2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[TopHatter]

Welp...looks like the Ukrainian Navy is at it again!

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ea-2024-03-05/

Looks kinda pricey....and brand new. Oh look, commissioned July 2022!

Lead ship Vasily Bykov

[Albany Rifles]

Welp...looks like the Ukrainian Navy is at it again!

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ea-2024-03-05/

Ukraine says it has sunk a Russian patrol ship near Crimea

Reuters
March 5, 202411:44 AM EST

Ukraine says it sank a Russian patrol ship off Crimea

KYIV, March 5 (Reuters) - Ukrainian sea drones hit and sank a Russian Black Sea Fleet patrol ship off occupied Crimea in an overnight attack, the Ukrainian military said on Tuesday.
The Ukrainian military intelligence agency said a special unit called Group 13 had fired Magura V5 maritime drones at the Sergey Kotov near the Kerch Strait, which connects the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea.
It said on the Telegram messaging app that the vessel had sustained damage to the stern, starboard and port sides, at an estimated cost of $65 million.

"Right now this ship is on the seabed as a result of fire damage by unmanned boats," navy spokesperson Dmytro Pletenchuk said in televised comments, adding that a helicopter may have been on board.
Reuters was unable to verify the reports. The Russian defence ministry did not immediately reply to a Reuters request for comment.
Some Russian military bloggers confirmed the account. The Telegram channel VChK-OGPU reported attempts to tow the ship to port but said it eventually sank.

Ukraine has in recent months stepped up attacks in the Black Sea and on Crimea, which Russia seized and annexed in 2014. Kyiv has reported a series of strikes, including the sinking of a large landing ship by naval drones in mid-February.
Pletenchuk said the Sergey Kotov had also been hit in September 2023 and that a similar patrol vessel had also been damaged in attacks since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago.

"They have four similar ships, two of them are no longer in service," he said.
Reuters was unable to confirm the earlier strikes.
Train and highway traffic was temporarily stopped and later resumed on a bridge spanning the Kerch Strait and linking the Crimean peninsula to the Russian mainland, Moscow-installed officials in Crimea said.
Russia controls close to one-fifth of Ukraine's territory. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in November Kyiv had seized the initiative in the Black Sea and forced back Russia's fleet.

[kato]

If a NATO nation sends soldiers unilaterally - without formal NATO approval/involvement - does that risk an Article 5 situation? I am thinking of the dozens of times NATO members have deployed combat troops over the past 70 odd years without Article 5 coming into play. If I recall correctly Britain didn't even get official NATO assistance when its territory was invaded in 1982.

The NATO treaty is limited in territorial scope by Article 6. It's the North Atlantic Treaty after all

Precisely, it is limited to
a) attacks on the (continental) territories of its member nations located in North America or Europe
b) attacks on Turkish territory in Asia
c) attacks on islands belonging to member nations that are located in the Mediterranean or Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer (which is basically the southern tip of Florida)
d) attacks on forces of its member nations located (important) on or above the above territories

In addition to the above historically French Algeria in Africa and postwar occupation forces in Germany and Austria were "protected" until either ceased to exist.

There are some "edge cases" possibly not covered, in particular in the Arctic, but these edge cases have never been tested.

An attack on hypothetical NATO forces stationed in Ukraine would never be able to trigger Article 5 unless Ukraine were to become a NATO member itself. Regardless of whether this was a unilateral deployment by a NATO member or a joint NATO action.

[rj1]

Oh Germany...

[Monash]

Like Ironduke said, the number seems to be 7. From TWZ:


And because of that:



And a contributing factor has to be:

Proposing to restart production of a large, multi jet engined AWAC that went out of production more than 30 years ago? Good luck with that. They have a better chance of getting the A-100 into production, at least in terms air frames than they do of raising that zombie! Even then they'd have to covertly buy Playstation and X-Box modules out the yazoo just to find the electronics to put inside it! And getting the whole dam thing to actually work properly? Call me next decade.

[TopHatter]

Does anyone know the exact number of flyable A-50 Mainstay air-frames Russia still has on it's books? From memory there were a couple that had been out of service for years so they are probably only good for spare parts and I think one was damaged by a drone attack as well or am I mistaken? Anyway what does that leave them now.

Like Ironduke said, the number seems to be 7. From TWZ:

Prior to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia was estimated to have nine A-50s, including a number of modernized A-50Us, in active service. As well as the two combat losses since then, one of these aircraft was damaged in a drone attack while on the ground at a base in Belarus last year and its current status is unknown. As it stands, the best-case scenario puts seven of these aircraft in active service.

And because of that:

Speaking yesterday, Sergei Chemezov, the head of Russia’s Rostec state defense conglomerate, said that production of the A-50 would be restarted, according to a report from the state-run TASS news agency.

And a contributing factor has to be:

...the significant problems Moscow has faced in fielding a new-generation AEW&C platform, the A-100, which remains in limbo, for the time being.

[Albany Rifles]

But there are no such treaties between NATO member states and Ukraine.


YAHTZEE! Exactly. There are no treaties. If there were a mutual support treaty between the US & Ukraine it would make things easier in Congress. It sucks but it is a matter of realpolitik.

[Albany Rifles]

I don't see how sending soldiers to defend the sovreign territory of another nation from invasion could be 'technically' classified as aggression. Russia will claim it is, but Ukraine has the right to invite another nation to help it defend itself. None of that requires declaring war on Russia, it is about defending Ukranian territory.

Ukraine would not have that right. And while Article 5 is supposed to be automatic if a member acts aggressively that doesn't require the NATO members to participate.

Just look at the reaction differed over the US & Afghanistan v Iraq.

