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 September 21 2023 18:22 ZeroByte13 wrote: This was kinda inevitable, I think. The massive shock of the western public from the conlfict is largely over by now, it's a new "normal". It's a terrible "normal" to have but it is what it is. And it's almost a given that after some time many start to focus on themselves again, particularily their financial situation, especially long term.
The best long term financial choice is to fully support Ukraine because its infinitely cheaper then having to prepare for an actual direct conflict with Russia.
But this might be exactly the problem here. Everyone can see that Russia is probably in no position to attack any somewhat prepared country of decent size any time soon.
Maybe Poles are not that afraid of direct conflict with Russia anymore - at least in the next decade or two - after what they've seen so far. At some point they might have thought it's an existential crisis for Poland too because of "what if Russia succeeds in Ukraine and is hungry for more". But now it's pretty obvious that even if Russia wins, they won't be able to attack anyone else for long time.
And if, say, your angry farmers - or maybe other industry sectors - are asking "what about us?" and you really want their votes... well.
Russia used to look like a wolf but now it looks like a rabid dog. Previously weapons were needed to scare the wolves away by convincing them it won't be rational to attack. Now we are dealing with a rabid dog that may try to bite us even though it's clearly unable achieve anything with such attack. We still need weapons to make sure we can defend ourselves with minimal losses.
On September 21 2023 18:22 ZeroByte13 wrote: This was kinda inevitable, I think. The massive shock of the western public from the conlfict is largely over by now, it's a new "normal". It's a terrible "normal" to have but it is what it is. And it's almost a given that after some time many start to focus on themselves again, particularily their financial situation, especially long term.
The best long term financial choice is to fully support Ukraine because its infinitely cheaper then having to prepare for an actual direct conflict with Russia.
Same with climate crisis really and see how far that got us
On September 21 2023 19:20 ZeroByte13 wrote: Maybe Poles are not that afraid of direct conflict with Russia anymore - at least in the next decade or two - after what they've seen so far. At some point they might have thought it's an existential crisis for Poland too because of "what if Russia succeeds in Ukraine and is hungry for more". But now it's pretty obvious that even if Russia wins, they won't be able to attack anyone else for long time.
I can speak only for myself, but I do not put my bets on russian "rationality". Call me paranoiac, but I am not sure if we have to deal with calculating bastards or lunatic morons, and I lean more and more into believeng the later. Putin's "ultimatum" towards NATO to pull back their forces (back than pretty small forces) from Eastern Europe was a final straw. If those mere 4,5k Americans in Fort Trump in 2018 were considered by Russia a problem, I would ask myself what are they were disturbing Russia from. Way to be insolent. Keeping 30k soldiers in Belarus in the eve of invasion and demanding pulling off mere... what? 5k? I can imagine that Putin impressed the Russians with being that funny.
On September 21 2023 03:54 Yurie wrote: Most people in the West never cheer for any war. Most people think Irak and Afghanistan were mistakes. (This still leaves a large % that want wars.)
I was against war in Iraq, but did support the attack on Afghanistan (ONLY because they were unwilling to get rid of Osama and his goons). During the bombing of Serbia in Kosovo War, I was pretty young, but I remmember that generaly stoping ethnic cleansing by bombing serbian military was supported, but I hated idea of giving Kosovo independence (Albanians already had their own country, irredentism like this is completely unlike of the nations deprived of their own country fulfilling their national interests). I, generaly, am not against war. I am against war from strictly egoistic intentions. I would gladly see Bush Jr (and our own politicians who supported 2003 invasion) prosecuted for crimes against peace if I could.
I think that if the West got to pick all wars would stop at current borders and people start trading and getting along. Genocides stopping and people hugging and sharing some nice food and drinks together.
On September 21 2023 03:54 Yurie wrote: The current Russian regime keeps starting wars, so a long term stability stance requires changing that mindset or neutering their capability.
On September 22 2023 02:20 pmp10 wrote: Russia begins to again strike Ukrainian energy infrastructure. An early start compared to last year, this in effect closes diplomatic avenues until 2024. We will see if it is any more effective than the last time.
Hmm. This isn't right. I was told Russia doesn't target civilians
With Armenia forced into the Turkish sphere of influence (which probably terrifies them) do you think there is a chance of shit taking off in Syria again? Turkey obviously see themselves as an ascending regional power and has both groups they support and oppose there.
