2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[Albany Rifles]

The larger ships might be providing some useful radar coverage too, though I'm not sure what their range is. With the regular loss of AWACs they need everything they can get.

Russia should consider itself fortunate it isn't fighitng a real navy. Can you imagine the carnage if the USN was involved?

Well, there'd be a crap ton more stabilized weapons, sensors and night vision up I tell you! We have learned our lessons from the Cole Attack.

[kato]

In light of letter b, wasn't Afghanistan done through NATO?

Not "that Afghanistan" in the sense of an Article 5 response.

OEF as a US-UK-Afghan joint operation had NATO allies contributing forces in select theaters for a limited time (in Afghanistan mostly special forces) which was politically mandated as having been part of the Article-5-based response to the attacks on US territory on 9/11.

ISAF, the main Afghanistan mission, was a separate NATO-led operation with a UNSC mandate on request of the Afghan government.

The two missions tended to blend into each other in reporting especially (but not only) in the US, but were operationally completely separate with different goals and RoEs.

It strikes me as a little ridiculous Turkey's a member but if Ankara gets hit, nothing. If Istanbul gets hit, we're there with you in full defense buddy.

Ankara is covered under b).

If taken literally, letters a, c and d combined I think would mean an attack on Hawaii would not invoke Article V.

Yes, Hawaii is not subject to NATO involvement or protection. It's not located in or near the North Atlantic after all.

At the time the NATO Charter was written Hawaii was not a state of the USA anyway (for another ten years).

[Albany Rifles]

Kato,

Regarding Hawaii above...I am not being argumentative. But what is the basis for this? It is a US state. It is a part of the US. Why would it not be included. WHat about Gibraltar or the Channel Islands?

Just want to know where that interpretation comes from and basis in policy.

Thanks

[kato]

Regarding Hawaii above...I am not being argumentative. But what is the basis for this? It is a US state. It is a part of the US. Why would it not be included. WHat about Gibraltar or the Channel Islands?
Thanks

Article 6 explicitly limits protection to "the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer".

[TopHatter]

Kato,

Regarding Hawaii above...I am not being argumentative. But what is the basis for this? It is a US state. It is a part of the US. Why would it not be included. WHat about Gibraltar or the Channel Islands?

Just want to know where that interpretation comes from and basis in policy.

Thanks

He's right *grumble grumble*

[Albany Rifles]

Article 6 explicitly limits protection to "the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer".

Thanks! I am wondering if that was originally to exclude the French and British possessions in the South Atlantic (Falklands) and Pacific (French Polynesia)?

Kind of a time capsule impact.

[Albany Rifles]

He's right *grumble grumble*

I have learned to NEVER argue with Kato!

[Bigfella]

Thanks! I am wondering if that was originally to exclude the French and British possessions in the South Atlantic (Falklands) and Pacific (French Polynesia)?

Kind of a time capsule impact.

Don't forget that when they joined NATO there were a LOT more 'possessions' than those. In the case of France many of those, including Algeria, some Carribbean islands and Guiana were/are part of metropolitan France. One of my favourite trivia questions is: 'which nation does France have its longest land border with?' - Brazil. :) There were probably additional potential complications with other nations (Portugal?, Holland?) that encouraged strict geographic limits.

[Albany Rifles]

Don't forget that when they joined NATO there were a LOT more 'possessions' than those. In the case of France many of those, including Algeria, some Carribbean islands and Guiana were/are part of metropolitan France. One of my favourite trivia questions is: 'which nation does France have its longest land border with?' - Brazil. :) There were probably additional potential complications with other nations (Portugal?, Holland?) that encouraged strict geographic limits.

Jeebuz...you just had me channeling back to Mister Pasquale & 6th grade Social Studies in 1969 with that post, Pete!!

[kato]

Thanks! I am wondering if that was originally to exclude the French and British possessions in the South Atlantic (Falklands) and Pacific (French Polynesia)?
Kind of a time capsule impact.

It also conveniently sidestepped possible issues for the USA like Guantanamo Bay or Puerto Rico, both of which are just south of the Tropic of Cancer.

[Ironduke]

Thanks! I am wondering if that was originally to exclude the French and British possessions in the South Atlantic (Falklands) and Pacific (French Polynesia)?

Kind of a time capsule impact.

I think with regards to Article 6, it has to be looked at in whole rather than trying to divine specific intent from its various clauses. I don't think the authors had specific islands in mind when writing the clause regarding islands north of the Tropic of Cancer. The intent, I believe, was just to limit the territorial scope and focus of the alliance to Europe, Turkey the North Atlantic, US/Canada vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

As a whole, Article 6 basically just prevented the alliance from getting dragged into various post-colonial conflicts, in an era in which the European overseas empires were still mostly intact. I think in 1949 it was just the Indian subcontinent, Egypt and a few Middle Eastern states that had gained independence, otherwise the British and French Empires still had their pre-WWII possessions, as did the Dutch until later that year. Portugal was still in Macao and Goa. There were four, perhaps five independent countries in Africa. Hawaii was just an overseas territory then, not an integral part of the United States.

[Ironduke]

Unconfirmed reports of another A-50 destroyed, this time on the ground at the Taganrog Aviation Plant in the Rostov Oblast. Apparently repair work and maintenance on Il-76 variant aircraft is also done at this plant, including the A-50.

First image appeared in a Forbes article in summer 2023. Second image is claimed to be from 29 Feb 2024. Both are probably from Maxar. No more recent images are readily available.

Link below in which there are claims of a drone attack on this aviation plant.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/29241

Video taken by Russian civilians which is claimed to be drone attacks against targets in Taganrog.

[TopHatter]

Unconfirmed reports of another A-50 destroyed, this time on the ground at the Taganrog Aviation Plant in the Rostov Oblast. Apparently repair work and maintenance on Il-76 variant aircraft is also done at this plant, including the A-50.

Dayum...

I wonder what the Russian phrase for "endangered species" is. Oh right, "исчезающие виды"

[Monash]

Multiple drones were used. I wonder if the Uki's considered hitting a vital part of the plant itself? Probably not enough of a warhead to be worth it but if they ever did (or do) and that's the only location where they can do maintenance and upgrades on A-50s? Still good news though.

[Ironduke]

It looks like the Ukrainians hit the hangar in which the repairs/maintenance take place. Inconclusive, but before and after photos from March 8th and 9th show two holes in the roof of the hangar where it's claimed there was an A-50 undergoing maintenance.

Third photo shows what the hangar/entrance look like (bottom right side of building from satellite photo). Fourth and fifth photos are of inside the hangar to give an idea of size/scale.