Mr Nyet is alive and well, so it seems. It wouldn't if Russia did choose to veto within the UNSC, but that shouldn't be a reason why it shouldn't be voted on nonetheless. The political ramifications are great and it still signals that this fight is Russia versus the world, not Russia versus NATO or Ukraine. It needn't necessarily be mentioned that the rest of the world oppose this invasion, so even to be seen to have attempted and failed is better than to have done nothing.
"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter XBe02Drvr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Mr Nyet is alive and well, so it seems. It wouldn't if Russia did choose to veto within the UNSC, but that shouldn't be a reason why it shouldn't be voted on nonetheless. The political ramifications are great and it still signals that this fight is Russia versus the world, not Russia versus NATO or Ukraine. It needn't necessarily be mentioned that the rest of the world oppose this invasion, so even to be seen to have attempted and failed is better than to have done nothing.
Crimea_River
Marshal
More like sitting on a pointy fence.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
China will likely abstain, leaving US, UK, and France voting to censure Russia. Fat lot of good that does, because we already know who's lined up where.
Vote on it 'til the cows come home, the two autocracies on the Security Council will not vote to support the defense of democracy, I don't think.
Everyone already knows that most of the world is against Russia's invasion, and I doubt that matters in Moscow, UN vote or no.
Wildcat
Major
Agreed. In the meantime, however, in our neck of the woods they continue with their plans in the Indo-Pacific...
Solomon Islands defends plans to expand security ties with China, as Canberra, Wellington express concern
Abstention doesn't stop a vote from going ahead. The thing is, even if a limited no-fly zone could be imposed over Western Ukraine, the risks are high and it does depend on world nations and their commitment. If it is angled toward humanitarian reasons, the Russians would look real bad since they are playing the humanitarian crisis card at the moment. The rest of the world is denouncing Russian claims by stating that the end of the conflict and Russian military withdrawal is the only answer to the humanitarian crisis, naturally, but this signals a very different intent and if Russia was to vote against, they look even worse than they do now.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I read of that earlier today. It's disturbing, and all the more so because it's taking place while the world is distracted. Whether the Chinese can parlay that into solid support of their aims in the South China Sea remains to be seen, but it must be another consideration.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
One Russian Security Council veto blocks the whole thing. The Chinese abstention is just a plus, to Putin. And I don't think at this point he cares about optics. I mean, he's already rolled the dice.
Russia will, I think, pull back into defensive positions not because of world opinion, but because they are running out of military to accomplish the mission they set themselves to achieve.
Putin might not, but despite his claim that he is Russia, the country is not totally independent of the world. Russia has a lot to answer for already over this war and the damage has been done. Again though, the Russian ambassador cannot be seen to be making claims about the humanitarian crisis on one hand and preventing a resolution from going ahead that aids in the protection of refugees on the other.
Very true, as is currently being demonstrated, but what happens afterwards is vital and world opinion will influence that considerably. Russia's list of allies is getting smaller and the ramifications from this war will be enormous, even if it manages to dethrone Zelenskiy. Regional stability has been completely altered and it will result in an escalation of military capability against Russia in Eastern Europe as both sides will bolster their defences at the Ukraine/Belorussian borders with NATO nations. Ukraine won't have the capability to house the weapons that Putin is afraid of, but Romania and Poland most definitely will, as will the Baltic states. The future for Russia is bleak.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I know that the Russian people are both smart and empathetic, so my confuzzling them with "Putin" isn't fair and you're right to point that out. However, Putin does have a firm grasp on the body-politic there, and is indeed using this war to further that grasp, so I'm not sure the thoughts of the Russian public will matter much until those thoughts reach boiling-point.
I think everyone already knows that Russian protests about the humanitarian situation are vapid, given their various sieges and violations of cease-fires. No UN vote will alter those perceptions, because they're set already. We all know a fig-leaf when we see one.
This is Putin's biggest blunder: he's squandered what little diplomatic trust Russia had in store in this invasion of Ukraine. And at the same time he's brought NATO to his country's doorstep, which he avowed to prevent. It's lose/lose for Russia. No one will trust them under Putin, and with that distrust, NATO is coming back together even as Russia shows its weakness in both diplomacy and military might.
Putin's attack on Ukraine is in this sense an attack upon the accepted order of things, but he lacks the power to overturn that order. A colossal misjudgment.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I had to laugh...
news.bitcoin.com
Anonymous Says It Hacked Bank of Russia, Monetary Authority Denies Claim – Bitcoin News
Anonymous has attacked the Central Bank of Russia, according to a post on social media, the monetary authority denies the claim, however.
Completely agree, Thump; Putin's done it now...
If he wanted the world to turn against Russia, then he's done that. Multilateral support for action wields a powerful signal, though.
Yes, Russia's humanitarian angle is merely virtue signalling, but a veto against protection for refugees would be a significant blow to sustaining belief in Russia in the eyes of her allies. The Russian people will see multilateral action as punishing, but it will cause more of them to open their eyes - there are plenty of Russians who support Putin, but that support erodes when knowledge of what's actually happens seeps in. The Russian media is censoring all Western outlets, but information is getting through.
Glider
Captain
There is a lot of talk about a no fly zone. However I think people tend to forget some of the basics.
