Russia-Ukraine

[quagmire]

Interesting...

Please, read up on NATO yourself, or at least Google it before making a fool of yourself.

Safeguard's the freedom and security the countries that are IN the alliance.

Russia attacks Poland? NATO joins in because Poland is apart of the alliance.

Russia attacks China? NATO doesn't join. China is not in the alliance.

Russia attacks Iceland? NATO comes to the aid of Iceland. Iceland is a member of the alliance.

Russia attacks South Korea? NATO does not help in the defense of South Korea. South Korea is not a apart of the security alliance that makes up NATO.

Russia attacks Mexico? NATO does not help because Mexico is not a member of NATO.

Article 5 is the one that dictates how/when NATO gets involved militarily.....

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 ."

Specifically references the parties to the alliance will treat an attack on any of them will trigger every party in NATO getting militarily involved. That is the only way NATO will come in with military force. You have to be a party/member of NATO to gain Article 5 protection. Not a member of NATO= no Article 5 protection.

 

[Arkitect]

. The world (not just the US) has an alliance with NATO, if not to protect people who can't protect themselves from dictators, then I would ask to what end?

The "World" most certainly does not have an alliance with NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exists solely to defend itself.

Ukraine is not a part of NATO and thus while they have the support of countries belonging to NATO, this treaty organisation cannot go and fight on Ukraine's behalf.

Thems the rules.

 

[lizkat]

Fucking Icelanders. About time somebody called them on their shit!!

Heh, with countries like Monaco in the mix, looks like Putin is including states that perhaps have not stood in the way of seizure of yachts belonging to oligarchs on the sanctions lists.

 

[Macky-Mac]

The "World" most certainly does not have an alliance with NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exists solely to defend itself.

Ukraine is not a part of NATO and thus while they have the support of countries belonging to NATO, this treaty organisation cannot go and fight on Ukraine's behalf.

Thems the rules.

I don't think the part of your post that I put in bold is true.

NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo are examples of it taking action in non member states.

While Article 5 REQUIRES action under certain conditions, there doesn't seem to be text in the treaty that prevents NATO from deciding to take action in all other situations. And Article 4 seems to allow NATO flexibility in determining and deciding when and where to act.

I suspect that there are currently several NATO states that could say their "...territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened...." by the fighting in Ukraine, and under Article 4, that would certainly allow NATO to consider whether action should be taken

edit; mind you, I don't think NATO is currently prepared to send troops into Ukraine

 

[quagmire]

nvm….

 

[Eric]

The "World" most certainly does not have an alliance with NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exists solely to defend itself.

Ukraine is not a part of NATO and thus while they have the support of countries belonging to NATO, this treaty organisation cannot go and fight on Ukraine's behalf.

Thems the rules.

Yes, sadly they didn't have enough unobtainium to join. My point is those of us who can stand up and fight for an oppressed nation being taken over by a dictator, should.

Another point I'll make here, Democrats and Republicans may have different ideas about our involvement, but they both agree about leaving Russia alone. The end result is the same whether you support Trump, watch Fox News or watch MSNBC. I get that I'm the outlier here and have to deal with the Liberal hostility, but the Ukrainian people are getting fucked and we're doing nothing to help them, that's the bottom line.

 

[Arkitect]

I don't think the part of your post that I put in bold is true.

NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo are examples of it taking action in non member states.

While Article 5 REQUIRES action under certain conditions, there doesn't seem to be text in the treaty that prevents NATO from deciding to take action in all other situations. And Article 4 seems to allow NATO flexibility in determining and deciding when and where to act.

I suspect that there are currently several NATO states that could say their "...territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened...." by the fighting in Ukraine, and under Article 4, that would certainly allow NATO to consider whether action should be taken

Apparently it means whatever we want it to mean.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Yeah, it's not completely correct
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1500928514060525571/
But it does drive home how isolated putin has made his own country, over his delusions.

 

[Citysnaps]

Another point I'll make here, Democrats and Republicans may have different ideas about our involvement, but they both agree about leaving Russia alone. The end result is the same whether you support Trump, watch Fox News or watch MSNBC. I get that I'm the outlier here and have to deal with the Liberal hostility, but the Ukrainian people are getting fucked and we're doing nothing to help them, that's the bottom line.

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this.

I'm curious...If you were Joe Biden, specifically, what would you do beyond sending Ukraine thousands of Javelin/Stinger/NLAWS man-portable missiles, several hundred thousand tons of ammunition, tactical intelligence on what Russia is doing, and engaging in electronic counter measures against the invading Russian military? Also, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some US special forces in Ukraine helping in some capacity.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I don't think the part of your post that I put in bold is true.

NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo are examples of it taking action in non member states.

