"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (34 Viewers)

I read an article about declines in the Chinese stock market. It brought up the shelling of Kyiv is sending a contradictory message of Putin's message of limiting operations around Kyiv.
Anyone ever seen the movie Mars Attacks? There's a scene with the Martians carrying the translator "We come in peace " while laying waste to the entire area.
 
SaparotRob said:
I read an article about declines in the Chinese stock market. It brought up the shelling of Kyiv is sending a contradictory message of Putin's message of limiting operations around Kyiv.
Anyone ever seen the movie Mars Attacks? There's a scene with the Martians carrying the translator "We come in peace " while laying waste to the entire area.
Click to expand...
giphy (2).gif
 
nuuumannn said:
Have those actions always been under the guise of NATO implementation? There is a difference here - NATO member states have the power to act independently of their NATO commitments. Just because they are members of NATO doesn't mean that NATO governs their every action. The same is with the UN. UN mandated action is not necessarily NATO mandated action, despite the fact that NATO member states might make up the majority of constituents within a particular mandated action. For example, the 1991 Gulf War. NATO member states the UK, USA and France (and other NATO nations) took part but it was not a NATO initiated event. The nations' forces engaged in Desert Storm were not acting on behalf of NATO.

It's easy to get the political distinctions mixed, but it should not happen, lest misrepresentation take place, which I suspect is Mark's point.
Click to expand...
Where would you draw the line in order to differentiate?
NATO undoubtedly was founded as a defensive organization to maintain/guarantee peace in Europe- with special hindsight towards the Warsaw pact and it's big daddy Soviet-union.
And it performed admirably to that role. This however did not exclude NATO members from taking military action e.g. in the Suez Campaign.
As such drawing a line between NATO's overall founding role and commitment of individual NATO members interests.

Turkey (NATO member) had attacked Greece (NATO member) as such the NATO would have had to militaily support Greece and exclude Turkey from NATO. Didn't happen due to obvious NATO (US) interests in Turkey.

The Falklands: despite a NATO member having been attacked - No military NATO response as such, due to articles stated in the NATO framework - excluding an event such as the Falklands. Even if Soviet forces had actively supported the Argentine military - still no NATO issue - but maybe the USA or some other NATO members would have acted independently
in support of the UK.

So far so good, but then come the 90's and onward history of NATO.

From the 90's onward NATO has been looking/searching for a new task (meaning) - still being a defensive organization in it's origin, but no more Warsaw pact and a Soviet-union
perceived as not being a threat anymore towards Europe. So towards who is the European part of NATO going to be defensive organization? That was the main question and issue.

E.g. Italian aircraft's used against Libya were NATO controlled units - meaning under NATO command - not national Italian command. So in that case clearly NATO not just a NATO member had taken military action against a country that had not attacked any NATO member. The same issue also had applied towards e.g. Serbia.

As such if one uses NATO commanded military units in a military attack, then it is an attack conducted and executed by NATO - which in those cases wasn't a defensive act at all.
NATO forces off-course in turn being ordered by the NATO supreme command who in turn got its order from their respective governments.

Also if you remember or have a chance to revisit live news or official government statements in regards to e.g. the Serbia campaign.:
Every single attack or mission was commented as e.g. NATO strike mission onto Serbian forces or installations/targets - in more detail adding information such as e.g. Italian and Dutch aircraft's were amongst NATO conducted missions. So clearly the governments and the media referred to it as what it was NATO led strikes/attacks. and not Italian or Dutch airstrikes or whatever NATO member you might care to choose.

Therefore due to all these NATO commanded actions - not just by individual NATO members (and always against non nuclear powers) Now to bring in the "defensive role" of NATO in regards to the Ukraine to me is ridiculous. It is simply an excuse (realistic towards a sad fact) forwarded by NATO and its respective governments, since no-one is willing (at least in Europe) to risk a nuclear confrontation because of the Ukraine.

However to me it is crystal clear since Putin'ss speech at the German parliament in Dec. 1990 - that this guy means business if he would ever manage to gain control in the Kremlin.

