Warfare Russia/Ukraine War

[Minimalist]

And the dollar exchange rate on the Moscow Exchange fell to 62 rubles, for the first time since January 2020.

Comment of an ordinary Rus woman " The state said that prices are rising because of the dollar, the dollar has fallen, but for some reason prices do not falling"

 

[Gordus]

Who would not want USA on their side? Despite all the stuff thrown up, no-one was forced to go with them into Iraq etc. And USA had the chance to occupy a big chunk of Europe, if they wanted to. Compare that to the other side, and the eastern countries are still rebuilding their countries, people, wealth etc.

The EU would if it chose to deploy, be a strong force. But especially since UK left, then EU would lose the 2 strongest members of NATO. Given the treatment of Russia over the last 30 years, by EU, I cant see any frontline country thinking it would be a good idea to rely on the EU for defense against Russia, rather than NATO. And Russia has confirmed this, not happy to see Ukr join NATO, but ok with it joining EU. What more do you need?

What I needed for refusing to buy into the fear that Russia could beat the EU militariy ? way more than speculation based on unrelated events, and an actual precedent. There have been none and I'm also not asking for it. But again, fact remains, the EU is legaly binded to defend each and every member state, not within "reasonable" limits or at own discretion, that's not what is written there right. What is says is, by "all the means in their power".

Now, wheter or not some EU states might leave it "wide open for interpretation" from their POV, if you get my meaning, and actualy refuse and leave the Union or get booted as a consequence, is a different question. We don't know what could happen. In this Ukraine crisis, so many unexpected things happened. To me especialy, it was Germany's role in this conflict and how quickly, albeit with mixed magnitude, so many EU countries virtualy dumped half their arsenal into Ukraine. An even greater surprise to me, were Russia's initial military blunders and not all of it can be attributed to early and vital ingelligence, but also some of the worst decision making and general inefficiency, I've withnessed in some time. I thought the Georgian military was terrible. Russia made me reconsider that POV, and happy.
You know, it's hard to tell what really would happen. But observing the current situation, it's very hard for me to believe right now, that Russia could wage a successful war against Europe, even without NATO.
Again, not saying NATO wasn't important or needed. It's not about that.

 

[thelistener]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Not true

Spoiler: correct statement

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Reuters has again misrepresented my comments. I have not closed the door to any future solutions regarding NATO membership, but have described Finland now focusing on membership negotiations. We have asked Reuters for a correction.

 

[Fluff]

How to video - setup a mine ambush:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Hiryu2.0]

Captive medic’s bodycam shows firsthand horror of Mariupol

KHARKIV, Ukraine (AP) — A celebrated Ukrainian medic recorded her time in Mariupol on a data card no bigger than a thumbnail, smuggled out to the world in a tampon. Now she is in Russian hands, at a time when Mariupol itself is on the verge of falling.

apnews.com

 

[thelistener]

That doesn't matter though. Again, the mutual defense clause binds the entirety of the EU, to aid and assist any member country that is victim of aggression on it's territory, by "all the means in their power". Meaning, not only economic sanctions and weapons, but inevitably also by providing full fledged military support.

EU defense clause does not entail full fledged military support at all. The wording is so vague on purpose, unlike article 5.
There's no integrated defense planning, no open intelligence sharing etc. etc.

There are only 6 nations in the EU that are not in NATO also. And only one of the non-NATO EU states borders Russia. You can be as doubtful as you want but i guarantee you this, we've had a lot of discussion about this EU security clause in Finland since 2014. And the conclusion is that its BS.
There's no motivation for EU to advance integrated defense inside the EU because most of them are in NATO (no sense to build two organizations) the real power players that bring real deterrence to the table are outside of EU (expect France)

Who are we to trust in the EU? Germany? Before this war their lack of military commitment was ridiculous. Now that might change but that will take time.
I have no trust in the EU to stop their usual business and send their airforce to drive Russians out of Åland for a non NATO member. I wonder how many parliamentary meetings it would take.
I conclude by saying that the EU doesn't have the deterrence effect of NATO.
We don't care if we would eventually "win a war" by just being inside the EU and getting help in different forms. The key is to prevent it from happening at all and for that NATO is the best solution.

 

[Connaught Ranger]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Not true

Spoiler: correct statement

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Reuters has again misrepresented my comments. I have not closed the door to any future solutions regarding NATO membership, but have described Finland now focusing on membership negotiations. We have asked Reuters for a correction.

Is it regarding the military bases or the deployment of nuclear weapons?

 

[Connaught Ranger]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Gordus]

EU defense clause does not entail full fledged military support at all. The wording is so vague on purpose, unlike article 5.
There's no integrated defense planning, no open intelligence sharing etc. etc.

