|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 16 2022 16:17 zatic wrote:And here I was confused at 3 pages of discussion in the morning. There is no way Russia is targeting Poland, or any other NATO countries at this point. It's unlikely, but not impossible, that one of their missiles went off course. But it was already pretty much confirmed by OSINT sources like 3 hours after the incident that it was a - Ukrainian - S300. It appears that was just drowned out by all the panic mongering. Ukrainian foreign minister Kuleba calling it a "conspiracy theory" doesn't help. NATO intelligence will have shared the same information with Poland and Ukraine. Nothing will come of this other than that the Russian media will have a conspiracy field day. Easy to still blame Russia for it, I don't blame Ukraine for defending itself from terrorist attacks from Russia.
|
On November 16 2022 17:19 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2022 04:49 plasmidghost wrote:
Jesus Christ y'all. I don't know what's going to happen but if the worst happens, it's been a pleasure. Currently a few miles from NATO headquarters so if we enter WWIII, that's it for me. See y'all on the other side Can relate. In May, I was convinced that the chances of nuclear war incoming are high; so I spent most of the time in my summer cottage with a direct view on Engels-2 airbase (a place where all Russian Tu-160 strategic nuclear bombers are located) to be the first to confirm if it finally started
If anyone thinks Russia-Ukraine war will lead to World War 3 is seriously panicking a bit too much. For that to happen there needs to be a lot more escalation, more than even a rocket killing 2 people in Poland which was most likely Ukrainian anti-missile. Putin acts tough but he is a coward when it comes to NATO, so he won't dare to escalate. He only acts tough for local audience. He doesn't want to fight NATO, especially after his failures in Ukraine. Second best army... more like second best army in Ukraine. 
|
Zurich15365 Posts
Maybe I remind everyone that Russia not too long ago shot down a civilian airliner - not a first - which led to absolutely nothing. No one would escalate to military action even if a Russian missile fell on Poland. And again, there is no way they would target a NATO country intentionally.
|
Yeah I agree that people are much too eager when jumping to conclusions and predicting escalation. Noone, besides maybe Ukraine is intrested in expanding this conflict. We are not going to start war over accidental damage. Nonmilitary responses are imho still on the table.
|
|
|
On November 16 2022 19:26 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2022 18:51 Silvanel wrote:
Yeah I agree that people are much too eager when jumping to conclusions and predicting escalation. Noone, besides maybe Ukraine is intrested in expanding this conflict. We are not going to start war over accidental damage. Nonmilitary responses are imho still on the table. I get that. Paranoia is a hell of a drug
I think aside of the more sensationalist motivations, for some its also "wishful thinking" coupled with being short sighted. A few just genuinely want to see russia get fucked up, while a larger portion probably just feels helpless with the war in ukraine. They want to see it ended quickly and direct actions are more appealing than sending aid. They see nato involvement as a way to quickly and cleanly end this war, that russia will either get kicked out of ukraine in record time, or just capitulates to nato immediately. Mission accomplished and everyone goes home. Its well intentioned I think, just not realistic or thought out properly.
|
On November 16 2022 04:43 Mohdoo wrote:
Article 5 please. This is completely nuts. RIP to those poles. I hope Russia suffers enormously.
Hold it, Dr. Strangelove!
|
WW3 would become inevitable in case of a direct assault on mainland or a military base of a NATO member. This was not a direct assault, but it was reckless and willful endangerment of a NATO member's civilian population and infrastructure, considering the proximity of the attack to Poland's border. So there will certainly be consequences like further sanctions, but no military escalation. The biggest consequence will be that Polish support for Ukraine will increase even more (if that is even possible).
|
|
|
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard).
|
On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard).
Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria.
|
On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria.
Would it need to be a full no-fly zone?
Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems?
|
On November 16 2022 23:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria. Would it need to be a full no-fly zone? Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems?
That goes in the same direction. As soon as enforcing it would mean potentially shooting down russian planes, you have to be prepared to go to war with russia.
