Ukraine Conflict - continuing

[Elerond]

Article 5, does not come with written obligations, but country that fails to help in defense of another member state can as well leave the alliance, because they will most likely never themself receive aid in case they are attacked.

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Article 5, does not come with written obligations, but country that fails to help in defense of another member state can as well leave the alliance, because they will most likely never themself receive aid in case they are attacked.

Also its not hard to imagine how NATO would implement article 5 

Lets say Ukraine was part of NATO before the invasion in 2022, a NATO military missions would be initiated  to fight within the borders of Ukraine

It doesnt mean they would need to attack Russia itself but they could and would engage with the Russian military forces involved in the invasion

And that same strategy can be adopted if any member  country is attacked, NATO already has a military presence and resources  in the EU and a track record of military missions

I dont see why its so difficult to imagine them supporting article 5 and it also doesn't mean nukes would be the outcome especially if a county like Russia invades any NATO member like it did with Ukraine?

 

[kanisatha]

12 hours ago, pmp10 said:

But Article 5 comes with no obligation.

Well, not quite. The entire Atlantic Charter is an international treaty, and as such, if a state has "ratified" it, then they do have a legal obligation under international law to abide by its requirements. However, because it is international law, yes, there are no mechanisms available that can be used to overrule state sovereignty and compel a state to do so.

In the case of the U.S., however, things are different. Per our Constitution, once the Senate has ratified a treaty, that treaty then becomes U.S. federal law. And the president is oath-sworn to uphold all federal laws. So a president can be impeached for not following through on Atlantic Charter Article 5 obligations. This is why Trump would want to withdraw us from NATO.

Also @BruceVC, FYI, Article 5 has been activated once. It happened a few days after 9/11, and resulted in NATO AWACS aircraft flying patrols over NYC and DC. Subsequently, NATO's participation in the Afghanistan war was legally handled under that Article 5 activation, which was precisely why some NATO members like Germany agreed to join the NATO force there.

[Mamoulian War]

Ukraine has eliminated in Crimea war criminal, who has ordered a cruise missile attack on Vinnytsia city center, killing 29 civilians (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/07/14/7358046/).

He was also responsible for periodical attacks on Ukrainian cities by cruise missiles launched from Black Sea.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/11/13/7484248/

 

[pmp10]

It seems winter missile strikes are already starting.
Ukrainian electrical grid is already badly strained so this could become a serious problem.

That said, Russia can't exactly blow up nuclear power plants and winter was forecasted to be mild. 

[Sarex]

So it looks like Biden wants to force Trumps hand in the conflict by escalating it. Wonder if the Russians escalate on their end or wait for Trump.

[Elerond]

Didn't Russia already escalate conflict by striking with over 100 missiles against Ukraine's powerplants yesterday? As it was one of the their largest strikes and its timing also isn't coincidental or promising de-escalation anytime soon.

[Malcador]

Seems more like business as usual rather than escalation to launch missiles.

[Zoraptor]

3 hours ago, Sarex said:

So it looks like Biden wants to force Trumps hand in the conflict by escalating it. Wonder if the Russians escalate on their end or wait for Trump.

Give Iran (more) S400s, or maybe the Houthis have a breakthrough and develop some Qalat-P or P-800 Eaqiq Yumani anti ship systems?

Or most likely nothing, this was an obvious post election play whatever the result, and has been baked into Russian thinking for months.

[Malcador]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-atacms-missiles.html

Some restrictions apply, still.

 

 

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-atacms-missiles.html

Some restrictions apply, still.

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/17/politics/biden-authorizes-ukraine-missiles-russian-targets/index.html

This was long overdue, the Ruskies have been getting missiles from Iran and NK for ages and firing them indiscriminately into Ukraine for ages

It looks like the deployment of NK troops was an influence in this decision, another Russian " red line " broken ?

[Zoraptor]

Oh yeah, the Russians are firing indiscriminately. Their low civilian casualty toll is because they are just terrible at hitting the civilians they're deliberately and maliciously aiming at.

Sadly, the Israelis are even more terrible at missing the civilians they're precisely and humanely trying to avoid hitting during their humanitarian mission to give Palestinians an extended overseas holiday (or funeral).

