Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Odinfrost]

and Ukraine has now claimed a Russian Backfire...
https://www.businessinsider.com/ever...r-plane-2024-4

I love Russia's excuse that the plane 'had crashed', leaving them once again in a no-win situation. Either they got shut down, or they have incompetent pilots that can't fly their planes

[Jessicka]

I love Russia's excuse that the plane 'had crashed', leaving them once again in a no-win situation. Either they got shut down, or they have incompetent pilots that can't fly their planes

Well it will crash when a wing gets shot off to be fair.

[Elder Millennial]

Right so the US is going to fly Polish tank divisions halfway around the world for them? Got it.

Yes. Yes it will.

The US has been doing logistical support for NATO in Afghanistan, for allied forces in Iraq and Syria, supporting the French/Belgian/German/Portuguese operations in the Sahel.

That's the entire point of Nato's logistical standardization. Munition types, calibers, crate and palet sizes etc etc.

The US can ship a Polish Leopard or K2 tank brigade to wherever the fuck the Poles are willing to go and keep them supplied with munitions, parts, electronics etc.

[Jessicka]

Yes. Yes it will.

The US has been doing logistical support for NATO in Afghanistan, for allied forces in Iraq and Syria, supporting the French/Belgian/German/Portuguese operations in the Sahel.

That's the entire point of Nato's logistical standardization. Munition types, calibers, crate and palet sizes etc etc.

The US can ship a Polish Leopard or K2 tank brigade to wherever the fuck the Poles are willing to go and keep them supplied with munitions, parts, electronics etc.

I just had to go back to the original post I was replying to because this is getting tied in knots. My first point was that much of NATO doesn't have bilateral agreements with Asia-Pacific countries because they lack the force projection to be of any use, and that lack is down to NATOs setup which allowed them to focus on their own back yard issues: such as Iceland doesn't even have a military, others are landlocked, or others still are very small and contribute very little beyond self-defence forces, and lastly those on the Eastern flank focusing on ground capabilities.

You came up with stuff about needing to fight in Arctic waters to defend Korea and Taiwan or something. I'm pretty confident those Leopard brigades aren't going to be needed in the waters of the Arctic circle, certainly not in summer, and that there's a very strong chance you'd want them to stay on the ground on that Eastern flank instead.

That said, if Korea or Taiwan did want defending, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those nations stepped up under NATO anyway, as they have in other parts of the world.

[Elder Millennial]

I just had to go back to the original post I was replying to because this is getting tied in knots. My first point was that much of NATO doesn't have bilateral agreements with Asia-Pacific countries because they lack the force projection to be of any use, and that lack is down to NATOs setup which allowed them to focus on their own back yard issues: such as Iceland doesn't even have a military, others are landlocked, or others still are very small and contribute very little beyond self-defence forces, and lastly those on the Eastern flank focusing on ground capabilities.

You came up with stuff about needing to fight in Arctic waters to defend Korea and Taiwan or something. I'm pretty confident those Leopard brigades aren't going to be needed in the waters of the Arctic circle, certainly not in summer, and that there's a very strong chance you'd want them to stay on the ground on that Eastern flank instead.

That said, if Korea or Taiwan did want defending, it wouldn't surprise me if some of those nations stepped up under NATO anyway, as they have in other parts of the world.

You said Asia is not a relevant theater to powers that don't have conventional presence in Asia.

I pointed out that Asia/Eastern Europe is not actually as far from a theater that is relevant to Northern/Eastern Europe, as in the Arctic, as people think. Pointing out that munitions or equipment made or stored in central or southern Europe could easily be used in a conflict in that area. Not to mention air forces of countries specifically like Poland, Finland, Norway, Sweden are very relevant to that area, just as Czech, Romanian etc air forces would be relevant to keeping the Russians in check.

You once again brought up power projection suggesting that a country like Poland couldn't play a role in an area like Eastern Europe because the US won't ship them to that area.

I pointed out multiple historical and current examples of the US running logistics for countries with no means or limited means to project power to far away remote areas like Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia.

If you're willing to go even further back you could mention the Korean War where the US was enabling power projection for as disparate countries like Greece, Colombia and South Africa to fight against North Korean and Chinese forces in Korea.

My entire point is that you think of global geopolitical distances as a "flat plain" and also ignoring why "NATO standard" was invented in the first place, and why countries like Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, Finland, Australia all standardized on compatible logistics.

[Jessicka]

You said Asia is not a relevant theater to powers that don't have conventional presence in Asia.

