"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (4 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez said:
Are we ready to declare war on Russia? That's what NATO stepping in means.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There's no prohibition about NATO members forming their own smaller alliances. That was a possible work around to get Sweden into a "NATO Lite" organization. It wouldn't be NATO per se but almost every NATO nation would be a member.
 
SaparotRob said:
Not necessarily. There's no prohibition about NATO members forming their own smaller alliances. That was a possible work around to get Sweden into a "NATO Lite" organization. It wouldn't be NATO per se but almost every NATO nation would be a member.
Click to expand...
Contradictory and confusing webs of alliances were a start to WW1. Say Poland agrees to join Ukraine in the war against Russia, sending Polish forces to the frontlines in Ukraine. Russia responds by firing missiles from Kaliningrad into nearby Gdańsk. Poland declares NATO Article 5, and now all of NATO, including my Canadians must decide if they're willing to fight and die to defend Poland after its unilateral defacto declaration of war on Russia.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Contradictory and confusing webs of alliances were a start to WW1. Say Poland agrees to join Ukraine in the war against Russia, sending Polish forces to the frontlines in Ukraine. Russia responds by firing missiles from Kaliningrad into nearby Gdańsk. Poland declares NATO Article 5, and now all of NATO, including my Canadians must decide if they're willing to fight and die to defend Poland after its unilateral defacto declaration of war on Russia.
Click to expand...
I am no international law scholar, but I think choosing to unilaterally become a belligerant would negate any Article 5 claims or obligations.
 
GTX said:
A sobering read:

www.abc.net.au

Why China is the key to avoiding Ukraine's worst nightmare

Nobody can predict with certainty the outcome to the Russia-Ukraine war, but we can look at all the various pressures at play and then use those to try to assess the most likely direction from here, writes John Lyons.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
The claim of "a counteroffensive with a deadline" is an accurate picture, I'd say. And once Ukraine receives its F-16s and Abrams tanks in the next 8-12 months I would suggest the West's pressure for results and a roadmap to disengagement will be significant. Imagine it's now July 2024, Ukraine has Vipers, ATACAMS, Predators, Abrams, etc, etc... pretty much every weapon system they could reasonable ask for - does the West finally get the Bagration-type massive counteroffensive it's expecting?

I think the Vipers may present a conundrum of "be careful what you wish for, as you might just get it". "Fine," NATO says, "here's your Vipers, now show us the results!"
 
Last edited:
Greg Boeser said:
I am no international law scholar, but I think choosing to unilaterally become a belligerant would negate any Article 5 claims or obligations.
Click to expand...
True, but Germany and the Baltic Reps won't sit back while Poland is now attacked and potentially invaded, since they're next. What does the USA do when Polish-flagged merchant ships are sunk by Russian nuclear attack boats in the Atlantic?
 
Admiral Beez said:
True, but Germany and the Baltic Reps won't sit back while Poland is now attacked and potentially invaded, since they're next. What does the USA do when Polish-flagged merchant ships are sunk by Russian nuclear attack boats in the Atlantic?
Click to expand...
Russia does not have the manpower to prosecute a war from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They are struggling to maintain control of the ground siezed in Ukraine. There is little chance that any NATO member would choose to become a belligerant in this conflict without a major provocation by Russia.
 
GrauGeist said:
Ukraine has already used cluster munitions (as designed) against Russian forces. Some were domestic stock, some came from Turkey.

Nobody seemed to complain about those instances, but now that Ukraine is about to receive some from the U.S., it's become a problem.

Why?
Click to expand...
I think there are a number of reasons.

People have been complaining about both sides using cluster munitions and that's been covered fairly widely - in the European press at least.
Cluster Munition Use in Russia-Ukraine War
Ukraine war: Evidence shows widespread use of cluster munitions in Kharkiv

The criticism of the USA stems because it is allied to a whole host of NATO (and wider nations) who've banned their manufacture, export or use - and who would probably have been expected the USA administration to have paid some regard to their predictable reaction and negotiated around it or come up with an alternative. (And in that context, people might reasonably ask, as much as Ukraine says it wants and needs cluster munitions, does it want or need them more than other things that the US can provide - those long asked for extra HIMARS, M1s, Bradleys, mine clearance vehicles and systems, Patriots etc? )

I don't think this controversy is really about whether cluster munitions have already been used by both sides or not. Its about an overt decision to actively adding new supplies of a weapons system that so many other western democracies have outright banned, into an active war zone wherein further escalation remains a real risk. Either way, it clearly risked driving a wedge where a unified front is so important - and it has. Perhaps not an important one as yet, but its a definite first crack in a unified approach, and that cannot be good.

As for Turkey. Is their supply of cluster munitions a fair comparison to the USA? Turkey is not a member of the EU (having been actively rejected for a host of reasons) and remains something of a lone state, having flirted with all power blocks in recent years, including Putin's Russia. Under Erdogan, its not rated by just about western nation as a fully functioning democracy either, given the crackdown on a free press. It actions as an outlier nation are hardly likely to attract as much attention or or surprise as compared to that of the worlds most powerful NATO member - and nominal leader of the free world to boot. American foreign policy, for good or bad, always really matters to western democracy. Turkey's much less so.

There are really two battlefields. One is in the streets and fields of Ukraine. The other is in the minds of voters in nations which have seen the price of oil, gas, electricity and food skyrocket, recession hit and interest rates soar at the same time governments are taking more from the public purse to increase military spending. These are also people on the front line of threat if the war escalates. Citizens willingly bearing that load has a lot to do with the feeling that they are 'playing their role' as part of a greater collective and that the cause is morally worthy. But if this starts to be perceived as a war between the Russia and the USA by proxy, and not as a coalition, there's the very real risk that public support is going to wane. The irony of that will be a moral and financial burden slipping even further towards a USA which might be delivering an entirely different policy towards the Ukraine post elections anyway.

If the USA wants a coalition of willing nations to present a unified front in support of the Ukraine, it needs to consider the wider ramifications of actions like this. Perhaps it has. But it wouldn't be the first time in recent years it has managed to completely misjudge public opinion beyond its borders.

Lets hope this story becomes tomorrows chip paper soon enough.
 
Greg Boeser said:
Russia does not have the manpower to prosecute a war from the Baltic to the Black Sea. They are struggling to maintain control of the ground siezed in Ukraine. There is little chance that any NATO member would choose to become a belligerant in this conflict without a major provocation by Russia.
Click to expand...

... and if they did, the worry would be even greater in Moscow, which couldn't stop a pissant drive by ex-convicts, much less a nation equipped with American and South Korean tanks, American and former-Soviet planes, and a positive hatred for the nation.

Russia has its hands full right now, and everyone in the Kremlin knows it.
 
SplitRz said:
As for Turkey. Is their supply of cluster munitions a fair comparison to the USA? Turkey is not a member of the EU (having been actively rejected for a host of reasons) and remains something of a lone state, having flirted with all power blocks in recent years, including Putin's Russia.
Click to expand...

Yet Turkey is in fact a NATO member as well. They are distinctly not a "lone state".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 2, guests: 3)

Similar threads

M
Horizon Continues Development of Hybrid VTOL
Replies
0
Views
245
MIflyer
M
N
JF-17 are they worth it and can they hold their own?
Replies
4
Views
1K
RogerdeLluria
R
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
17K
swampyankee
swampyankee
syscom3
Bust The Dragons Jaw! An interesting read on the development and use of the first laser guided bombs in Vietnam.
Replies
7
Views
2K
syscom3
syscom3
T
Asking help in determining year of Chinese military video
Replies
4
Views
1K
Weizenbrot
W
Back