Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Gorsameth]

Wonder if over time Article 4 becomes a joke like western condemnations or sanctions.

Pretty sure it already has

[Nymrohd]

Just fuuuuucking shoooooooot themmmmm down jesus christ arlkujjgfbnv<liuysdbciukjlyhaedsnvasdrfbvasdq3fevasdfgadse

I really don't understand why it's so fucking complex. Shoot them down. They'll never dare to do it again.

[Endus]

I really don't understand why it's so fucking complex. Shoot them down. They'll never dare to do it again.

Alternatively, Russia launches against NATO.

That's the problem and why there's such caution. Any step beyond where NATO countries are currently at with regards to Ukraine means putting your own soldiers and citizens into the meat grinder. That might be the right choice, but that's why there's caution; you really want to be sure the price is inevitably worth paying. That's why Russia plays silly buggers games like this; nobody wants to be in this war, and as long as there's a plausible "out", he can rely on his opponents taking it, because engaging and responding directly isn't a simple response, it's throwing your nation into a war with Russia for the forseeable future.

When it's just a flyover, that's easy to justify avoiding. It'll likely take either consensus on ending the war in Ukraine by force or citizens of those neighbour nations dying to Russian attacks to force the issue.

[Nymrohd]

Alternatively, Russia launches against NATO.

That's the problem and why there's such caution. Any step beyond where NATO countries are currently at with regards to Ukraine means putting your own soldiers and citizens into the meat grinder. That might be the right choice, but that's why there's caution; you really want to be sure the price is inevitably worth paying. That's why Russia plays silly buggers games like this; nobody wants to be in this war, and as long as there's a plausible "out", he can rely on his opponents taking it, because engaging and responding directly isn't a simple response, it's throwing your nation into a war with Russia for the forseeable future.

When it's just a flyover, that's easy to justify avoiding. It'll likely take either consensus on ending the war in Ukraine by force or citizens of those neighbour nations dying to Russian attacks to force the issue.

Turkey shot down one of the planes at a time when they were in a far better military condition and they didn't dare do a thing. They would complain very vocally and stop any incursions immediately.

[Gorsameth]

Alternatively, Russia launches against NATO.

That's the problem and why there's such caution. Any step beyond where NATO countries are currently at with regards to Ukraine means putting your own soldiers and citizens into the meat grinder. That might be the right choice, but that's why there's caution; you really want to be sure the price is inevitably worth paying. That's why Russia plays silly buggers games like this; nobody wants to be in this war, and as long as there's a plausible "out", he can rely on his opponents taking it, because engaging and responding directly isn't a simple response, it's throwing your nation into a war with Russia for the forseeable future.

When it's just a flyover, that's easy to justify avoiding. It'll likely take either consensus on ending the war in Ukraine by force or citizens of those neighbour nations dying to Russian attacks to force the issue.

Russia is not declaring war on NATO over shooting down a plane that is violating airspace.
And we know this because Turkey has done it in the past.

[Iphie]

Russia is not declaring war on NATO over shooting down a plane that is violating airspace.
And we know this because Turkey has done it in the past.

In the Netherlands we say: "in het verleden behaalde resultaten zijn geen garantie voor de toekomst", loosely translated that means:"a result from the past is no guarantee for the future.".

[Kaleredar]

In the Netherlands we say: "in het verleden behaalde resultaten zijn geen garantie voor de toekomst", loosely translated that means:"a result from the past is no guarantee for the future.".

What army are they gonna invade with?

And who’s going to listen to their crocodile tears about the fighters they lost that they flew into another country that told them to fuck off? They’d just be losing more aircraft and trained men they can’t afford to lose.

I don’t know if you can really “fire a warning shot across their bow” reliably in land-to-air combat but Russia clearly is testing the boundaries here.

[Nymrohd]

Sovereignty exists only as long as it is defended. If you allow others to tresspass with no issue, you have no sovereignty to speak of.

[Mayhem]

Turkey shot down one of the planes at a time when they were in a far better military condition and they didn't dare do a thing. They would complain very vocally and stop any incursions immediately.

Eh, sure, if you ignore that Russia killed Turkish soldiers in 2017 and 2020.

[Masark]

In the Netherlands we say: "in het verleden behaalde resultaten zijn geen garantie voor de toekomst", loosely translated that means:"a result from the past is no guarantee for the future.".

The usual English phrasing is "past performance is not indicative of future results".

[Iphie]

The usual English phrasing is "past performance is not indicative of future results".

Thanks! I just translated it loosly, but that phrasing is as lot better.

[Wilian]

Alternatively, Russia launches against NATO.

That's the problem and why there's such caution. Any step beyond where NATO countries are currently at with regards to Ukraine means putting your own soldiers and citizens into the meat grinder. That might be the right choice, but that's why there's caution; you really want to be sure the price is inevitably worth paying. That's why Russia plays silly buggers games like this; nobody wants to be in this war, and as long as there's a plausible "out", he can rely on his opponents taking it, because engaging and responding directly isn't a simple response, it's throwing your nation into a war with Russia for the forseeable future.

When it's just a flyover, that's easy to justify avoiding. It'll likely take either consensus on ending the war in Ukraine by force or citizens of those neighbour nations dying to Russian attacks to force the issue.

We are a stage where Russia not only violates airspaces continuosly but also attacks European military, critical infra and military logistics routes, or as is happening right now, cyber attacks against important hubs, this time airports almoust weekly (and has been for a long while). We continue to hide behind excuse of hybrid operations while doing nothing. If this continues we might as well surrender our airspace for Russian use and throw up our hands, only engaging drones occassionally.