Which is funny because while Bruce is just trolling you do see people trying to say exactly that (minus the deliberate mickey taking aspects) and wondering why people think they're disingenuous shills.

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Oh yeah, the Russians are firing indiscriminately. Their low civilian casualty toll is because they are just terrible at hitting the civilians they're deliberately and maliciously aiming at.

Sadly, the Israelis are even more terrible at missing the civilians they're precisely and humanely trying to avoid hitting during their humanitarian mission to give Palestinians an extended overseas holiday (or funeral).

Which is funny because while Bruce is just trolling you do see people trying to say exactly that (minus the deliberate mickey taking aspects) and wondering why people think they're disingenuous shills.

Why you so butthurt 

Its not my fault you keep believing and repeating Russian propaganda like " guys, of course there are no NK troops being deployed into the Ukraine conflict. You cant trust anything Western media sources say "

Just change your sources of information, problem solved ?

[Sarex]

It seems that the original news source of this, the french Figaro, has retracted (changed) the story. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/le-figaro-informs-about-france-and-the-uks-permission-to-strike-deep-into-russia-but-later-changes-message/ar-AA1uheC0

Edited November 18 by Sarex

[Malcador]

10 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Why you so butthurt 

Its not my fault you keep believing and repeating Russian propaganda like " guys, of course there are no NK troops being deployed into the Ukraine conflict. You cant trust anything Western media sources say "

Just change your sources of information, problem solved ?

Not really falling for propaganda to be skeptical of things in war. Should be some footage of DPRK troops in Ukraine by now, certainly won't trust Ukrainian announcements.

Not sure the DPRK troops are the sole reason, we don't know the full calculation the US is doing, people assume Ukraine should be above all and hate on them though, heh.

In terms of missiles, was following some Ukrainians on social media estimating they have 20 left and need to use 6 per target (I guess Russian AD works somewhat).

[Zoraptor]

The issues with atacms/ himars vs Russian AD is saturation, from the Russian perspective. As with Israel or anywhere really, reloads take time and you cannot physically fire/ reload enough interceptors to reliably intercept big attacks- also unlike Israel their best and longest range systems are designed as anti aircraft primarily, it's the shorter range systems that are intended for anti missile roles. Saturation attacks will also tend to overcome jamming since 1 rocket with +/- 100m accuracy due to relying on INS is a lot more likely to miss statistically than multiple rockets with the same error. From the Ukrainian it's jamming, and that saturation attacks by their nature require a lot of launches and their launchers to be relatively close together to do the coordinated, uh, launches. HiMARS can carry one atacms each, and 'LoMARS' like the M270 still only two.

As for the North Koreans so far as I can tell they're meant to be all disguised as Russians from Buryatia, constantly deserting (without reaching Ukrainian troops), hooked on pr0n and managing to blow themselves up comically with grenade launchers. While launching human wave attacks that leave no casualties? Ah, but at least one was genuinely captured, though the sneaky Russians clumsily photoshopped a DPRK passport into the picture to make people think it was fake! It's all because Putin is horribly embarrassed about Ukraine wasting its best troops on a town of 6000, you can tell how embarrassed he is by him pulling all his best troops to fight in Kursk. Best troops which, of course, include those 10k 100k pr0n addled unmotivated Wile E Coyote's from Pyongyang with hide and go seek skills that would put Garrett to shame. You don't need a degree in media criticism from Oxford, Cambridge and Hull Universities to poke a few holes in that, you just need to have retained some critical faculty beyond an Arsenal player never having committed a foul in the history of the club level.

(ftr I of course said that there may well be some Koreans there, but they'd almost certainly be involved in stuff that was of benefit to, well, North Korea; like learning how to use drones effectively)

Edited November 18 by Zoraptor

[Malcador]

They hit an ammo dump in Bryansk with them, so maybe not as restricted

[Mamoulian War]

On 11/17/2024 at 8:09 PM, Sarex said:

So it looks like Biden wants to force Trumps hand in the conflict by escalating it. Wonder if the Russians escalate on their end or wait for Trump.

