Seeing @BMD defend France literally takes my breath away. Maybe he could sell for our benefit a few Rafales after all? 
Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
That's what happens to expendable assets when you're found out and want to maintain plausible deniability. That doesn't meant they wanted them to fail, just that they accepted that failure was actually an option. The Wagner mercenaries were not alone in the doomed assault, the majority were Syrian regime forces. Are you saying that Russia wanted to get Syrian regime forces killed because they were upset with Assad too?
As Hollywood puts it: "As always, should any member of your team be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions."
It was an attack on NATO soil in reaction to military presence of NATO troops in a third country. Specifically, Osama bin Laden was upset that heathen American troops were present on the hallowed sands of Saudi Arabia.
And nobody in NATO said "okay, but you provoked Al Qaeda by deploying your troops in Saudi Arabia, so that was an abuse of NATO privileges and we will ignore your call to article 5".
So here's how it works. If French troops do non-combat stuff in Ukraine, Russia attacking them is an escalation that opens the right for France to attack Russian troops in Ukraine.
If Russia instead is foolhardy enough to react by attacking French soil, then that's the most straightforward and legitimate Article 5 invocation ever. French soil is also protected by the force de dissuasion, which was literally created to kill 80 million Russians.
You're such a contrarian that you contradict yourself.
You mean retarded?
When are Indians going to realize s400 is all show and no go. These batteries are going to be taken out with ease by US/NATO when conflict happens.
Footage of combat operations in Ukraine has been published, with the participation of the maximum drone-protected Russian T-72 tank, also called the Tsar Tank. Despite the fact that the tank was previously damaged by Ukrainian artillery, judging by the video, it continues to be used. The Tsar tank T-72 was spotted in Krasnogorovka, where it was hit by cluster shells. And he was almost destroyed by a Ukrainian artillery strike, as shown at the end of the video. For some unknown reason, the tank drove to the factory building in the center of the village and returned back. Later it was reported that the tank delivered a group of military personnel.
Sometimes it's hard to remember that we're on the same side.Seeing @BMD defend France literally takes my breath away. Maybe he could sell for our benefit a few Rafales after all?
There's a lot of ambiguity surrounding Art 5. It's probably designed that way. But I don't believe NATO members are interested in taking responsibility for others' decisions.
If France steps into Ukraine and gets into a fighting match with the Russians, I think most European countries would sit out of it. If Russia attacks French soil unprovoked, then NATO may get involved. But if the Russians react to a French attack on Russian soil, then NATO is more likely to sit out. Of course, they will try and defend France if the opportunity arises, like what they did over Israel.
I suppose Odessa is very important to France 'cause they don't want the Black Sea to fall into the hands of Russia and Turkey.
Er... No. The US asked the Russians if the mercs were theirs. Had the Russians said yes, the Americans would have requested/ordered a retreat rather than attack them. Mercs meeting other troops is a common occurence in such places and they have descalation measures in place to prevent mishaps.
You do realize my opinion is based on France going to war with Russia, right? So of course Russia will attack French soil when France is busy attacking Russian soil.
Since there's no real opportunity for a Russian invasion into France, I don't see why NATO will intervene.
Russia having a strong military doesn't automatically mean they are now ready to invade Lisbon.
Russia's main interests are in securing their own borders where they believe they are weak. For example, the Baltic states that separates them from Kaliningrad while placing NATO right along the St. Petersburg and Moscow areas. Or now Ukraine in Donbas, where they are right opposite their soft underbelly towards the Caspian.
Russia's military intentions are focused on Eastern Europe, not Lisbon. Hence the exaggeration.
Common sense actually. India sank American and British ships in 1971. No punishment.
NATO is unlikely to start WW3 just 'cause Russia reacted to French attacks from non-NATO soil.
Oh, btw, your Saudi example. Nah, it's attacks on NATO soil that trigger Art 5, not on NATO forces outside NATO soil.
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
Obviously Ukraine isn't covered.
Furthermore:
The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.
The Russians lack sufficient BMD in Ukraine and Crimea. They are focusing on strengthening their main areas with new systems.
They need something like 10 regiments of S-400, but have just 3 or 4.
Yes, exactly.
Russia wanted to see if they could push the Americans out of this area. So they threw plausibly deniable assets at it. Americans saw them, and used the deconfliction hotline to ask the Russians about what game they were playing. At this point, the Russians had a choice to make:
- Say "da, ve are attackink you, hahaha" and proceed with their plan, effectively entering into direct conflict with the USA.
- Say "da, but this is a mistake" and call back their mercs, abandoning their plan and effectively losing without a fight.
- Say "nyet, we are plausibly denying any involvement in whatever is happening over there", and see how things pan out.
So your opinion is based on a fantasy scenario nobody is planning. Okay.
Yes exactly.
There was no call to article 5 when Al Qaeda bombed a hotel in Yemen with US troops inside. It was not on NATO soil. There was no call to article 5 when Al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole, also in Yemen. It was not in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic. But when 9/11 happened, then it was an attack on NATO-protected soil and Article 5 was raised.
And nobody said "this doesn't count because you were fighting them earlier so really it's your fault for being capricious and abusing NATO privileges".
Damage at a Russian chemical plant due to drone strikes.
liveuamap.com
liveuamap.com
Damage at chemical plant in Kamensk-Shakhtinsky as result of drone strikes Kamensk-Shakhtinsky,Rostovskaya oblast' - Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com
Damage at chemical plant in Kamensk-Shakhtinsky as result of drone strikes. Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests...
liveuamap.com
Violent explosion reported in Voronezh, column of smoke rising
Violent explosion reported in Voronezh, column of smoke rising Voronez, Voronezhskaya oblast' - Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com
Violent explosion reported in Voronezh, column of smoke rising . Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests, terrorism, weapons...
liveuamap.com
No, it had nothing to do with plausible deniability. Flag forces don't move for mercs. The Russians sent the mercs to their deaths.
Sending forces to Odessa qualifies. It would make France an ally of Ukraine, hence an enemy of Russia.
That's what I'm saying too. It doesn't trigger Art 5.
Ukraine isn't NATO-protected soil, where the war will begin.
It's like this: If France occupies Odessa, and Russia wants it, let's say a shooting match begins. If all the shooting stays in Ukraine, then all good. But if France attacks Russian soil, which I'd say now includes Donbas and other areas under Russian control, then France will open itself to Russian attacks in French territories. If this happens, NATO is unlikely to intervene 'cause France has brought it upon itself. Meaning, France cannot use this as an excuse to trigger Art 5.
Even if this does happen, the only way Art 5 would trigger is if the US is ready to fight Russia. France cannot influence this outcome on its own.
Maybe France can trigger Art 42(7), and when things start going bad for the EU, Art 5 could kick in and the US could step in, but that's the limit. And that's a stretch too, member states may at best send advisors and medical crews.
I don't believe European countries are stupid enough to get dragged into a war with Russia just 'cause France is uncomfortable with Turkey in the Black Sea, especially when the US is entirely focused on the Pacific.
Hell, this was the US/UK objective. To get the EU to start contributing. France/Germany were betrayed by their own allies once Boris convinced Zelensky to fight. I assume you have already seen the video of Macron and Zelensky right after the Russians invaded.
This is what people are dealing with from the Trump Lobby. They're not mentally fit to hold office.
