Russian Invasion of Ukraine

  • Thread starter Rage Racer
  • 9,303 comments
  • 491,820 views
inCloud
USA made weaponry already hitting targets in conventional RF for half a year(HARM). Aside from pathetic insults by our pathetic ex-president I can't see any escalation. Not like I think Keef suggestion is any good, but maybe its time to stop being scared of almighty Putler?
Click to expand...
Big difference between supplying weapons and active fighting.
 
RacingGrandpa
Big difference between supplying weapons and active fighting.
Click to expand...
We are in the age of smart weapons. Its not like US soliders should come to Ukraine with M16s.


Another great explanation of current situation by Shulman
 
Last edited:
agoQGvx_460s.jpg


Timofey Shadura. A man with more courage in his body than the entire orc army.

Captured and executed on film, with his last words being Glory to Ukraine. Added to the already long list of war crimes.
 
Dennisch
agoQGvx_460s.jpg


Timofey Shadura. A man with more courage in his body than the entire orc army.

Captured and executed on film, with his last words being Glory to Ukraine. Added to the already long list of war crimes.
Click to expand...
They saw how successful ISIS was in Syria/Iraq and have decided to emulate them.
 
RacingGrandpa
That went straight over your head. If NATO attacks Russia, thus proving that Russia was right all along calling NATO an agressor and not a defence pact and manage to beat Russia in a short time those nukes will also fly over your head as Russia strikes with their Nuclear capacity.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, NATO would not be an aggressor for defending Ukraine. Russia started the war.

Russia would not use nuclear weapons because they are well aware that NATO has nuclear weapons too.
 
Keef
According to the rules they would be. In principle no but legally yes.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what rules you are referring to so I can’t really comment on what they say. By international law there’s no difference between NATO defending a NATO member from an aggressor and NATO defending a non-member from an aggressor. In both cases it’s a war of self defence.

If NATO were to invade and occupy Russia however, then it’s another story.
 
eran0004
Incorrect, NATO would not be an aggressor for defending Ukraine. Russia started the war.

Russia would not use nuclear weapons because they are well aware that NATO has nuclear weapons too.
Click to expand...
This is not a guarantee. The only guarantee is if Putin holds by MAD. If Putin is desperate/doesn't care, then he could easily use nuclear weapons or intentionally convince Iran to try and launch one themselves.
 
eran0004
Incorrect, NATO would not be an aggressor for defending Ukraine. Russia started the war.

Russia would not use nuclear weapons because they are well aware that NATO has nuclear weapons too.
Click to expand...
The NATO treaty says if a MEMBER of NATO is attacked they all act as if they where attacked. Since Ukraine isn't a part of NATO an attack on Russian forces, even if they are in Ukraine is equivalent of an attack on Russia. It would mean NATO and Russia are at war.
And such a war could not stop at the border of Ukraine.

It feels strange that I have to explain how NATO works to someone belonging to an country applying to be a member.
 
eran0004
I don’t know what rules you are referring to so I can’t really comment on what they say. By international law there’s no difference between NATO defending a NATO member from an aggressor and NATO defending a non-member from an aggressor. In both cases it’s a war of self defence.

If NATO were to invade and occupy Russia however, then it’s another story.
Click to expand...
Members of NATO can individually provide assistance to allies but NATO cannot. NATO is a defensive alliance and NATO (as an organization) can only defend other NATO nations. It's part of the NATO charter, those are the rules of how NATO works. The US or Germany or UK can do whatever they want, but those countries are different from NATO.
 
Blitz24
This is not a guarantee. The only guarantee is if Putin holds by MAD. If Putin is desperate/doesn't care, then he could easily use nuclear weapons or intentionally convince Iran to try and launch one themselves.
Click to expand...
If Putin is that insane (i.e. doesn’t care about MAD) then a nuclear war is pretty much guaranteed regardless of what NATO does.
RacingGrandpa
The NATO treaty says if a MEMBER of NATO is attacked they all act as if they where attacked. Since Ukraine isn't a part of NATO an attack on Russian forces, even if they are in Ukraine is equivalent of an attack on Russia. It would mean NATO and Russia are at war.
And such a war could not stop at the border of Ukraine.

