Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Pannonian]

Probably fewer than 1 in 10. But I never mentioned the article, but let's look at WW1, the assassination of the Archduke was regarded as an act of war, as would generally any assassination of a head of state, or emissary thereof. NATO certainly will have written in many, many more examples to lawyer out basically anything as an automatic trigger in order to keep open options of de-escalation; it's a defensive pact, it's members aren't actually looking for excuses. That said, Russia won't want to give them one either.

It was regarded as an act of war by... Austria... They wanted to go to wars for months and this was a welcome excuse. Not even the germans were really on board.

The only reason the death of Franz Ferdinand was enough, was the simple fact that europe at this time was a powder keg with everyone itching for a short 4 week war to show it these germans/french/serbian/russian/english bastards and we're all back home for christmas...

[Makabreska]

3 weeks ago we thought we wouldn't be seeing an invasion and land war in Europe ever again.

Why not? We saw it in 2014. We knew possibility existed when Putin was amassing forces at the border.

[Jessicka]

Why not? We saw it in 2014. We knew possibility existed when Putin was amassing forces at the border.

Literally 3 months before the invasion, our own PM: “old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over”.

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/stat...39951552671744

[Slant]

Probably fewer than 1 in 10. But I never mentioned the article, but let's look at WW1, the assassination of the Archduke was regarded as an act of war, as would generally any assassination of a head of state, or emissary thereof. NATO certainly will have written in many, many more examples to lawyer out basically anything as an automatic trigger in order to keep open options of de-escalation; it's a defensive pact, it's members aren't actually looking for excuses. That said, Russia won't want to give them one either.

You're talking about WW1 treaties. NATO was founded in 1949. Not sure why they would be relevant. It's like you're ignoring the treaty itself and assume that just because something was done a certain way before that it takes precedence. Not sure I understand that line of reasoning. NATO is very clear on how it works.

- - - Updated - - -

"We" learned that starting a war over the death of a single individual is a bad idea from Franz Ferdinand.

- - - Updated - - -

What Jessika said...

Yeah, different times, different treaties. I don't see the relevance here.

[Jessicka]

[QUOTE=Jessicka;53644584]Literally 3 months before the invasion, our own PM: “old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over”.

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/stat...39951552671744

[Makabreska]

Literally 3 months before the invasion, our own PM: “old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over”.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19...on-resurfaces/

And yet Russia was gathering forces and kept making aggressive remarks towards Ukraine. This just shows BJ is shit analyst/was given shit info/was trying to de-escalate.

[Slant]

It doesn't have to trigger Art. 5 directly. I suspect Poland would be more than willing to start killing russian invaders in Ukraine on their own given a suitable pretext. THEN if russia decides to start bombing military bases in Poland in return we might see Art 5. I don't really know the fine print on how that would be interpreted then, but I don't really give a shit either.

Poland unleashed would end russia's excursion in Ukraine, and then it would be upto Mr. Manlet in Kremlin to decide if he truly wants to escalate this into a hot hot war by nuking Poland, because NATO or not, if russia uses nukes against anybody, it will get wiped off the face of the earth by US nuclear forces.

This is wrong, if Poland attacks Russia in Ukraine, they already have left the protection of NATO. NATO members lose all benefits the second they become aggressors. Article 1 is very clear about the framework of NATO as a purely defensive pact.

[Gabriel]

Uh, you overestimate willingness of Poland to go after Russians, especially solo. Also, pretty sure that Art. 5 has no power when you are attacked in retaliation.

Ehh, I like my odds.

[Jessicka]

*checks which PM this is*

Well there’s your problem.

Clearly he is a fucking idiot, but his views on this weren't actually unusual.

[Gabriel]

This is wrong, if Poland attacks Russia in Ukraine, they already have left the protection of NATO. NATO members lose all benefits the second they become aggressors. Article 1 is very clear about the framework of NATO as a purely defensive pact.

It isn't an attack, it is a special peacekeeping operation. =)

[Jessicka]

You're talking about WW1 treaties. NATO was founded in 1949. Not sure why they would be relevant. It's like you're ignoring the treaty itself and assume that just because something was done a certain way before that it takes precedence. Not sure I understand that line of reasoning. NATO is very clear on how it works.