The only legitimate solution is that we grow a spine and outright declare publicly that any more airspace violations will be met with force and act on it.

At some point it probably is not just planes and drones or """covert actions""". Most analysists and military experts happen to agree that most potential next step is Russia directly attacking and overtaking something "insfignicant" enough (small bordering village town in Finland, the russified border city of Narva in Estonia etc.) while NATO and Europe keeps infighting over whetever something "so small" is worth of engaging all out war with Russia.

[Elder Millennial]

The problem here is that "retaliation would cause escalation" is a false premise with Russia.

Since 2008, we have now 17 years worth of clear examples that non-retaliation ALWAYS leads to Russian escalation.

Georgia. Syria. Novichok assassinations. Ukraine 2014. The Russian intervention in Belarus in 2020. Ukraine 2022. These are just the major incidents...then there are all the murders, the air space violations, the sabotage operations etc etc etc.

Every time, we are outraged and then do absolutely nothing giving implicit permission to the Russians to escalate.

Non retaliation has been consistently leading to escalation. We are operating on an entirely false premise.

https://youtu.be/-thSQ6ca8oQ?si=2ntlrJ5WWXSfuaBk

What are the odds that this is Russia again?

[PhaelixWW]

The problem here is that "retaliation would cause escalation" is a false premise with Russia.

Since 2008, we have now 17 years worth of clear examples that non-retaliation ALWAYS leads to Russian escalation.

To play devil's advocate here, though, even if you can reasonably show that "non-retaliation always leads to Russian escalation", it doesn't preclude the possibility that retaliation would lead to even worse escalation than non-retaliation does.

It's not entirely a false premise.

[Wilian]

To play devil's advocate here, though, even if you can reasonably show that "non-retaliation always leads to Russian escalation", it doesn't preclude the possibility that retaliation would lead to even worse escalation than non-retaliation does.

It's not entirely a false premise.

So the choices are of the frog in boiling pot. Either wait until the water boils (current situation) or jump out and see what happens on your own terms. We have entirely given the ladder of escalation into Russia's hands and currently allow them dictate it on their terms, on their readiness.

I would rather jump out.

[Endus]

So the choices are of the frog in boiling pot. Either wait until the water boils (current situation) or jump out and see what happens on your own terms. We have entirely given the ladder of escalation into Russia's hands and currently allow them dictate it on their terms, on their readiness.

I would rather jump out.

My point wasn't really that you should just sit in the pot. Let's combine two metaphors; we're boiling water in a frying pan over a fire. Jumping out of the pan guarantees you're in the fire. You can probably get out of the fire alive, but you're probably gonna get injured. Or you can wait a bit for another option to show up, before you boil to death.

I'm just saying I understand the hesitation to act, in that circumstance, not that I think doing so is the "right choice". I favor swift response, myself. I think it's past time for the EU to decide Russia's been a problem for too long and it's time to remove their sovereignty as a nation for a bit. I just also understand why people might think that's an overly-aggressive stance.

[PhaelixWW]

So the choices are of the frog in boiling pot. Either wait until the water boils (current situation) or jump out and see what happens on your own terms.

Not really. This isn't a closed system, nor is it a parable.

The escalations aren't, yet, past the line of no return, and for all we know, long before it gets anywhere near boiling water (at least as far as NATO countries are concerned) the situation could become moot if, like, say, Russia collapses. Again.

We have entirely given the ladder of escalation into Russia's hands and currently allow them dictate it on their terms, on their readiness.

Again, no. Not doing anything yet doesn't preclude deciding to do something later. We're not in a "use it or lose it" scenario. It's always there to be used if the situation changes.

But look, I really am not trying to argue in favor of this position, necessarily, so don't expect me to defend the choice. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly the way you're painting it to be.

[Endus]

Not really. This isn't a closed system, nor is it a parable.

The escalations aren't, yet, past the line of no return, and for all we know, long before it gets anywhere near boiling water (at least as far as NATO countries are concerned) the situation could become moot if, like, say, Russia collapses. Again.

That's the waiting game, really; it's not about what Russia's doing, it's the bated breath waiting for A> Russian economic collapse that forces them to give up on militarism in general, or B> Putin going for a walk out a window with a lethal dose of Polonium somehow and whatever oligarch takes over reining everything back to try and preserve what's left because this stupid bullshit's about 98% about Putin's own personal pride and ego.

Either will probably end hostilities over Ukraine and see Russia walk away from everything, including Crimea.

[Gabriel]

To play devil's advocate here, though, even if you can reasonably show that "non-retaliation always leads to Russian escalation", it doesn't preclude the possibility that retaliation would lead to even worse escalation than non-retaliation does.

It's not entirely a false premise.

So let's just let Russia do what it wants because to do anything is to risk escalation.

[Gorsameth]

Not really. This isn't a closed system, nor is it a parable.

The escalations aren't, yet, past the line of no return, and for all we know, long before it gets anywhere near boiling water (at least as far as NATO countries are concerned) the situation could become moot if, like, say, Russia collapses. Again.



Again, no. Not doing anything yet doesn't preclude deciding to do something later. We're not in a "use it or lose it" scenario. It's always there to be used if the situation changes.

But look, I really am not trying to argue in favor of this position, necessarily, so don't expect me to defend the choice. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly the way you're painting it to be.

It goes both way, Russia also has a lot of room. Shooting down one of their aircraft that is blatantly violating airspace doesn't immediately and automatically lead to ww3.