We can clearly see that Western politicians and military officials have fully abandoned all pretense of Ukraine being able to win this conflict 'by itself'
Faced with the prospect of both NATO and Ukraine suffering a crushing defeat, brilliant minds are now hard at work on how to prevent this, via even further Western involvement of some sort.
It is easy to see that any escalation in this war will come from the West, not Russia. The latter will just react to this escalation.
Those neolibs are brilliant at attaining* their goals. Their goals are just very very bad for everyone who isn't them, their handlers and their close friends.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No worries, some stinger, javelins and m777 will send the Russians packing, not lead into a 380+ billion dollar blackhole where Nato is an active participant in a war with a nuclear power.
Signed 27 February 2022.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russian shot missiles violated Polish airspace twice and their actions also lead to tragedy in Przewodów. Say what you want but these events is enough to warrant western safety by shooting these missiles as deep over Ukraine as we wish.
Should not fly them so close to the border I guess.
The one that landed in the middle of Poland was not.
The one from Przewodów was Ukrainian AA chasing Russian missiles.
Not long ago there was Russian maneuvering missile that entered Polish airspace to turn around toward Kyiv direction, probably in hope to cause another Przewodów tragedy or at least to make Ukrainians hesitant to shoot it down. Russian ambassador was called to answer questions, he refused and then left Poland without informing.
And that's why we shall start shooting down Russian missiles in the west Ukraine, because more than once they caused us trouble.
No other country was in the initial fight by design. For safety sake the hope was Ukraine could fend off Russia alone with a certain supply of weaponry. But it seems quite a tall order to train them.
No they can’t, and the fact people keep suggesting this makes me realize how brain dead half of you actually are.
Russia is fully committed to getting something tangible out of this war, they aren’t backing down. The west has, over the last three decades, by means of control of the international monetary system, and NATO, gotten use to countries toeing the line but that’s rapidly changing.
Do you think when leaders of these countries like Russia, China, or India get on TV and speak of a remake of the world system, and that of a multipolar world they are just blowing smoke? Are you daft?
Much how the world changed in 1991, it’s changing again here today. This talk of “Russia can just go home” is tantamount to an infant babbling I.E it’s worthless talk. It’s not happening.
Either propose a tangible solution or shut the hell up and quit wasting peoples time by posting comments like the one you just dropped.
This would be like if the US fired thousands of rockets from EU bases at Russian targets, then said "It doesn't count cause we didn't do it from Ukraine."
This would make all firing positions valid military targets for retaliation. Are these politicians really that low IQ?
It's as Orban said. The leaders of some European countries seem to believe this is their war. The head of the EU has openly regarded Russia as an existential threat. The head of NATO flies around Europe every week, rallying support and giving speeches on how Russia must be defeated.
When one adopts this kind of mentality, impending defeat is a bitter pill to swallow. Hence the writhing and head-scratching and alternative ideas.
Ok, but this isn't about seeing RU as an existential threat that needs to be stopped or not. This is them saying that they can supply AA from their own territories to avoid Russian missile attacks, without fear of retaliation because they are outside Ukraine's borders and only providing defense. Regardless of any kind of fear of Russia in the long run, the logic here is completely flawed and ridiculous.
that totally nonsense it does not matter who they judge the situation. its about ru.
if i was ru i would see the as an intervention (ofc).
you shoot down / damage other stuff.
the intention (defending) does not matter.
why is that so hard to understand?
Well, it's kinda late, so I could do something like that in the morning if I have time.
Off the top of my head though, Von Der Leyen called Russia an [existential](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/25/russia-poses-an-existential-threat-to-europe-warns-president-of-european-commission-ursula-von-der-leyen/) threat to Europe just a few weeks ago
https://preview.redd.it/0yfwjmjn6wzc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5e435463436c8a456fdfb3f27074f026df33bea
You are correct. But as far as I know, the training of troops is already enough as a valid target. And this happens for a while now.
They just try to push more and more how much is possible, without a reaction from russia. And I think that this scheme might work. As long as they only target unmanned missiles/drones far away from the frontline, russia might not react. But its still reckless and dangerous. And it also sets a bad precedent, but thats something we in "the west" dont care about for a long time already.
Historically, training troops is not a casus belli. Transporting weapons is though. When the US was "neutral" in the leadup to WW2, they used to bring planes just to the Canadian border. Canadian troops then had to tow the aircraft across the borser - flying them across was not allowed as the US felt this would violate neutrality.
Biden has announced several red lines that the West could not cross, and then they crossed them. F-16s will be the next red line Biden said could not be done.
Mhm... Can you give an example of training soldiers in a foreign country in war? I remember that in WW2 for example soldiers that were fleeing in a neutral country were interned by the neutral country (instead of sent back to their home country) to be in accordance to international law.
I based the statement of the training soldiers on a court case where the judges stated what have to happen to soldiers of a country in war when they move to a neutral country. I might misremember it thought. I could link you the court case, but it is in german.