On September 22 2023 03:23 Magic Powers wrote: There are claims that some Wagner members are once again at the frontlines. I don't know what exactly is going on.
Probably Wagner being decommissioned and folded into MoD as rumored earlier.
On September 22 2023 02:20 pmp10 wrote: Russia begins to again strike Ukrainian energy infrastructure. An early start compared to last year, this in effect closes diplomatic avenues until 2024. We will see if it is any more effective than the last time.
Hmm. This isn't right. I was told Russia doesn't target civilians
Ukrainian Air Defense is preparing to target there own infrastructure with all their capacity
On September 21 2023 03:39 KwarK wrote: Armenian government is pro finding someone powerful to advocate for it. They’re not pro US or pro Russia or pro China, they’re pro Armenian and have justifiably lost confidence in their old protector.
Well, if so, then they are doing a very poor job in that, pissing in the porrige of the said old protector and trying to seek help from one that by no means is able to assist them. But if we remember that previous, pro-Russian government of Armenia, which Pashinyan overcame back in 2018, was made of representatives of Karabakh clans, who rose to power back in the ninties as the victors in the first war - then situation becomes much more logical. People from Karabakh as well as their kin in Armenia proper are the burden for Pashinyan and his government, being in firm opposition to him. Now they are gone.
Also I am well aware of the history of Armenia. Point is, previous history means very little at the moment, and current alliances aren't generally based on common religion.
Also few things I would point out to you and other commentators combined: 1) I kinda understand the sentiment regarding the September 2022 border clashes, when Armenia triggered the Article 4. But my latest comment in the matter was to the current situation in Karabakh, where not only Article 4 wasn't triggered, but Armenia itself explicitly stated that it considers Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan, and that there are no Armenian troops there. So I'll repeat, if Armenia itself dropped Karabakh (not even counting the previous lack of its independence acknowledgment), and considered the matter as internal for Azerbaijan, what CSTO or Russia in particular have to do with this? 2) As for "response by Article 5 of NATO" or "Article 4 of CSTO" and the scale of it - both Articles don't actually state that assistance even has to be military: NATO Article 5 - "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". CSTO Article 4 - "all the other Member States at request of this Member State shall immediately provide the latter with the necessary help, including military one, as well as provide support by the means at their disposal in accordance with the right to collective defence pursuant to article 51 of the UN Charter." So the direct military intervetion is an option, not a demand, in both cases, and both cases leave other means to intervene in the situation. 3) Caucasus is hardly a Russian sphere of influence for quite some time, with Georgia being pro-US (though shifting towards neutrality lately), Azerbaijan being Turkish puppet, and Armenia under Pashinyan rapidly moving towards US, using two latest Karabakh wars to diminish pro-Russian support in the country.
On September 22 2023 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: With Armenia forced into the Turkish sphere of influence (which probably terrifies them) do you think there is a chance of shit taking off in Syria again? Turkey obviously see themselves as an ascending regional power and has both groups they support and oppose there.
Actually I don't think so. Turkey itself has a bunch of problems with earthquake aftermath and rapid inflation to undertake any kind of significant military campaign. Plus IIRC they tolerate the Kurds from SDF somewhat, it's Kurdistan's Worker Party that conserns them the most, and they don't have that big of a presence in Syria atm. And they unlikely to move south of Idlib, because that would mean all-out conflict with Syria and greatly strain relations with Russia, which Erdogan would most likely try to avoid as he tries to reap economic profits from deals with Russia (new grain deal directly between Russia and Turkey, nuclear power plant being built by Rosatom in Turkey, gray imports to Russia, etc.). Plus there is also Iran, which doesn't look kindly on Turkish-Azeri buildup in the region, and I don't thing "friend Recep" want to piss them off just yet.
On September 22 2023 03:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: With Armenia forced into the Turkish sphere of influence (which probably terrifies them) do you think there is a chance of shit taking off in Syria again? Turkey obviously see themselves as an ascending regional power and has both groups they support and oppose there.