I have no idea if the same would apply to a limited air defence where they only shoot down missiles / how reliable detection is as to definitely only shooting down missiles. But I think covering part of ukrainian airspace would also be something that is a too direct involvement for nato to consider as it becomes much harder to argue that you are not a conflict party when you are directly defending part of ukrainian airspace, even if there is no threat to yourself.
|
I wonder what is the difference in actual effect between a declared no fly zone, and the current meta of just filling up Ukraine with various anti-air systems to the point where even mass suicide drone strikes become ineffective.
The current situation looks like a best of both worlds, the invaders still cant really use their air superiority, and the west does not have to declare red lines, and get inevitably caught bluffing or having to escalate the conflict.
On a related note: does anyone have some kind of analysis about how effective is the current Ukrainian anti-air? Obviously not effective enough, things still get through, but like, 1 of every 10? or 9 of every 10 drone / missile is intercepted ?
|
The difference is that NATO gave Ukraine maybe 2% of its capabilities and Russia is not able to achieve much, no fly zone, it would mean that Russia either stops its attacks or its air fleet would be annihilated, with ofc could be a start of WW3.
|
United States43985 Posts
On November 17 2022 00:01 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2022 23:55 Simberto wrote:On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria. Would it need to be a full no-fly zone? Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems? That goes in the same direction. As soon as enforcing it would mean potentially shooting down russian planes, you have to be prepared to go to war with russia. I have no idea if the same would apply to a limited air defence where they only shoot down missiles / how reliable detection is as to definitely only shooting down missiles. But I think covering part of ukrainian airspace would also be something that is a too direct involvement for nato to consider as it becomes much harder to argue that you are not a conflict party when you are directly defending part of ukrainian airspace, even if there is no threat to yourself.
Being prepared to go to war isn’t the same thing as going to war. Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis by being prepared to go to war but not a shot was fired. It’s escalatory to be willing to go to war but if they’re not willing then you just get what you want.
If you declare that you’ll shoot down any missiles/jets in a specific area and they respond by not using any in that area then you win. If they use one and you shoot it down and they respond by not trying it a second time then you win. It’s only if they respond by targeting your anti air sites that you have a problem where you need to escalate further.
|
On November 17 2022 00:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2022 00:01 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 23:55 Simberto wrote:On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria. Would it need to be a full no-fly zone? Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems? That goes in the same direction. As soon as enforcing it would mean potentially shooting down russian planes, you have to be prepared to go to war with russia. I have no idea if the same would apply to a limited air defence where they only shoot down missiles / how reliable detection is as to definitely only shooting down missiles. But I think covering part of ukrainian airspace would also be something that is a too direct involvement for nato to consider as it becomes much harder to argue that you are not a conflict party when you are directly defending part of ukrainian airspace, even if there is no threat to yourself. Being prepared to go to war isn’t the same thing as going to war. Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis by being prepared to go to war but not a shot was fired. It’s escalatory to be willing to go to war but if they’re not willing then you just get what you want. If you declare that you’ll shoot down any missiles/jets in a specific area and they respond by not using any in that area then you win. If they use one and you shoot it down and they respond by not trying it a second time then you win. It’s only if they respond by targeting your anti air sites that you have a problem where you need to escalate further.
Read 'prepared to go to war' as 'accept that war is a likely outcome'. Afaik the cuban missile crisis is considered a great example how playing a game of chicken when dealing with a nuclear power is a really bad idea. And I am confident that the west is not willing to go to war for ukraine and thus won't play stupid games that might win us stupid prizes. The 2 are not comparable in what was on the line, the US was prepared to go to war over the cuban missile crisis because it posed a existential threat to their security.