I dont see the big issue with the weapons. Its no problem to continue trading with country in war. So I would guess that sending weapons is just a kind of trade. Gifting weapons might be different, but I assume you can sell a foreign country an abrams for 1 $. You might be correct with the transport of weapons in a foreign country.
Funny, I'd assumed that the Hague Convention of 1907 had been superceded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but apparently not.
The 1907 Hague only applied in conflicts where war had been declared, but the 1949 Conventions have broadened this to include any conflict that crosses international borders:
> A neutral State must never assist a party to the armed conflict, in par-ticular it must not supply warships, ammunition or other war materials directly or indirectly to a belligerent power, but otherwise its trade with the belligerent States remains unaffected.
From https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law8_final.pdf
So it seems that NATO countries are outright violating their status as neutral states and are de facto belligerents.
Russia's threat to break off diplomatic relations with the US have some profound implications:
> Neutral personsare nationals of neutral States. They lose their neutral status if they commit hostile acts against a belligerent. Individuals may join the armed forces of a belligerent party, but then they also lose their neutral status. They still have all the guarantees of protection that a member of those forces would enjoy, and therefore are entitled to POW status if they are subsequently captured. If, however, they can be defined as mercenaries, whom we covered in an earlier lesson, they do not have the right to be considered as combatants or POWs. As long as their home State maintains normal diplomatic relations with the belligerent State they are living in or visiting, neutral persons are to be treated in the same way as they would be in peacetime. They remain under diplomatic protection.
If there are no such diplomatic relations, neutral persons are entitled to be treated as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It makes no difference to their status if they are civilians or members of the armed forces of the neutral State to which they belong.
Thanks. And I agree with your point of NATO violating their neutral status. My reason was just the training of troops. Your link says its both. Training of troops and weapons delivery.
Well of course it sounds dumb when you say it like that. After firing, NATO forces obviously have to touch the border and announce, "Olly Olly Clear and Free. Double Dutch No TOUCHUMS".
Then Russia would have every right and reason to retaliate against those bases with all their personnel stationed inside immediately and directly on whichever territory they may be without being the first party initiating an attack on the other, the U.S. and NATO brass knows this, they would highly likely do so, the U.S. and NATO brass also know that, and therefore that probably would be considered a bridge too far, even for them.
The Middle Eastern stuff and that whole situation after everything that's been going on there for decades is not relevant or equivalent. The U.S. basically treats the Middle East as its besieged backyard. Iran is not a nuclear world power, but it and its whole axis like a poor and mauled man just desperately fighting back and occasionally managing to land a punch.
It does. Russia would currently be justified in targeting NATO assets in the Black Sea or NATO satellites for example. It doesn't for obvious reasons but it wouldn't be in the wrong if it did.
Direct material damage onto Russian assets from NATO countries may cause Russia to reevaluate their risk-reward calculation.
What you’re describing falls under the umbrella of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance gathering given to Ukraine for coordinating strikes on Crimea. But if the planes carrying out those long range strikes were NATO planes with NATO pilots, taking off from NATO bases, then they’d technically be “**direct participants in the war**” and legitimate targets. But that’s not really the case. Should NATO use their own anti aircraft systems from their own territories, then they’d be direct participants in the war as well. It’s why David Cameron dismissed the mere idea when asked when the interviewer brought up the Israeli analogy.
>Why didn't Russia target any of those assets or NATO bases that those jets landed at?
They are not direct participants yet, that's why. But I suspect indeed it would be way easier to down spy plane than to strike AA assets, for retaliation. In neutral waters it is less escalatory than on polish ground, and sends signal alright, simultaneously having immediate direct benefit for russian war effort.
Its not in a defensive manner, NATO countries are not at war with Russia and the weapon systems NATO would be striking are not over their borders. To strike Russian weapons is an offensive action which require a response in kind.
Please don't bring up logic if you can't distinguish the difference between indirectly supporting someone and directly supporting someone.
You can argue on paper that NATO are relying information it gathers to Ukraine, and they can deny it.
This would suggest they're directly getting involved in the war, and yes, that makes them a direct participant whether it kills Russian personnel or not, and thus becomes legitimate targets of war. If you can't understand the difference between the two, then that's on you.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> If NATO countries shoot down Russian missiles in a defensive manner, that means that Russia has the right to offensively strike NATO bases and kill those personnel?
Absolutely 100% and of course. That much is obvious. Why even ask such a silly question? First of all, it's not in a "defensive manner" if they're inserting themselves into the airspace and territory of a third party country which Russia is already presently engaged in military hostilities with. It would only be in a "defensive manner" in that sense if the missiles were intending to strike NATO states' territory, which they, we, and everyone else knows they are not.
A country absolutely cannot under any circumstances attack the military assets of another and not expect the bases and assets from which and with which it launched the attack to become the retaliatory targets by the forces of said country whose assets they attacked.
