|
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 March 09 2022 20:23 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 12:16 Mohdoo wrote:On March 09 2022 07:04 plasmidghost wrote:
Well things in Russia are getting far worse
User was warned for this post. I'd like to use this post as an example of the fact that the strict guidelines of this thread are maybe a tad too much. I think that it is reasonable to have a high standard of posting, but this is not bad posting. Yes, they could have given more perspective, but this is not retweeting. If someone is contributing unique information that is not in the thread yet, and it is significant, I am not convinced the forum benefits from requiring the person to fully explain what the implications are. Many of us really just aren't that well versed in international economics. I am not sure what else I would say here. I think they were not wrong to write this post, but they were warned for it. Sorry to backseat moderate, just giving my perspective. +1 if you link a source thats pretty self explanatory, it really isnt necessary that the poster writes a statement that basically says exactly what the source says. heck most of the time i dont even give a shit what the poster thinks about the information in the source. if the source is legit and its providing good new information, why do i need to read the poster's opinion/review of the new information at all? i quite like the fact that this thread acts as a kind of lr thread and simple quick updates from various sources i would never find otherwise are a part of that. dont need the poster to tell me an update about russia doing x is bad when the source quite obviously tells me its bad
As a counter, i would like to mention that twitter links generally don't show on my screen because i want minimum tracking of my stuff. So if you just post a twitter link without any relevant statement, i will most likely ignore it. If you say a sentence or two regarding what it is about, not only will i realize that there is a twitter link in there, but i might also go through the trouble of hitting quote, copy-pasting the link, and following said link manually.
|
Agree. That's a bit harsh of a temp-ban-hammer but then half the temp bans perma ban's in here are and are usually gloated over or ignored so I guess we can only hope for a strict yet even hand of justice.
|
|
|
Very true Jim, My mistake. Swear to god I saw a temp ban. That's good though the more voices allowed the better off we all are.
|
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this.
|
On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this.
I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders.
It’s a huge step in terms of escalation.
He was also saying that nato bombing targets within the borders of the russian federation would be a huge gift for Putin, who needs to maintain the narrative that the west are the aggressors. The war will probably end when russian elites and people are sufficiently unconvinced that they force Putin hand one way or another. So we would strengthen him domestically if we were to establish a NFZ.
|
United States41937 Posts
On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation.
I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though.
If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
|
On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I'm guessing that in order to enforce it effectively in most of Ukraine you can't rely on SAM installations in Poland, Slovakia, Turkey or the Baltics, as they're too far away to be effective? So you'd need G2A inside Ukraine or your own jets to enforce it. And if you need your own jets then you need to take out Russian SAMs to make it an even fight, rather than a suicide mission. Meanwhile Russian SAM installations in Belarus, Russia or Crimea have a shorter distance to shoot down jets in most of Ukraine's airspace.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya 
Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less).
We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia.
Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO?
|
On March 09 2022 23:23 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less). We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia. Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO?
Based on that logic, isn't it involvement already that NATO helps Ukraine with weapons? That's not defensive when Ukraine isn't in NATO. Also, I support helping Ukraine in this way, I just see contradiction in what you say.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On March 09 2022 23:49 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 23:23 deacon.frost wrote:On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less). We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia. Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO? Based on that logic, isn't it involvement already that NATO helps Ukraine with weapons? That's not defensive when Ukraine isn't in NATO. Also, I support helping Ukraine in this way, I just see contradiction in what you say.
Can be seen this way, but NATO can say that they're just doing deals the same way Russia was selling shit to e.g. Syria. The final line is Russia being attacked by a soldier of NATO.
The only solution how to create such zone is to pass a decision in the UN that the members of the UN are allowed to do any defensive actions to stop the war - which means peacekeeping forces & no-fly zone. But Russia has the veto.
Edit> it is one of the reasons why Ukraine still doesn't have the MiGs which are being discussed for maybe a week now?
Edit 2> probably the best example is the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
|
On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I know little about military strategy but i assume that you can’t really control an airspace when your planes are getting shot down by SAM batteries. Or you put yourself in a situation where they shoot at you but you don’t shoot at them, which I assume is not something you want to do.
It’s a bit speculative from us, but that general was quite confident when he said that neutralizing ground to air defenses was a prerequisite to establishing a NFZ so I would take his word.
|
United States41937 Posts
On March 09 2022 23:23 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less). We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia. Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO?
You wouldn’t be shooting anything over Russia. You’d be policing sovereign Ukrainian airspace at the request of the Ukrainian government. No different than if you shot down a Russian jet trespassing any other sovereign nation.
