Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They could always little green men them into Ukraine…

    Comment


    • Originally posted by statquo View Post
      They could always little green men them into Ukraine…
      Doesn't really do anything when you have a hot war going on. If they were stateless little green men, Russia could kill them and state publicly they did not realize they just killed a French platoon because they were not wearing insignia. If they stated they were French publicly and marked as such, it'd probably help them stay alive.

      Macron though is not sending anyone. It's a bit of bluster to hide that the French compared to most of their European colleagues have hardly done anything. French public opinion of the conflict per this Politico EU article is it's a "post-Soviet Union conflict" and the Ukrainians dumping dirt cheap ag goods into Europe has generated populist reactions from farmers across the continent that usually get heavily protectionist trade policy to benefit them, which acts to generate anti-Ukrainian opinion because the Ukrainians are harming them economically.

      http://www.politico.eu/article/macro...t-not-let-him/

      Meanwhile there's a summer election to the EU Parliament. Hard to poll of course but all indications are the more right - I think it will be a more war-skeptic right - will succeed and the "center-right/center-left with occasionally the liberals" grand coalition that has governed Europe since the start of time will be sidelined, which will dramatically change European continental politics but will likely filter into national-level politics as well. Few people think highly of Von Der Leyen so her job also might be up. She's running for reelection and is accused of using her office to campaign by some EU detractors of her, which duh, that's how politics works. But with Macron's dream being to become the Leader of Europe, I view that statement as an electoral aim to generate headlines for himself instead of any real desire to deploy. Can't think of a better way to get everyone on the continent to talk about you, as well as positioning himself as the leader of all the national leaders then by broaching "let's send troops", even though French military arm deliveries to Ukraine the past 2 years greatly lack per capita. He insulted Chancellor Scholz the past 2 days ridiculing their "helmets" delivery start of the war. Pretty odd way to campaign for Von Der Leyen's job to say the least unless you think anti-German sentiment in the EU is strong right now.
      Last edited by rj1; 29 Feb 24,, 18:18.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        I don't want to see ANY NATO Soldiers (aside from trainers) in a situation where they can end up triggering Article 5.

        Ukraine is not yet a signatory in a treaty. Once that day comes it will be a different story.
        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.
        sigpic

        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

          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'd add that technically a member State unilaterally sending soldiers to fight against Russia in Ukraine counts as aggressive action and hence would make them the aggressors since in this case Russia wouldn't be the one initiating hostilities with the member State concerned. I know an attack on one member State is to be regarded as an attack on all but I have no idea what the articles of the treaty say about unilateral declarations of war by individual members on outsiders.
          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Monash View Post
            I'd add that technically a member State unilaterally sending soldiers to fight against Russia in Ukraine counts as aggressive action and hence would make them the aggressors since in this case Russia wouldn't be the one initiating hostilities with the member State concerned. I know an attack on one member State is to be regarded as an attack on all but I have no idea what the articles of the treaty say about unilateral declarations of war by individual members on outsiders.
            Speaking about military politics in NATO, any force we individual countries field, must meet two public criteria. It has to be visible and it has to be viable. Canada at the moment can field neither of these criteria with regards to the UKR. We have 2 battle groups in Latvia. Moving those two BGs into the UKR would amount to another Ukrainian Bde with no real additive capabilities and it's not even a full Bde. We've given those equipment to the Ukrainians. A single Canadian reduced Bde is neither viable and to be frank, not visible.

            For a Canadian force to be both viable and visible, it has to occupy a place of importance in a coalition, ie a reccee/strategic reserve Bde in a coalition Force, ie VII Corps. It's doubtful that even the Americans could field VII Corps today, at least not VII Corps flushed to full strength. We've given far too much to the Ukrainians and as an example, us Canadians could not field a CMBG but just two BGs. We're one BG short. The Brits are in the same position. I do not have the confidence we have the ammo reserves we need to take on the Russians head on.

            Chimo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Monash View Post

              I'd add that technically a member State unilaterally sending soldiers to fight against Russia in Ukraine counts as aggressive action and hence would make them the aggressors since in this case Russia wouldn't be the one initiating hostilities with the member State concerned. I know an attack on one member State is to be regarded as an attack on all but I have no idea what the articles of the treaty say about unilateral declarations of war by individual members on outsiders.
              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.
              sigpic

              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                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.
                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.
                If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Monash View Post

                  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.
                  sigpic

                  Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                    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?
                    Last edited by Monash; 01 Mar 24,, 12:07.
                    If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monash View Post


                      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.
                      Last edited by Bigfella; 01 Mar 24,, 12:02.
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • 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
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                          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!!!'
                          Last edited by Monash; 02 Mar 24,, 01:52.
                          If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                          Comment


                          • 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".
                            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                              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.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post

                                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.
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X