Just think about it, what you are essentially suggesting is to play russian roulette. No pun intended.
|
United States43985 Posts
On November 17 2022 00:20 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2022 00:12 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2022 00:01 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 23:55 Simberto wrote:On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria. Would it need to be a full no-fly zone? Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems? That goes in the same direction. As soon as enforcing it would mean potentially shooting down russian planes, you have to be prepared to go to war with russia. I have no idea if the same would apply to a limited air defence where they only shoot down missiles / how reliable detection is as to definitely only shooting down missiles. But I think covering part of ukrainian airspace would also be something that is a too direct involvement for nato to consider as it becomes much harder to argue that you are not a conflict party when you are directly defending part of ukrainian airspace, even if there is no threat to yourself. Being prepared to go to war isn’t the same thing as going to war. Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis by being prepared to go to war but not a shot was fired. It’s escalatory to be willing to go to war but if they’re not willing then you just get what you want. If you declare that you’ll shoot down any missiles/jets in a specific area and they respond by not using any in that area then you win. If they use one and you shoot it down and they respond by not trying it a second time then you win. It’s only if they respond by targeting your anti air sites that you have a problem where you need to escalate further. Read 'prepared to go to war' as 'accept that war is a likely outcome'. Afaik the cuban missile crisis is considered a great example how playing a game of chicken when dealing with a nuclear power is a really bad idea. And I am confident that the west is not willing to go to war for ukraine and thus won't play stupid games that might win us stupid prizes. The 2 are not comparable in what was on the line, the US was prepared to go to war over the cuban missile crisis because it posed a existential threat to their security. Just think about it, what you are essentially suggesting is to play russian roulette. No pun intended.
Russia is just as unwilling to commit suicide over Ukraine as the west. What I’m suggesting is that cooler heads will prevail long before it gets to nuclear war. You need people on both sides to double down a dozen times to get an ICBM exchange.
|
On November 17 2022 00:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2022 00:20 Artesimo wrote:On November 17 2022 00:12 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2022 00:01 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 23:55 Simberto wrote:On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria. Would it need to be a full no-fly zone? Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems? That goes in the same direction. As soon as enforcing it would mean potentially shooting down russian planes, you have to be prepared to go to war with russia. I have no idea if the same would apply to a limited air defence where they only shoot down missiles / how reliable detection is as to definitely only shooting down missiles. But I think covering part of ukrainian airspace would also be something that is a too direct involvement for nato to consider as it becomes much harder to argue that you are not a conflict party when you are directly defending part of ukrainian airspace, even if there is no threat to yourself. Being prepared to go to war isn’t the same thing as going to war. Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis by being prepared to go to war but not a shot was fired. It’s escalatory to be willing to go to war but if they’re not willing then you just get what you want. If you declare that you’ll shoot down any missiles/jets in a specific area and they respond by not using any in that area then you win. If they use one and you shoot it down and they respond by not trying it a second time then you win. It’s only if they respond by targeting your anti air sites that you have a problem where you need to escalate further. Read 'prepared to go to war' as 'accept that war is a likely outcome'. Afaik the cuban missile crisis is considered a great example how playing a game of chicken when dealing with a nuclear power is a really bad idea. And I am confident that the west is not willing to go to war for ukraine and thus won't play stupid games that might win us stupid prizes. The 2 are not comparable in what was on the line, the US was prepared to go to war over the cuban missile crisis because it posed a existential threat to their security. Just think about it, what you are essentially suggesting is to play russian roulette. No pun intended. Russia is just as unwilling to commit suicide over Ukraine as the west. What I’m suggesting is that cooler heads will prevail long before it gets to nuclear war. You need people on both sides to double down a dozen times to get an ICBM exchange.
To me you are just saying 'listen, there is only 1 bullet in the chamber' and 'trust me, the other guy won't dare to spin the barrel, you will win by default'. The risk of making empty threats is that your opponent might call you on it. It quickly leads to a scenario where you can no longer take the other side serious. Making decisions becomes much more dangerous and volatile in such an environment and leaves room for things to accidentally escalate.
There is even a scenario without ww3 that massively blows up in our face: Nato declares a no fly zone, russia violates it, cooler heads prevail so nato does not shoot down the russian plane. Nato now has to re-establish how serious you have to take them. Making empty threats does not seem like a good idea to me in most cases, and I still think your only argument is "don't worry, they won't call the bluff/it will be fine".
