Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

If B-2 was piloted by volunteers in Ukrainian uniforms and flew from a Ukrainian airport with Ukrainian air force emblems, that would be 100% okay, and I think Russia would consider it okay as well. Ukrainian air space is a war zone, and any hunk of metal with Russian and Ukrainian emblems on it inside the war zone is fair game to get shot. Flying foreign colors from foreign air space into the war zone to kill some people and then fly out again is a no-go, and makes it hell for whichever country let warplanes and vehicles use their territory for combat.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting flying anything out.  Missiles don't fly out.

 

And missiles could be fired discretely (without public knowledge) from international waters.

 

I guess if that's where you want to draw the line, that's fine.  But it is a pretty fine line to draw, and it isn't clear that the Russians would agree, especially if they capture a US pilot in Ukraine.

12 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

Imagine we go through the most wrenching political and economic upheaval in our national history.  California and the southwest and Texas all break away from the U.S. as our union dissolves.  There is a massive public health crisis and a man's life expectancy drops by over ten years and our death rate overtakes our birth rate, further destabilizing our society and economy.  Our fledgling democracy is crushed by the rise of an oligarchy and we become a failed state.  Now imagine China forms a powerful anti-American alliance with Mexico and Canada, and begins inviting most of those former states into it.  Texas decides it wants to join and is officially recognized as an aspiring member by China.  How would we respond?

 

First, I'm not sure you can call the dissolution of the Soviet Union the most wrenching and economic upheaval in their nation history.

 

This is a country that went through the Bolshevik revolution and Stalin.

 

Second, you've left out the part where they've been taking back territory and destroyed cities to do so in recent years before Canada and TX started wanting to join the anti-US group.

Edited February 26, 2022 by PeterMP

[NickyJ]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting flying anything out.  Missiles don't fly out.

 

And missiles could be fired discretely (without public knowledge) from international waters.

 

I guess if that's where you want to draw the line, that's fine.  But it is a pretty fine line to draw, and it isn't clear that the Russians would agree, especially if they capture a US pilot in Ukraine.

By all means, I agree that it's a very fine line. The whole reason I brought it up is that for a war we don't want to officially join, we'd be toeing that fine line very, very, very much by using anything with our colors and emblems to launch rockets and bombs into the warzone. I don't think firing rockets from American ships in international waters would work though. Saying "bah, they'll never catch us" feels like the exact thing someone says right before they get caught, especially when the Ukrainian navy is next to non-existent.

 

And this isn't touching what international laws we'd be violating by participating in battles without declaring war. I have no idea what laws would cover it, but that nobody has done it before makes me think that something probably covers it.

 

I like the sentiment that we could help, but American troops using American property to fight in a war America hasn't entered just doesn't sound realistic to me.

Edited February 26, 2022 by NickyJ

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

How would we respond?

I personally would go join them. Because I want to live in a democracy. 
 

but to your point - I imagine Putin is operating the same ways any dictator of a failed state would act when they see their ideological enemy knocking at their door. 

20 minutes ago, NickyJ said:

Flying foreign colors from foreign air space into the war zone to kill some people and then fly out again is a no-go, and makes it hell for whichever country let warplanes and vehicles use their territory for combat

Well. The UN a has successfully establish no fly zones in other conflicts. So it’s obviously possible. 
 

sure it upsets people. But it doesn’t necessarily lead to retaliation and an escalation to world war status. 

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think it’s always weird that countries don’t view sending lethal weapons to the enemy as an attack on their military.

 

Im surprised Russia isn’t threatening other countries who are giving weapons to Ukraine…

Considering how it is going for him, it's quite prossible that he was really bluffing. So sure he's gaining ground and such but at the very least it's quite costly.

And the fact that he's threatening everyone knowing they'll stay away from the fight. And he's still hoping he's guessing right because he wouldn't want them involved.

 

After all, he most probably knows that if NATO jumps in, he'll take a kicking. Especially with his buddies backing off from him like China. Whatever deal he got with them seems to be dead since... If numbers coming from Ukrainian are corrects (they are probably exaggerated to some extent as always), it doesn't look good for him. He might succeed in his goal, but even then, replacing Mighty Zelensky most probably will be an even bigger mess to him, because obviously, Ukrainian are not gonna leave it at that.

 

It's slowly looking like the plan was to threaten and show muscles, do some quick strikes and see the Ukrainian army flee in front of his mighty army.

 

Well, so far, the plan has failed as he's calling in the rest of his surrounding troops to the conflict. Looks like plan B, or C, D, or maybe Z to me.

[NickyJ]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well. The UN a has successfully establish no fly zones in other conflicts. So it’s obviously possible. 
 

sure it upsets people. But it doesn’t necessarily lead to retaliation and an escalation to world war status. 

That's the UN that's deciding to enforce it though, and members of the UN abiding by it. I've never seen individual countries decide to do it. I've heard politicians push it before for Syria, but never actually get around to making it happen and seeing the fallout from it. And for the UN to do it now, I'd assume Russia's security council status would stand in the way the same as it has for every other Ukraine related sanction.

Edited February 26, 2022 by NickyJ

[tshile]

So far who has stood up on russias side?

 

as far as I can tell, only Belarus, who allowed/allows Russia to stage troops and equipment in their country. And I’m not so sure Belarus is all to thrilled how this has turned out and that fact they seem to be russias only ally at the moment. 

[Wildbunny]

Just now, NickyJ said:

That's the UN that's deciding to enforce it though, and members of the UN abiding by it. I've never seen individual countries decide to do it. I've heard politicians push it before for Syria, but never actually get around to making it happen and seeing the fallout from it.

