BackshopNATO doesn't have to do anything since a NATO country wasn't attacked. Like everyone keeps telling you, NATO is a DEFENSIVE organization. NATO will probably up their arms supply, including more sophisticated weapons.
Agree and the comments so far indicate that no vote has been taken on how they will respond to Chemical attack. One British guy implied it meant NATO entering the war and his comments were walked back via another country's minister that stated no single country makes a decision like that. Can Russias war fighting behavior get so terrible that it prompts NATO to enter the war?
I think Russia is attempting deliberately to find that out because it feels the more horrible behavior it can get away with the more it gets newer NATO members to ask about the alliance and how much the alliance will risk for them as a member of the alliance....which is the question in most military alliances. So I think that is the answer to why there is no bottom level right now to how far the Russians will sink on the scale of wartime behavior. I think they are testing now to see if they can cause internal dissention in the alliance over course of action.
NATO has had internal discussions on pre-emptive attack but so far none of the scenarios they raised in those discussions has happened and the scenarios they used were pretty strict to avoid accidently sliding into a war.
I think Sweden and Finland are a shoo-in if they ask for membership. Moldova and Georgia, not so much. I'd think that any member who voted against Sweden and Finland should have their own membership scrutinized.
From NYT: NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, underscored the urgency of the preparation effort on Wednesday, telling reporters for the first time that even if the Russians employ weapons of mass destruction only inside Ukraine, they may have “dire consequences” for people in NATO nations. He appeared to be discussing the fear that chemical or radioactive clouds could drift over the border. One issue under examination is whether such collateral damage would be considered an “attack” on NATO under its charter, which might require a joint military response.
Putin has started WW 3. As long as he or the cabal that supports him are in control of Russia, they will attempt to reconstruct the USSR in the most brutal way possible, the way Stalin ruled it with death and destruction both inside and outside 'mother Russia'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Putin has started WW 3. As long as he or the cabal that supports him are in control of Russia, they will attempt to reconstruct the USSR in the most brutal way possible, the way Stalin ruled it with death and destruction both inside and outside 'mother Russia'.
So accepting your assumptions for now, what should we do about Putin & Co.?
charlie hebdo BaltACD Putin has started WW 3. As long as he or the cabal that supports him are in control of Russia, they will attempt to reconstruct the USSR in the most brutal way possible, the way Stalin ruled it with death and destruction both inside and outside 'mother Russia'. So accepting your assumptions for now, what should we do about Putin & Co.?
Back Ukarine with everything they need or want - including NO FLY protection.
Hitler could have been stopped in Czechoslovakia, Putin needs to be stopped at Ukraine and in reality forced out of Crimea. Putin needs to be forced back to Russia with prejudice.
There has to be a price paid for invading a soverign neighboring country without a reason beyond simple territorial expansion.
Euclid https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/all-options-table-if-russia-uses-chemical-weapons-ukraine-uk-minister-2022-04-12/ From the link: "There are some things that are beyond the pale, and the use of chemical weapons will get a response and all options are on the table for what that response could be," Heappey told Sky News, adding that British defence intelligence so far had been unable to verify the reports. Asked on LBC Radio whether he could rule out this including deploying British or NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, Heappey said: "No, all options are on the table."
I feel the following is a pretty good read, especially in the way it provides scope to what Putin's motives are likely to be. Which just being honest, I have felt western media's attempts to mystify what his true objective(s) are, to be mostly smoke and mirrors designed to deny validity to opposed points of view.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/understanding-vladimir-putin-the-man-who-fooled-the-world?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Pay particular attention to the suggestion of how NATO's involvement in nearby conflicts ostensibly "in the name of human rights" might be subect to multiple interpretations depending upon point of view.
BackshopYou never rule anything out. That leaves all courses of action open. If you say that you won't do something, and then changed circumstances force you into it, the backlash can have serious consequences. If the UK ruled out troops, Russia would think "we can do whatever we want because the second strongest military in NATO says that they won't interfere". That's just like Russia saying "we will use nukes to ensure our survival against aggression" without saying what they consider that line. If they drew the line, NATO would know exactly what they could do. Russia probably wouldn't use nukes over a no fly zone, but we don't know that, so we can't impose one.
