Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,110
Received 19 Likes
on
12 Posts
Which particular treaty would it breach?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive...exts_17120.htm
Oh and....
With all due respect, you didn't look very hard.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)
."
Harpoon. You are right. I see that my eyes skipped over the coastal-defence battery because - for some reason - it wasn't highlighted like the other variants.
No changes in tactics
It seems that the Russian war machine hasn't adapted what has, until now, been a successful game plan. Why should they, they kept winning. What have we learned? Nothing? Should we really wait for economics to defeat them or are we (and they) waiting for exhaustion to set in?
It seems that the Russian war machine hasn't adapted what has, until now, been a successful game plan. Why should they, they kept winning. What have we learned? Nothing? Should we really wait for economics to defeat them or are we (and they) waiting for exhaustion to set in?
As far as I'm aware, only the Danes used it in that role and they binned it in 2003, Taiwan is getting a land based version but I don't think its operational yet. The Argentinians managed to put a couple of Exocets on to a trailer and jury-rig a fire control system for it during the Falklands, however if you want to kill the Russian warship with the thing you will have to unload quite a few missiles at it to get past its defences.
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 4th Apr 2022 at 09:01.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,110
Received 19 Likes
on
12 Posts
I can give you a long list of operations NATO has carried out for and with non-member states, none of which breached an apparent treaty.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52060.htm
It's ok. You can admit you were mistaken. No one will think less of you, indeed some may even think better of you.
You brought this up so, please indicate which treaty they would be in breach of, rather than failing to answer the question and attempting to redirect?
I can give you a long list of operations NATO has carried out for and with non-member states, none of which breached an apparent treaty.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52060.htm
It's ok. You can admit you were mistaken. No one will think less of you, indeed some may even think better of you.
I can give you a long list of operations NATO has carried out for and with non-member states, none of which breached an apparent treaty.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52060.htm
It's ok. You can admit you were mistaken. No one will think less of you, indeed some may even think better of you.
Admit I was wrong ? Well, I believe I just did that with the Harpoon question, but please, spare me your approbation, it has very little worth.
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 4th Apr 2022 at 10:32.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,995
Received 1,371 Likes
on
616 Posts
Blimey, Italy have sent MG42's, the mainstay heavy machine guns of the Germans in WW2 but built in italy post war and chambered for 7.62×51mm NATO along with a bunch of 50 cals.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,995
Received 1,371 Likes
on
616 Posts
Russian DIY decoys?
How much longer are European and NATO leaders going to stand back and watch the atrocities being committed in Ukraine?
Putin must be challenged militarily as well as financially.
Putin must be challenged militarily as well as financially.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
How much longer are European and NATO leaders going to stand back and watch the atrocities being committed in Ukraine?
Putin must be challenged militarily as well as financially.
Putin must be challenged militarily as well as financially.
But there is more going on than meets the eye I think. The USA has repeatedly said that they will militarily defend Taiwan if China invades. However Taiwan is NOT a NATO member and China is a Nuclear power. Why the difference in stance? Why does Americas core ‘principled’ reason for not defending Ukraine suddenly not apply elsewhere?
I have 2 thoughts on this. Firstly it could be down to money - the US does immense trade with Taiwan and little with Ukraine. Secondly, it could simply be a bluff - if China invades and threatens Nuclear consequences for anyone who interferes, do you believe the USA will really fight?
In any event, NATO has proven itself utterly unwilling to even consider intervening against a nuclear power in Ukraine, and therefore has no moral authority to complain about anything Russia does in my opinion. Either put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.
WW3 is the inevitable consequence, it cannot be prevented other than by regime change in Russia. Putin has been given permission by NATO to do as he pleases in his view. Biden and others have repeatedly stated they will not intervene if NATO is not attacked, and that leaves an awful lot of the world available for him (and Xi) to ‘annex’. We fight him now or we fight him later after many more are massacred.
This conflict will take longer. Economic sanctions will show much more effect over time. And Russian public opinion will need time as media access is very limited.
NATO is guarding it's member's borders but not part of the fight inside Ukraine. It is very important to not get carried away by emotions as this conflict can easily escalate beyond control. Maybe someone is even interested to let exactly this happen to make his own errors disappear within some widening conflict?
NATO is guarding it's member's borders but not part of the fight inside Ukraine. It is very important to not get carried away by emotions as this conflict can easily escalate beyond control. Maybe someone is even interested to let exactly this happen to make his own errors disappear within some widening conflict?
I am puzzled by the fact that NATO comes up on this thread constantly.