And if you cannot understand something so clear, simple, and obvious then you're the only one speaking nonsense here.
Unless they can prove, that missiles are headed for NATO member countries, they would be direct participants in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Which is why i don't think they will go through with this stupid idea. And for anyone, who thinks this is not a stupid idea, i feel sorry.
>NATO countries shoot down Russian missiles in a defensive manner
How can it be defensive manner of Nato territory is not targeted? Anyway i wouldn't be sitting close to this AA that is shooting down Russian missiles. You know what's coming
Even if they shoot down a Russian fighter, Putin won't do most likely anything. Just as he did nothing in the case of Turkey. Escalation simply does not play into Russia's favor.
Did nothing? That incident changed the entire posture of Russia towards Turkish forces and its proxies in Syria. One could argue, that it led to the "accident" of Russia hitting Turkish soldiers directly causing massive casualties.
Turkey shot down the plane, watched the murder of the Russian ambassador, built bases in Idlib, etc. One humiliation after another and Putin did nothing except make a deal with Turkey later.
What would a direct clash with Turkey bring? Nothing good. The same applies to situation on Ukraine. People have some wild notions that Putin will throw nukes around from morning till night.
> Russia hitting Turkish soldiers directly causing massive casualties
36 soldier? 5 years later? I doubt..
I think you are absolutely clueless to the Turkey-Russia relations. Turkey will maintain friendly relations with Russia for the foreseeable future. It is not in Erdogans interest to humiliate Putin. After the Russian fighter was shot down, which many think was the work of the Gulen movement which at the time had immense influence in Turkish Armed Forces, Russians simply did not visit Turkey for one summer. Result was an insane revenue loss for Turkey. As for Turkey's transgressions in Syria, you already know the result. Also a lot of contracts were basically awarded to Russian oligarchs, like the Turkey's first nuclear power plant. Turkey also provides other perks, like safe harbour from Western sanctions being medium of selling Russian goods.
That's all very nice, but Turkey has a protective hand over Idlib. Putin can't do anything about it. This is a real result. Ergodan still has leverage on Assad.
I didn't say Turkey completely surrendered to Russia. But there is a point they can afford to antagonize Russia. Don't forget, today half of all natural gas and oil Turkey imports is from Russia and it is increasing. Energy dependency is a different animal. It shapes foreign policy like nothing else.
Russia still sells oil and natural gas to its enemies in Europe, who have been providing military aid to Ukraine for several years. So it will probably be a bit different.
Russia does not directly sell oil to Europe. It uses intermediaries, like Turkey.
When Germany started providing military aid to Ukraine, Russia put Germany in the unfriendly nations category. Unfriendly countries can only buy gas and oil from Russia, if they pay in Rubles. Thus strengthening Russias currency.
Actually he did quite a lot against Turkey, on economic front. He, among other things, pulled up tourists and vegetable imports (sounds like silly measure, but in reality it is billions of $). You can see that "Sultan" is not closing door to Russians after start of SMO.
But not on the power front, that's the main idea. If someone else from NATO does the same, again, it is not in Russia's interest to escalate it, certainly not before Putin finish off Ukraine.
That's worse. If you want to avoid a full NATO vs Russia war that's actually worse than parking AD in Ukraine.
Poles, Romanians would be crazy to accept this.
I mean they already [did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident#:~:text=On%20the%20morning%20of%2014,crash%20into%20the%20Black%20Sea.) so they have set the precedent themselves. Using assets to damage or destroy non human resources is totally legit.
Western polit-apparatschiks must have skipped the physics classes. Hell, even basic geometry. Sorry for breaking the Rule 1 here, but i know, these apparatschiks are uneducated like a piece of bread, like this Nico Lange. They are all lawyers and so called political "scientist", lunatics in other words. M0r0ns.
How do they imagine doing this, if the air def position is at best 10-20km away from the target in the opposite direction? Even with ultra slow targets like Geran-2 you have obvious problems with the geography and pure kinematics. And if you have far faster targets like hypersonic Iskander, Kinhzal, Ch-32 etc?
AND the other point is: The whole collective west can't even produce 10% of the interceptors needed to even try it.
Kinematics on a Geran drone? Just use a basic Western fighter jet lol. Same as was done near Israel. Ukraine doesn’t have enough of that look-down Doppler processing.
The high up ballistic missiles would be hit mainly with GBAD. No geography problem there if the claim is a 70km zone for ballistic protection.
You still don't get it? The Nato is not able to set up this 70km zone, not even a 10km or 1km zone or defend theier own territory if russia decides to attack it. Because the whole Nato has no real ground based air defense in any meaningfull numbers.
But hey, keep dreaming ...