There are only 6 nations in the EU that are not in NATO also. And only one of the non-NATO EU states borders Russia. You can be as doubtful as you want but i guarantee you this, we've had a lot of discussion about this EU security clause in Finland since 2014. And the conclusions is that is BS.
There's no motivation for EU to advance integrated defense inside the EU because most of them are in NATO (no sense to build two organizations) the real power players that bring real deterrence to the table are outside of EU (expect France)

Who are we to trust in the EU? Germany? Before this war their lack military commitment was ridiculous. Now that might change but that will take time.
I have no trust in the EU to stop their usual business and send their airforce to drive Russians out of Åland for a non NATO member. I wonder how many parliamentary meetings it would take.
I conclude by saying that the EU doesn't that have the deterrence effect of NATO.
We don't care if we would eventually "win a war" by just being inside the EU and getting help in different forms. The key is to prevent it from happening at all and for that NATO is the best solution.

Yes, Art.5 specificaly mentions military support ( or use of armed force ), but the defense clause doesn't just put options on the table, it literaly reads "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power". That entails all forms of aid and assistance, including military.

The only part I see, that could have people confused, is the leeway granted to certain countries, that insist to remain neutral, like Austria. Nothing about the "all means in their power" part is really ambiguous though. It means that, if you were attacked for example, all EU countries, except for maybe Austria, would be obliged to muster all their economic and military power, to protect you.

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

 

[thelistener]

Is it regarding the military bases or the deployment of nuclear weapons?

Both are still on the table. Nothings been ruled out.

 

[Hiryu2.0]

 

[Connaught Ranger]

"Cemetery of destroyed equipment of the occupiers on the banks of the Seversky Donets"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Chomiq]

azért megjegyzem, rohadtul nem mindegy a gdp mekkora része kerül offshore számlákra..... v

Sorry I don't speak paprika.

 

[thelistener]

Yes, Art.5 specificaly mentions military support, but the defense clause doesn't just put options on the table, it literaly reads "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power,". That entails all forms of aid and assistance, including military.

The only part I see, that could have people confused, is the leeway granted to countries, that want to maintain their neutrality. Nothing about the "all means in their power" part is really ambiguous.

The credibility/deterrence of article 42.7 is entirely depended on the European union commitment to a credible defense cooperation between nations in the EU.

NATO article 5 is credible thanks to US and UK, partly due to nuclear deterrence, their ability to project military power globally and their unquestioned leadership role in NATO and the overall defense planning.

The EU, on the other hand has had no talk officially of what role for example France's nuclear weapons would have in the defense of nations that are outside of NATO but inside the EU and "protected" by 42.7

It's just complete air, and to compare it to being similar protection to NATO article 5 is just silly. Since you must know what NATO is and what it entails in terms of integrated defense plan and comparing it to EU's... Nothing.

 

[Gordus]

The credibility/deterrence of article 42.7 is entirely depended on the European union commitment to a credible defense cooperation between nations in the EU.

NATO article 5 is credible thanks to US and UK, partly due to nuclear deterrence, their ability to project military power globally and their unquestioned leadership role in NATO.

The EU, on the other hand has had no talk officially of what role for example France's nuclear weapons would have in the defense of nations that are outside of NATO but inside the EU and "protected" by 42.7

It's just complete air, and to compare it to being similar protection to NATO article 5 is just silly since you must know what NATO is and what it entails in terms of integrated defense plan and comparing it to EU's... Nothing.

Again, this is arguing without any precedent. Give me an example to validate such views. If Russia had attacked a EU country idk, let's say in the past 10-20 years and nobody acted in their defense, then I'd probably say, yeah, EU was completely useless without NATO. But just arguing based on personal perceptions and fears, is not enough for me.

People were also completely wrong about German and other EU countries committments in a crisis they weren't obliged to even glance at, about Ukraine, about Russia, their performances, etc. etc. etc. etc. Look were we are now. Just something to consider.

I'm not comparing the weight of NATO with EU at all. Neither am I saying, the EU defense clause was in any way a greater or equal deterrent than NATO. I agree that would be silly. The USA by themselves are a greater military powerhouse than all of EU combined. But at the same time I know and don't buy into opinions about allegedly non-existing interoperability and cooperation between EU armies. That is just not the case. Could it be better ? Definitely. Much better. But the same could be said about NATO, which is also not beyond improvements in those areas. It also doesn't mean, the mutual defense clause, would not come into effect regardless, when it is binding by treaty.

Let's just agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Hiryu2.0]

Deutschland, Deutschland unter alles.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Connaught Ranger]

"Kharkiv region: exhumation of Russian military bodies"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Sinex]

The credibility/deterrence of article 42.7 is entirely depended on the European union commitment to a credible defense cooperation between nations in the EU.

NATO article 5 is credible thanks to US and UK, partly due to nuclear deterrence, their ability to project military power globally and their unquestioned leadership role in NATO and the overall defense planning.

The EU, on the other hand has had no talk officially of what role for example France's nuclear weapons would have in the defense of nations that are outside of NATO but inside the EU and "protected" by 42.7

It's just complete air, and to compare it to being similar protection to NATO article 5 is just silly. Since you must know what NATO is and what it entails in terms of integrated defense plan and comparing it to EU's... Nothing.

As Gordus basically said, you are entitled to your own reality. De facto NATO membership doesnt change too much on the ground. Finland can host US soldiers with or without NATO and that might bother Russia, but not the defence clause which has been there via EU anyway.

But whatever makes you sleep well is fine, and Fins obviously like formal NATO membership, so why not

 

[Connaught Ranger]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies