Condemnation from Kyiv to Bucharest is swift, as leaders stress the importance of a unified response and warn that Russia’s ‘reckless behavior’ threatens regional stability.
valid to intercept them as soon as they’re detected
Realllllly gonna need a citation on that one. Pretty sure there’s no actual rules to declare things like this valid or invalid, and the reason they haven’t intercepted anything above ukraine itself is that would be direct NATO involvement in the conflict and thus an escalation with a power that can, lets remember, end the world if it gets too mad.
A power that already escalated things by doing drone attacks against two NATO countries (and don’t try to justify it with it was accidental, because negligence is not a defense against any crime). What happens when someone in Romania or Poland dies because of a Russian drone?
And NATO is responding by strictly enforcing their airspace (and casually swatting down russia’s drones in a serious flex), instead of allowing minor intrusions to pass harmlessly (like they were, what, two weeks ago?). It’s a slow escalation, that’s been NATO’s approach to the entire conflict, and the fact Ukraine still hasn’t fallen and we all haven’t died in nuclear hellfire lends quite a bit of credibility to their approach thus far.
If someone in a NATO country is killed by a russian strike, that will be addressed when it happens. I’m sure there’s broad contingencies, but the specifics of the circumstances that happens in are too diverse to allow meaningful speculation on how they’ll respond. It’s just too unpredictable - it could be anything from an escalation of material reinforcement for Ukraine, to actual troop commitments, to the wholesale opening of a second front. Neither of us have anything like the information needed to make an accurate prediction about what would happen.
If the polish military is to be believed, and there’s no real evidence they shouldn’t be given where the drones wound up landing, the drones they neutralized were the only ones that posed a significant threat. Sure, big swig from the mug full of salt grains, it was a surprise attack and I doubt they wouldn’t have gotten more if they had had the chance. Scrambling an effective defense from a multinational coalition to down selected targets in a fairly large-scale attack like this though? That is a huge flex of NATO’s logistical muscle. Arguably the largest one we’ve seen directly from NATO countries since the initial supply of material to Ukraine.
(K/D isn’t even a meaningful stat in a COD game. Why are we applying it to real life?)
Yeah I agree with pretty much everything there and they’ll be better prepared next time but if I was Russia I’d be considering it a win. Ukraine deals with 10x that and more nightly.
I’d personally prefer NATO to extend a no fly zone well inside Ukraine with Ukrainian consent and down any Russian drones or missiles that breach it. The cause is there now and it would free up Ukrainian air defence kit in that area to be moved elsewhere. God knows they would benefit from that
I’d sure cheer to see that happen, though I’d be surprised. My speculation on what we’ll most likely see is either:
Nothing, except heightened alert in NATO countries (because Russia stops the drone attacks on NATO)
Direct coordination between AFU’s air defense directorate and NATO countries to identify targets that are likely to encroach on NATO airspace and then NATO will interdict those targets, possibly while still over Ukraine proper (but more likely only over Ukraine on close approach to the border).
I don’t know that I’m right, I’m just some mook on the internet, and if I had to bet I’d say it’s much more likely that there needs to be still greater escalation from Russia before we see direct interdiction over Ukraine. But we can hope.
(And if Russia considers this a win, who knows. They’re big on their “Just according to keikaku” spins over there, and at this point they’re not exactly renowned for their tactical or strategic planning abilities)
Are you perhaps confusing the EU with NATO? Most NATO countries aren’t dependent at all on russian oil - afaik it’s only Turkey, Hungary and Slovokia that are even notable importers the problem children of NATO. The rest are all hooked on their own energy or import it from baltic or arabian (?) fields (or the US? The sources got confusing fast, it seems to all get mingled and then get really speculative-investment-y).
Pretty sure there’s no actual rules to declare things like this valid or invalid,
The what now ?
Like the rules Russia is following ? Tjerr are no rules, that myth explpded when Putin invaded Crimea.and the promised defence never occured. There was an actual ruke that Russia, the US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence.
he US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence
It’s not quite that simple. The wording (at least in English) was very carefully ambiguous, promising “assistance” if something happens but not quite a security guarantee, but it kind of sounds like a security guarantee.
