Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Pintu said:
This sounds made up. Sweden & Finland are not neutral. Both have very close relationships with NATO and are fully committed to the EU's defense pact. And we've both been sending weapons to Ukraine. Actually, if the Putin regime survives this, I'd expect both countries to join NATO soon.

Austria and Ireland are pretending to be neutral. But still, as members of EU they are somewhat bound by the defense clause(they don't have any opt-out of the common policies). And by extension, they are NATO- partners, given the very close EU-NATO cooperation. The only neutral state in Europe is Switzerland. And it probably isn't a viable situation for Ukraine (or Moldova) to be that kind of neutral if the Putin regime keeps its power.
Click to expand...
The mutual defence clause itself basically has an opt out:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Click to expand...
So if Austria for instance wanted to stay neutral in a conflict that would trigger the clause, they can.
 
GlastonSpur said:
That might depend on what Russia means by "neutrality". If they mean no membership of NATO, Ukraine might accept that. If they mean not joining the EU, then I highly doubt Ukraine would accept that.

And if Ukraine joins the EU, then they would be free invite into their country any number of EU member-country troops and allow the establishment of permanent EU military bases inside Ukraine. That would be sufficient guarantee for Ukraine of no later repeat of a Russian invasion.

But if Russia says you can join the EU, but no EU troops allowed, then again that would likely be a non-starter for Ukraine - they are certainly not going to rely any Russian promises ever again.
Click to expand...

Actually, the EU has a mechanism for opt-outs from the common policies. Some countries opted out of the common currency, migration, security. The UK was never fully in the Schengen area or the currency. Denmark is still out of the defense policy (will change probably in June with a referendum). Poland is currently fighting EU on its "rule of law" prerogatives... The EU doesn't encourage these opt-outs, EU wants the Union to be as comprehensive and profound as possible.

But interestingly enough all the eastern countries have only been accepted to EU after they joined NATO. It is like the EU doesn't want to take a defence responsibility for these "small vulnerable countries" until these countries have the NATO(US) umbrella.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
Yes. I've personally known 2 of them. One who fought in Vietnam and another who fought in the War on Terror. The one who fought in Vietnam has a few chapters about him in the book 13 Cent Killers and worked with my mom at the post office (of all places). The other's son wrestles for me. I've had the opportunity to talk to both of them about their time as a sniper and the one thing they both really emphasize is that as a sniper, you can see the face of the person you're about to kill... and that takes a toll on you. Unless you're in hand to hand combat, most of the time you'll never see the face of the guy you're killing. It takes some serious internal fortitude to do that job.

It's actually the opposite. The scope makes a big difference (see above).
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Pintu said:
It looks like they've given up on occupying the "useless" big cities or overthrowing Zelensky's government. It is all about taking the black sea coast and securing a victory in the Donbas region, maybe the Russian-speaking cities near the Donbas. But the resistance is much stronger than what they expected. Not only the military resistance. The civilian disobedience in Kherson is impressive. And it is very likely to spread to any cities they might manage to control (Kharkiv, Mariupol..)
Click to expand...
This military reality seems to be reflected in the demands Russia is making during the peace talks. We haven't heard anything about replacing the government lately, though it was obviously a point at the beginning.
 
fergieisold said:
Nonsense? It's simply a report of this guy going over there and his kill rate? How's that propaganda?
Click to expand...
Is anyone really supposed to believe a guy is killing 40 people a day? It’s literally like they took a character out of a comics book. It’s war, it isn’t fun, the amount of people who think they can go there and help with no experience, trying to be heroes is concerning enough when you have professional soldiers running back to their countries after they’ve experienced first days there. We don’t need those COD stories to make everyone feel that maybe, just maybe, being good at Counter Strike could mean you can save Ukraine. The difference is you don’t get another game even if you go 40-1.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
"I have a dream, that one day a NATO NFZ will cause nuclear escalation."
Click to expand...