It feels strange that I have to explain how NATO works to someone belonging to an country applying to be a member.
Click to expand...
Again, that's incorrect, see below.
Keef
Members of NATO can individually provide assistance to allies but NATO cannot. NATO is a defensive alliance and NATO (as an organization) can only defend other NATO nations. It's part of the NATO charter, those are the rules of how NATO works. The US or Germany or UK can do whatever they want, but those countries are different from NATO.
Click to expand...
The NATO treaty prohibits acts that violates the UN charter. Article 51 of the UN charter states that UN members have the right to individual and collective self defense in the case of an armed attack. They have this right until the Security Council has taken action to maintain peace and security. In the case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Security Council has so far been unable to act due to Russia's veto, which means that NATO is free to act in the aid of Ukraine's right to self defense.

There's nothing else in the NATO treaty that would prohibit NATO from aiding Ukraine. The reason why NATO hasn't intervened (yet) is because they don't want to escalate the conflict - not because they are prohibited to act.
 
eran0004
If Putin is that insane (i.e. doesn’t care about MAD) then a nuclear war is pretty much guaranteed regardless of what NATO does.

Again, that's incorrect, see below.

The NATO treaty prohibits acts that violates the UN charter. Article 51 of the UN charter states that UN members have the right to individual and collective self defense in the case of an armed attack. They have this right until the Security Council has taken action to maintain peace and security. In the case of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Security Council has so far been unable to act due to Russia's veto, which means that NATO is free to act in the aid of Ukraine's right to self defense.

There's nothing else in the NATO treaty that would prohibit NATO from aiding Ukraine. The reason why NATO hasn't intervened (yet) is because they don't want to escalate the conflict - not because they are prohibited to act.
Click to expand...
The individual nations in NATO is not under any obligation what so ever to only be a defense treaty.
But NATO as a whole are. They have only once in their history gone to war without any members been attacked and that was on a direct request by the UN security council, in former Yugoslavia.
 
RacingGrandpa
The individual nations in NATO is not under any obligation what so ever to only be a defense treaty.
But NATO as a whole are. They have only once in their history gone to war without any members been attacked and that was on a direct request by the UN security council, in former Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...
Three times: in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in Kosovo and in Libya. Two times (Bosnia and Libya) to enforce UN resolutions and once without a UN mandate (Kosovo).

Only three times, you may say, but keep in mind that article 5 has only been triggered once, so most of NATO's combat operation history has been for other purposes than the collective self defense of its members.

So while the purpose of the alliance is the collective defense and security of the members, this purpose is not strict. There is nothing in the treaty that forbids NATO from conducting military operations that go beyond this scope, as long as all the members agree and as long as it doesn't go against the UN charter.

The UN charter states that all members have the right to defend themselves against an armed attack, that includes collective defense, i.e. other countries are allowed to help you defend yourself. NATO is founded on this principle, it's basically a promise between countries to assist each other in accordance with article 51 of the UN charter. There is no such promise between NATO and Ukraine, but there's no prohibition either. The very same principle that gives NATO the right to help members defend themselves also gives NATO the right to help non-members defend themselves.
 


I feel you pain, bro. I remember how annoying this time of year could be if you are soldier in the middle of nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Dennisch
a4onyN6_460s.jpg


It seems that they keep running out of cannon fodder.
Click to expand...
On April 1st conscription will start, military commissariats cant consume conscripts and mobilized at same time. This means there wouldn't be mobilization until July. At least, 100.000 mobilized waiting in reserve, RF don't need more for now. Situation could drastically change in May or June, they just preparing for this by clarifying intel about ex-conscripts.

If **** hit the fan - they could use conscripts that currently serving. Its somewhere between 100.000 and 200.000 bodies.
 
Last edited:


Damaged propeller.
1678963048462.png

1678963016440.png


"Our pilots made no contacts with the drone and were acting professionally. The drone fell by itself."

1678962456613.png



:banghead:
 
Last edited:
inCloud
From creators of we "we ain't there", "we don't target civilian infrastructure" and "Ukraine war was “launched against” Russia".
Click to expand...
If the situation was reversed, I could totally believe the drone fell by itself. Then again, it probably would have become a drone submarine long beforehand.
 

Latest Posts

Back