Not an official NATO position either, you have to be careful with interpretations in this forum. Clearly stated in title of article "UK says" not "NATO says". As you said above, he is speaking for the UK.
Potentially the UK vote IF they have not voted on that or considered it fully yet.
Backshop Euclid https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/all-options-table-if-russia-uses-chemical-weapons-ukraine-uk-minister-2022-04-12/ From the link: "There are some things that are beyond the pale, and the use of chemical weapons will get a response and all options are on the table for what that response could be," Heappey told Sky News, adding that British defence intelligence so far had been unable to verify the reports. Asked on LBC Radio whether he could rule out this including deploying British or NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, Heappey said: "No, all options are on the table." You never rule anything out. That leaves all courses of action open. If you say that you won't do something, and then changed circumstances force you into it, the backlash can have serious consequences. If the UK ruled out troops, Russia would think "we can do whatever we want because the second strongest military in NATO says that they won't interfere". That's just like Russia saying "we will use nukes to ensure our survival against aggression" without saying what they consider that line. If they drew the line, NATO would know exactly what they could do. Russia probably wouldn't use nukes over a no fly zone, but we don't know that, so we can't impose one.
You never rule anything out. That leaves all courses of action open. If you say that you won't do something, and then changed circumstances force you into it, the backlash can have serious consequences. If the UK ruled out troops, Russia would think "we can do whatever we want because the second strongest military in NATO says that they won't interfere". That's just like Russia saying "we will use nukes to ensure our survival against aggression" without saying what they consider that line. If they drew the line, NATO would know exactly what they could do. Russia probably wouldn't use nukes over a no fly zone, but we don't know that, so we can't impose one.
On a somewhat sobering note, schools in my area are starting to receive enrollment requests for orphans from Ukraine.
Euclid So I am surprised that NATO countries are free to reserve the right to freelance collectively outside of NATO and make their own rules. This should be especially concerning to NATO countries that might want to refrain from the action outside of NATO, yet will run the risk of being attacked by the adversary in retaliation for those who do act outside of NATO.
BackshopWhere have you been the last 21 years? It would be no different than the US, UK and others when they went into Iraq or Libya. Afghanistan was a NATO mission but Iraq and Libya weren't.
Here is what I am getting at: Consider the current situation in which NATO is staying out of the Ukraine/Russia war because Ukraine is not in NATO. Now say one of those NATO countries decides it wants to enter the war on the side of Ukraine to help them fight Russia. I assume that that one NATO country is free to do that while remaining in NATO as part of the NATO collective defense.
Now let’s say that Putin retaliates by attacking that one NATO country that went in to Ukraine to help them fight against Russia. In that case, does Putin attacking that one NATO country then trigger the collective NATO defense that would require all other NATO countries to collectively attack Russian troops until the Russians stopped attacking that one country that joined Ukraine in fighting against Russia?
If that is the case, it means that all of NATO chose to stay out of the war except for one NATO country that chose to enter that war. So that would mean that choice of the one NATO country to fight against Russia had the effect of dragging all of the other NATO countries into that fight against their will.
Is that the way this would work?
Why does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council? Unprovoked aggression against a UN member country should remove any rights to a UN Security Council veto.
BaltACD Why does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council? Unprovoked aggression against a UN member country should remove any rights to a UN Security Council veto.
Unfortunately, that's the way the UN charter was set up.
EuclidIs that the way this would work?
The answer is no and that should be covered via Google as the press covered that scenario I believe a couple of weeks back. It nullifies the use of article 5 if you attack someone or enter a war as a combatant via your own choice. Which is also covered by Backshop stating it is a DEFENSIVE alliance. Otherwise he could not state that.
BaltACDWhy does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council? Unprovoked aggression against a UN member country should remove any rights to a UN Security Council veto.
Well it should trigger a forced abstension from the vote in any regard because your voting on your own self interest for a veto via the collective interest of the UN Council but it doesn't force an abstension either.
The U.N. is kind of screwed up and the various loopholes and short commings I believe betray in part what originally was envisioned by some of the WWII Vets that pushed for it's creation. Though there are parts to the UN that do work well like the peacekeeping forces, disaster relief, etc. So not a complete disaster either.
BaltACDWhy does a combatent get to veto resolutions against it in the UN Security Council?