Yeah, different times, different treaties. I don't see the relevance here.

I know the principals, and I know times were different. They very much feel different again.

[Barzotti]

Literally 3 months before the invasion, our own PM: “old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over”.

https://twitter.com/adambienkov/stat...39951552671744

Let's be honest, no one was really surprised when Russia invaded Ukraine. Even on a random site like MMMOC it was discussed since at least december.

[Slant]

It isn't an attack, it is a special peacekeeping operation. =)

I get the humor of what you're saying, but just so other people understand, legal shenannigans like that are very unlikely to fly haha

[Jessicka]

Let's be honest, no one was really surprised when Russia invaded Ukraine. Even on a random site like MMMOC it was discussed since at least december.

Very few people here, or anywhere, thought it would be a full scale invasion, they were expecting another Crimea across the Donbas. And that it'd be over in a week.

[Gabriel]

I get the humor of what you're saying, but just so other people understand, legal shenannigans like that are very unlikely to fly haha

I wish the West had the balls to play Putin's game for once.

Bomb the fuck out of russian forces in Ukraine with unmarked jets that just happen to come from Poland, and then spread our hands on live TV claiming they were just concerned citizens that learned to fly jets in video games and bought their jets from TOR network with bitcoins.

[Barzotti]

The scale of the invasion was indeed unknown, but we were about 99% certain that Russia was about to invade Ukraine since at least december.

[Slant]

I wish the West had the balls to play Putin's game for once.

Bomb the fuck out of russian forces in Ukraine with unmarked jets that just happen to come from Poland, and then spread our hands on live TV claiming they were just concerned citizens that learned to fly jets in video games and bought their jets from TOR network with bitcoins.

We would have the balls. But the reason why the West is so awesome is because we have so many rules.

Or to quote one of my favourite lines from Doctor Who:

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many... hmm?"

Our rules keep us in check. We're just as irritating, greedy and evil as every other person on the planet is. And most of us can be quite the dicks if you poke them enough. It is our rule-based system that keeps us in check. And the hard part is that it'll also hold us back when we think it would be just to go on a Crusade. But we've done that before. And it always ended tragically. We know lies when we see them. And while we're not always upfront with the truth, our whole defense at this point is that we're the good guys. It's why everyone flocks to us. It's why regimes like Putin will, inevitably, fall.

[Gabriel]

We would have the balls. But the reason why the West is so awesome is because we have so many rules.

Or to quote one of my favourite lines from Doctor Who:

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many... hmm?"

Our rules keep us in check. We're just as irritating, greedy and evil as every other person on the planet is. And most of us can be quite the dicks if you poke them enough. It is our rule-based system that keeps us in check. And the hard part is that it'll also hold us back when we think it would be just to go on a Crusade. But we've done that before. And it always ended tragically. We know lies when we see them. And while we're not always upfront with the truth, our whole defense at this point is that we're the good guys. It's why everyone flocks to us. It's why regimes like Putin will, inevitably, fall.

Since we're quoting fictional characters:



Ask the dead and dying civilians in Ukraine if they think we are the good guys for cowering behind our system of rules and regulations.

[JohnBrown1917]

I wish the West had the balls to play Putin's game for once.

Bomb the fuck out of russian forces in Ukraine with unmarked jets that just happen to come from Poland, and then spread our hands on live TV claiming they were just concerned citizens that learned to fly jets in video games and bought their jets from TOR network with bitcoins.

I, too, love starting WWIII.


Although I wonder why Ukraine is worth it and not any other of the dozens of war zones of the last 2 decades.

[Jessicka]

I wish the West had the balls to play Putin's game for once.

Bomb the fuck out of russian forces in Ukraine with unmarked jets that just happen to come from Poland, and then spread our hands on live TV claiming they were just concerned citizens that learned to fly jets in video games and bought their jets from TOR network with bitcoins.

NATO has deployed it's 40,000 strong rapid deployment force, on top of existing forces already in situ. Individual nations have deployed and readied even more besides.

That's why I said times feel like they changed again. NATO might well lawyer out anything short of a direct attack on NATO territory to avoid article 5. But, they're certainly ready not to.