Actually I don't think so. Turkey itself has a bunch of problems with earthquake aftermath and rapid inflation to undertake any kind of significant military campaign. Plus IIRC they tolerate the Kurds from SDF somewhat, it's Kurdistan's Worker Party that conserns them the most, and they don't have that big of a presence in Syria atm. And they unlikely to move south of Idlib, because that would mean all-out conflict with Syria and greatly strain relations with Russia, which Erdogan would most likely try to avoid as he tries to reap economic profits from deals with Russia (new grain deal directly between Russia and Turkey, nuclear power plant being built by Rosatom in Turkey, gray imports to Russia, etc.). Plus there is also Iran, which doesn't look kindly on Turkish-Azeri buildup in the region, and I don't thing "friend Recep" want to piss them off just yet.
Turkey's neverending issues with inflation is actually one of the reasons I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them start stirring up shit outside their borders. After all, finding enemies without is the oldest play in the book when you can't handle problems within, and it sure doesn't look like Erdogan's government is at all capable of reining in their economic woes.
On September 21 2023 03:39 KwarK wrote: Armenian government is pro finding someone powerful to advocate for it. They’re not pro US or pro Russia or pro China, they’re pro Armenian and have justifiably lost confidence in their old protector.
Well, if so, then they are doing a very poor job in that, pissing in the porrige of the said old protector and trying to seek help from one that by no means is able to assist them. But if we remember that previous, pro-Russian government of Armenia, which Pashinyan overcame back in 2018, was made of representatives of Karabakh clans, who rose to power back in the ninties as the victors in the first war - then situation becomes much more logical. People from Karabakh as well as their kin in Armenia proper are the burden for Pashinyan and his government, being in firm opposition to him. Now they are gone.
Also I am well aware of the history of Armenia. Point is, previous history means very little at the moment, and current alliances aren't generally based on common religion.
Also few things I would point out to you and other commentators combined: 1) I kinda understand the sentiment regarding the September 2022 border clashes, when Armenia triggered the Article 4. But my latest comment in the matter was to the current situation in Karabakh, where not only Article 4 wasn't triggered, but Armenia itself explicitly stated that it considers Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan, and that there are no Armenian troops there. So I'll repeat, if Armenia itself dropped Karabakh (not even counting the previous lack of its independence acknowledgment), and considered the matter as internal for Azerbaijan, what CSTO or Russia in particular have to do with this? 2) As for "response by Article 5 of NATO" or "Article 4 of CSTO" and the scale of it - both Articles don't actually state that assistance even has to be military: NATO Article 5 - "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". CSTO Article 4 - "all the other Member States at request of this Member State shall immediately provide the latter with the necessary help, including military one, as well as provide support by the means at their disposal in accordance with the right to collective defence pursuant to article 51 of the UN Charter." So the direct military intervetion is an option, not a demand, in both cases, and both cases leave other means to intervene in the situation. 3) Caucasus is hardly a Russian sphere of influence for quite some time, with Georgia being pro-US (though shifting towards neutrality lately), Azerbaijan being Turkish puppet, and Armenia under Pashinyan rapidly moving towards US, using two latest Karabakh wars to diminish pro-Russian support in the country.
You're misinterpreting the quotes of military help. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is the doctrine. This means if a NATO country asks for military help from its allies - and that includes sending troops - their allies are absolutely required to provide it. The word "including" is, well, included in the quote, because it was considered important to emphasize that point. If they had left that part out, it could be considered that troops do not have to be sent.
tl;dr you have to look at the entire wording of the pact and not only one part of it to understand it in full. Context matters.
On September 21 2023 03:39 KwarK wrote: Armenian government is pro finding someone powerful to advocate for it. They’re not pro US or pro Russia or pro China, they’re pro Armenian and have justifiably lost confidence in their old protector.
Well, if so, then they are doing a very poor job in that, pissing in the porrige of the said old protector and trying to seek help from one that by no means is able to assist them. But if we remember that previous, pro-Russian government of Armenia, which Pashinyan overcame back in 2018, was made of representatives of Karabakh clans, who rose to power back in the ninties as the victors in the first war - then situation becomes much more logical. People from Karabakh as well as their kin in Armenia proper are the burden for Pashinyan and his government, being in firm opposition to him. Now they are gone.
Also I am well aware of the history of Armenia. Point is, previous history means very little at the moment, and current alliances aren't generally based on common religion.