[Albany Rifles]

If a NATO nation sends soldiers unilaterally - without formal NATO approval/involvement - does that risk an Article 5 situation? I am thinking of the dozens of times NATO members have deployed combat troops over the past 70 odd years without Article 5 coming into play. If I recall correctly Britain didn't even get official NATO assistance when its territory was invaded in 1982.

I get that any such deployment would be risky given where it is & who it is against, I'm just curious about the specific legal issues. I'd also be curious to know if you think an air campaign runs similar risks.

I am less concerned with the NATO member acting unilaterally as I am with how Russia reacts to that NATO member's action.

My opinion has not changed in 2 years...give Ukraine EVERYTHING e can to help them. But not a drop of US blood.

[Ironduke]

Isn't Fico and their government now anti-Ukraine? I can't imagine he's discussing NATO troops in Ukraine from a perspective of support or in regards to a measure Slovakia is considering. This is a guy who summed things up as, "the war in Ukraine didn’t start a year ago, it started in 2014, when Ukrainian Nazis and fascists started murdering Russian citizens in the Donbas and Luhansk".

[Monash]

OK, so neither of us has the slightest idea what we are talking about, which is probably as good a reason as any to just let this be. You are just making up stuff and I am making up stuff in response. If you find any relevant opinions on this specific topic from people who are qualified I would love to read them. Absent that all either of us have is a ton of assumptions based on a pinhead of relevant knowledge.

Agreed. I'm just using Australian criminal law as a guide and experts in international law (on the declaration of war between nation states) are rare birds. The only international law expert I know personally specializes in the law of the sea and in particular? Piracy! 'Avast there me hearties!!!'

[Bigfella]

LONDON -- France’s foreign minister has suggested that Western countries should be considering the idea that NATO troops should perhaps be deployed to Ukraine in non-combat roles to assist Ukraine.

Foreign Minister Stéphane Sejourne in France’s parliament on Wednesday elaborated further, saying NATO troops could potentially be deployed into Ukraine to assist with roles such as “demining, cyber operations or weapons production.”

This statement follows President Emmanuel Macron’s comments on Tuesday, saying Western troop deployments to Ukraine should “not be ruled out.”

Macron said troops could do such actions without “crossing the threshold of belligerence” and such things should not be ruled out given Russia’s efforts to destabilize Europe.

France’s suggestions have been firmly rebuffed by some key European states but it appears there is a real growing push among some European countries to at least discuss the possibility of providing more direct military assistance, something that had been previously been taboo.

The Netherlands defense ministry also didn’t rule it out on Tuesday and Macron, along with Slovakia’s prime minister, have both said publicly some countries are actively discussing it.

OK, so its not just France talking about this. That was quick. Might not go anywhere, but this is how change starts.

https://abcnews.go.com/International...y?id=107669159

[Bigfella]

I think I'm arguing it how most international law experts might see it i.e. in terms of the timing of the relevant declarations of war - who declares war on who first and for what reason. Barring special circumstances? Whoever does so is initiator/aggressor nation. That would change if there was a pre-existing unilateral treaty of mutual assistance and defense between Ukraine and say Poland where Poland is the NATO member that then declares war on Russia in response the it's invasion of Ukraine. In that circumstance Russia would still be the aggressor nation. (Well at least that's what I suspect. I'm certainly no expert on the subject.) But there are no such treaties between NATO member states and Ukraine. So if one member was to arbitrarily jump in boots and all?

OK, so neither of us has the slightest idea what we are talking about, which is probably as good a reason as any to just let this be. You are just making up stuff and I am making up stuff in response. If you find any relevant opinions on this specific topic from people who are qualified I would love to read them. Absent that all either of us have is a ton of assumptions based on a pinhead of relevant knowledge.

[Monash]

Again, Russia may see it that way, but I am unaware of any legal or 'official' context in which that would be true. NATO nations aren't restricted from deploying troops to non-NATO nations or even nations with which they have no formal treaties. I don't know what, if any consultation is required, but I don't imagine France, the US, Turkey, the UK, Portugal & others have run off seeking approval every time they have deployed troops somewhere since they joined the alliance.

I just don't see how deploying troops to the sovereign territory of a nation with that nation's consent can qualify as 'initiating hostilities' against anyone. Russia has no rights here. It is illegally occupying part of a nation in a conflict it initiated.

I think I'm arguing it how most international law experts might see it i.e. in terms of the timing of the relevant declarations of war - who declares war on who first and for what reason. Barring special circumstances? Whoever does so is the initiator/aggressor nation. That would change if there was a pre-existing unilateral treaty of mutual assistance and defense between Ukraine and say Poland where Poland is the NATO member that then declares war on Russia in response the it's invasion of Ukraine. In that circumstance Russia would still be the aggressor nation. (Well at least that's what I suspect. I'm certainly no expert on the subject.) But there are no such treaties between NATO member states and Ukraine. So if one member was to arbitrarily jump in boots and all?

[Bigfella]

The problem as I saw it is that while Russia and Ukraine are at war, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and Russia has not initiated hostilities with any member of NATO. So if random NATO member X decides to join the conflict on Ukraine's side they are the ones initiating hostilities with Russia not the other way round.

Again, Russia may see it that way, but I am unaware of any legal or 'official' context in which that would be true. NATO nations aren't restricted from deploying troops to non-NATO nations or even nations with which they have no formal treaties. I don't know what, if any consultation is required, but I don't imagine France, the US, Turkey, the UK, Portugal & others have run off seeking approval every time they have deployed troops somewhere since they joined the alliance.

I just don't see how deploying troops to the sovereign territory of a nation with that nation's consent can qualify as 'initiating hostilities' against anyone. Russia has no rights here. It is illegally occupying part of a nation in a conflict it initiated.