Ukraine - Superthread

[suffolkowner]

Move 1 CBMG to the Ukraine for a Partnership for Peace Exercise.
Sure it would be militarily insignificant, but Russia wouldn't want to do much to a fairly benign NATO country, because of the potential the US and UK would use that as an Article #5

Would article 5 apply if our forces were in or defending a non nato country?

 

[MilEME09]

Would article 5 apply if our forces were in or defending a non nato country?

It can, but that depends on what the alliance decides

 

[suffolkowner]

Move 1 CBMG to the Ukraine for a Partnership for Peace Exercise.
Sure it would be militarily insignificant, but Russia wouldn't want to do much to a fairly benign NATO country, because of the potential the US and UK would use that as an Article #5

combine this with the new tank thread and just get Ukraine to supply us with new T-84's half in Ukraine and half in Canada problem solved all the way around. Money and support for Ukraine and new tanks for Canada

 

[MilEME09]

combine this with the new tank thread and just get Ukraine to supply us with new T-84's half in Ukraine and half in Canada problem solved all the way around. Money and support for Ukraine and new tanks for Canada

You really wouldn't want that, the T-84 still has all the weaknesses of the T-80 family. The T line is not designed for crew survivability, people are cheap in eastern block doctrine

 

[suffolkowner]

You really wouldn't want that, the T-84 still has all the weaknesses of the T-80 family. The T line is not designed for crew survivability, people are cheap in eastern block doctrine

That's why we're rocking with the autolaoder and one less person . The new ones are outfitte with reactive armour and a APS at least. Wikipedia says that instead of any ceramic armour they had to use rubber, anyway sounds questionable hopefully they have moved beyond that. Obviously it was a joke post but what would you say are it's real weaknesses?

 

[KevinB]

Would article 5 apply if our forces were in or defending a non nato country?

Yes, Article 5 doesn't have a requirement for you to be attacked within the sovereign area of your country -- Article 5 has been used for stuff in African and the Middle East...

You could theoretically ask NATO to invoke Article 5 if you had a concentration of civilians in an area that was attacked.

It can, but that depends on what the alliance decides

Collective defence - Article 5

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

www.nato.int

Given the Alliance effectively couldn't say no due to other incidents, I don't think it would be a long vote.

 

[MilEME09]

That's why we're rocking with the autolaoder and one less person . The new ones are outfitte with reactive armour and a APS at least. Wikipedia says that instead of any ceramic armour they had to use rubber, anyway sounds questionable hopefully they have moved beyond that. Obviously it was a joke post but what would you say are it's real weaknesses?

Reliability and maintenance, and every T series stores ammo around the turret ring, one hit and it all goes up, dead crew.

 

[Spencer100]

Yes, Article 5 doesn't have a requirement for you to be attacked within the sovereign area of your country -- Article 5 has been used for stuff in African and the Middle East...

You could theoretically ask NATO to invoke Article 5 if you had a concentration of civilians in an area that was attacked.

Collective defence - Article 5

The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.

www.nato.int

Given the Alliance effectively couldn't say no due to other incidents, I don't think it would be a long vote.

cough cough...Falklands.

 

[MilEME09]

cough cough...Falklands.

Was article 5 even invoked for that? I thought for national pride they went it alone

 

[Spencer100]

Move 1 CBMG to the Ukraine for a Partnership for Peace Exercise.
Sure it would be militarily insignificant, but Russia wouldn't want to do much to a fairly benign NATO country, because of the potential the US and UK would use that as an Article #5

I guess we could but why? As it looks now the USA is going to write the Ukraine off. Germany will not lift a figire. With the current US admin it looks also like Taiwan is a goner too. I think if we were starting to think about moving troops I would suspect someone would get a message from Washington that we are not allowed to do it.

 

[Spencer100]

Was article 5 even invoked for that? I thought for national pride they went it alone

That and I was under the impression that the UK was encouraged not to bring it up as it would hurt the alliance. Invoking Art. 5 could at that time could put a rift in the alliance and show weakness to the USSR.

 

[MilEME09]

I guess we could but why? As it looks now the USA is going to write the Ukraine off. Germany will not lift a figire. With the current US admin it looks also like Taiwan is a goner too. I think if we were starting to think about moving troops I would suspect someone would get a message from Washington that we are not allowed to do it.