The fact that the US straight up said they would not put boots on the ground in ukraine, before the war started, demonstrates well what the US, and by proxy nato, thinks about escalating. Or what they think about making threats with consequences that we do not find acceptable / we are unwilling to follow through or that are too costly.
|
United States43985 Posts
On November 17 2022 01:01 Artesimo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2022 00:44 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2022 00:20 Artesimo wrote:On November 17 2022 00:12 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2022 00:01 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 23:55 Simberto wrote:On November 16 2022 23:52 Artesimo wrote:On November 16 2022 21:30 Manit0u wrote:
I wonder if it would be now possible to use Polish air defense to engage targets beyond its borders in order to prevent further accidents like that, thus helping cover part of western Ukraine's air space. I guess that solution could satisfy everyone.
Another thing could be NATO closing off air over Ukraine entirely (I believe Zelensky was pushing for it quite hard). Are you suggesting NATO declaring a no fly zone over ukraine? You can't enforce that without effectively going to war with russia, which is why it was not a realistic option in syria. Would it need to be a full no-fly zone? Couldn't you just set up a bunch of High-End Nato air defense systems right at the edge of polish space, and ask Ukraine if they mind if you shoot at anything that flies in Ukraine airspace in the range of those systems? That goes in the same direction. As soon as enforcing it would mean potentially shooting down russian planes, you have to be prepared to go to war with russia. I have no idea if the same would apply to a limited air defence where they only shoot down missiles / how reliable detection is as to definitely only shooting down missiles. But I think covering part of ukrainian airspace would also be something that is a too direct involvement for nato to consider as it becomes much harder to argue that you are not a conflict party when you are directly defending part of ukrainian airspace, even if there is no threat to yourself. Being prepared to go to war isn’t the same thing as going to war. Kennedy won the Cuban Missile Crisis by being prepared to go to war but not a shot was fired. It’s escalatory to be willing to go to war but if they’re not willing then you just get what you want. If you declare that you’ll shoot down any missiles/jets in a specific area and they respond by not using any in that area then you win. If they use one and you shoot it down and they respond by not trying it a second time then you win. It’s only if they respond by targeting your anti air sites that you have a problem where you need to escalate further. Read 'prepared to go to war' as 'accept that war is a likely outcome'. Afaik the cuban missile crisis is considered a great example how playing a game of chicken when dealing with a nuclear power is a really bad idea. And I am confident that the west is not willing to go to war for ukraine and thus won't play stupid games that might win us stupid prizes. The 2 are not comparable in what was on the line, the US was prepared to go to war over the cuban missile crisis because it posed a existential threat to their security. Just think about it, what you are essentially suggesting is to play russian roulette. No pun intended. Russia is just as unwilling to commit suicide over Ukraine as the west. What I’m suggesting is that cooler heads will prevail long before it gets to nuclear war. You need people on both sides to double down a dozen times to get an ICBM exchange. To me you are just saying 'listen, there is only 1 bullet in the chamber' and 'trust me, the other guy won't dare to spin the barrel, you will win by default'. The risk of making empty threats is that your opponent might call you on it. It quickly leads to a scenario where you can no longer take the other side serious. Making decisions becomes much more dangerous and volatile in such an environment and leaves room for things to accidentally escalate. There is even a scenario without ww3 that massively blows up in our face: Nato declares a no fly zone, russia violates it, cooler heads prevail so nato does not shoot down the russian plane. Nato now has to re-establish how serious you have to take them. Making empty threats does not seem like a good idea to me in most cases, and I still think your only argument is "don't worry, they won't call the bluff/it will be fine". The fact that the US straight up said they would not put boots on the ground in ukraine, before the war started, demonstrates well what the US, and by proxy nato, thinks about escalating. Or what they think about making threats with consequences that we do not find acceptable / we are unwilling to follow through or that are too costly.
Everything is escalatory. NATO expansion, HIMARS, sanctions, everything. Everything you do runs the risk of the other side saying that it crosses a red line and that either you back down or risk nuclear war. You can’t engage in foreign policy without a small risk of armageddon, the question is how much you’re willing to risk and whether you correctly guess their risk tolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