Today in Kyiv 24 TV has been broadcasted, that Biden has told Trump during their latest meeting, that he will approve ATACMS strike deep in Russia. Trump has not protested against this idea.

[Mamoulian War]

On 11/18/2024 at 12:52 AM, Malcador said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/us/politics/biden-ukraine-russia-atacms-missiles.html

Some restrictions apply, still.

 

 

The Kursk only restrictions were inaccurate reporting, as the first ATACMS hit Bryansk Oblast

 

edit: now I have noticed, that you already reported the info about Bryansk  

[Mamoulian War]

On 11/18/2024 at 9:07 AM, Sarex said:

It seems that the original news source of this, the french Figaro, has retracted (changed) the story. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/le-figaro-informs-about-france-and-the-uks-permission-to-strike-deep-into-russia-but-later-changes-message/ar-AA1uheC0

Looks like the retraction was preliminary here as well. Today UA hit Kursk HQ with allegedly DPRK officers on board with 12 SCALPS/Storm Shadows over the course of less than 60 seconds. Must have been very high value target, if they decide to spend more than 30 millions on a single strike, while still having shortage of these weapons…

[Mamoulian War]

On 11/18/2024 at 5:21 PM, Malcador said:

Not really falling for propaganda to be skeptical of things in war. Should be some footage of DPRK troops in Ukraine by now, certainly won't trust Ukrainian announcements.

Not sure the DPRK troops are the sole reason, we don't know the full calculation the US is doing, people assume Ukraine should be above all and hate on them though, heh.

In terms of missiles, was following some Ukrainians on social media estimating they have 20 left and need to use 6 per target (I guess Russian AD works somewhat).

During last week destruction of few hundred of mechanized units in Kursk, UA has captured loads and loads of DPRK weapons out of the wreckages. No captured/killed soldiers yet shown, that’s true, but even if we hop on the western media hate bandwagon for providing “fake news”, the South Korean agencies and government , which have been very reluctant to report about anything similar in the last 2 and half years, confirming this information, makes this information pretty plausible…

[Malcador]

DPRK is the boogeyman if they are that important a target. But I had meant in Ukraine, I misread Bruce's "in Ukraine conflict".

Saw some people saying the strikes in Bryansk were Neptunes, but doubt that.  Zelensky does say they'll make 3000 next year.

https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-missiles-drones/

Screw the aid then, if they're not buying our stuff.

[Zoraptor]

RoK has been reticent because they'd already been supplying Ukraine since 2022- via 3rd parties. Indeed, in the article I grabbed the quote below from their threat in response is to sell 7bn$ more equipment to Poland; above the 14bn they sold Poland in 2022, for example. Mostly though they're also now in yet another of their cyclic crap throwing (literally this time) contest with the north.

(The South Korean claims are also not the same as those made by Ukraine, the US or the media despite many media claims to the contrary. Their claim was 3000 troops sent for training, not combat, increasing to 10k; but still with no mention of combat. Not 10k+ there and actively fighting. Which is closer to what I've been saying than to Ukrainian claims, let alone the 100k from some media.

to whit: "South Korea’s intelligence chief told lawmakers Wednesday that North Korea has sent 3,000 troops, including special forces, to Russia for training, and that the North plans to increase that number to 10,000 by December.")

Edited November 20 by Zoraptor

[ComradeYellow]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/11/07/donald-trump-ukraine-peace-plan-british-troops-buffer-zone/

Plausible, or?

At this point, I don't really care what a US President does as long as they don't start or facilitate WW3.  Deport illegals, remove transgender bathrooms for all I care, just do not corroborate a situation that will result in millions of dead people.

Edited November 21 by ComradeYellow

[Mamoulian War]

Not plausible, at all, as the contact line (including Belarus and Transnistria) is approximately more than 1800kms (1100 miles). If the buffer zone would look be anything like buffer zone between DPRK and RoK, it would require more European soldiers, than all european countries currently have combined. And it would cost EU more, than they are currently providing as weapons and humanitarian assistance. If by any miracle, they would be able to accumulate Million EU troops on ground in UA, just in salaries it would be costing EU 5 billion EUR a month. Minimum. Without the cost of equipment, food and lodging.