bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Ugh, so any country has "veto" power in NATO.
All Putin has to do is buy someone out.
All Putin has to do is buy someone out.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
petit_bateau
Active Member
veto on entry = yes
veto on Article 5 breach = no
It is the same issue with EU, that is why Hungary is so problematic, and a reason why EU is so reluctant to let Turkey in (plus many other reasons)
Heck, many in NATO were just as concerned about USA going wobbly under the orange Trumpy chap, who seemed pretty pwned by Putin
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I was thinking about this the other day ... Acceptance of Hungary and some of the other eastern countries into NATO were dubious choices. In retrospect they should have made their own umbrella together.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
A non-nuclear umbrella is pointless against Russia.
Important points raised here about EU and NATO membership/accession. Selection is critical. Bigger is not inherently better.
Countries must be at a certain point in democratic evolution, otherwise they are potential liabilities.
As noted, for Putin, EU or NATO aggressive accession could be a good thing - allowing him to manipulate weak democracies. Russia already does this directly in the UN with veto power there.
Finland and Sweden, however, are as close to ideal candidates as there are for NATO.
Countries must be at a certain point in democratic evolution, otherwise they are potential liabilities.
As noted, for Putin, EU or NATO aggressive accession could be a good thing - allowing him to manipulate weak democracies. Russia already does this directly in the UN with veto power there.
Finland and Sweden, however, are as close to ideal candidates as there are for NATO.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Scary *sugar*
www.understandingwar.org
Institute for the Study of War
Russian President Vladimir Putin likely intends to annex occupied southern and eastern Ukraine directly into the Russian Federation in the coming months. He will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/PYB4RR46URPGVJDMB4GIYZBBFQ.jpg)
Russia needs de-Nazification, says Pussy Riot leader after escape
Russia, not Ukraine, needs de-Nazification, the leader of anti-Kremlin punk band Pussy Riot, who left Russia this week by disguising herself as a food courier, said before her group kicks off a concert tour against the war.
www.reuters.com
Scary *sugar*
Institute for the Study of War
Russian President Vladimir Putin likely intends to annex occupied southern and eastern Ukraine directly into the Russian Federation in the coming months. He will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of
Ive been concerned about this for a few weeks. I've seen stories in the last few weeks that Russia plans to annex Kherson. To give it a fig leaf of respectability, they plan to hold a referendum. Which of course will be rigged.
This was today's story
On the bright side there is this
They are having to increase the drain on their reserves to prop up the ruble and pay for other things. They initially propped up the ruble by requiring Russians holding foreign currencies who lived in Russia to cash those currencies in for rubles, but it looks like that source has dried up and they are having to burn their reserves now.
Not only are they burning their financial reserves, they are also burning their army. According to one source I read last night, the Russians appear to have switched over completely to defensive operations. That's a sign their army is struggling in a major way.
Ukraine is getting more and more equipment and getting stronger. We may see an offensive into the south soon. The Russian forces around Kharkhiv have almost been completely pushed out of the country. That will free up a lot of Ukrainian regular forces for other areas. The TDF guys are more than competent at holding ground once the regular army captures it.
From the above article the Russians are planning their initiative for July. If the Ukrainians can regain a fair bit of that territory by then, it will make the initiative impossible to pull off. With Russia's army failing in the field, Russia's economy getting wobbly at home, and Ukraine getting stronger, it is within the realm of possibilities.
Aid to Ukraine is being held up by 1 Republican Senator who refuses to negotiate with even his fellow Republicans. And the current aid package runs out in about a week.
Senator Rand Paul single-handedly holds up $40bn US aid for Ukraine Democratic and Republican Senate leaders both supported package but Paul objected to scale of spending
Senator Rand Paul single-handedly holds up $40bn US aid for Ukraine Democratic and Republican Senate leaders both supported package but Paul objected to scale of spending
Not quite clear on that, there are conflicting information if the Russians are able to annex Kherson just now. They may have bit more than they can chew at this time. See what the local Benedict Arnold had to say:
Google translate, but can't figure out how to get a direct link for translate from a Telegram web interface
If 10 Republicans feel strongly enough about Ukraine, they will vote to override the veto. It passed 368-57 in the House and the House has more pro-Russian representatives than the Senate.