Did you really just appropriate MLK to joke about nuclear war? You really should stick to your "I am not going to post in this thread" promise, although based on actions your promises are about as trustworthy as Putin's.
 
stefan92 said:
This military reality seems to be reflected in the demands Russia is making during the peace talks. We haven't heard anything about replacing the government lately, though it was obviously a point at the beginning.
Click to expand...
That's our understanding, but Putin has been telling everybody that it was never the case. One important goal seems to be "demilitarisation". They've intensified attacks on weapon industrial sites and the likes.

 
There is no way that Ukraine can demilitarise significantly with Russia as a next door neighbour. Not joining NATO is probably as far as it can go.

They need increased military vigilance for the next ten years at least.
 
WI_Red said:
Did you really just appropriate MLK to joke about nuclear war? You really should stick to your "I am not going to post in this thread" promise, although based on actions your promises are about as trustworthy as Putin's.
Click to expand...
I was quoting Zelenskyy. Read the transcript of his address to Congress or find it in video format.
 
Pintu said:
But interestingly enough all the eastern countries have only been accepted to EU after they joined NATO. It is like the EU doesn't want to take a defence responsibility for these "small vulnerable countries" until these countries have the NATO(US) umbrella.
Click to expand...
That's not really the case, because almost all new NATO membership countries predate the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007/2009 through which the mutual defence clause entered EU law. Before that there wasn't any such provision, apart from a similar clause in the Western European Union, which itself predates the European Union.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I was quoting Zelenskyy. Read the transcript of his address to Congress or find it in video format.
Click to expand...

Having a NATO NFZ does not really mean a nuclear war, it just means an NFZ. It's only a nuclear war if Russia escalates it in that direction, and if that happens it's not really Zelenskyy's fault. It just means that Putin is certified mad, if he isn't already.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I was quoting Zelenskyy. Read the transcript of his address to Congress or find it in video format.
Click to expand...

Quoting huh? If he said those exact words I will delete my account. If he did not use those words you delete yours. After all, you put it in quotes and just doubled down so you must be telling the truth, right?
 
spiriticon said:
Having a NATO NFZ does not really mean a nuclear war, it just means an NFZ. It's only a nuclear war if Russia escalates it in that direction, and if that happens it's not really Zelenskyy's fault. It just means that Putin is certified mad, if he isn't already.
Click to expand...
A NATO NFZ absolutely means nuclear war. The White House knows this and most people who support Ukraine do, too. It's a declaration of war on Russia by the US (as a retired General just announced on NBC).
 
WI_Red said:
Quoting huh? If he said those exact words I will delete my account. If he did not use those words you delete yours. After all, you put it in quotes and just doubled down so you must be telling the truth, right?
Click to expand...
He invoked MLK and then asked for a NFZ within that context, switching "dream" for "need". A highly accurate paraphrase.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
A NATO NFZ absolutely means nuclear war. The White House knows this and most people who support Ukraine do, too. It's a declaration of war on Russia by the US (as a retired General just announced on NBC).
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. There are no nuclear weapons needed to maintain a NFZ. It just involves planes and conventional weaponry shooting each other down.

It's only ever a nuclear war if Putin chooses to have one.
 
spiriticon said:
No it doesn't. There are no nuclear weapons needed involved to maintain a NFZ. It just involves planes and conventional weaponry shooting each other down.

It's only ever a nuclear war if Putin chooses to have one.
Click to expand...
It's a declaration of war by one nuclear superpower upon another. You can tell yourself otherwise, but every competent military commentator knows it to be true.
 
