around Europe and likely a few automobiles the only military equipment they own are five E-3A AWACS, and the people manning them are loaned by member countries. Lockheed-Martin or Raytheon will want to see cash for any equipment that they sell to NATO. All thirty current members have a vote on NATO's budget and the chance to reach a consensus is about the same as in the US Congress.
Euclid I don’t know that NATO is incapable of providing arms to Ukraine just because they don’t have them. It seems to me that they could obtain them and then provide them to Ukraine. I assume they are refraining in order to be neutral. But I thought the general premise here was that NATO is neutral and will stay out of this war unless Russia attacks a NATO country. So if that is the case, it strikes me as odd that NATO members, being part of the NATO agreement of neutrality, would be allowed to go out on a freelance basis to individually choose to provide weapons to Ukraine and risk triggering a war between Russia and NATO.
We just backed down from being involved in supplying jets to Ukraine because that would be seen as too provocative, and might trigger a war with Russia.
NATO is providing collective protection for the NATO counties. So it does not seem right that individual NATO countries would be allowed to provoke retaliation from Russia which would force the whole collective to go to war, including the U.S.
Hypothetical question: Are NATO countries free to declare war on Russia now under the collective protection of NATO even though none have been attacked to trigger Article 5?
No, the NATO treaty is a defensive alliance, any member declaring war on Russia or launching an attack on Russia, would lose the ability to invoke Article 5 of the treaty.
One final point the European Nations are worried that Russia will not voluntarily stop with just the Invasion of Ukraine and possibly Moldova. They very much would prefer that all the fighting occurs in Ukraine.
A brief history of Kyiv which everyone might find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eozIOzO0P_0
Yes, it would. NATO doesn't have arms. Its member countries do. NATO wouldn't so much "attack Russia" as defend the member country. Semantics, I know...
Russia keeps talking about these things, but won't actually do them because it wouldn't end well for Russia.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.