Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 592

On September 22 2023 18:37 Magic Powers wrote:


But even that claim is absurd. Just because the US may (or may not; I haven't found any official sources confirming the claim) have attempted (in the long gone past) to leave itself a ticket out of a NATO conflict, that doesn't mean that this is their stance today more than 70 years later.
The only thing I'm aware of is that they've been leveraging their position to coerce other NATO members into building up their military. That was a wise choice that too many of the member states failed to respect, and now we've got a mess with all our difficulties of helping Ukraine. If anything I see the US being at the forefront of NATO and their leadership being rightfully displeased with the inaction of the remaining members.


Edit for those who are curious, here's the GDP spending of NATO members in 2021 as compared to 2019. There has been a very significant build-up. Turkey being an exception curiously reduced its spending during those years.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country

On September 22 2023 19:13 Ardias wrote:

I've literally given a link on NATO official website.

I agree that the US stance on the matter could have changed from 1949. Initial argument was that it is (or at least, was) not always seen as a sacred duty to go right into war for the ally even within NATO and even from US.

@SamuelGreen, indeed, how dare I question euroatlantic superior race.

Though if you want to talk about abiding the spirit, not the letter, then what about Falklands war? Did US send their mighty carriers to resolve the issue? They weren't obliged by the letter, true, NATO sphere of action is everithing north oh tropic of Cancer, but isn't it, by your words, spirit that should matter here? US ally was attacked, and the only thing US did was giving some logistic and military supplies.

On September 22 2023 19:13 Ardias wrote:

I've literally given a link on NATO official website.

I agree that the US stance on the matter could have changed from 1949. Initial argument was that it is (or at least, was) not always seen as a sacred duty to go right into war for the ally even within NATO and even from US.

@SamuelGreen, indeed, how dare I question euroatlantic superior race.

Though if you want to talk about abiding the spirit, not the letter, then what about Falklands war? Did US send their mighty carriers to resolve the issue? They weren't obliged by the letter, true, NATO sphere of action is everithing north oh tropic of Cancer, but isn't it, by your words, spirit that should matter here? US ally was attacked, and the only thing US did was giving some logistic and military supplies.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, 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, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

On September 22 2023 19:26 Gorsameth wrote:
The UK never invoked article 5 so the Falklands are a moot point.

The only instance of article 5 being invoked was the US following 9/11

On September 22 2023 19:35 Ardias wrote:

I don't think you've actually read my post, so I would quote a specific point again.
"They weren't obliged by the letter, true, NATO sphere of action is everithing north oh tropic of Cancer, but isn't it, by your words, spirit that should matter here?"
You could also check the initial argument, that it's letter of the agreement is inconcequential, it's spirit that matters.

On September 22 2023 19:13 Ardias wrote:

I've literally given a link on NATO official website.

I agree that the US stance on the matter could have changed from 1949. Initial argument was that it is (or at least, was) not always seen as a sacred duty to go right into war for the ally even within NATO and even from US.

@SamuelGreen, indeed, how dare I question euroatlantic superior race.

Though if you want to talk about abiding the spirit, not the letter, then what about Falklands war? Did US send their mighty carriers to resolve the issue? They weren't obliged by the letter, true, NATO sphere of action is everithing north oh tropic of Cancer, but isn't it, by your words, spirit that should matter here? US ally was attacked, and the only thing US did was giving some logistic and military supplies.

On September 22 2023 21:31 zatic wrote:

No the geographical validity of NATO is taking very seriously, especially by the US. The entire reason it's called NATO is that the US did not want to be dragged into French and British colonial wars.

The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has said it successfully carried out an attack against Russia’s Saki military airfield in occupied Crimea overnight, damaging several aircraft and vital equipment and killing at least 30 of Moscow’s troops.

An SBU source told Kyiv Post that Ukrainian drones had been used to overwhelm Russian air defenses leaving gaps which Neptune missiles were then able to exploit.

The source said there were at least 12 Su-24 and Su-30 combat aircraft positioned in the airfield at the time of the attack, as well as Pantsir anti-aircraft missile and gun systems and a training base for operators of the Iranian Mohajer-6 UAV.

The source did not provide further details of the damage caused by the strike, but said: “Russian telegram channels confirm serious destruction and losses - they write about at least 30 dead soldiers.”

The security service source, referring to the the Mojaher-6 UAV, said: "It is these drones that the Russians use to coordinate their own air attacks, as well as a combat strike drone.”

The attack was further commented on by Anton Gerashchenko, an advisor to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, who confirmed some of the details provided by the SBU.

On Thursday morning, SBU sources also claimed that a Ukrainian missile attack in occupied Crimea on Wednesday had successfully struck a command post of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, in which several Russian commanders were located.

“The strike was carried out after the SBU verified the data that the commanders of the enemy fleet were indeed [present] in the military unit,” they told Kyiv Post.

Andrii Yusov, a representative of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine (HUR), confirmed separately that Ukrainian missiles had also on Wednesday struck a target near the Belbek airfield, which is close to Sevastopol.

Elsewhere this week, on Wednesday Kyiv also announced two Russian planes and a helicopter had been “significantly damaged” in an attack carried out by “unknown saboteurs” on one of the Kremlin’s main military airfields, 30 km northeast of Moscow.

In a post on Telegram, the Directorate of Military Intelligence of Ukraine (HUR) said the operation was carried out on Monday at the Chkalovsky Air Base and “caused quite a bit of hysteria in the higher military corridors.”

The HUR added: “Unknown saboteurs… planted explosives and detonated AN-148 and IL-20 aircraft (both belong to the 354th special purpose aviation regiment) at the airfield, which is carefully guarded, as well as the MI-28N [Havoc] helicopter, which was actively involved in shooting down attack drones over Moscow region.”