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...
the stories of Vietnam.. the long hours lying in brush wondering was a mine about to go off, the other side living in tunnels for weeks on end with no sight of sunlight. just insane levels of human suffering and endurance
 
Pintu said:
But interestingly enough all the eastern countries have only been accepted to EU after they joined NATO. It is like the EU doesn't want to take a defence responsibility for these "small vulnerable countries" until these countries have the NATO(US) umbrella.
Click to expand...
In addition to what @Boavista said, this was probably also about how fast it was possible. Once they decided to bind to the western treaties, it was always simpler to join a military pact that has little requirements, while adjusting politically and economically to the EU takes more time.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
It's a declaration of war by one nuclear superpower upon another. You can tell yourself otherwise, but every competent military commentator knows it to be true.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that nuclear weaponry will immediately come to the forefront. Yes we can all be afraid of the Russian nuclear bear, and with good reason, but if Putin keeps chatting shit then at some point the world will tell the Russian bear to go feck itself.
 
Last edited:
WI_Red said:
So we have moved from "quoting" to "paraphrasing". Also, still waiting to see where he called for Nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Partially quoted, reformatted within its actual (effective) context. You can infer the last part as NFZ equals declaration of war which equals nuclear escalation. You didn't understand that I was quoting/paraphrasing Zelenskyy and jumped on the comment thinking it removed from the context. Partially my fault for assuming everyone was up to date. Partially yours for misunderstanding my intent. No more to it.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
A NATO NFZ absolutely means nuclear war. The White House knows this and most people who support Ukraine do, too. It's a declaration of war on Russia by the US (as a retired General just announced on NBC).
Click to expand...

It doesn't absolutely mean anything, unless participants deliberately escalate. The Russians and US are well versed in deconfliction after Putin decided to barge into Syria and could do the same here.
 
were gonna end up in a situation where ukraines status is pretty much where it started, with perhaps more certainty about the eastern areas being quasi-independent. almost like federal states. in the meantime the arms industry will have made 10s of billions and defence budgets will have grown for countries in the east and west by a significant margin. and then the massive aid / spend / tax dollars on refurbing all the major cities. new oil / gas fields in the north sea and fracking becoming financialy viable. our leaders can cosplay being generals as well. oh yeah and thousands killed / maimed and millions displaced. champagne and cognac all around.
 
Boavista said:
The mutual defence clause itself basically has an opt out:

So if Austria for instance wanted to stay neutral in a conflict that would trigger the clause, they can.
Click to expand...
That's true. The formulation is prior to the ratification. But I know for a fact that Sweden and Finland ratified the treaty with no reservation regarding this clause. Our former defense minister said that we are obliged to help our baltic neighbors (if they invoke 42.7) in the same way any NATO country would be (via article 5). I think Ireland & Austria might have formulated something about neutrality, keeping them off the hook in such a situation.

Boavista said:
That's not really the case, because almost all new NATO membership countries predate the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007/2009 through which the mutual defence clause entered EU law. Before that there wasn't any such provision, apart from a similar clause in the Western European Union, which itself predates the European Union.
Click to expand...
Yes only Croatia fall directly into 42.7... But the 2004 and 2007 enlargments were probably made with this in mind. The treaty of Lisbon made the defense obligatory, but I think it was implicit in the old treaties that the Union had some sort of security responsiblity for its memeber states. And it is better to take a country that's already under the US/NATO umbrella than one without it. If Georgia had been a member state in 2008 it would have been a disaster for EU.
 
spiriticon said:
That doesn't mean that nuclear weaponry will immediately come to the forefront. Yes we can all be afraid of the Russian nuclear bear, and with good reason, but keeping chatting shit and at some point the world will tell the Russian bear to go feck itself.
Click to expand...
Imagine if the USSR submarine commander responsible for overriding the nuclear launch during the CMC thought like that (keep chatting shit and at some point the US will have to get fecked).

Raoul said:
It doesn't absolutely mean anything, unless participants deliberately escalate. The Russians and US are well versed in deconfliction after Putin decided to barge into Syria and could do the same here.
Click to expand...
Syria is no precedent for a war on Russia's border. There were great efforts taken to avoid direct US/Russian conflict in Syria. It would be impossible to replicate that in the context of Ukraine with US pilots flying over an active Russian warzone.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Imagine if the USSR submarine commander responsible for overriding the nuclear launch during the CMC thought like that (keep chatting shit and at some point the US will have to get fecked).
Click to expand...