I pointed out that Asia/Eastern Europe is not actually as far from a theater that is relevant to Northern/Eastern Europe, as in the Arctic, as people think. Pointing out that munitions or equipment made or stored in central or southern Europe could easily be used in a conflict in that area. Not to mention air forces of countries specifically like Poland, Finland, Norway, Sweden are very relevant to that area, just as Czech, Romanian etc air forces would be relevant to keeping the Russians in check.

You once again brought up power projection suggesting that a country like Poland couldn't play a role in an area like Eastern Europe because the US won't ship them to that area.

I pointed out multiple historical and current examples of the US running logistics for countries with no means or limited means to project power to far away remote areas like Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia.

If you're willing to go even further back you could mention the Korean War where the US was enabling power projection for as disparate countries like Greece, Colombia and South Africa to fight against North Korean and Chinese forces in Korea.

My entire point is that you think of global geopolitical distances as a "flat plain" and also ignoring why "NATO standard" was invented in the first place, and why countries like Korea, Japan, Germany, Poland, Finland, Australia all standardized on compatible logistics.

I did not say it wasn't relevant, I said they didn't have the forces or force projection to be able to do anything about it. Tell me, with or without US logistics, what the fuck Estonia and Latvia are going to do about anything happening in Japan? What purpose would it serve them to have a bilateral defence agreement?

[Iphie]

I did not say it wasn't relevant, I said they didn't have the forces or force projection to be able to do anything about it. Tell me, with or without US logistics, what the fuck Estonia and Latvia are going to do about anything happening in Japan? What purpose would it serve them to have a bilateral defence agreement?

Who is between those countries? That's right, ruskieland, if russia attacks Estonia or Japan, then it's automatically pincered. Effectively russia has to spread thin to defend in multiple directions rather than just one direction.

[Jessicka]

Who is between those countries? That's right, ruskieland, if russia attacks Estonia or Japan, then it's automatically pincered. Effectively russia has to spread thin to defend in multiple directions rather than just one direction.

Which it’s going to do anyway in that circumstance, but in “lesser” scenarios, perhaps not involving Russia or China, what would be the point? How could they meaningfully help without leaving themselves wide open?

[Elder Millennial]

Which it’s going to do anyway in that circumstance, but in “lesser” scenarios, perhaps not involving Russia or China, what would be the point? How could they meaningfully help without leaving themselves wide open?

Again. That's the whole point of NATO. An Estonian unit can provide reconnaissance for a Polish armored united, supported by a Romanian air wing, while a different Polish air wing unit is hunting cruise missiles over the Arctic Ocean covering a British or Norwegian naval unit.

That's why at the very beginning when you first replied to me I was advocating for even broader NATO wide cooperation with Asian and LATAM countries, possibly even directly including them into NATO, which would be my preference. NATO should be reformed to include pretty much anyone, anywhere on Earth as long as that country is both a functional democracy and has a vested interest in opposing China and Russia.

[Sunseeker]

Again. That's the whole point of NATO. An Estonian unit can provide reconnaissance for a Polish armored united, supported by a Romanian air wing, while a different Polish air wing unit is hunting cruise missiles over the Arctic Ocean covering a British or Norwegian naval unit.

That's why at the very beginning when you first replied to me I was advocating for even broader NATO wide cooperation with Asian and LATAM countries, possibly even directly including them into NATO, which would be my preference. NATO should be reformed to include pretty much anyone, anywhere on Earth as long as that country is both a functional democracy and has a vested interest in opposing China and Russia.

Nothing gets the world on the same page like a major nation invading it's neighbor(s).

But yeah seriously if half the US wasn't quietly or openly backing Russia, this would be a great time to push for a much broader global alliance.

[Jessicka]

Again. That's the whole point of NATO. An Estonian unit can provide reconnaissance for a Polish armored united, supported by a Romanian air wing, while a different Polish air wing unit is hunting cruise missiles over the Arctic Ocean covering a British or Norwegian naval unit.

That's why at the very beginning when you first replied to me I was advocating for even broader NATO wide cooperation with Asian and LATAM countries, possibly even directly including them into NATO, which would be my preference. NATO should be reformed to include pretty much anyone, anywhere on Earth as long as that country is both a functional democracy and has a vested interest in opposing China and Russia.

I know. Which is not a fucking bilateral defence agreement.

There are members of NATO with such bilateral agreements with other countries, and those that don’t. Those that don’t, don’t because they have little to offer and little to gain.

Could they help those countries that do as part of NATO, absolutely, examples were given. Do they have to? No.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.eu/article/russ...ian-territory/

Russia's air force dropped a massive missile on its own territory earlier this month, according to an independent media report.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's military has been regularly bombing Ukraine from the skies above its border regions, such as Belgorod, which has led to friendly fire incidents.

