War In Ukraine

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And it just got harder for them to do that.

If you're going to pretend that their national security isn't an issue for them or that having what they percieve to be a hostile force on their border isn't a matter of national security.  then fine, but please don't claim you know anything about military politics any further. you'd have to be 7 different kinds of stupid not to know that.

the Russian assertions that their security is threatened by NATO is a bunch of nonsense

lunatic conspiracy theories made up by the KGB in the Kremlin

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

fair enough

I was just asking about Finland specifically

because in my experience, the Finnish military is hardcore

they certainly put the Canadian military to shame

Finland is ready to fight tonight, all out war if necessary, no delay

Meh...they'd be better off on their own. NATO plays dangerous games and people know it now.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Nationalist said:

 NATO plays dangerous games

it's a thermonuclear standoff at fifteen minutes notice to launch on warning at all times

the Balance of Terror must be maintained

it's a dangerous game indeed

but those are the cards we have been dealt by the hydrogen bomb

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

NATO is a defensive alliance and Finland is quite capable of looking after itself until the cavalry arrives. Permanently basing NATO troops in Finland would be an unnecessary provocation. During the Cold War, Canada used to do exercises involving rapidly moving troops to Europe and fighters to Bodo Norway.

But why would it be a provocation if it's purely defensive?

Of course it's not just defensive and 'defense' can be interpreted a lot of ways.

And there's no need to worry about 'unnecessarily provoking' a foe who's just worn themselves to nothing fighting in ukraine.

The Russians see it as a serious threat and they know it weakens their position. So - that is a loss for them. It would never have happened if they hadn't just wasted craptonnes of their military strength in ukraine

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Russian assertions that their security is threatened by NATO is a bunch of nonsense

Not to them.  And frankly if they are going to be aggressive and invade other countries it DOES threaten their security.

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

lunatic conspiracy theories made up by the KGB in the Kremlin

Sure bud, sure.  They're all nuts - YOU'RE the only SANE one.

Finalnd as part of nato is an angry neighbour with a shotgun on his lap. Regardless of their ACTUAL intent, you have to be concerned about it.  And it only happened because he started this war.

So that's a loss for him in that respect regardless.

[Aristides]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

also not the case

no UNSC resolution is required to invoke Article 51

every country has the right to invoke self defence

all NATO members are bound to come to their aid, by the UN Charter

 

NATO is not part of the UN. It cannot act for the UN of its own volition.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not to them.  And frankly if they are going to be aggressive and invade other countries it DOES threaten their security.

Sure bud, sure.  They're all nuts - YOU'RE the only SANE one.

Finalnd as part of nato is an angry neighbour with a shotgun on his lap. Regardless of their ACTUAL intent, you have to be concerned about it.  And it only happened because he started this war.

So that's a loss for him in that respect regardless.

I simply do not require NATO to be constrained by the false accusations & conspiracy theories of the KGB

if that was how we operated, we might as well just surrender to the Kremlin right now

I'm not down for that

if that makes me crazy, so be it

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

NATO is not part of the UN. It cannot act for the UN of its own volition.

every NATO member is a member of the UN

every member of the UN is bound to come to the aid of a member invoking Article 51

there is no Chapter 7 UNSC resolution required for NATO to assist countries under aggressive invasion

the UN Charter itself authorizes all NATO members to take action in the face of that

otherwise, you are stating, the NATO's assistance to Ukraine right now is unlawful

I disagree

NATO members are not constrained by the Russians at the UNSC when the Russians are the unlawful aggressor

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But why would it be a provocation if it's purely defensive?

Of course it's not just defensive and 'defense' can be interpreted a lot of ways.

And there's no need to worry about 'unnecessarily provoking' a foe who's just worn themselves to nothing fighting in ukraine.

The Russians see it as a serious threat and they know it weakens their position. So - that is a loss for them. It would never have happened if they hadn't just wasted craptonnes of their military strength in ukraine

If Russia started building up forces on the Finnish border like they did in Ukraine, countering with NATO forces would be justified. Otherwise not.

It is definitely a bad move for Russia, they have lost their ability to apply pressure to Finland. Finland had to be very careful regarding its relations with Russia, now, not so much. 

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

every NATO member is a member of the UN

every member of the UN is bound to come to the aid of a member invoking Article 51

there is no Chapter 7 UNSC resolution required for NATO to assist countries under aggressive invasion

the UN Charter itself authorizes all NATO members to take action in the face of that

otherwise, you are stating, the NATO's assistance to Ukraine right now is unlawful

I disagree

NATO members are not constrained by the Russians at the UNSC when the Russians are the unlawful aggressor

I'm not saying NATO's assistance to Ukraine is unlawful. What gives you that idea?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

I'm not saying NATO's assistance to Ukraine is unlawful. What gives you that idea?

you apparently stated that NATO needs an UNSC resolution to intervene

there are NATO boots on the ground

that is NATO over the Trace on the offensive

no Article 5, no UNSC Chapter 7

I say that is lawful, under UN Article 51, no Article 5 nor UNSC Chapter 7 required

[Aristides]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you apparently stated that NATO needs an UNSC resolution to intervene

there are NATO boots on the ground

that is NATO over the Trace on the offensive

no Article 5, no UNSC Chapter 7

I say that is lawful, under UN Article 51, no Article 5 nor UNSC Chapter 7 required

I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution.