While Article 5 REQUIRES action under certain conditions, there doesn't seem to be text in the treaty that prevents NATO from deciding to take action in all other situations. And Article 4 seems to allow NATO flexibility in determining and deciding when and where to act.

I suspect that there are currently several NATO states that could say their "...territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened...." by the fighting in Ukraine, and under Article 4, that would certainly allow NATO to consider whether action should be taken

edit; mind you, I don't think NATO is currently prepared to send troops into Ukraine

NATO's missions in Kosovo and in Afghanistan have both occurred under a UN mandate, - NATO's presence and mandate derived from UN authority - whereas NATO's mission in Iraq is a capacity-building (in other words, a non-combat) mission, where they are present at the request of the host government.

 

[quagmire]

I don't think the part of your post that I put in bold is true.

NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo are examples of it taking action in non member states.

While Article 5 REQUIRES action under certain conditions, there doesn't seem to be text in the treaty that prevents NATO from deciding to take action in all other situations. And Article 4 seems to allow NATO flexibility in determining and deciding when and where to act.

I suspect that there are currently several NATO states that could say their "...territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened...." by the fighting in Ukraine, and under Article 4, that would certainly allow NATO to consider whether action should be taken

edit; mind you, I don't think NATO is currently prepared to send troops into Ukraine

Are you talking about post 9/11 Afghanistan War? That was the US activating Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks ( only time Article 5 was ever activated). That is how NATO got involved.

Whether a country hosting the terror group that attacked the US is a legitimate activation, that is another discussion.

 

[Eric]

I'm trying to keep an open mind on this.

I'm curious...If you were Joe Biden, specifically, what would you do beyond sending Ukraine thousands of Javelin/Stinger/NLAWS man-portable missiles, several hundred thousand tons of ammunition, tactical intelligence on what Russia is doing, and engaging in electronic counter measures against the invading Russian military? Also, I wouldn't be shocked if there were some US special forces in Ukraine helping in some capacity.

I would be putting boots on the ground and asking the other nations to join in, America loves to use NATO when they don't want to do something and they also love to buck them when they don't, they're nothing more than a pawn on the world stage but can be useful if we can get everyone to unite.

I would argue that Putin would (and already has) threaten nuclear war anyway. I see it like cops beating on unarmed black people who did nothing more than be black, it's wrong and we're outraged, but only here in America. We should all be defending those who cannot defend themselves.

 

[Yoused]

You mean Putin as a martyr? Yes, I can see the headlines of sympathy that a ruthless dictator who was only trying to murder tens of thousands of innocent people in the gentle annexation of a nation. We all wept.

BTW do the Ukrainian people get the same level of empathy as you give Putin? He's gotta be loving the support in this thread.

Why do you insist on calling it "empathy"? Please try to find one person here who feels empathy for Vlad. You will not. He is a reckless piece of shit. But if you have him taken out, suddenly you have a whole nation of people who are no longer on the fence. Ukraine had our President murdered, we must turn that country into a glass parking lot! Not killing Putin is more a practical mather than one of political alignment. If you go on up to Moscow and take him out, the world will thank you as a hundred crazy Russians burn everything to the ground.

 

[Eric]

Why do you insist on calling it "empathy"? Please try to find one person here who feels empathy for Vlad. You will not. He is a reckless piece of shit. But if you have him taken out, suddenly you have a whole nation of people who are no longer on the fence. Ukraine had our President murdered, we must turn that country into a glass parking lot! Not killing Putin is more a practical mather than one of political alignment. If you go on up to Moscow and take him out, the world will thank you as a hundred crazy Russians burn everything to the ground.

Saddam Hussein was found in a bunker and hung by his own people, did he become a martyr? Most of the Russian people, that we're all thrilled about applying sanctions on, do not want this war either. So you have both Ukraine and Russian people suffering because of Putin. Stop giving him so much credit.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Are you talking about post 9/11 Afghanistan War? That was the US activating Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks ( only time Article 5 was ever activated). That is how NATO got involved.

Whether a country hosting the terror group that attacked the US is a legitimate activation, that is another discussion.

NATO has been involved in a variety of actions without article 5 activation, some under UN request (as Scepticalscribe pointed out), some requested by host countries, some by other international organizations, the African Union for example....some seem to be on NATO's own initiative)

The point was that an article 5 response after an attack on a NATO member isn't the only way that NATO can get involved.....something that you and others had been suggesting

Here's NATO's website listing some of their missions over the years;

Operations and missions: past and present​

(note that article 5 is only cited twice, both after 9/11, but it's not cited for Afghanistan, which Scepticalscribe says was under a UN mandate)

 

[Citysnaps]

I would be putting boots on the ground and asking the other nations to join in, America loves to use NATO when they don't want to do something and they also love to buck them when they don't, they're nothing more than a pawn on the world stage but can be useful if we can get everyone to unite.