ISW is claiming that the battle for Kharkiv is over.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-13
This is probably better for Ukraine than Russia. Especially in the short term. The Ukrainians can move troops via inside lines and the Russians much use outside lines which are longer (and they are more reliant on rail). The Russian forces are probably more chewed up than the Ukrainian forces too which means that the units will probably require some refit before being thrown back into the fight.
The Ukrainians have excellent static defense forces (TDF) that can hold the border region around Kharkiv, leaving their good combat units free to redeploy to the Donbas or the southern front. They will probably hold some small mobile units in reserve in the north in case the Russians try something and shift the bulk of their forces to another front. They should be able to beat Russian redeployment by at least a week or two, if not more.
Ukrainian mobility is improving as they get more vehicles from NATO and other countries.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-13
This is probably better for Ukraine than Russia. Especially in the short term. The Ukrainians can move troops via inside lines and the Russians much use outside lines which are longer (and they are more reliant on rail). The Russian forces are probably more chewed up than the Ukrainian forces too which means that the units will probably require some refit before being thrown back into the fight.
The Ukrainians have excellent static defense forces (TDF) that can hold the border region around Kharkiv, leaving their good combat units free to redeploy to the Donbas or the southern front. They will probably hold some small mobile units in reserve in the north in case the Russians try something and shift the bulk of their forces to another front. They should be able to beat Russian redeployment by at least a week or two, if not more.
Ukrainian mobility is improving as they get more vehicles from NATO and other countries.
Not quite clear on that, there are conflicting information if the Russians are able to annex Kherson just now. They may have bit more than they can chew at this time. See what the local Benedict Arnold had to say:
View attachment 804076
Google translate, but can't figure out how to get a direct link for translate from a Telegram web interface
They're going to have a hard time holding on to Kherson. The Ukrainians will be switching over to the offensive soon and I expect they will attempt to create a Kherson pocket cutting it off from the south.
A lot of what the Russians are saying today remind me of a kid in my high school class. He was a very unhappy kid with a pretty screwed up family and had some weird health problems like double vision. He got picked on a lot and he would tell people he had a hit list and he was changing the kill priority on the list on a regular basis. He promised he was going to go on a shooting spree someday.
People would take him more seriously today, but this was the 80s and everyone ignored his threats. He never did act out, it was all talk.
Russia strikes me like the kid who did strike out and is now trapped in a building surrounded by the police and he's still going on about who is next on his hit list, even though his only ways out of his current situation is to the morgue or in hand cuffs.
The Russians can try to de-Ukrainianize Kherson, but I don't think it's going to work. The population is very, very anti-Russian right now.
Mark Hertling believes both armies on the cusp of switching modes
Thread by @MarkHertling on Thread Reader App
Another thought occurred to me this evening: Russia/the USSR has never conducted and air war where they achieved air superiority based on the operations of their air force. They have been in conflicts where they had it from the start such as Afghanistan and Syria, but in a contested air war, they never really were able to sweep an enemy air force from the sky. They don't know how.
In WW II they out numbered the Germans by 1945 in the air because the Germans were running out of man power, aircraft, and fuel, but when the Germans did engage the Russians in the air, the Russians were still taking heavy losses right to the end. The top fighter aces in history were Germans on the Eastern Front.
Virtually all of the 100+ aces on this list got most if not all their victories on the Eastern Front vs the USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces
The top non-German ace is a Finn with 94. The top Allied ace was Ivan Kozhedub with 66. The US and RAF didn't have such high scoring aces in part because when on the offensive over enemy territory getting shot down means being taken prisoner and the US and British rotated pilots out of combat more regularly than other air forces, which raised the overall quality of pilots by late war.
The losses for Russian aircraft were staggering compared to other air forces. They effectively had air superiority by the end of the war not due to anything the Red Air Force did, but because Germany was falling apart.
Western analysts assumed the Russians would quickly gain air superiority and then supremacy in Ukraine because the US has done it many times and its allies have done it (or contributed to it) too. For the US getting to air supremacy is a cookbook operation, first you do X, then Y, etc. And the US gained air supremacy locally many times in WW II and has pretty much done it in every war since.
But the Russian air power was never organized enough to achieve air supremacy on their own. To achieve air superiority and then air supremacy you need to first cut loose your fighter pilots to hunt down and shoot down anything they find in the air, then send in ground attack to destroy everything on the air fields. The Russians have never trusted their pilots enough to just let them operate on their own without tight control from the ground.