I think you are mistaken

no country requires an UNSC resolution to invoke Article 51 right to self defence in the face of agression

every country has the right to act unilaterally in the name of said UN Charter under such circumstances

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I'm saying they need a resolution to act in the name of the UN. Countries can't act unilaterally in the name of the UN just because of something in their own constitution.

bear in mind, NATO is providing Ukraine "lethal aid" against the Russians

not just weapons, but NATO is providing them with real time intelligence

now, under the laws of armed conflict, by the Hague Conventions

that is "direct participant in hostilities"

which is an "act of war"

inherently offensive operations if beyond the NATO Article 5 line

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

partially correct.

1. All countries have the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
2. Article 51 does not explicitly require a UNSC resolution to invoke this right.
3. Any use of force in self-defense should adhere to international law principles and be carefully considered and justified.

except I stated that NATO was bound by international law & the laws of armed conflict

so nothing partial about it

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

except I stated that NATO was bound by international law & the laws of armed conflict

so nothing partial about it

On no one's authority but its own.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Article 5 is the only one that obligates members to go to war.

just a note on this

Article 5 doesn't actually say "go to war"

what it actually says is :

"will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, "

this was to protect America from being dragged into World War Three against our will

thus, Article 5 does not require any member to go to war per se

the treaty allows members to decide how much they deem necessary to contribute

that could be as much as launch on warning massive thermonuclear retaliation

or as little as a strongly worded letter of protest

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

•  
• All I am trying to say, is not as easy as you make it look, like flipping a lightswitch. 

I think you are mistaken

for example, the attack against NATO could be a thermonuclear counterforce first strike

at which point, the SACEUR in consultation with the POTUS would only have minutes to decide what to do

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I simply do not require NATO to be constrained by the false accusations & conspiracy theories of the KGB

 

Nobody cares what you require - you're a nobody who doesn't even have any loyalty to your country and your opinion is worth nothing.

The reality is that to russia theyv'e increased the threat and that wouldn't have happened without the invasion.

Anything else is just the blathering of an unpatriotic loser who takes 20 paragraphs to explain his disloyalty every time it's brought up.  Go ahead, there's your cue.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

I am a man of the process and not immediate action

immediate action is a process

immediate Action or "IA" as we say in the military, is the process to be followed upon contact

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

 Even if NATO were to be attacked with a thermonuclear counterforce first strike, any decision to retaliate would still need to be carefully considered and justified under international law. The SACEUR and POTUS would need to take into account a variety of factors, including the potential consequences of a military response and the likelihood of success, before deciding on a course of action.

it's all laid out in standing orders called the SIOP

Single Integrated Operational Plan

it frankly doesn't even require the POTUS nor the FOOTBALL nor the BISCUIT

if the POTUS does not or cannot decide

it falls to the Airborne Command Post to decide, Callsign LOOKING GLASS

if Callsign LOOKING GLASS does not or cannot decide

the SSBN Captains are authorized to conduct a survivable second strike with UGM-133 Trident SLBM's

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it's a thermonuclear standoff at fifteen minutes notice to launch on warning at all times

the Balance of Terror must be maintained

it's a dangerous game indeed

but those are the cards we have been dealt by the hydrogen bomb

Maybe we should stop before a mistake happens?

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Maybe we should stop before a mistake happens?

when it comes to strategy, I focus on what is likely to happen

maybe there should be one world kumbaya

but I wouldn't tailor my strategy to that concept of operations

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nobody cares what you require - you're a nobody who doesn't even have any loyalty to your country and your opinion is worth nothing.

The reality is that to russia theyv'e increased the threat and that wouldn't have happened without the invasion.

Anything else is just the blathering of an unpatriotic loser who takes 20 paragraphs to explain his disloyalty every time it's brought up.  Go ahead, there's your cue.

it's an internet forum

when you launch into an ad hominem invoking disloyalty

I make an considered response

which in your case is that I am not bound to be loyal to some vague arbitrary standard which you invent

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it's an internet forum

 

Yes - and everything i said remains true.

And you are disloyal by your own admission - which you don't make a 'considered' response to, but rather to which you blather and attempt to justify your disloyalty in the most painfully ridiculous ways.

And you're not just disloyal, you're stupid if you think that russia doesn't care about denmark becoming part of nato and the potential for land forces being based there.