Back to topic:
So NATO is not willing (therefore not able) to engage actively militarily against him being a nuclear power. Next on his agenda will be e.g. Belarus and Moldavia on the West and some others to his East and South. So what is NATO and Europe/USA going to do about it? Drastic economic sanctions seem to be the only viable solution to me - not discussing unrealistic military actions. And off-course stuffing the Ukraine up to the neck with useful military hardware. Problem might be that if the Ukraine can't stop him in the long run - he will get his
hands onto great western military hardware - so back to economic sanctions - no?

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
RUSSIA: "It's our right and our destiny to enjoy the superpower status that we attained by our own efforts and sacrifices and that we were deprived of by the evil corrupt West. Hey, Ukraine, you've had your little fling with corrupt western ideas, but you're rightfully ours, and it's time to come home to papa. Recess is over. Back to class. We're here to liberate you from the tyranny of western idealogies."
UKRAINE: "Sorry, Uncle, I'm on my own now, and you have no jurisdiction over me any more, so buzz off!"
RUSSIA: "What an ungrateful, rebellious child you are! We're coming for you!"
UKRAINE: "Bring it on, Uncle. We're ready!"
"Hey NATO, could you give us a hand? Little overmatched here. Plenty of spirit, but we could use a little ammo and some second hand jets."
NATO: "Yes on the ammo, sorry 'bout the jets. Hang in there, kiddo, we're rooting for you."

Well that about covers the first 168 pages. Anyone want to add to this narrative? Maybe this thread could become another groundhog exercise.
 
Last edited:
SaparotRob said:
I read an article about declines in the Chinese stock market. It brought up the shelling of Kyiv is sending a contradictory message of Putin's message of limiting operations around Kyiv.
Anyone ever seen the movie Mars Attacks? There's a scene with the Martians carrying the translator "We come in peace " while laying waste to the entire area.
Click to expand...
Actually the Chinese stock-market already declined 20% in the period Jan-Feb. Since the Czar's enterprise it dropped barely 5%. The reason to me lies in the re-surge
of Covid-19 since January - nothing much to do with the Ukraine/Russia conflict. The eastern part of Shanghai (China's most important economic hub) is in total look-down
right now, and the western city part will start tomorrow for 5 days.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:
Jagdflieger said:
Where would you draw the line in order to differentiate?
NATO undoubtedly was founded as a defensive organization to maintain/guarantee peace in Europe- with special hindsight towards the Warsaw pact and it's big daddy Soviet-union.
And it performed admirably to that role. This however did not exclude NATO members from taking military action e.g. in the Suez Campaign.
As such drawing a line between NATO's overall founding role and commitment of individual NATO members interests.

Turkey (NATO member) had attacked Greece (NATO member) as such the NATO would have had to militaily support Greece and exclude Turkey from NATO. Didn't happen due to obvious NATO (US) interests in Turkey.

The Falklands: despite a NATO member having been attacked - No military NATO response as such, due to articles stated in the NATO framework - excluding an event such as the Falklands. Even if Soviet forces had actively supported the Argentine military - still no NATO issue - but maybe the USA or some other NATO members would have acted independently
in support of the UK.

So far so good, but then come the 90's and onward history of NATO.

From the 90's onward NATO has been looking/searching for a new task (meaning) - still being a defensive organization in it's origin, but no more Warsaw pact and a Soviet-union
perceived as not being a threat anymore towards Europe. So towards who is the European part of NATO going to be defensive organization? That was the main question and issue.

E.g. Italian aircraft's used against Libya were NATO controlled units - meaning under NATO command - not national Italian command. So in that case clearly NATO not just a NATO member had taken military action against a country that had not attacked any NATO member. The same issue also had applied towards e.g. Serbia.

As such if one uses NATO commanded military units in a military attack, then it is an attack conducted and executed by NATO - which in those cases wasn't a defensive act at all.
NATO forces off-course in turn being ordered by the NATO supreme command who in turn got its order from their respective governments.