Also few things I would point out to you and other commentators combined: 1) I kinda understand the sentiment regarding the September 2022 border clashes, when Armenia triggered the Article 4. But my latest comment in the matter was to the current situation in Karabakh, where not only Article 4 wasn't triggered, but Armenia itself explicitly stated that it considers Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan, and that there are no Armenian troops there. So I'll repeat, if Armenia itself dropped Karabakh (not even counting the previous lack of its independence acknowledgment), and considered the matter as internal for Azerbaijan, what CSTO or Russia in particular have to do with this? 2) As for "response by Article 5 of NATO" or "Article 4 of CSTO" and the scale of it - both Articles don't actually state that assistance even has to be military: NATO Article 5 - "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". CSTO Article 4 - "all the other Member States at request of this Member State shall immediately provide the latter with the necessary help, including military one, as well as provide support by the means at their disposal in accordance with the right to collective defence pursuant to article 51 of the UN Charter." So the direct military intervetion is an option, not a demand, in both cases, and both cases leave other means to intervene in the situation. 3) Caucasus is hardly a Russian sphere of influence for quite some time, with Georgia being pro-US (though shifting towards neutrality lately), Azerbaijan being Turkish puppet, and Armenia under Pashinyan rapidly moving towards US, using two latest Karabakh wars to diminish pro-Russian support in the country.
You're misinterpreting the quotes of military help. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is the doctrine. This means if a NATO country asks for military help from its allies - and that includes sending troops - their allies are absolutely required to provide it. The word "including" is, well, included in the quote, because it was considered important to emphasize that point. If they had left that part out, it could be considered that troops do not have to be sent.
tl;dr you have to look at the entire wording of the pact and not only one part of it to understand it in full. Context matters.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”."
Also about US that should have absolutely intervened militarily in case of attack on NATO member.
"At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5."
On September 21 2023 03:39 KwarK wrote: Armenian government is pro finding someone powerful to advocate for it. They’re not pro US or pro Russia or pro China, they’re pro Armenian and have justifiably lost confidence in their old protector.
Well, if so, then they are doing a very poor job in that, pissing in the porrige of the said old protector and trying to seek help from one that by no means is able to assist them. But if we remember that previous, pro-Russian government of Armenia, which Pashinyan overcame back in 2018, was made of representatives of Karabakh clans, who rose to power back in the ninties as the victors in the first war - then situation becomes much more logical. People from Karabakh as well as their kin in Armenia proper are the burden for Pashinyan and his government, being in firm opposition to him. Now they are gone.
Also I am well aware of the history of Armenia. Point is, previous history means very little at the moment, and current alliances aren't generally based on common religion.
Also few things I would point out to you and other commentators combined: 1) I kinda understand the sentiment regarding the September 2022 border clashes, when Armenia triggered the Article 4. But my latest comment in the matter was to the current situation in Karabakh, where not only Article 4 wasn't triggered, but Armenia itself explicitly stated that it considers Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan, and that there are no Armenian troops there. So I'll repeat, if Armenia itself dropped Karabakh (not even counting the previous lack of its independence acknowledgment), and considered the matter as internal for Azerbaijan, what CSTO or Russia in particular have to do with this? 2) As for "response by Article 5 of NATO" or "Article 4 of CSTO" and the scale of it - both Articles don't actually state that assistance even has to be military: NATO Article 5 - "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". CSTO Article 4 - "all the other Member States at request of this Member State shall immediately provide the latter with the necessary help, including military one, as well as provide support by the means at their disposal in accordance with the right to collective defence pursuant to article 51 of the UN Charter." So the direct military intervetion is an option, not a demand, in both cases, and both cases leave other means to intervene in the situation. 3) Caucasus is hardly a Russian sphere of influence for quite some time, with Georgia being pro-US (though shifting towards neutrality lately), Azerbaijan being Turkish puppet, and Armenia under Pashinyan rapidly moving towards US, using two latest Karabakh wars to diminish pro-Russian support in the country.
You're misinterpreting the quotes of military help. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is the doctrine. This means if a NATO country asks for military help from its allies - and that includes sending troops - their allies are absolutely required to provide it. The word "including" is, well, included in the quote, because it was considered important to emphasize that point. If they had left that part out, it could be considered that troops do not have to be sent.
tl;dr you have to look at the entire wording of the pact and not only one part of it to understand it in full. Context matters.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”."
Also about US that should have absolutely intervened militarily in case of attack on NATO member.
"At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5."