I would argue that Putin would (and already has) threaten nuclear war anyway. I see it like cops beating on unarmed black people who did nothing more than be black, it's wrong and we're outraged, but only here in America. We should all be defending those who cannot defend themselves.

Let's say we did that. Perhaps 50-100K US troops. In order to protect them, for sure we'd want to have control of the air space via air superiority/supremacy. That usually means first destroying hostile air defense missile systems that pose a potential threat. In this particular situation those systems would be located in Russia, Belarus (I'm guessing), and Crimea - roughly more than half of Ukraine's land border. And Russian naval assets in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

That's a big undertaking. I suspect Russia would not stand idly by and quickly ratchet up a response. Then what?

 

[Yoused]

Saddam Hussein was found in a bunker and hung by his own people, did he become a martyr? Most of the Russian people, that we're all thrilled about applying sanctions on, do not want this war either. So you have both Ukraine and Russian people suffering because of Putin. Stop giving him so much credit.

Do not point to the death of Saddam Hussein as a net positive. Iraq was a comparatively stable country while he was in power. Not only did it get much worse with him gone, but within that power vacuum arose Daesh. I think I would much rather have Hussein than the psychotic wing of al Qaeda burning across the landscape.

 

[Eric]

Do not point to the death of Saddam Hussein as a net positive. Iraq was a comparatively stable country while he was in power. Not only did it get much worse with him gone, but within that power vacuum arose Daesh. I think I would much rather have Hussein than the psychotic wing of al Qaeda burning across the landscape.

He was a horrible dictator who regularly murdered, raped and pillaged his people, who hung his ass when they found him crying in a bunker. A just and fitting ending for such a tyrant. Stop placating these evil fuckers, they deserve to die.

 

[User.45]

I’m late into the discussion because of work, but about the assassination The best way to think about it is what would One had felt if Trump was assassinated by a foreign power. Even dictators need to be removed by their own people with the most appropriate Tools for the job. For Trump, it was voting him out (first). I’m not sure what it is for Putin, but I’m sure that primarily the Russian people will need to take care of it. Otherwise you fix nothing just make the conflict a lot more ambiguous And actually give a reason to Russian forces to want to fight.

One thing I attribute to the Biden administration is that They placed Putin in a position where it is very obvious that he’s the bad guy. It would’ve been a lot more ambiguous if the USA had taken preemptive actions.

About the lives saved, and this is what is making me the most uncomfortable, saving a couple of thousands of innocent lives An exchange of tens to hundreds of thousands of casualties Accomplishes less in my opinion, than carefully calculating the level of intervention taken. It’s As easy to deescalate a worldwar level conflict as is it is to unsmoke a cigarette. The best outcome is still avoidance of a world war.

 

[lizkat]

He was a horrible dictator who regularly murdered, raped and pillaged his people, who hung his ass when they found him crying in a bunker. A just and fitting ending for such a tyrant. Stop placating these evil fuckers, they deserve to die.

Saddam Hussein wasn't assassinated after he was found in his bunker.

He was arrested, tried, sentenced and then hanged... all by Iraqis operating officially under auspices of the post-Hussien interim government.

The charges laid were for crimes against humanity, specifically the 1982 massacre of 148 Iraqi Shia then living in Dujail, Iraq. That massacre was planned and directed by Hussein in retaliation for an attempted assassination attempt against him while he was in Dujail making a speech.​

​

In his retaliation, Hussein had also directed the razing of the homes and orchards belonging to the detained Shia who lived along the road where the assassination attempt had occurred.​

One point here is that if we believe in rule of law we can't just assassinate a rogue head of state. Another is that the price for either a failed assassination attempt or a successful one is incalculable in advance. Violence begets violence. Anything from the slaughter of innocents to a civil war and yet more slaughter is possible

Look back at assorted attempts or actual assassinations and coups even just over the 20th century, where a head of state ended up not just deposed but dead. Sometimes anarchy ensued, sometimes civil war, sometimes another strongman emerged.

Let Putin's constituents bring him to justice. And let them consider that Hussein was brought to his end in courts of law and through legal process. The Iraqis who first tried just to assassinate Hussein paid a heavy price, as did their families and community. Nearly 20 years later he was ousted via the 2003 invasion, with intent to depose him, but the occupiers did not assassinate him. He was taken prisoner and turned over to the Iraqis for prosecution as they saw fit.

I certainly get why one can wish someone would off Putin. People are suffering and dying in Ukraine and in the bordering countries with every hour this vile aggression continues. But assassination is not a solution.