Also if you remember or have a chance to revisit live news or official government statements in regards to e.g. the Serbia campaign.:
Every single attack or mission was commented as e.g. NATO strike mission onto Serbian forces or installations/targets - in more detail adding information such as e.g. Italian and Dutch aircraft's were amongst NATO conducted missions. So clearly the governments and the media referred to it as what it was NATO led strikes/attacks. and not Italian or Dutch airstrikes or whatever NATO member you might care to choose.

Therefore due to all these NATO commanded actions - not just by individual NATO members (and always against non nuclear powers) Now to bring in the "defensive role" of NATO in regards to the Ukraine to me is ridiculous. It is simply an excuse (realistic towards a sad fact) forwarded by NATO and its respective governments, since no-one is willing (at least in Europe) to risk a nuclear confrontation because of the Ukraine.

However to me it is crystal clear since Putin'ss speech at the German parliament in Dec. 1990 - that this guy means business if he would ever manage to gain control in the Kremlin.

Back to topic:
So NATO is not willing (therefore not able) to engage actively militarily against him being a nuclear power. Next on his agenda will be e.g. Belarus and Moldavia on the West and some others to his East and South. So what is NATO and Europe/USA going to do about it? Drastic economic sanctions seem to be the only viable solution to me - not discussing unrealistic military actions. And off-course stuffing the Ukraine up to the neck with useful military hardware. Problem might be that if the Ukraine can't stop him in the long run - he will get his
hands onto great western military hardware - so back to economic sanctions - no?

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...

I entirely agree that NATO was looking for a purpose in the 1990s and that the decade marked a shift in NATO's understanding of its role and mission. However, these offensive operations were conducted within the scope of UN resolutions against the background of existing civil wars. That context is critical. They were not attacks against peaceful, or at least at-peace, sovereign nations. We can continue to argue the rights and wrongs of the issue but with UN resolutions in-place, NATO leaders and legal eagles clearly felt there was sufficient legitimacy for the use of force. Again, this comes down to the legal framework that enables military operations. It is the legal decision that defines the difference between a NATO operation or unilateral action by one or more members, either acting independently or cooperating within a coalition.

Now, you're bang on the money that the nuclear issue hangs over every current political and military decision by the western nations. Whether we agree or disagree, prior NATO offensive operations were largely due to the humanitarian issues caused by the civil wars. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is generating an even bigger humanitarian crisis but--and it's a BIG but--NATO involvement will absolutely trigger an all-out war with Russia. That is a HUGE decision for NATO to make....and the problem here is that, if NATO does act in Ukraine, it will be used by Putin to show that NATO is a direct threat to Russia. It will solidify Russian support for the current war and clearly risks descent into nuclear war.

While I agree that Putin only responds to power, it's equally important that he be given some kind of off-ramp. Backing a mad dog into a corner won't end well when that mad dog
has nukes.
 
Last edited:
Jagdflieger said:
Actually the Chinese stock-market already declined 20% in the period Jan-Feb. Since the Czar's enterprise it dropped barely 5%. The reason to me lies in the re-surge
of Covid-19 since January - nothing much to do with the Ukraine/Russia conflict. The eastern part of Shanghai (China's most important economic hub) is in total look-down
right now, and the western city part will start tomorrow for 5 days.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...
The article was about trends and events effecting the market in general. I was taking a break from reading about the war Special Military Piracy. The bit about Putin saying "we're drawing down" while shelling the crap out of Kyiv was one of the destabilizing causes.
 
buffnut453 said:
I entirely agree that NATO was looking for a purpose in the 1990s and that the decade marked a shift in NATO's understanding of its role and mission. However, these offensive operations were conducted within the scope of UN resolutions against the background of existing civil wars. That context is critical. They were not attacks against peaceful, or at least at-peace, sovereign nations. We can continue to argue the rights and wrongs of the issue but with UN resolutions in-place, NATO leaders and legal eagles clearly felt there was sufficient legitimacy for the use of force. Again, this comes down to the legal framework that enables military operations. It is the legal decision that defines the difference between a NATO operation or unilateral action by one or more members, either acting independently or cooperating within a coalition.