Western analysts have assumed for decades that if the Russians are making weapons with similar characteristics to the west, they must know how to use them like the west, but in at least some cases, they are just copying the west and they never really figured out how to use those weapons effectively or if they did know, they never invested in the training to make proper use of them. They made these weapons more for the PR than actual doctrine.
Russia has been successful at conquest. They spent 500 years conquering northern Asia as well as Alaska and expanded westward after WW II. But with a few exceptions, they have rarely fought competent opponents. When they did, their results were mixed.
They defeated Napoleon, but France had many enemies and the Russian winters did more damage than the Russians. The Crimean War was a humiliation for Russia, though the losses on both sides were high. The 1906 war with Japan was a drubbing for Russia. WW I didn't go very well. They managed to check and defeat the Germans in WW II, but it was an alliance with a much smaller population (the Axis) and Russia had powerful allies in the UK and US.
The Great Patriotic War (WW II) is an almost holy thing in Russia because it was the only time they clearly defeated a competent foe in a war. And they play down how much help they got. Their offenses in 1944 and 1945 would have gone nowhere if not for a sea of Studebaker trucks given to them by the US.
They also play down US and British aircraft contributions. Russian pilots loved the P-39 which was phased out of US service early in the war. They also flew P-40s, Spitfires, Hurricanes, B-25s, and a number of other western allied aircraft.
Russia's military has always been a blunt instrument. It's good at pummeling a weaker opponent hard and it's good at intimidation, but has rarely performed well against an opponent who is ready for a fight and not easily intimidated.
Spring Session, Vilnius, Lithuania, 27-30 May 2022
Was just talking with my Congressperson and she mentioned she is off to this NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s 2022 Spring Session in Vilnius, Lithuania in a couple weeks. It was originally scheduled to be in Kyiv but apparently something came up so it was moved to Vilnius. I asked her if she was planning a stop in Moscow, but she's been sanctioned so no sightseeing in Russia this trip. Wonder what they will be talking about? Anyone know?
Was just talking with my Congressperson and she mentioned she is off to this NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s 2022 Spring Session in Vilnius, Lithuania in a couple weeks. It was originally scheduled to be in Kyiv but apparently something came up so it was moved to Vilnius. I asked her if she was planning a stop in Moscow, but she's been sanctioned so no sightseeing in Russia this trip. Wonder what they will be talking about? Anyone know?
Nit-picking, but the top Allied ace (by definition) was Constantin Cantacuzino with 69 victories. Of course most of the were before Romania switched sides (both Russians as well as US/UK planes) in 1944, but he had 11 victories (German planes) after that as well. The guy was a legend from before the war, a crazy rich daredevil playboy, a poster kid of the crazy late 20s. After Romania switched sides he was the one that flew a US POW to Italy in a Messerschmidte Bf109 and returned the next day flying a Mustang P-51 because the Messerschmidte couldn't be refueled by Allies. And of course before leaving the Foggia airspace, on his first flight in the Mustang, he had to do acrobatics first
And of course after war the Communists forced him in exile in the purge of the former Royal Army/Air Force officers.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Wow. Be safe! I realize that's easier said than done.
I think there is only one thing on the senior officers of every NATO nation right now.
Wow, I assume you're in Ukraine. I hope you're well behind the front lines and just subject to the Russian cruise missiles! Stay safe!
Today Turkey reportedly "walked back" a potential challenge of Finland and Sweden accession to NATO. A Turkish spokesman said "that Turkey was merely trying to ensure that all alliance members’ security concerns were heeded."
For Putin, a Nordic Nightmare Is Springing to Life
Was thinking of an effective way to prevent a single NATO member country from wielding veto power to prevent new member accession:
NATO is basically very light on collectively owned assets. A problem member could be effectively quarantined by drawing up a parallel NATO 2.0, with identical NATO 1.0 charters/rules, inviting all NATO 1.0 countries except the problematic member, thenthreatening politely informing the problem member that other members would move from NATO 1.0->2.0 if problem member further attempted to block accession.
For Putin, a Nordic Nightmare Is Springing to Life
Was thinking of an effective way to prevent a single NATO member country from wielding veto power to prevent new member accession:
NATO is basically very light on collectively owned assets. A problem member could be effectively quarantined by drawing up a parallel NATO 2.0, with identical NATO 1.0 charters/rules, inviting all NATO 1.0 countries except the problematic member, then