On September 22 2023 19:26 Gorsameth wrote:
The UK never invoked article 5 so the Falklands are a moot point.

The only instance of article 5 being invoked was the US following 9/11

President Joe Biden has told his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, that the United States will provide a small number of long-range missiles to aid the war with Russia, three U.S. officials and a congressional official familiar with the discussions told NBC News on Friday.

The officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly, did not say when the missiles would be delivered or when a public announcement would be made.

For months, Ukraine has asked for the Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, which would give Kyiv the ability to strike targets from as far away as about 180 miles, hitting supply lines, railways, and command and control locations behind the Russian front lines.

Defense officials have said the U.S. does not have a large stockpile of excess ATACMS, which have a bigger payload than traditional artillery, to provide to Ukraine. Also, some in Washington have resisted supplying the weapon, known colloquially as “attack-ems,” out of fear that it would widen the war with Russia.

The congressional official said there was still a debate about the type of missile that would be sent and how many would be delivered to Ukraine. They added that countries in Eastern Europe had already given Ukraine large portions of their weapons stockpiles.

NBC News has approached Russia's defense ministry for comment.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Biden administration has shifted its stance on which weapons it is ready to provide to Ukraine’s military.

The White House initially withheld approval for requests for Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Howitzer artillery pieces, anti-ship missiles and HIMARS systems, but later gave the green light to them being shipped.

The latest move comes just over two months after Biden signed a presidential waiver on the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine, despite concerns from human rights groups and some U.S. allies that their use will lead to more civilian casualties.

The dual-purpose improved conventional munitions, or DPICMs, are surface-to-surface warheads that explode and disperse multiple small munitions or bombs over wide areas — bringing more widespread destruction than single rounds.

Some human rights groups oppose their use because of concerns that unexploded bomblets, or duds, could explode after battle, potentially injuring or killing innocent civilians.

Their use by both sides has been documented during the war in Ukraine, according to Human Rights

In May, America and its allies also agreed to provide F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.

While Ukrainian troops have breached Russia’s heavily fortified first defensive lines in the south and made progress in the east, with winter approaching Kyiv’s military has yet to achieve a decisive breakthrough.

This has contributed to concerns about ongoing allied support, with signs of frustration among even its strongest backers. Poland’s prime minister said this week that his country would no longer send arms to its neighbor, amid a spiraling trade dispute and ahead of national elections.

At the same, Ukraine has intensified a campaign of missile and drone strikes targeting sites deep behind Russian lines. The occupied Crimean peninsula has come under repeated attack, with the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet hit in the latest fiery missile strike on Friday.

Now 575 days into his war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has halted virtually all exports of gasoline and diesel out of the country to lessen the pain for average Russians and protect the nation’s food supply.

Russia’s leader has tried to keep the daily lives of Russians insulated from the worst impacts of his expansionary campaign in order to minimize risks to political stability. But with all resources at their disposal directed at maintaining the war effort, wholesale prices for the two fuels have reached record levels in recent months, according to state news agency TASS.

Since it has no choice but to fuel its military machine operating across the border in Ukraine—a necessity if it hopes to repel Kyiv’s ongoing counteroffensive—Moscow will instead divert the supply that would have gone abroad to prevent shortages back home.

“The decision was made to stabilize fuel prices in the domestic market,” the Russian government said in a statement on Thursday, adding it would monitor the situation for the country’s food producers daily.

The surprise ban, which won’t affect several former Soviet republics including close Kremlin ally Belarus, could indirectly put pressure on the price at the pump for American consumers by lifting benchmark futures prices across the globe.

Agriculture Minister Dmitry Patrushev earlier this month proposed temporarily banning fuel product exports to avoid a “catastrophe” this harvest season, according to the Moscow Times.

“Temporary restrictions will help saturate the fuel market, which in turn will reduce prices for consumers,” the government added.

The effect was immediate, with prices for Russia’s wholesale gasoline delivery contracts falling by a tenth on the St. Petersburg Mercantile Exchange, while prices for diesel fell by 7.5%, according to Reuters.

Unusual ban

The ban, which went into effect as soon as it was published on Thursday, is unusual as Russia is one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, with vast deposits of oil and natural gas across a landmass that spans 11 time zones.

Energy exports are also a vital source of government revenue, with the sale of petroleum products and natural gas contributing 45% to Russia’s federal budget in 2021, the year prior to Putin’s invasion.

Countries like China, India and Turkey are likely to be hit the most, since the trio have effectively replaced Europe barrel for barrel as the prime destination for Russian oil and gas supplies.

By comparison, the Group of Seven industrial nations—which include the U.S., Japan and U.K.—as well as the entire European Union agreed to ban the import of refined petroleum products from Russia last year.

Nevertheless prices may still rise in sanctioning countries as most Russian crude and petroleum products can eventually be unloaded onto third-party ships where they can be made untraceable once blended with other fossil fuels.

On Thursday, European wholesale diesel gained 5% to trade back above $1,000 a metric ton, according to Bloomberg News.

“On a global scale, world prices for diesel fuel are already at elevated levels due to rising oil prices and a lack of refining capacity. Restrictions on Russian fuel exports could aggravate this problem,” Finam analyst Alexander Potavin told TASS.

Together with Saudi Arabia, Russia has unilaterally cut oil production recently in a bid to underpin global prices for a barrel of crude.

On September 23 2023 04:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Russia/Putin has halted all exports of fuel in order to preserve it for the military/domestic which is in danger of running short of supply.



Source