Now, you're bang on the money that the nuclear issue hangs over every current political and military decision by the western nations. Whether we agree or disagree, prior NATO offensive operations were largely due to the humanitarian issues caused by the civil wars. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is generating an even bigger humanitarian crisis but--and it's a BIG but--NATO involvement will absolutely trigger an all-out war with Russia. That is a HUGE decision for NATO to make....and the problem here is that, if NATO does act in Ukraine, it will be used by Putin to show that NATO is a direct threat to Russia. It will solidify Russian support for the current war and clearly risks descent into nuclear war.

While I agree that Putin only responds to power, it's equally important that he be given some kind of off-ramp. Backing a mad dog into a corner won't end well when that mad dog
has nukes.
Click to expand...
Now you seem to be twisting out of the initial content of our discussion - if I may say so, nothing personal against you at all.

The debate wasn't about justified attacks by NATO acting upon UN resolutions, but that NATO is supposedly a purely defensive organization - which it is obviously no more since 1990.
And off-course these UN resolutions again only came in view of attacking -maybe you prefer pacifying - military underdog countries with no nukes. If these countries had been in
possession of nukes, I am dead sure that e.g. the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya would have never passed the UN approval process.

As for Putin - economic sanctions might take a while to really bite, but at the end it is the only viable solution to me at present. Russian citizens are in vast majority not some dumb brainwashed obedient bunch of starving North-Koreans who got no idea as to what is happening in the world. And IMHO they are the ones who will sooner or later decide about the Czar's fate.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
SaparotRob said:
The article was about trends and events effecting the market in general. I was taking a break from reading about the war Special Military Piracy. The bit about Putin saying "we're drawing down" while shelling the crap out of Kyiv was one of the destabilizing causes.
Click to expand...
Certainly our Western markets and share-markets will be far more affected by increasing actions in regards to the Ukraine/Russia situation then those in China.
Putin's "drawing down" is just a phrase to cover up his other intentions.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Jagdflieger said:
Now you seem to be twisting out of the initial content of our discussion - if I may say so, nothing personal against you at all.

The debate wasn't about justified attacks by NATO acting upon UN resolutions, but that NATO is supposedly a purely defensive organization - which it is obviously no more since 1990.
And off-course these UN resolutions again only came in view of attacking -maybe you prefer pacifying - military underdog countries with no nukes. If these countries had been in
possession of nukes, I am dead sure that e.g. the imposition of a no-fly zone in Libya would have never passed the UN approval process.

As for Putin - economic sanctions might take a while to really bite, but at the end it is the only viable solution to me at present. Russian citizens are in vast majority not some dumb brainwashed obedient bunch of starving North-Koreans who got no idea as to what is happening in the world. And IMHO they are the ones who will sooner or later decide about the Czar's fate.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. The NATO Charter, which I linked to earlier in this thread, provides some wriggle room for operations if there's a compelling and legal need. Take a look at the text of Article 1 (I've bolded text that is important):
  • Article 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
    • NOTE: "Settling international disputes by peaceful means" is a broad term, particularly in the modern era of globalization which often means conflict or other acts outside NATO's territory will impact one or more NATO members...and that's the origin for the more interventionist interpretations of NATO's role.
    • NOTE: Article 1 implicitly enables NATO to use force in ways that ARE consistent with the purposes of the UN (i.e. under UN resolutions).
It's worth noting that the 14 Articles of the NATO Charter have not changed since they were first written. What has changed are the legal interpretations of those Articles.

Since 1990, NATO has embarked on 22 named operations, of which:
  • 2 were due to implementation of NATO Charter Article 5 (due to the 9/11 attack on the US)
  • 3 have involved defence of NATO members' territory
  • 8 were in support of UN resolutions
  • 4 were peacekeeping missions (Joint Endeavor, Joint Guard, Joint Forge, and KFOR) that followed on from prior operations in support of UN resolutions
  • 1 was a security mission to disarm insurgent fighters in Albania (no combat was involved, AFAIK)
  • 1 was a humanitarian airlift to Pakistan
  • 1 was a training support mission to Afghanistan (again, no offensive combat was involved)
That leaves just 2 instances where NATO has conducted offensive operations: Deliberate Force and Allied Force. Ostensibly, Deliberate Force was enacted to protect UN safe areas, and could therefore be tied into the operations in support of UN mandates. Allied Force remains somewhat questionable in terms of legitimacy, depending on which legal interpretation one supports.