Speaking of UN, I'm wondering how long it will take for them to kick Russia out of the security. It was granted to USSR, not Russia. Time to correct that asap.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, NickyJ said:

That's the UN that's deciding to enforce it though, and members of the UN abiding by it. I've never seen individual countries decide to do it. I've heard politicians push it before for Syria, but never actually get around to making it happen and seeing the fallout from it.

I think it’s a legitimate move we have. To declare a no fly zone, and enforce if with a promise of a full fledged aerial assault if Russia doesn’t respect it or goes after us. 
 

i think we would be able to pull that off. 
 

i give it a 1% chance of this administration/country doing that. 
 

but I think we absolutely could and would be successful in it. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Wildbunny said:

Speaking of UN, I'm wondering how long it will take for them to kick Russia out of the security. It was granted to USSR, not Russia. Time to correct that asap.

It’s been proposed. Yesterday.  Not sure of its status. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

So far who has stood up on russias side?

 

as far as I can tell, only Belarus, who allowed/allows Russia to stage troops and equipment in their country. And I’m not so sure Belarus is all to thrilled how this has turned out and that fact they seem to be russias only ally at the moment. 

I predict hard, hard times for Belarus.

[visionary]

 

I doubt we see a no fly zone unless it’s somewhere in western Ukraine.

 

on the other hand there seems to be a growing ‘no fly zone’ for Russian planes internationally.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by visionary

[spjunkies]

Please ignore 

Edited February 26, 2022 by spjunkies

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

To my knowledge, the Ukraine hasn't been a direct and public request for troops.

 

Did you see that somewhere?

 

That's the take I took from much of his talk recently and especially after reading his speech in Munich a couple days ago:

 

https://kyivindependent.com/national/zelenskys-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference/

 

Quotes like this stood out to me, as are others in other places saying sanctions for deterrents are not enough here, being pissed Ukraine is "fighting alone", and calling out NATO for dragging out their addition to the alliance:

 

Quote

Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability

 

A fair question is what we're those garuntees?  And it bothers me because it comes across like we wiggled our way out of another one because of technicalities, being literal, or not literal enough and being called out for it again by someone else:

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion

 

 

Quote

Interview highlights

On whether Ukraine foresaw the impact of denuclearizing

It is hard to estimate whether Ukrainians would foresee the impact.

It is clear that Ukrainians knew they weren't getting the exactly legally binding, really robust security guarantees they sought.

But they were told at the time that the United States and Western powers — so certainly at least the United States and Great Britain — take their political commitments really seriously. This is a document signed at the highest level by the heads of state. So the implication was Ukraine would not be left to stand alone and face a threat should it come under one.

 

And I think perhaps there was even a certain sense of complacency on the Ukrainian part after signing this agreement to say, "Look, we have these guarantees that were signed," because incidentally, into Ukrainian and Russian, this was translated as a guarantee, not as an assurance.

So they had this faith that the West would stand by them, or certainly the United States, the signatories, and Great Britain, would stand up for Ukraine should it come under threat. Although, the precise way was not really proscribed in the memorandum.

 

I don't like where you are going with this, he's calling out NATO for dragging its feet allowing Ukraine in so it can be protected by Article 5, that's clearly what he wants NATO troops to help him and angry he can't get it:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/guarantees-zelenskiy-asks-nato-012945340.html

 

Quote

STORY: " Today, I have asked 27 European leaders whether Ukraine will be in NATO. I have asked directly - everyone is afraid, no one answers.," he said

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Renegade7

[visionary]

 

[China]

 

[Fergasun]

This is not 1939, 1989 or even 1999 Russia a-holes.  I. hope the globally connected international community is able to bring the full brunt of what we can to make Putin stop and think about all the bloodshed, chaos, and darkness he is bringing onto Europe.

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

34 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

Speaking of UN, I'm wondering how long it will take for them to kick Russia out of the security. It was granted to USSR, not Russia. Time to correct that asap.

 

They aren't going to kicked out.  Kicking them out would require approval of the UN security council.  China isn't going to allow Russia to be kicked out of the UN.

 

The UN isn't going to do anything practical or relevant.

[tshile]

Why would he give up the football club. I don’t understand. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I stand corrected, this does seem safer pegging them from international waters then flying into contested airspace.

 

Having said what's to stop Russia from attacking our navy in the Black Sea?  Isn't any US military intervention possible to cause US casualties and with your point being how to limit that with understanding once we do that the risk can no longer be zero, right?

 

Not saying you are wrong, seeking clarification on expectations of doing what you suggested via ships versus what I suggested via planes. Because I was thinking more B-2s then fighter jets (shoulda been more clear in my compromise proposal).

Others have already said it but pretty much they don’t want to get their asses kicked.  I think Putin seeing how bad this is going would make him think twice about opening up hostilities against the main superpower of the world.

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

A fair question is what we're those garuntees?  And it bothers me because it comes across like we wiggled our way out of another one because of technicalities, being literal, or not literal enough and being called out for it again by someone else:

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-putin-invasion

 

 

 

You can read the memo.  I don't think anybody doubts that Russia is in violation of it.  Putin's excuse is the agreement was to a different Ukranian government.  His claim is the Ukrainian revolution (in 2013 or so) was unlawful and negates the assurances made in it.

 

I'm actually surprised the Russians haven't drug out the ex-President to claim they are attempting to re-install the proper government.

 

We aren't required to come to their defense.  The closest thing is:

 

"4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."

Edited February 26, 2022 by PeterMP

[visionary]

 

[China]

 

[visionary]

 

[EmirOfShmo]

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by EmirOfShmo

[China]