Last week, Russia's air force “dropped” an X-59 missile in the Belgorod region, 92 kilometers from the border with Ukraine, Russian independent media Astra reported on Telegram late Monday, citing its sources.

“The military had to destroy it on the spot. There were no victims,” Astra said.

Overall, at least 21 aerial bombs fell from Russian planes on Russia or occupied territories of Ukraine in March and April alone, Astra reported.

“There are no exact answers as to why this keeps happening,” the journalists wrote. POLITICO was not able to independently verify Astra's account.

On April 2, a Russian bomber dropped an explosive near the railway station in Rubizhne, a town in the occupied part of the Luhansk region. “The number of victims is not reported, the survivors were evacuated and kept together,” Artem Lysohor, head of Ukraine's military administration in the Luhansk region said in a statement.

On April 20 last year a Russian aerial bomb fell in the center of Belgorod, creating a giant crater. The Russian defense ministry said in a statement that “during the flight of the Su-34 aircraft of the Aerospace Forces over the city of Belgorod, an unusual fall of aviation ammunition occurred.”

No explosion this time, but it appears Russia keeps accidentally dropping bombs and missiles on their own territory and the Ukranian territory they currently occupy.

Russia's aggression against itself should absolutely be...tolerate and supported as fully as possible.

[Deus Mortis]

https://www.politico.eu/article/russ...ian-territory/



No explosion this time, but it appears Russia keeps accidentally dropping bombs and missiles on their own territory and the Ukranian territory they currently occupy.

Russia's aggression against itself should absolutely be...tolerate and supported as fully as possible.

Pairs nicely with them shooting down their own planes.

[Edge-]

Pairs nicely with them shooting down their own planes.

Didn't one also have a technical malfunction that caused it to go down? Are they stripping them for parts and still hoping they'll fly or something?

[Lahis]

Again. That's the whole point of NATO. An Estonian unit can provide reconnaissance for a Polish armored united, supported by a Romanian air wing, while a different Polish air wing unit is hunting cruise missiles over the Arctic Ocean covering a British or Norwegian naval unit.

That's why at the very beginning when you first replied to me I was advocating for even broader NATO wide cooperation with Asian and LATAM countries, possibly even directly including them into NATO, which would be my preference. NATO should be reformed to include pretty much anyone, anywhere on Earth as long as that country is both a functional democracy and has a vested interest in opposing China and Russia.

If NATO can work in modern time.

I feel that once Putin attacks Baltics, Trump will stop US from doing anything, Germany doesn't want to escalate, Hungary and Turkey side with Russia and rest will send few med packs to Tallinn.

[Saradain]

If NATO can work in modern time.

I feel that once Putin attacks Baltics, Trump will stop US from doing anything, Germany doesn't want to escalate, Hungary and Turkey side with Russia and rest will send few med packs to Tallinn.

That's assuming multiple things like Putin having anything left to attack Baltics with, Trump winning, Germany being a pussy again...Some of those are plausible, not all.

Why on earth would the world's most well equipped coalition NOT defend its members against a nazi terrorist state with the least competent "worlds second best army...in Ukraine"?

[Poopymonster]

Pairs nicely with them shooting down their own planes.

It hurts itself in its confusion.

[Lahis]

Why on earth would the world's most well equipped coalition NOT defend its members against a nazi terrorist state with the least competent "worlds second best army...in Ukraine"?

Because in the end, politicians are pulling the strings. The baltic attack will come closer to 2030, which gives Russia enough time to rebuilt their military after Ukraine and to try install right wing populist pro-russia governments into NATO countries.

[DarkTZeratul]

Because in the end, politicians are pulling the strings. The baltic attack will come closer to 2030, which gives Russia enough time to rebuilt their military after Ukraine and to try install right wing populist pro-russia governments into NATO countries.

Very creative imagination you have there.

[Gaidax]

Very creative imagination you have there.

Why?

It's not really outside the realm of possibility.

I think some people living in some weird state of euphoria, who knows what will happen tomorrow in Europe. The other side spares no effort to drive a wedge in European unity one way or another, just a few "rogue" states is enough to paralyze a lot of EU decision making. And I am not sure Europe wants to pin your hopes and wishes on whoever happens to sit in the chair over the pond, either.

Europe needs to prepare to stand for itself, because next decade there will be a few more conflicts that will spread US very thin. This nonsense about how European backdoor can start crumbling if US does not send $$ in time should be a wakeup call for the Europe.