Some NATO members may not care but you can bet every former eastern block country does, and they don't want more Russian, and Russian friendly troops on their borders.

 

[KevinB]

That and I was under the impression that the UK was encouraged not to bring it up as it would hurt the alliance. Invoking Art. 5 could at that time could put a rift in the alliance and show weakness to the USSR.

Actually at the time there was support in NATO - but the UK didn't chose to invoke it.
There was a lot of support behind the scenes though.

 

[Altair]

Some NATO members may not care but you can bet every former eastern block country does, and they don't want more Russian, and Russian friendly troops on their borders.

Best way to break up NATO is having some members respond to article 5 and others deciding they will not.

 

[Spencer100]

Best way to break up NATO is having some members respond to article 5 and others deciding they will not.

I think that is some or the main calculus of the Russian moves. I think Putin is playing the game well and see things as they are.

Some NATO members may not care but you can bet every former eastern block country does, and they don't want more Russian, and Russian friendly troops on their borders.

I would not put it past the US (and some other EU countries too) to write those members off too at this point. But I doubt it will come to that. Putin will get a piece of what he is looking for. Money and land. Pull back and declare it a win. Then monies with flow. Oil prices will remain high. Contracts signed with the EU. No war.

But there is always the chance of miscalculations. One side move or push too hard. As a society we totally and utterly unprepared for any kind of war/conflict with a peer/near peer. Just the cyberwarfare alone would knock much of the west off balance. Imagine if people could not unlock the doors to there houses! Or Tok Tik is down....come to think of it that one would remain up.

I think it comes down to conflict we will have lost in the first few days even with shots not being fired. Power generation down, internet down, large scale misinformation, supply chain disruptions, fifth column attacks etc.

So the people in Washington and else where know this.

 

[KevinB]

I think that is some or the main calculus of the Russian moves. I think Putin is playing the game well and see things as they are.



I would not put it past the US (and some other EU countries too) to write those members off too at this point. But I doubt it will come to that. Putin will get a piece of what he is looking for. Money and land. Pull back and declare it a win. Then monies with flow. Oil prices will remain high. Contracts signed with the EU. No war.

But there is always the chance of miscalculations. One side move or push too hard. As a society we totally and utterly unprepared for any kind of war/conflict with a peer/near peer. Just the cyberwarfare alone would knock much of the west off balance. Imagine if people could not unlock the doors to there houses! Or Tok Tik is down....come to think of it that one would remain up.

I think it comes down to conflict we will have lost in the first few days even with shots not being fired. Power generation down, internet down, large scale misinformation, supply chain disruptions, fifth column attacks etc.

So the people in Washington and else where know this.

You seem to discount that the West has those same abilities.
The difference is we have a lot of redundant systems the Russians don't.
Our capability is signally larger - our will is the issue.

 

[Spencer100]

You seem to discount that the West has those same abilities.
The difference is we have a lot of redundant systems the Russians don't.
Our capability is signally larger - our will is the issue.

I think we have the point...it's the will. You knock Russian power out.....in some places will they notice? Or in reality the people will make do. Russian or an American without power which will be better at dealing with it?

 

[suffolkowner]

In the end I think a deal will be made and water will be turned back on to the Crimea and the Donbas areas will remain separate entities. Russian pride satisfied and Ukraine forced to back down a little but in reality not give up much

 

[Altair]

In the end I think a deal will be made and water will be turned back on to the Crimea and the Donbas areas will remain separate entities. Russian pride satisfied and Ukraine forced to back down a little but in reality not give up much

Unless NATO pulls out all training missions in Ukraine, I don't think that will be enough for Russia.

They have laid out their ultimatum. Written guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO. If Russia cannot at least get western troops out of Ukraine, never mind the guarantee that NATO will not allow, then I think things go hot in February. Another Olympic invasion.

 

[MilEME09]

Unless NATO pulls out all training missions in Ukraine, I don't think that will be enough for Russia.

They have laid out their ultimatum. Written guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO. If Russia cannot at least get western troops out of Ukraine, never mind the guarantee that NATO will not allow, then I think things go hot in February. Another Olympic invasion.

With how ridiculous their demands already are, these talks seem like cover for me. I'd even wager the invasion happens before the talks to give them a stronger hand at the table.