Russian invasion of Ukraine

[enigma77]

NATO is strictly defensive. What do you expect them to do?

Defend Ukraine.

[Daymanmb]

Defend Ukraine.

Well, theyre not part of NATO. NATO defends NATO countries.

[enigma77]

Well, theyre not part of NATO. NATO defends NATO countries.

Then make them a part of it, there are no special requirements that they don't meet.

And besides it's easy to find an excuse for doing what's right and in our interest.

[MCMLXXXII]

Then make them a part of it, there are no special requirements that they don't meet.

And besides it's easy to find an excuse for doing what's right and in our interest.

Except for the requirement of having no border disputes and inner turmoil?

[Gaidax]

Defend Ukraine.

I think you cardinally do not understand what NATO is - it's first and foremost task is to ensure peace and protection for its members. Last thing NATO would do is do completely opposite and drag its members into war.

Ukraine is neither a member not even official ally and NATO does not owe it anything on that front, even if it makes some people sad/mad.

[Vampiregenesis]

I don't agree with 90% of this but the reason he does not surrender is because Ukraine has its right to sovereignty. You don't just rollover because someone threatens you. You have no sovereignty if you are not willing to defend it.

I think Zelensky has made his peace and willing to accept his responsibilities as the leader of his country. That means his duty is to secure the best future for his country even in unfavorable circumstances. They are defending their home.

As stated, the law is longer Ukraine holds out, the better they will be at the negotiating table.

They will have nothing on the negotiating table, they will be conquered entirely and putin will get what he wants.

Ok, if surrendering is so bad that they would prefer to die until the last man falls and massacre their cities then so be it.

Right now they only delay the inevitable, there is absolutely no gain out of this unless of course there is a possibility for Russia to lose. Either way, RIP Ukraine.

[Daymanmb]

Then make them a part of it, there are no special requirements that they don't meet.

And besides it's easy to find an excuse for doing what's right and in our interest.

Youre 355 pages late to this topic and it shows.

- - - Updated - - -

putin will get what he wants.

Well, if he wanted to cripple his economy, look weak on the world stage and fail at every tactical turn, then yeh, hes getting what he wants.

[Vakna]

If Russian bombing on a nuclear power plant causes it to meltdown and explode, and the radiation drifts across a border into say, Poland, would that be considered an act of war against NATO?

[Fugus]

Except for the requirement of having no border disputes and inner turmoil?

And THAT is the catch 22, Russia can effectively keep all of them out of NATO by causing border disputes the moment they get into it. And the "Inner Turmoil" is also caused by said Russia.

You need to differentiate between turmoil of their own doing versus turmoil caused by an outside aggressor attempting to keep them isolated.

[Shadowferal]

If Russian bombing on a nuclear power plant causes it to meltdown and explode, and the radiation drifts across a border into say, Poland, would that be considered an act of war against NATO?

Short answer; no.

[Draco-Onis]

And THAT is the catch 22, Russia can effectively keep all of them out of NATO by causing border disputes the moment they get into it. And the "Inner Turmoil" is also caused by said Russia.

You need to differentiate between turmoil of their own doing versus turmoil caused by an outside aggressor attempting to keep them isolated.

Rules can change probably will after this.

[enigma77]

Except for the requirement of having no border disputes and inner turmoil?

Yeah if people wanted to do it, we'd do it, no red tape would stop us, especially considering the border dispute and inner turmoil is caused by Russia's malevolent aggression. Unfortunately we have chosen to quiver in fear instead, let's not pretend there's any other reason, people are afraid of getting nuked, I believe Biden literally said so. If that nuclear power plant blows up we'll live to regret it (or maybe not).

[Santti]

If Russian bombing on a nuclear power plant causes it to meltdown and explode, and the radiation drifts across a border into say, Poland, would that be considered an act of war against NATO?

I'm going to go with no, but I doubt the affected countries will do nothing, either.

[Corvus]

I've seen two forces put the Russian dead past 3000, that's an Israeli journal and a Ukrainian newspaper.

I've seen far more sources put it at 400-500, so I'm gonna go with that for now.

Russia have admitted to 500 KIA and 1600 WIA, so the number will be higher than that. Probably a lot higher. And another official has admitted they have lost contact with 8000 soldiers. They say that doesn't mean they are all dead, but they just can't reach them. So lost, equipment not working or desertion as well as dead.

[Fugus]

Rules can change probably will after this.

A day late and a dollar short unfortunately.

If they really created NATO primarily for defense, you would think SOMEONE up there with any authority would have noticed this glaring loophole in their rule set. And also, since the Ukraine stuff technically doesn't involve NATO yet, they can always update that rule now and immediately have Ukraine reapply the same day.

[Shadowferal]

[Vakna]

Geneva Convention, Protocol II, Article 15

"nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives"


So Putin, along with any and all military officers involved in the attack are going to jail, there is no defending or getting around a direct and blatant breach of international law.

Does anyone know how they drag people off to the Hague? Will it involve marching troops into Moscow when he inevitably says no?

[PACOX]

If Russian bombing on a nuclear power plant causes it to meltdown and explode, and the radiation drifts across a border into say, Poland, would that be considered an act of war against NATO?

See that's not really the honest truth. Some people are trying to drum up international support by saying Russia was bombing the plant. Russia was attempting to seize an administration building related to the plant, probably to seize control of it. The details are important because attacking a reactor and trying to control utilities are two very different things and acts of aggression.

People tried to say Russia attacked firefighter (I don't doubt they were initially fired), turns out that was wrong.

Running near the reactor for cover is reckless, dumb, and irresponsible. Pursuing people near a reactor is reckless, dumb, and irresponsible. Doesn't seem like there were any plans to actually compromise the reactor.

No Ukrainian sources are having to run public relations for the Russians instead of focusing on the fight against them because some people wanted to paint a bad narrative.

[Shadowferal]

So far, radiation monitoring conditions — which were updated just a few minutes ago — look "normal," according to Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. There are radiation detectors "all over the place," that would be able to pick up on any spikes in radiation, he said. "Reactors are big, sealed and concrete structures. They should not catch on fire. We don’t know what caused the fire."
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news...-22/index.html

[MCMLXXXII]

Rules can change probably will after this.

A day late and a dollar short unfortunately.

If they really created NATO primarily for defense, you would think SOMEONE up there with any authority would have noticed this glaring loophole in their rule set. And also, since the Ukraine stuff technically doesn't involve NATO yet, they can always update that rule now and immediately have Ukraine reapply the same day.

It might as well.
But I think it wasn't the only requirement Ukraine didn't met.
Some NATO members will be hesitant to scrap the no border disputes rule. It could drag NATO in to a lot more wars then now. And even though it's a huge bureaucratic toothless tiger, that's why there is the UN.