EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 64
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43431 Posts
| ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
Edit: I guess here is the exact text: For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: 1) on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; 2) on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. I guess I don't know if any of the original members of NATO had troops stationed in the area that is now Ukraine, or if that would even be deemed applicable since Ukraine wasn't independent at that time? | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9267 Posts
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 22 2022 05:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So basically a French military reaction force, for now. Can't see any other country in Europe being of such strength at this point in time, this also brings up a very dangerous scenario. Say Ukraine is victorious and joins the EU, Russia attacks again. And an EU soldier is killed, what is to stop said country from triggering article 5? https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1505923460110950401 This may actually be the worse thing for Ukraine as now Russia will be against them entering the EU either... (not that in their state it was much realistical) | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria835 Posts
It makes you wonder though why they use a Latin letter when they're so keen on preserving Russian language in Ukraine! It really shows their true face... + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/83r0hyD.jpg) And here is a perfect English word to describe them: Zealots. As in fanatic people. Or, if you want to be even more useful than an internet battle, just donate to Ukrainian humanitarian fund  | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
Contains military movements, actions and analysis. | ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
I was very impressed of how Trump was able to turn "Fake News" into his advantage. Hijacking "Z" to support Ukraine can probably be done too, but time might be running out as the symbol is quickly getting solidified as pro-war. | ||
zatic
Zurich15358 Posts
On March 22 2022 04:34 deacon.frost wrote: Doesn't look good for the shopping mall story. This is supposed to be a video of a rocket launcher parking there after it launched its payload... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiVKzfaGKKo I don't find it particularly hard to believe that there has been a military vehicle next to the mall. But holy shit that looks like some serious overkill. If this is the standard Russian approach to urban combat, nothing will be left of Kyiv. | ||
|
mounteast0
59 Posts
On March 22 2022 17:22 zatic wrote: I don't find it particularly hard to believe that there has been a military vehicle next to the mall. But holy shit that looks like some serious overkill. If this is the standard Russian approach to urban combat, nothing will be left of Kyiv. I think the shopping mall story implied Russ Army indiscriminately bombing the town & civilian, at least that was my impression / perception I would have got if I take the report at face value. If the video does show military presence next to the mall, then the context changes, may be a bit, may be significantly. I think that is the point deacon.frost is trying to get to. | ||
|
Lwerewolf
Bulgaria78 Posts
| ||
|
calh
537 Posts
On March 22 2022 17:22 zatic wrote: I don't find it particularly hard to believe that there has been a military vehicle next to the mall. But holy shit that looks like some serious overkill. If this is the standard Russian approach to urban combat, nothing will be left of Kyiv. I think they used a ballistic missile to get at the underground storage and part of the explosion was the stored ammunition. According to the Russian side anyway. | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
If your timeline begins on feb 24th, then those trucks might make the mall a legitimate target for an act of war. But for the rest of us who do remember that world existed before the current invasion launched, the difference is between "the attack was an act of unjust war" and "the attack was an act of unjust war AND it was also against civilian infrastructure." | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 22 2022 17:22 zatic wrote: I don't find it particularly hard to believe that there has been a military vehicle next to the mall. But holy shit that looks like some serious overkill. If this is the standard Russian approach to urban combat, nothing will be left of Kyiv. If there were rockets stored, part of the explosian can be that. According to the Russia that was an ammo depot. Which makes sense - that's why the rocket launcher went there after the attack. Also if you use a civilian building as a shelter for the army how much civilian is it? Also also that's why they hit it with a rocket and not a stupid bomb - so it was a precise hit. And they hit it at the night to limit the civilian casualties. I mean you can't be more civil about this hit. It was a precise hit based on a proper scouting and it was done to limit the civilian casualties to the minimum. This was a US level hit. At least once Russia did something properly in this stupid war. (well, at least what is confirmed) On March 22 2022 19:15 Oukka wrote: All of that only matters if you can jump over the bit where the entire war is illegitimate. If your timeline begins on feb 24th, then those trucks might make the mall a legitimate target for an act of war. But for the rest of us who do remember that world existed before the current invasion launched, the difference is between "the attack was an act of unjust war" and "the attack was an act of unjust war AND it was also against civilian infrastructure." But the fact is that Ukraine is at war with Russia and if they demand for Russia to use conventions they shall use them as well  | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On March 22 2022 05:33 KwarK wrote: The assumption is presumably that nobody would be stupid enough to attack a nuclear alliance. Europe doesn’t necessarily need NATO to have a credible defence vs Russia either. France is a nuclear power. France is the only autonomous nuclear power in Europe as england cannot launch theirs without the US approval afaik. Which makes the coming french elections crucial for Europe and for Ukraine. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11712 Posts
On March 22 2022 22:15 RvB wrote: The UK can launch their nukes without permission from the US. It's just that the missiles are made in the US and there's joint maintenance. Turning over decision making for a nuclear launch to a foreign state (even when allied) makes no sense. Maybe there is some confusion with the US nukes which are stationed in Germany, which obviously can only be launched by the US? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On March 22 2022 22:16 Simberto wrote: Maybe there is some confusion with the US nukes which are stationed in Germany, which obviously can only be launched by the US? I don't think so. Those are smaller nukes and there are more NATO allies which have them so that they have a stake in the nuclear programme as well without getting nukes (Netherlands ,Turkey and some other countries have them as well). The confusion comes from the fact that the UK programme relies on the US for many things. So while the UK can launch it's own nukes it wouldn't have a programme for long if cooperation with the US stopped. The UK’s nuclear deterrent is operationally independent. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of our nuclear weapons even if deployed as part of a NATO response. www.gov.uk Without the cooperation of the US, says the report of the independent all-party Trident Commission, the life expectancy of the UK's nuclear capability could be measured in months. The commission's high level panel says it agrees that Britain's deterrent is "a hostage to American goodwill". "If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years". Not only are Britain's Trident missiles in a common pool shared with the US and maintained in Kings Bay, Georgia, its nuclear warheads are designed and maintained at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston with the help of US know-how, as recently declassified documents on the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement confirmed. Tuesday's report noted: "The UK is dependent on the United States for many component parts of the guidance and re-entry vehicle, and for the Trident ballistic missile system itself". www.theguardian.com | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
If it's just building new ones nbd as the world will be glassed. Anyway, lots of french candidates are talking about withdrawing from NATO and/or the EU. Which would have dramatic effects on both of those entities. | ||
| ||
