131–140 of 1001 posts
I can't really tell what's going on here. Is the EU and America supposed to be helping out but it's all promises without real counter attacks? Is this just the calm before the storm as russia places their troops in the right spots while everyone looks on? Anyone who's smarter than me who could enlighten me?
What do you want them to do exactly, send nukes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was ne…
It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank In taking Ukraine, Putin just put Nato on Russia’s border.
I can't really tell what's going on here. Is the EU and America supposed to be helping out but it's all promises without real counter attacks? Is this just the calm before the storm as russia places their troops in the right spots while everyone looks on? Anyone who's smarter than me who could enlighten me?
Putin warned the West that he wouldn't hesitate to conduct a nuclear strike if they try to meddle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really doubt that NATO would be willing to enforce this no-fly zone in a non-NATO nation, that would mean being willing to shoot down Russian military aircraft, which would surely escalate the war.
Neither Iraq (1991+) nor Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993+) were NATO members, and it served its purpose there. And hence declaring it before Russia invaded. Which forces Russia to choose to shoot down NATO aircraft, or operate outside those zones.
NATO is not prepared or willing to start a war with Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited. Russia intends to use Chernobyl as a deterrent to NATO, according to the report (how, I do not know). It is also not straightforward to put a NATO ally right on Russia's vulnerable flank (it's endless plains and flat ground from Ukraine to Moscow, which has always been a source of strategic vulnerability for Moscow), so admitting Ukraine to NATO was ne…
> Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so options are somewhat limited Ukraine not being in NATO means we aren’t obligated to intervene. We regularly intervene in various things without a treaty requiring it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really doubt that NATO would be willing to enforce this no-fly zone in a non-NATO nation, that would mean being willing to shoot down Russian military aircraft, which would surely escalate the war.
Neither Iraq (1991+) nor Bosnia and Herzegovina (1993+) were NATO members, and it served its purpose there. And hence declaring it before Russia invaded. Which forces Russia to choose to shoot down NATO aircraft, or operate outside those zones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US will defend NATO. They will nuke Russia's forces if they try to enter Poland. There is no doubt in my mind that is a red line.
There should always be plenty of doubt in your mind if you're saying that the US will use nukes in any situation short of someone else using them first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this whole event smells like a hooligan drive-by and not a planned military operation, too many dirty tricks
That's what war is about. (acting strategic) That's how Hitler was initially so military successful. Act hard, ruthless and be done before the (main) enemy realizes what hit their ally. EDIT: Not saying it's ethical to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're overestimating the speed of the attack. Even if the Ukrainians put up no resistance (and they have been putting up resistance) - tanks just don't move that fast/ukraine is a big place. See the dotted lines in this map - that's a rough estimate of how far the Russians have made it in a day. Even if they continue at the same pace overnight (unlikely), and the next day, and the next night, there's still a lot of…
Since they're already shelling Kyiv, they obviously have more options than tanks to take ownership of the governmental apparatus. I can't see how Ukraine can put up any realistic defence given they now have no radar tracking or air support. If your point is "it takes tanks a few days to get to Kyiv", then, yes, that is technically correct. If your point is "Russia needs to invade the whole country", no. They own the…
I can't really tell what's going on here. Is the EU and America supposed to be helping out but it's all promises without real counter attacks? Is this just the calm before the storm as russia places their troops in the right spots while everyone looks on? Anyone who's smarter than me who could enlighten me?
The EU and America have promised to help with economic sanctions on Russia and by providing military aid and lethal aid. The EU and America have explicitly not promised to help out with direct military action against Russia. The United States and Biden have said multiple times that the US will not have forces engage Russia directly in Ukraine. What specific promises are you referring to?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...