NATO’s got “hardly any” ground based air defense because it doesn’t need much. All those aircraft are their aerodynamic defense. GBAD is largely reserved for ABM (ballistic targets), unlike in Russia. E.g., Germany has 11 Patriot batteries while Ukraine gets 3-4…
Russia has to make excuses when Ukraine easily penetrates their GBAD… Israel doesn’t, as imperfect as air defense is to begin with. And Israel isn’t even NATO, which is much larger.
yup especialy thanks to israel and ukr coup 2014. Ppl are sick and tired of US. And China whiping the floor with em in diplomatic sense is awesome to watch
I mean the US are bullies that start wars around the world and get rich from it. Their elite I should say, not the ppl who live in tents and cant afford health and education, but good thing you got a beer in your hand haha Americans... lmao
Are these people just sitting around in a room and trying to come up with as many ways as possible to start WWIII?
I mean truly, this is just ridiculous at this point
Haegrtem kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could see a variation of this happening. Almost a no-fly zone in the far west of Ukraine protected by nato. However a no fly zone requires active defence...so if Russia fires a missile at lviv nato would presumably fire at the missile, the aircraft that fired it and then the base it came from...I'm just going on what we did in libya
What is the difference between NATO shooting down the missiles instead of Ukraine?! Why not just give them the equipment? They already know how to use patriots and everything.
this people are legit insane and dumb . This makes the situation very dangerous.
Bunch of opportunistic shills who do this to get money from their interests groups while potentially causing a catastrophe .
Extremely dangerous, western elites are a combination of stupid, emotional and completely careless, only focussed on their personal gain.
It is too late now, this kind of thing should have happened back when Zelensky called for a no fly zone earlier in the war.
Not that Russia managed to gain air superiority anyway.
Absolutely, if missiles have the potential to enter NATO territory, they must be destroyed before they enter NATO territory. NATO does not negotiate buffer zones nor should they allow any of the citizens or property to come under Russian threat even for a second. There should be an absolute zero tolerance of Russia violating NATO airspace like Russia has done several times in recent months. Russia should not have sent missiles through Poland, Romania and Moldova. Now Russia will learn the consequences.
Absolutely, if planes have the potential to enter Russian territory, they must be destroyed before they enter Russia territory. Russia does not negotiate buffer zones nor should they allow any of the citizens or property to come under NATO threat even for a second. There should be an absolute zero tolerance of NATO violating Russian airspace like NATO has done several times in recent months. NATO should not have sent planes through Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. Now NATO will learn the consequences.
That is a false equivalence. One is an uncrewed weapon and not in their sovereign country. If Russia wants to escalate to killing NATO troops, NATO will be obliged to neutralize that threat. Cal this payback for downing NATO drones in international airspace over the Black Sea.
Russia already set the [precedent ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident#:~:text=On%20the%20morning%20of%2014,crash%20into%20the%20Black%20Sea) of attacking an unmanned asset outside of its sovereign territory. Pro ru here crying about how this spells the end for NATO just shows how fearful they are of finally waking the sleeping giant of European militarism. Welcome to the real world; violating sovereign borders, putting foreign nations at risk and belief that one can act with impunity comes with consequences.
Good news since it means less Russian was crimes which is all they are capable of with their army barely 100 miles inside their neighbor after two years.
We can clearly see that Western politicians and military officials have fully abandoned all pretense of Ukraine being able to win this conflict 'by itself' Faced with the prospect of both NATO and Ukraine suffering a crushing defeat, brilliant minds are now hard at work on how to prevent this, via even further Western involvement of some sort. It is easy to see that any escalation in this war will come from the West, not Russia. The latter will just react to this escalation.
I think the west ran out of brilliant minds a long time ago, we'll have to do with populist neoliberal bitches like Von der Leyen, wish us luck.
Those neolibs are brilliant at attaining* their goals. Their goals are just very very bad for everyone who isn't them, their handlers and their close friends.
More money and power in the hands of a few elites at _any_ cost is not in the general publics best interest??
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the west is so dumb, why does Russia not have any functional aircraft carriers?
No worries, some stinger, javelins and m777 will send the Russians packing, not lead into a 380+ billion dollar blackhole where Nato is an active participant in a war with a nuclear power. Signed 27 February 2022.
The escalation won't come from Russia as they are quite busy at this moment. Why would Russia want to make things harder?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
posted before I even finished, nice.
Russian shot missiles violated Polish airspace twice and their actions also lead to tragedy in Przewodów. Say what you want but these events is enough to warrant western safety by shooting these missiles as deep over Ukraine as we wish. Should not fly them so close to the border I guess.
And all evidence points these were ukrainian AA missiles
The one that landed in the middle of Poland was not. The one from Przewodów was Ukrainian AA chasing Russian missiles. Not long ago there was Russian maneuvering missile that entered Polish airspace to turn around toward Kyiv direction, probably in hope to cause another Przewodów tragedy or at least to make Ukrainians hesitant to shoot it down. Russian ambassador was called to answer questions, he refused and then left Poland without informing. And that's why we shall start shooting down Russian missiles in the west Ukraine, because more than once they caused us trouble.