I keep banging on about the legal framework for operations because that is key to how Western nations undertake military operations. There has to be a legal justification for the use of force. We may disagree with that justification, and Allied Force is the one most obvious example. However, overall I think NATO's track record is pretty good when it comes to using force to resolve situations and then help with rebuilding efforts.

Has NATO's role evolved? Yes. Does that mean it's no longer defensive in nature? No.
 
Last edited:
Jagdflieger said:
Back to topic….
Click to expand...
Thank JMFC. What an off topic distraction. No one GAF except two or three lobbing nonsense at each other.

Now, really back on topic. Russia is clearly moving its focus to holding and expanding its territory in eastern Ukraine. The Ukranians must prepare to cut off and counter this effort before any ceasefire is called.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Thank JMFC. What an off topic distraction. No one GAF except two or three lobbing nonsense at each other.

Now, really back on topic. Russia is clearly moving its focus to holding and expanding its territory in eastern Ukraine. The Ukranians must prepare to cut off and counter this effort before any ceasefire is called.
Click to expand...
This is where the lack of mid/long range SAM systems is an obstacle. It's just 100 km from the forward Ukrainian positions to besieged Mariupol where Azov fighters and marines run out of ammo and food. But a 100 km march in that landscape without proper anti-air defence is suicidal.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
The comparison of past actions and the current situation seems implied but obvious, to me.
Click to expand...

You're still getting my intent totally off mark. This is what I said:

"The statement that NATO's past actions are defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power is glib and doesn't sufficiently contextualise the individual circumstances.

Let's break it down. Firstly, the statement is glib. The statement is this part: "NATO's past actions are defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power"

This is what I meant by the whole thing.

NATO's previous actions are not solely defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power, because that does not take the context of NATO's past actions into consideration.

As I made it plainly clear, the NATO Sec Gen stated he didn't want war in Europe, nuclear or otherwise. Then in the next paragraph I add that nuclear weapons bring a different dynamic to proceedings, which is very much a counter to your assertion that I was thought the nuclear issue is glib.

Very different to what you implied, isn't it...
 
nuuumannn said:
NATO's previous actions are not solely defined by whether or not the opposing state was a nuclear power, because that does not take the context of NATO's past actions into consideration.
Click to expand...

They're not solely defined by whether or not the opposing power possessed or possesses nuclear arms -- which, by the way is nothing I claimed -- but the public pronouncements of government officials on both sides of the Atlantic have referenced that as the reason for avoiding things such as no-fly zones or delivering the Polish MiGs in this case. It is very much in the discussion on this particular matter. If you'd like sources I'll be happy to provide them.

I think in this particular instance, the nuclear shadow looms large over decision-making in Brussels, Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin. NATO in particular and the West in general are avoiding more-active measures precisely because of Russian nukes. If Russia lacked nuclear capability, I doubt we'd be having this discussion at all.

That is my point, and again, I'll be happy to provide support for this point should you desire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 35 (members: 3, guests: 32)

Similar threads

A
Long-deployed USS Lincoln to be replaced after mental health concerns and reports of poor conditions
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A
cammerjeff
USAF awards contract for Ski Modification Kit for C-130J's to the Sierra Nevada Corp out of Colorado.
Replies
0
Views
285
cammerjeff
cammerjeff
N
Command of Amphibious Warships and Aviation Major Command
Replies
1
Views
530
Antarctica
Antarctica
Lucky13
Spain and NATO?
Replies
0
Views
82
Lucky13
Lucky13
G
Interesting View of the RAF and A400
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gnomey
Gnomey
Back