Also Putin is going to say that he’s under attack by NATO anyway. You don’t need to worry about how a liar might misrepresent your actions, he’s going to say whatever he wants anyway.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On March 10 2022 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 23:23 deacon.frost wrote:On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less). We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia. Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO? You wouldn’t be shooting anything over Russia. You’d be policing sovereign Ukrainian airspace at the request of the Ukrainian government. No different than if you shot down a Russian jet trespassing any other sovereign nation. Also Putin is going to say that he’s under attack by NATO anyway. You don’t need to worry about how a liar might misrepresent your actions, he’s going to say whatever he wants anyway.
Is Ukraine part of the NATO? Isn't.
Are Russian airplanes a threat to NATO? Aren't.
If NATO goes into Ukraine without a UN approval and attacks the army of Russia it is an aggressive act of war the same way Russia attacked Ukraine. This is not a DEFENSIVE action to save a member of NATO.
edit> On what article of the Treaty is NATO allowed to defend an outside(to NATO) country at war without a UN approval?
Edit 2> I am not good in the lawyer English, but wouldn't NATO creating NFZ violated the article 8?
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
|
yes, obviously you can shoot down Russian fighters while Russian AA is up, but you risk them shooting at you in turn.
That is why they say they 'need' to take out Russian AA to set up a no fly zone. Because if your going to shoot at them, they are going to shoot at you and that is not considered an acceptable casually. You'd have Russia and NATO throwing planes, and pilots, at each other until one runs out. Seems less then optimal.
Ofcourse they could establish one based on bluffing, and hope that Russia doesn't send planes into Ukraine for fear of being shot down so NATO doesn't actually have to send their planes up to shoot and be shot but that is a big gamble.
|
On March 10 2022 00:17 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 00:14 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 23:23 deacon.frost wrote:On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less). We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia. Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO? You wouldn’t be shooting anything over Russia. You’d be policing sovereign Ukrainian airspace at the request of the Ukrainian government. No different than if you shot down a Russian jet trespassing any other sovereign nation. Also Putin is going to say that he’s under attack by NATO anyway. You don’t need to worry about how a liar might misrepresent your actions, he’s going to say whatever he wants anyway. Is Ukraine part of the NATO? Isn't. Are Russian airplanes a threat to NATO? Aren't. If NATO goes into Ukraine without a UN approval and attacks the army of Russia it is an aggressive act of war the same way Russia attacked Ukraine. This is not a DEFENSIVE action to save a member of NATO. edit> On what article of the Treaty is NATO allowed to defend an outside(to NATO) country at war without a UN approval? Edit 2> I am not good in the lawyer English, but wouldn't NATO creating NFZ violated the article 8? Article 8 Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm NATO wouldn't do it. But nothing stops certain countries from doing it on their own. NATO never invaded Iraq, the US and UK decided they would.
A no-fly zone over Ukraine would be done similarly. With US, UK and maybe France deciding to establish it.
|
United States41937 Posts
On March 10 2022 00:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. I know little about military strategy but i assume that you can’t really control an airspace when your planes are getting shot down by SAM batteries. Or you put yourself in a situation where they shoot at you but you don’t shoot at them, which I assume is not something you want to do. It’s a bit speculative from us, but that general was quite confident when he said that neutralizing ground to air defenses was a prerequisite to establishing a NFZ so I would take his word.
Control is where we’re disagreeing. The declaration that NATO will contest the air is an escalation but both sides get an opportunity to slow the fuck down and decide what they think that means. Let’s say Russia decides not to push it and stop engaging in aerial bombing runs on cities (while continuing with ground based bombardment). You don’t need NATO jets over Ukraine. Let’s say they try a bombing run, NATO could decide to shoot it down with a surface launched attack, either from within Ukraine or outside, or send a NATO jet to intercept it, or do nothing. Again both sides can reassess what they want to do. The Russian bomber could retreat once intercepted and nobody needs to die. If we shoot the bomber down Russia again could choose not to send more bombers, to send more bombers but with fighter escorts and clearance to engage over Ukrainian airspace, to use ground based air defence in Ukraine, to use ground based air defence from Russia, and so forth. Each would give NATO different choices to make regarding risk of escalation and keeping the conflict within the predefined scope.
I think there would be obvious red lines (don’t attack military installations inside the other’s country) and obvious bad ideas (don’t force them to attack your installations on your soil) but as long as you’re willing to take casualties you could feel the rest out as you go. We don’t need to dominate the sky to make it so that Russia doesn’t dominate the sky. The conventional idea of a no fly zone through the destruction of all anti air capability and regular patrols is not the only conceivable way of getting there. It’s the most palatable because the west hates losing pilots but any kind of stalemate would still achieve the goal of denying the air to Russia.
|
On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this.
Well, his perspective is likely that Ukraine is doomed anyway without it, so "poisoning the relations" then becomes a moot point, as there will no longer be a Ukraine to have poisoned relations with.