Well, a Russian not believe in western alliances isn't a new thing. Yeah, articles give some options. But if you believe that the NATO countries won't help each other out you're deluded. If they give aid to Ukraine, they are going to go much further for allies and no words you find in an article here or there will change that.
They often say that "westerners can't understand Russians" but this time it seems to be the opposite. You have to look at larger actions and contexts (some would say "the spirit") and not just nitpick some words in a text.
(Okay, not everyone may send in the whole army, maybe it's better for example for Norway to send weapons and fuel, but come on)
Did Ardias claim anywhere that NATO countries won't help each other? Or that he doesn't believe in Western alliances? He only said that specifically military help (as in "send troops / join the conflict") is not directly required by Article 5 as many believe.
Before saying someone is deluded or doesn't understand something, make sure you yourself undertstood what they actually said.
On September 21 2023 03:39 KwarK wrote: Armenian government is pro finding someone powerful to advocate for it. They’re not pro US or pro Russia or pro China, they’re pro Armenian and have justifiably lost confidence in their old protector.
Well, if so, then they are doing a very poor job in that, pissing in the porrige of the said old protector and trying to seek help from one that by no means is able to assist them. But if we remember that previous, pro-Russian government of Armenia, which Pashinyan overcame back in 2018, was made of representatives of Karabakh clans, who rose to power back in the ninties as the victors in the first war - then situation becomes much more logical. People from Karabakh as well as their kin in Armenia proper are the burden for Pashinyan and his government, being in firm opposition to him. Now they are gone.
Also I am well aware of the history of Armenia. Point is, previous history means very little at the moment, and current alliances aren't generally based on common religion.
Also few things I would point out to you and other commentators combined: 1) I kinda understand the sentiment regarding the September 2022 border clashes, when Armenia triggered the Article 4. But my latest comment in the matter was to the current situation in Karabakh, where not only Article 4 wasn't triggered, but Armenia itself explicitly stated that it considers Karabakh as the territory of Azerbaijan, and that there are no Armenian troops there. So I'll repeat, if Armenia itself dropped Karabakh (not even counting the previous lack of its independence acknowledgment), and considered the matter as internal for Azerbaijan, what CSTO or Russia in particular have to do with this? 2) As for "response by Article 5 of NATO" or "Article 4 of CSTO" and the scale of it - both Articles don't actually state that assistance even has to be military: NATO Article 5 - "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force". CSTO Article 4 - "all the other Member States at request of this Member State shall immediately provide the latter with the necessary help, including military one, as well as provide support by the means at their disposal in accordance with the right to collective defence pursuant to article 51 of the UN Charter." So the direct military intervetion is an option, not a demand, in both cases, and both cases leave other means to intervene in the situation. 3) Caucasus is hardly a Russian sphere of influence for quite some time, with Georgia being pro-US (though shifting towards neutrality lately), Azerbaijan being Turkish puppet, and Armenia under Pashinyan rapidly moving towards US, using two latest Karabakh wars to diminish pro-Russian support in the country.
You're misinterpreting the quotes of military help. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is the doctrine. This means if a NATO country asks for military help from its allies - and that includes sending troops - their allies are absolutely required to provide it. The word "including" is, well, included in the quote, because it was considered important to emphasize that point. If they had left that part out, it could be considered that troops do not have to be sent.
tl;dr you have to look at the entire wording of the pact and not only one part of it to understand it in full. Context matters.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”."
Also about US that should have absolutely intervened militarily in case of attack on NATO member.
"At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5."
That's very strange and I have to strongly doubt the validity of this claim. Assuming it's true, I'm interpreting it as the US defending most or all other members that it considers invaluable, but keeping the option to refrain from sending troops to a "small, far away country" (e.g. Baltic states) in case that would risk an escalation like a nuclear war.
But this is contradicted by the fact that the US has military bases in many NATO countries, and troops in every single one of them. The Baltic states don't have a permanent US military presence, but troops are in the countries and there have been talks of increasing their presence to a permanent level to further deter threats from Russia.
Kamala Harris has also reaffirmed concerning its Eastern allies that Article 5 will be respected in full.
"The U.S. remains committed to Article 5 and our position has always been and will continue to be, that Article 5 is ironclad. And the spirit behind it, that an attack on one is an attack on all, remains our perspective."
EPT