If a group of countries goes to fight for Ukraine, IT IS NOT A NATO OPERATION. Even if all those countries would be a part of NATO.
NATO is a defence organisation that defends its members in case of an attack from outside.
If a NATO member country goes to a peace keeping action it is NOT a NATO action.
If a NATO country attacks some third country, it is not an article 5 trigger.
To make it simple. Imagine for arguments sake that Poland decides to assist Ukraine by sending troops to help dismantle the russian laid minefields in Belarus/Ukraine border. It is not a NATO action.
Russia decides to shoot at these Polish troops on Ukrainian soil: it is not a Article 5 triggering action.
Russia then decides to launch missiles to Poland, now you have an article 5 triggering action.
If a group of countries goes to fight for Ukraine, IT IS NOT A NATO OPERATION. Even if all those countries would be a part of NATO.
NATO is a defence organisation that defends its members in case of an attack from outside.
If a NATO member country goes to a peace keeping action it is NOT a NATO action.
If a NATO country attacks some third country, it is not an article 5 trigger.
To make it simple. Imagine for arguments sake that Poland decides to assist Ukraine by sending troops to help dismantle the russian laid minefields in Belarus/Ukraine border. It is not a NATO action.
Russia decides to shoot at these Polish troops on Ukrainian soil: it is not a Article 5 triggering action.
Russia then decides to launch missiles to Poland, now you have an article 5 triggering action.
Suspicion breeds confidence
I don't know which defences they might be, but I am dubious of their capabilities, and not only because of the effectiveness - or other - of Russian systems in this war. From memory, one weapons system that has been used frequently over the last 20 years is Patriot, and it certainly didn't used to be particularly effective i.e. strike rate for missiles fired. I note that in the only case where a missile did hit a U.S. ship ( USS Stark ) the CIWS did not function.
I am puzzled by the fact that NATO comes up on this thread constantly.
If a group of countries goes to fight for Ukraine, IT IS NOT A NATO OPERATION. Even if all those countries would be a part of NATO.
NATO is a defence organisation that defends its members in case of an attack from outside.
If a NATO member country goes to a peace keeping action it is NOT a NATO action.
If a NATO country attacks some third country, it is not an article 5 trigger.
To make it simple. Imagine for arguments sake that Poland decides to assist Ukraine by sending troops to help dismantle the russian laid minefields in Belarus/Ukraine border. It is not a NATO action.
Russia decides to shoot at these Polish troops on Ukrainian soil: it is not a Article 5 triggering action.
Russia then decides to launch missiles to Poland, now you have an article 5 triggering action.
If a group of countries goes to fight for Ukraine, IT IS NOT A NATO OPERATION. Even if all those countries would be a part of NATO.
NATO is a defence organisation that defends its members in case of an attack from outside.
If a NATO member country goes to a peace keeping action it is NOT a NATO action.
If a NATO country attacks some third country, it is not an article 5 trigger.
To make it simple. Imagine for arguments sake that Poland decides to assist Ukraine by sending troops to help dismantle the russian laid minefields in Belarus/Ukraine border. It is not a NATO action.
Russia decides to shoot at these Polish troops on Ukrainian soil: it is not a Article 5 triggering action.
Russia then decides to launch missiles to Poland, now you have an article 5 triggering action.
Russia has shown itself to be a paper tiger, nukes or no nukes (they're not the only nuclear power, and they should remember that), and the West (either collectively or as individual nations) should not shy away from taking direct military action to help Ukraine.
I can remember the Yugoslav wars, when we in the West imagined the Serbian soldier to be 10ft tall and used every excuse in the book to avoid intervention. We eventually built up the backbone after one atrocity too many, and so ended the war. If we hadn't, they'd still be fighting it today.
so calls like yours are reminiscent of spectators at a boxing-match shouting " Hit him , let's see some blood ".
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 29,995
Received 1,371 Likes
on
616 Posts
The comment sums it up nicely.
I have just read that a poll in Finland gave 63% now in favour of joining NATO and Sweden also had a majority in the last soundings. I can only imagine that these numbers will increase as the horrors that are now emerging as the Russians retreat are widely publicised. Since the accession process apparently takes months, I wonder if protection of the alliance is offered/would be offered from the start of the process. It's doubtful if this is clarified in any documents, since it would probably have been thought insignificant when the treaties were being drawn up, but would need spelling out now if talks began/were to begin.
Last edited by Tartiflette Fan; 4th Apr 2022 at 12:39.