Another key point was that U.S. State Department lawyers made a distinction between “security guarantee” and “security assurance”, referring to the security guarantees that were desired by Ukraine in exchange for non-proliferation. “Security guarantee” would have implied the use of military force in assisting its non-nuclear parties attacked by an aggressor (such as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty for NATO members), while “security assurance” would simply specify the non-violation of these parties’ territorial integrity. In the end, a statement was read into the negotiation record that the (according to the U.S. lawyers) lesser sense of the English word “assurance” would be the sole implied translation for all appearances of both terms in all three language versions of the statement.[18] In the Ukrainian and Russian version of the document, the wording “security guarantees” was used though.[20][21]
Realllllly gonna need a citation on that one. Pretty sure there’s no actual rules to declare things like this valid or invalid, and the reason they haven’t intercepted anything above ukraine itself is that would be direct NATO involvement in the conflict and thus an escalation with a power that can, lets remember, end the world if it gets too mad.
A power that already escalated things by doing drone attacks against two NATO countries (and don’t try to justify it with it was accidental, because negligence is not a defense against any crime). What happens when someone in Romania or Poland dies because of a Russian drone?
And NATO is responding by strictly enforcing their airspace (and casually swatting down russia’s drones in a serious flex), instead of allowing minor intrusions to pass harmlessly (like they were, what, two weeks ago?). It’s a slow escalation, that’s been NATO’s approach to the entire conflict, and the fact Ukraine still hasn’t fallen and we all haven’t died in nuclear hellfire lends quite a bit of credibility to their approach thus far.
If someone in a NATO country is killed by a russian strike, that will be addressed when it happens. I’m sure there’s broad contingencies, but the specifics of the circumstances that happens in are too diverse to allow meaningful speculation on how they’ll respond. It’s just too unpredictable - it could be anything from an escalation of material reinforcement for Ukraine, to actual troop commitments, to the wholesale opening of a second front. Neither of us have anything like the information needed to make an accurate prediction about what would happen.
They got 4 out of 19 in the first major incursion over Poland. Not a serious flex at all.
If the polish military is to be believed, and there’s no real evidence they shouldn’t be given where the drones wound up landing, the drones they neutralized were the only ones that posed a significant threat. Sure, big swig from the mug full of salt grains, it was a surprise attack and I doubt they wouldn’t have gotten more if they had had the chance. Scrambling an effective defense from a multinational coalition to down selected targets in a fairly large-scale attack like this though? That is a huge flex of NATO’s logistical muscle. Arguably the largest one we’ve seen directly from NATO countries since the initial supply of material to Ukraine.
(K/D isn’t even a meaningful stat in a COD game. Why are we applying it to real life?)
Yeah I agree with pretty much everything there and they’ll be better prepared next time but if I was Russia I’d be considering it a win. Ukraine deals with 10x that and more nightly.
I’d personally prefer NATO to extend a no fly zone well inside Ukraine with Ukrainian consent and down any Russian drones or missiles that breach it. The cause is there now and it would free up Ukrainian air defence kit in that area to be moved elsewhere. God knows they would benefit from that
I’d sure cheer to see that happen, though I’d be surprised. My speculation on what we’ll most likely see is either:
I don’t know that I’m right, I’m just some mook on the internet, and if I had to bet I’d say it’s much more likely that there needs to be still greater escalation from Russia before we see direct interdiction over Ukraine. But we can hope.
(And if Russia considers this a win, who knows. They’re big on their “Just according to keikaku” spins over there, and at this point they’re not exactly renowned for their tactical or strategic planning abilities)
Yah maybe they’ll do more sanctions but still purchase oil and gas from them. Because they’re stupid and made themselves dependent on Russia.
Are you perhaps confusing the EU with NATO? Most NATO countries aren’t dependent at all on russian oil - afaik it’s only Turkey, Hungary and Slovokia that are even notable importers
the problem children of NATO. The rest are all hooked on their own energy or import it from baltic or arabian (?) fields (or the US? The sources got confusing fast, it seems to all get mingled and then get really speculative-investment-y).The what now ?
Like the rules Russia is following ? Tjerr are no rules, that myth explpded when Putin invaded Crimea.and the promised defence never occured. There was an actual ruke that Russia, the US and Europe agreed to for Ukrine to give uo its nukes that if Russia invaded those counties would come to its defence.
Waiting… FFS!
It’s not quite that simple. The wording (at least in English) was very carefully ambiguous, promising “assistance” if something happens but not quite a security guarantee, but it kind of sounds like a security guarantee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
#justclintonthings