I would imagine that "loophole" is there not by accident.
I have received complaints about the inappropriateness of this thread and the unfairness of certain posts to the Russian people, most of whom are unaware of and bear no culpability for their leader's actions in Ukraine. Since 7 weeks seems long enough for everyone to have shared their opinions on a subject that is off-topic anyway, this thread will be closed tomorrow morning. No further discussion of the war in Ukraine will be allowed on the Forums from that point forward.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Steven Otte I have received complaints about the inappropriateness of this thread and the unfairness of certain posts to the Russian people, most of whom are unaware of and bear no culpability for their leader's actions in Ukraine. Since 7 weeks seems long enough for everyone to have shared their opinions on a subject that is off-topic anyway, this thread will be closed tomorrow morning. No further discussion of the war in Ukraine will be allowed on the Forums from that point forward.
If you look at the post counts in all the other threads, you'll see that the forum is only hanging on by the thinnest of threads. This topic is the only thing keeping the forum viable.
Steven OtteI have received complaints about the inappropriateness of this thread and the unfairness of certain posts to the Russian people, most of whom are unaware of and bear no culpability for their leader's actions in Ukraine. Since 7 weeks seems long enough for everyone to have shared their opinions on a subject that is off-topic anyway, this thread will be closed tomorrow morning. No further discussion of the war in Ukraine will be allowed on the Forums from that point forward.
The only complaint I have with the thread is your intent to end the discussion of the biggest topic that affects the WORLD at this time.
The Ukraine and what is hapening there far transcends anything else that is happening in the world today and its effects on all of us who inhabit the world, and that includes you Mr. Otte. Closing this thread is akin to the censorship Putin is applying to news that is able to reach the Russian population.
This ban is sad news.
On April 19 Henry Posner of Railroad Development Corporation will be giving a webinar titled "Ukraine's Railway War" at the Northwestern University Sandhouse Gang. We won't be able to talk about what he says.
Posner's RDC is operating refugee trains and previously owned and operated the railway in Estonia. He's probably got some interesting insights.
I have seen nothing here adverse to the Russian people.
Backshop If you look at the post counts in all the other threads, you'll see that the forum is only hanging on by the thinnest of threads. This topic is the only thing keeping the forum viable.
Very true. Every popular thread seems to get locked. No offensive language was used on this thread nor were any of the TOS violated since this was exempt from bring off-topic.
One wonders who are the members who complain? Perhaps they could simply ignore this thread? Mr. Otte seems to enjoy what appears to be increasingly arbitrary locking of threads.
I haven't seen anything on this thread that I'd consider hostile or bigoted toward the Russian people. As far as I'm concerned they're as much a victim of Putin's ambitions as the Ukrainian people are, including the fact the Russian people can't do anything about Putin, at least not at this time. They're along for the ride whether they want to be or not.
I've stopped commenting myself because honestly I don't think there's much more to be said. Events are playing out as they will.
charlie hebdo Backshop If you look at the post counts in all the other threads, you'll see that the forum is only hanging on by the thinnest of threads. This topic is the only thing keeping the forum viable. Very true. Every popular thread seems to get locked. No offensive language was used on this thread nor were any of the TOS violated since this was exempt from bring off-topic. One wonders who are the members who complain? Perhaps they could simply ignore this thread? Mr. Otte seems to enjoy what appears to be increasingly arbitrary locking of threads.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingTo be fair, he didn't specifically say that complaints were coming from members. They could be coming from Kalmbach employees, or Kalmbach stockholders, or from advertisers.
Or, dare I say it, the dissembling democracy interference squad at the KGB.
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
Is Mr. Otte a Putin proxy for disinformation?
He was not a regular poster and...
Actually he told you exactly who it was and paraphrased the complaint made earlier in the forum almost verbatum I believe the complaint was made in the thread that was locked and initially Mr Otte took the complaint seriously and locked that thread. Then when you guys protested, Mr Otte opened this thread with a warning to a unknown party that might try to close it because they did not want to see the issue discussed.
Geez, I seem to be the only guy on this website that reads all the posts on a topic and remembers what was stated by whom. Kalmbachs call it's their website. I suspect the complainer escalated the issue to higher ups.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.