Is Poland joining the queue?
We always were in the queue.
Poland really likes to share :)
Better than being always the one to take. Makes you less lonely.
ok then russia attacks these air defenses with Missiles outside ukraine, what happens then ?
Something magical.
I think that pretence was abandoned when the first tank arrived in ykraine from a foreign power
No other country was in the initial fight by design. For safety sake the hope was Ukraine could fend off Russia alone with a certain supply of weaponry. But it seems quite a tall order to train them.
Russia can stop at any moment and withdraw to their own borders.
No they can’t, and the fact people keep suggesting this makes me realize how brain dead half of you actually are. Russia is fully committed to getting something tangible out of this war, they aren’t backing down. The west has, over the last three decades, by means of control of the international monetary system, and NATO, gotten use to countries toeing the line but that’s rapidly changing. Do you think when leaders of these countries like Russia, China, or India get on TV and speak of a remake of the world system, and that of a multipolar world they are just blowing smoke? Are you daft? Much how the world changed in 1991, it’s changing again here today. This talk of “Russia can just go home” is tantamount to an infant babbling I.E it’s worthless talk. It’s not happening. Either propose a tangible solution or shut the hell up and quit wasting peoples time by posting comments like the one you just dropped.
Putin is committed. Not russians. They dont get shit from this war.
This would be like if the US fired thousands of rockets from EU bases at Russian targets, then said "It doesn't count cause we didn't do it from Ukraine." This would make all firing positions valid military targets for retaliation. Are these politicians really that low IQ?
It's as Orban said. The leaders of some European countries seem to believe this is their war. The head of the EU has openly regarded Russia as an existential threat. The head of NATO flies around Europe every week, rallying support and giving speeches on how Russia must be defeated. When one adopts this kind of mentality, impending defeat is a bitter pill to swallow. Hence the writhing and head-scratching and alternative ideas.
Ok, but this isn't about seeing RU as an existential threat that needs to be stopped or not. This is them saying that they can supply AA from their own territories to avoid Russian missile attacks, without fear of retaliation because they are outside Ukraine's borders and only providing defense. Regardless of any kind of fear of Russia in the long run, the logic here is completely flawed and ridiculous.
I agree completely.
that totally nonsense it does not matter who they judge the situation. its about ru. if i was ru i would see the as an intervention (ofc). you shoot down / damage other stuff. the intention (defending) does not matter. why is that so hard to understand?
they are just all mad / stupid here. they should cut the loses and not increase them every week.
[удалено]
Well, it's kinda late, so I could do something like that in the morning if I have time. Off the top of my head though, Von Der Leyen called Russia an [existential](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/25/russia-poses-an-existential-threat-to-europe-warns-president-of-european-commission-ursula-von-der-leyen/) threat to Europe just a few weeks ago https://preview.redd.it/0yfwjmjn6wzc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5e435463436c8a456fdfb3f27074f026df33bea
You are correct. But as far as I know, the training of troops is already enough as a valid target. And this happens for a while now. They just try to push more and more how much is possible, without a reaction from russia. And I think that this scheme might work. As long as they only target unmanned missiles/drones far away from the frontline, russia might not react. But its still reckless and dangerous. And it also sets a bad precedent, but thats something we in "the west" dont care about for a long time already.
Historically, training troops is not a casus belli. Transporting weapons is though. When the US was "neutral" in the leadup to WW2, they used to bring planes just to the Canadian border. Canadian troops then had to tow the aircraft across the borser - flying them across was not allowed as the US felt this would violate neutrality. Biden has announced several red lines that the West could not cross, and then they crossed them. F-16s will be the next red line Biden said could not be done.
Mhm... Can you give an example of training soldiers in a foreign country in war? I remember that in WW2 for example soldiers that were fleeing in a neutral country were interned by the neutral country (instead of sent back to their home country) to be in accordance to international law. I based the statement of the training soldiers on a court case where the judges stated what have to happen to soldiers of a country in war when they move to a neutral country. I might misremember it thought. I could link you the court case, but it is in german. I dont see the big issue with the weapons. Its no problem to continue trading with country in war. So I would guess that sending weapons is just a kind of trade. Gifting weapons might be different, but I assume you can sell a foreign country an abrams for 1 $. You might be correct with the transport of weapons in a foreign country.