Do you think there is some longer game to be played here by Ukraine, one where they manage to hold onto their territory for long enough for Putin to negotiate or for some internal pressure to oust him? The russian military has performed horribly, but the overwhelming resource disparity is still there.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On March 10 2022 00:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 00:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 10 2022 00:14 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 23:23 deacon.frost wrote:On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Well, let me rephrase the conundrum for ya Putin repeats that NATO is an aggressive organization going after Russia(more or less). We repeat that NATO is a defensive organizion NOT going after Russia. Now - to inforce the no-fly zone you have to shoot down Russian airplanes which are not threatening NATO. Can you see the issue now? Even if Putin is bluffing with bombing NATO if they start the no-fly zone, this gives him what he wants! NATO is defensive they say, NATO is not going after Russia they say. And now NATO is shooting our planes while the planes are no threat to NATO? You wouldn’t be shooting anything over Russia. You’d be policing sovereign Ukrainian airspace at the request of the Ukrainian government. No different than if you shot down a Russian jet trespassing any other sovereign nation. Also Putin is going to say that he’s under attack by NATO anyway. You don’t need to worry about how a liar might misrepresent your actions, he’s going to say whatever he wants anyway. Is Ukraine part of the NATO? Isn't. Are Russian airplanes a threat to NATO? Aren't. If NATO goes into Ukraine without a UN approval and attacks the army of Russia it is an aggressive act of war the same way Russia attacked Ukraine. This is not a DEFENSIVE action to save a member of NATO. edit> On what article of the Treaty is NATO allowed to defend an outside(to NATO) country at war without a UN approval? Edit 2> I am not good in the lawyer English, but wouldn't NATO creating NFZ violated the article 8? Article 8 Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm NATO wouldn't do it. But nothing stops certain countries from doing it on their own. NATO never invaded Iraq, the US and UK decided they would. A no-fly zone over Ukraine would be done similarly. With US, UK and maybe France deciding to establish it.
How would they do it? Let's say US wants to do the NFZ.
They can't enter the Black Sea because Turkey closed the door.
They can't fly from the US as it's far away.
They can fly from Poland, Germany... but that means to me that these counties are establishing the NFZ as well. Which is the main issue. If you allow these airplanes to fly through are you a part of the NFZ country list? If Russia doesn't bluff and they bomb Germany because US is establishing from there an NFZ - is this valid for the Treaty to react or can NATO ignore it?
Sure, it can be done, but there are issues.
|
On March 09 2022 22:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 22:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 09 2022 22:10 Oukka wrote:
Two major things I'm keeping my eye on today.
One, the Chernobyl reactors aren't apparently connected to the Ukrainian electricity network anymore. The back-up generators keep power on for up to 48h but after that there wouldn't be power for the cooling systems. I don't know what scale of bad news this is, but IAEA seems quite concerned and are actively trying to get the power plant into regular operation. As in regular operation of cooling systems for the destroyed reactors.
Two, the calls for no-fly zone keep coming. The reluctance of other countries, either under NATO operation or otherwise, to get involved have been discussed here as well and there isn't anything new in that discussion. What makes it worrying to me is that the continuous calls for the no-fly-zone and continuous dismissal of it eventually poison the relations between Ukraine and EU/NATO/other countries. It might be impossible and/or unwise to try to stamp out the calls for a no-fly-zone, but I can't help but to think that there is only bitterness and disappointment coming if the discussion continues like it has so far. Zelenskiy calling the international community responsible for a humanitarian catastrophe if they don't impose the NFZ seems like an escalation in this. I heard an interview with a former nato commander. He said that to establish a no fly zone and enforce it you need to gain complete air supremacy, which means getting rid of the anti air capability of your opponents. Since those things have quite a long range that means in that case hitting targets within russian and bellarussian borders. It’s a huge step in terms of escalation. I can see why you’d want complete air superiority to do a no fly zone. It’d make it a lot safer for your pilots. I don’t see why you’d need it though. If your pilots are vulnerable to them and they’re vulnerable to you and both sides are too scared to hit the other’s airbases and anti air outside of Ukraine then you’re still denying that airspace to Russia. You’d need to prepare for a lot of lost jets but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
You need complete and utter air supremacy to conduct a no fly zone. This due to modern ground based air defences having both a huge range of effectiveness and general advantage. Without air supremacy, nevermind merely air superiority, you can declare a no fly zone, but it will be de facto just be a war.
In advocating for a no fly zone, you are advocating for war with Russia. That can be a reasonable argument to make, but suggesting that a no fly zone is somehow not warfare is not. In actuality, a no fly zone will always be a form of warfare, difference is in this case, it will not be the risk free and will have casualties. Which country will allow casualties over another country's war and not escalate that into a full blown war?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