In particular that the Ukraine is a very large country and to declare a No Fly Zone would be a huge undertaking as you are in effect saying that you are going to control the sky 24/7 every day. You have to do that as any breach will be a PR victory to Russia.
I would suggest that a better alternative is a clear undertaking that if chemical weapons are used then the full might of the NATO air forces are deployed for one day. It should be possible to clear the skies for that day and deploy GA aircraft to attack the RA ground forces and more particularly its artillery, pontoon bridges that have been positioned and supply depots.
The Ukrainian forces seem to have the measure of the Russian Army and trying to target individual tanks and APC's would be of limited value and logistics is the Russian Achilles heal.
The message to the Russian Leaders would be clear, NATO can and will do immense damage to your forces should you repeat this action. To the troops on the ground, the message is that you are even more vulnerable than you thought and the impact on morale is likely to be significant.
We have to be realistic. It wouldn't be possible to destroy everything in a day but it will be possible to do an awful lot of damage. Russian forces outside the Ukraine will probably have to be off limits due to the risk of Nuclear escalation.
In particular that the Ukraine is a very large country and to declare a No Fly Zone would be a huge undertaking as you are in effect saying that you are going to control the sky 24/7 every day. You have to do that as any breach will be a PR victory to Russia.
I would suggest that a better alternative is a clear undertaking that if chemical weapons are used then the full might of the NATO air forces are deployed for one day. It should be possible to clear the skies for that day and deploy GA aircraft to attack the RA ground forces and more particularly its artillery, pontoon bridges that have been positioned and supply depots.
The Ukrainian forces seem to have the measure of the Russian Army and trying to target individual tanks and APC's would be of limited value and logistics is the Russian Achilles heal.
The message to the Russian Leaders would be clear, NATO can and will do immense damage to your forces should you repeat this action. To the troops on the ground, the message is that you are even more vulnerable than you thought and the impact on morale is likely to be significant.
We have to be realistic. It wouldn't be possible to destroy everything in a day but it will be possible to do an awful lot of damage. Russian forces outside the Ukraine will probably have to be off limits due to the risk of Nuclear escalation.
A better proposal is a UN mandated limited no-fly zone over the west of the country in protection of refugees fleeing the east - again a hypothetical proposed by analysts countering the suggestion of a NATO imposed no-fly zone, which for reasons I mentioned above won't happen.
I stated that the problem with a no-fly zone over the entire country would do very little simply because the majority of damage to infrastructure and deaths of civilians is coming from artillery and missile fire, rather than Russian airpower, which inexplicably has been of limited application given the size of the Russian air forces.
NATO isn't going to sanction war with Russia over Ukraine. The implications of such a thing will be enormous and could result in non-strategic nuclear weapons being used in theatre, which no one wants. Not only that but since Putin has stated that any third party operating over Ukraine will result in military action, it could lead to action against NATO countries that share a border with Russia, specifically the Baltic States, who have been housing NATO military aircraft for EW and observation tasks. I just can't see that happening.
The use of chemical weapons will certainly be crossing a line, but I doubt full-scale war between NATO and Russia is worth it, to be frank.
Indeed we do.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Why not just do it? Several prominent NATO figures (or was it the same guy, multiple times? I don't remember anymore) said we should stop telling Putin what we will or won't do. Like the man said; Ukraine is a big place. There must be known corridors. Get the supplies closer in to where it's needed. If airfields are available, maybe we might forget a few tuned-up, oil changed (skip the alignment) MiGs. Don't have to be big. What's he going to do? Command and control is a bit wobbly for RF forces. Maybe some freshly promoted generals or FSB types might decide to end this foolishness.
Nice plot for a bad TV movie but it felt good to say.
Nice plot for a bad TV movie but it felt good to say.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
No-fly zones over humanitarian areas was the proposal, at least to my understanding.
Russia wants to jerk around and drag NATO unto the mix, the entire airspace over the Ukraine would become a no-fly zone in a matter of hours.
And the downside to that, would mean no more Russian tanks left for Ukrainian farmers...
Russia wants to jerk around and drag NATO unto the mix, the entire airspace over the Ukraine would become a no-fly zone in a matter of hours.
And the downside to that, would mean no more Russian tanks left for Ukrainian farmers...
NATO has responded to calls for a no-fly zone with a firm "No", but it was not the originator of the idea. NATO combat and support aircraft currently patrol Romanian and Polish (and Baltic States) skies as warning enough. It has also called for Russian troops to withdraw from Ukraine but has publicly offered little other than this.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
All the border nations have mounted patrols.
Bulgaria is the only nation so far, that does not have NATO forces bolstering their own patrols, but they (like the other eastern European nations) have ramped up their alert status.
Bulgaria was having a bit of a political issue, as their minister of defense was a member of a socialist party and heavily downplayed the invasion and actively blocked NATO support. I understand that Yanev was hastily removed by PM Petkov and they're reevaluating the situation.
Bulgaria is the only nation so far, that does not have NATO forces bolstering their own patrols, but they (like the other eastern European nations) have ramped up their alert status.
Bulgaria was having a bit of a political issue, as their minister of defense was a member of a socialist party and heavily downplayed the invasion and actively blocked NATO support. I understand that Yanev was hastily removed by PM Petkov and they're reevaluating the situation.