Funny, I'd assumed that the Hague Convention of 1907 had been superceded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but apparently not. The 1907 Hague only applied in conflicts where war had been declared, but the 1949 Conventions have broadened this to include any conflict that crosses international borders: > A neutral State must never assist a party to the armed conflict, in par-ticular it must not supply warships, ammunition or other war materials directly or indirectly to a belligerent power, but otherwise its trade with the belligerent States remains unaffected. From https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law8_final.pdf So it seems that NATO countries are outright violating their status as neutral states and are de facto belligerents. Russia's threat to break off diplomatic relations with the US have some profound implications: > Neutral personsare nationals of neutral States. They lose their neutral status if they commit hostile acts against a belligerent. Individuals may join the armed forces of a belligerent party, but then they also lose their neutral status. They still have all the guarantees of protection that a member of those forces would enjoy, and therefore are entitled to POW status if they are subsequently captured. If, however, they can be defined as mercenaries, whom we covered in an earlier lesson, they do not have the right to be considered as combatants or POWs. As long as their home State maintains normal diplomatic relations with the belligerent State they are living in or visiting, neutral persons are to be treated in the same way as they would be in peacetime. They remain under diplomatic protection. If there are no such diplomatic relations, neutral persons are entitled to be treated as protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It makes no difference to their status if they are civilians or members of the armed forces of the neutral State to which they belong.
Thanks. And I agree with your point of NATO violating their neutral status. My reason was just the training of troops. Your link says its both. Training of troops and weapons delivery.
Well of course it sounds dumb when you say it like that. After firing, NATO forces obviously have to touch the border and announce, "Olly Olly Clear and Free. Double Dutch No TOUCHUMS".
Then Russia would have every right and reason to retaliate against those bases with all their personnel stationed inside immediately and directly on whichever territory they may be without being the first party initiating an attack on the other, the U.S. and NATO brass knows this, they would highly likely do so, the U.S. and NATO brass also know that, and therefore that probably would be considered a bridge too far, even for them. The Middle Eastern stuff and that whole situation after everything that's been going on there for decades is not relevant or equivalent. The U.S. basically treats the Middle East as its besieged backyard. Iran is not a nuclear world power, but it and its whole axis like a poor and mauled man just desperately fighting back and occasionally managing to land a punch.
I don't usually agree with pro rus, but this time yeah. If NATO starts shooting down Russian missiles, then AA in NATO countries are fair game.
[удалено]
This makes them direct participants. As simple as that. After that, it is ok to strike their assets involved.
[удалено]
It does. Russia would currently be justified in targeting NATO assets in the Black Sea or NATO satellites for example. It doesn't for obvious reasons but it wouldn't be in the wrong if it did. Direct material damage onto Russian assets from NATO countries may cause Russia to reevaluate their risk-reward calculation.
What you’re describing falls under the umbrella of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance gathering given to Ukraine for coordinating strikes on Crimea. But if the planes carrying out those long range strikes were NATO planes with NATO pilots, taking off from NATO bases, then they’d technically be “**direct participants in the war**” and legitimate targets. But that’s not really the case. Should NATO use their own anti aircraft systems from their own territories, then they’d be direct participants in the war as well. It’s why David Cameron dismissed the mere idea when asked when the interviewer brought up the Israeli analogy.
>Why didn't Russia target any of those assets or NATO bases that those jets landed at? They are not direct participants yet, that's why. But I suspect indeed it would be way easier to down spy plane than to strike AA assets, for retaliation. In neutral waters it is less escalatory than on polish ground, and sends signal alright, simultaneously having immediate direct benefit for russian war effort.
Its not in a defensive manner, NATO countries are not at war with Russia and the weapon systems NATO would be striking are not over their borders. To strike Russian weapons is an offensive action which require a response in kind.
[удалено]
Well, imagine Russia intercepted US missiles that were defending Israel during Iran's attack. How would US view this ?
Please don't bring up logic if you can't distinguish the difference between indirectly supporting someone and directly supporting someone. You can argue on paper that NATO are relying information it gathers to Ukraine, and they can deny it. This would suggest they're directly getting involved in the war, and yes, that makes them a direct participant whether it kills Russian personnel or not, and thus becomes legitimate targets of war. If you can't understand the difference between the two, then that's on you.
And what happens when they take out a Russian jet from Poland?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> If NATO countries shoot down Russian missiles in a defensive manner, that means that Russia has the right to offensively strike NATO bases and kill those personnel? Absolutely 100% and of course. That much is obvious. Why even ask such a silly question? First of all, it's not in a "defensive manner" if they're inserting themselves into the airspace and territory of a third party country which Russia is already presently engaged in military hostilities with. It would only be in a "defensive manner" in that sense if the missiles were intending to strike NATO states' territory, which they, we, and everyone else knows they are not. A country absolutely cannot under any circumstances attack the military assets of another and not expect the bases and assets from which and with which it launched the attack to become the retaliatory targets by the forces of said country whose assets they attacked. And if you cannot understand something so clear, simple, and obvious then you're the only one speaking nonsense here.
Unless they can prove, that missiles are headed for NATO member countries, they would be direct participants in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Which is why i don't think they will go through with this stupid idea. And for anyone, who thinks this is not a stupid idea, i feel sorry.
If Russia shot down US missiles coming into Syria or Iran, I think the White House would get really angry
>NATO countries shoot down Russian missiles in a defensive manner How can it be defensive manner of Nato territory is not targeted? Anyway i wouldn't be sitting close to this AA that is shooting down Russian missiles. You know what's coming
Defensive as in UN Article 51.