I don't give a feck what the USSR or Russian commander thinks. If Putin keeps saying the words' nuclear war' too many times, nobody will believe him after a while.

He's already desensitising me to it.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Partially quoted, reformatted within its actual (effective) context. You can infer the last part as NFZ equals declaration of war which equals nuclear escalation. You didn't understand that I was quoting/paraphrasing Zelenskyy and jumped on the comment thinking it removed from the context. Partially my fault for assuming everyone was up to date. Partially yours for misunderstanding my intent. No more to it.
Click to expand...

No, I understood the context perfectly in the beginning. I asked you why you were appropriating a quote from MLK to joke about nuclear war. Zelensky clarified he had a need, not a dream, in his speech. He understood the power of that speech in the American psyche while you apparently think it is great material for shitty standup.
 
Pintu said:
Actually, the EU has a mechanism for opt-outs from the common policies. Some countries opted out of the common currency, migration, security. The UK was never fully in the Schengen area or the currency. Denmark is still out of the defense policy (will change probably in June with a referendum). Poland is currently fighting EU on its "rule of law" prerogatives... The EU doesn't encourage these opt-outs, EU wants the Union to be as comprehensive and profound as possible.

But interestingly enough all the eastern countries have only been accepted to EU after they joined NATO. It is like the EU doesn't want to take a defence responsibility for these "small vulnerable countries" until these countries have the NATO(US) umbrella.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Ukraine wouldn't want to opt out of EU defence policy. And the EU defence situation is changing - likely every EU country will now increase its defence spending, and I'm pretty sure the EU - with Ukraine as a member - would now be willing to take on defence responsibility for Ukraine. This would be more than enough to deter another Russian invasion.
 
WI_Red said:
No, I understood the context perfectly in the beginning. I asked you why you were appropriating a quote from MLK to joke about nuclear war. Zelensky clarified he had a need, not a dream, in his speech. He understood the power of that speech in the American psyche while you apparently think it is great material for shitty standup.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a joke. He was using MLK to frame his call for a NFZ which leads to nuclear escalation. It wasn't intended to be funny.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Imagine if the USSR submarine commander responsible for overriding the nuclear launch during the CMC thought like that (keep chatting shit and at some point the US will have to get fecked).


Syria is no precedent for a war on Russia's border. There were great efforts taken to avoid direct US/Russian conflict in Syria. It would be impossible to replicate that in the context of Ukraine with US pilots flying over an active Russian warzone.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be hard at all given that there is already a deconfliction line set up and in use right now.
 
spiriticon said:
Having a NATO NFZ does not really mean a nuclear war, it just means an NFZ. It's only a nuclear war if Russia escalates it in that direction, and if that happens it's not really Zelenskyy's fault. It just means that Putin is certified mad, if he isn't already.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily mean a nuclear war, but it hugely increases the risk of escalation ending in nuclear war. Given the consequences of the latter, the risk equation is clear: no fly-zone
 
Raoul said:
It wouldn't be hard at all given that there is already a deconfliction line set up and in use right now.
Click to expand...
Do you support a NFZ scenario where US pilots will come into direct conflict with Russian pilots? We all know that NATO will establish air superiority because they (the US mostly) possess far superior aerial weaponry. That means downing a lot of Russian planes. How does that not escalate? With Russia's only go-to being its nuclear stockpile.
 
ZIDANE said:
Not read the thread or news today and just heard this, is this new or the same old news?

Ukraine and Russia draw up neutrality plan to end war
Fifteen-point draft deal would involve Kyiv renouncing Nato membership ambitions in return for security guarantees

https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1
Click to expand...

This won't work because it wouldn't satisfy Putin's desire to control Ukraine to prevent his own existential struggle of democracy reaching Russia. This, plus the inconvenient reality that he's a highly accomplished liar who has already ditched the Budapest agreement, which is one of the reasons he was incentivized to invade in the first place. He would've thought twice if Ukraine retained their nukes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.