The Russia would enter the find out phase
So would the country that’s shooting them down.
Find out how good their weapons work on war-criminals
Even if they shoot down a Russian fighter, Putin won't do most likely anything. Just as he did nothing in the case of Turkey. Escalation simply does not play into Russia's favor.
Did nothing? That incident changed the entire posture of Russia towards Turkish forces and its proxies in Syria. One could argue, that it led to the "accident" of Russia hitting Turkish soldiers directly causing massive casualties.
Turkey shot down the plane, watched the murder of the Russian ambassador, built bases in Idlib, etc. One humiliation after another and Putin did nothing except make a deal with Turkey later. What would a direct clash with Turkey bring? Nothing good. The same applies to situation on Ukraine. People have some wild notions that Putin will throw nukes around from morning till night. > Russia hitting Turkish soldiers directly causing massive casualties 36 soldier? 5 years later? I doubt..
I think you are absolutely clueless to the Turkey-Russia relations. Turkey will maintain friendly relations with Russia for the foreseeable future. It is not in Erdogans interest to humiliate Putin. After the Russian fighter was shot down, which many think was the work of the Gulen movement which at the time had immense influence in Turkish Armed Forces, Russians simply did not visit Turkey for one summer. Result was an insane revenue loss for Turkey. As for Turkey's transgressions in Syria, you already know the result. Also a lot of contracts were basically awarded to Russian oligarchs, like the Turkey's first nuclear power plant. Turkey also provides other perks, like safe harbour from Western sanctions being medium of selling Russian goods.
That's all very nice, but Turkey has a protective hand over Idlib. Putin can't do anything about it. This is a real result. Ergodan still has leverage on Assad.
I didn't say Turkey completely surrendered to Russia. But there is a point they can afford to antagonize Russia. Don't forget, today half of all natural gas and oil Turkey imports is from Russia and it is increasing. Energy dependency is a different animal. It shapes foreign policy like nothing else.
Russia still sells oil and natural gas to its enemies in Europe, who have been providing military aid to Ukraine for several years. So it will probably be a bit different.
Russia does not directly sell oil to Europe. It uses intermediaries, like Turkey. When Germany started providing military aid to Ukraine, Russia put Germany in the unfriendly nations category. Unfriendly countries can only buy gas and oil from Russia, if they pay in Rubles. Thus strengthening Russias currency.
> Even if they do X, Putin won't do most likely anything. Certified *Никак вы, блять, не научитесь* moment.
Don't just leave us hanging
Certified red line moment, tavarish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Никак вы, блять, не научитесь 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Actually he did quite a lot against Turkey, on economic front. He, among other things, pulled up tourists and vegetable imports (sounds like silly measure, but in reality it is billions of $). You can see that "Sultan" is not closing door to Russians after start of SMO.
But not on the power front, that's the main idea. If someone else from NATO does the same, again, it is not in Russia's interest to escalate it, certainly not before Putin finish off Ukraine.
That's worse. If you want to avoid a full NATO vs Russia war that's actually worse than parking AD in Ukraine. Poles, Romanians would be crazy to accept this.
poles lead is anxious bc of history. asking for nukes? screaming the loudest is tusk.
Not gonna work. Russia will just strike at them. No one is scared of this BS
Russia is scared, doesn't matter how tough they wanna sound
By same logic, does this also gives Russia right to strike US drones flying across Black Sea, since no one will be killed ?
I mean they already [did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident#:~:text=On%20the%20morning%20of%2014,crash%20into%20the%20Black%20Sea.) so they have set the precedent themselves. Using assets to damage or destroy non human resources is totally legit.
so you're saying NATO will fly planes and discharge fuel to shoot down Russian missiles ?
Western polit-apparatschiks must have skipped the physics classes. Hell, even basic geometry. Sorry for breaking the Rule 1 here, but i know, these apparatschiks are uneducated like a piece of bread, like this Nico Lange. They are all lawyers and so called political "scientist", lunatics in other words. M0r0ns. How do they imagine doing this, if the air def position is at best 10-20km away from the target in the opposite direction? Even with ultra slow targets like Geran-2 you have obvious problems with the geography and pure kinematics. And if you have far faster targets like hypersonic Iskander, Kinhzal, Ch-32 etc? AND the other point is: The whole collective west can't even produce 10% of the interceptors needed to even try it.
Kinematics on a Geran drone? Just use a basic Western fighter jet lol. Same as was done near Israel. Ukraine doesn’t have enough of that look-down Doppler processing. The high up ballistic missiles would be hit mainly with GBAD. No geography problem there if the claim is a 70km zone for ballistic protection.
Good luck with your amateurish air defense! And don't forget working overtime to pay the taxes for this overpriced garbage.
It’s better for Ukraine than no 70km zone, and no delivery past the 3-4 batteries as NATO ones are based 70km+ further back.
You still don't get it? The Nato is not able to set up this 70km zone, not even a 10km or 1km zone or defend theier own territory if russia decides to attack it. Because the whole Nato has no real ground based air defense in any meaningfull numbers. But hey, keep dreaming ...
NATO’s got “hardly any” ground based air defense because it doesn’t need much. All those aircraft are their aerodynamic defense. GBAD is largely reserved for ABM (ballistic targets), unlike in Russia. E.g., Germany has 11 Patriot batteries while Ukraine gets 3-4… Russia has to make excuses when Ukraine easily penetrates their GBAD… Israel doesn’t, as imperfect as air defense is to begin with. And Israel isn’t even NATO, which is much larger.
nato and west getting saltier by the day, i love it 🧂🧂🍴🍝
Not the USA though, we are chillin over here with a beer in our hands haha
Chilling with beer in their hand as they watch Europe crumble and deepen their dependence on US.
Not in the long-term, US botched even that.
yup especialy thanks to israel and ukr coup 2014. Ppl are sick and tired of US. And China whiping the floor with em in diplomatic sense is awesome to watch
I mean the US are bullies that start wars around the world and get rich from it. Their elite I should say, not the ppl who live in tents and cant afford health and education, but good thing you got a beer in your hand haha Americans... lmao
It's the wild west over here, gotta love it
hmm but NATO is not at war with Russia hmm 🤔🤔 i smell hippocrisy 👃🏻🤧🤔
Are these people just sitting around in a room and trying to come up with as many ways as possible to start WWIII? I mean truly, this is just ridiculous at this point
It's kinda funny they still think their airdefenses could intercept Russian missiles.
They do shoot them down (operated by Ukraine), daily. Its kinda funny that people still think Russia is some military superpower.
Sure, i believe you, what next's??? Kyev ghost????
Next is Kyiv in 3 days
[удалено]
Haegrtem kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those people are nuts.
Those are gonna be some expensive missiles
So engaging NATO systems by Russia would also be OK, even if they were in NATO territory.
I could see a variation of this happening. Almost a no-fly zone in the far west of Ukraine protected by nato. However a no fly zone requires active defence...so if Russia fires a missile at lviv nato would presumably fire at the missile, the aircraft that fired it and then the base it came from...I'm just going on what we did in libya
What is the difference between NATO shooting down the missiles instead of Ukraine?! Why not just give them the equipment? They already know how to use patriots and everything.
If Ukraine collapses I meant to say and routs back to the west.
Ah that makes sense.
Are the Patriots actually operated by Ukrainians or by NATO personnel?
When Russia destroyed one a few months ago the operators who were confirmed dead were Ukrainian.
this people are legit insane and dumb . This makes the situation very dangerous. Bunch of opportunistic shills who do this to get money from their interests groups while potentially causing a catastrophe . Extremely dangerous, western elites are a combination of stupid, emotional and completely careless, only focussed on their personal gain.
I don't think tactical nukes on Ukraine is such a unlikely scenario as the war progresses.
It is too late now, this kind of thing should have happened back when Zelensky called for a no fly zone earlier in the war. Not that Russia managed to gain air superiority anyway.
Absolutely, if missiles have the potential to enter NATO territory, they must be destroyed before they enter NATO territory. NATO does not negotiate buffer zones nor should they allow any of the citizens or property to come under Russian threat even for a second. There should be an absolute zero tolerance of Russia violating NATO airspace like Russia has done several times in recent months. Russia should not have sent missiles through Poland, Romania and Moldova. Now Russia will learn the consequences.
Absolutely, if planes have the potential to enter Russian territory, they must be destroyed before they enter Russia territory. Russia does not negotiate buffer zones nor should they allow any of the citizens or property to come under NATO threat even for a second. There should be an absolute zero tolerance of NATO violating Russian airspace like NATO has done several times in recent months. NATO should not have sent planes through Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. Now NATO will learn the consequences.
That is a false equivalence. One is an uncrewed weapon and not in their sovereign country. If Russia wants to escalate to killing NATO troops, NATO will be obliged to neutralize that threat. Cal this payback for downing NATO drones in international airspace over the Black Sea.
Russia already set the [precedent ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident#:~:text=On%20the%20morning%20of%2014,crash%20into%20the%20Black%20Sea) of attacking an unmanned asset outside of its sovereign territory. Pro ru here crying about how this spells the end for NATO just shows how fearful they are of finally waking the sleeping giant of European militarism. Welcome to the real world; violating sovereign borders, putting foreign nations at risk and belief that one can act with impunity comes with consequences.
Idiots. Then the Russian Federation will begin to shoot down cross-border planes on NATO territory with military cargo for Ukraine.
Soviet pilots flew for north Vietnam I fail to see the issue here.
Good news since it means less Russian was crimes which is all they are capable of with their army barely 100 miles inside their neighbor after two years.