Huge pro-EU rally grips Ukraine

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Ask the Baltic states, they're not as confident that Russia will stay in Russia.

I don't see it as a question of if they invade, it's a question of when. Would be happy to be wrong in this though.

[XabbaRus]

Really? Sorry I think that's paranoia. Putin hasn't made any indications of wanting to take the Baltic states. He knows being part of NATO what will happen.

[antikristuseke]

To be fair, I have little to no confidence in NATO

[TarJak]

Meanwhile Ukraine's very own Willy Wonka, Petro Poroshenko has won the presidential election:http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...ictory/5476738

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

To be fair, I have little to no confidence in NATO

Likewise. I can't see Germany to go to a full scale war over Estonia. Sounds bad but that's what it is. There will be sanctions, a few token forces sent to the other border nations, big words and that's it. Europe isn't willing to go to a really big war with thousands of casualties anymore.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Likewise. I can't see Germany to go to a full scale war over Estonia. Sounds bad but that's what it is. There will be sanctions, a few token forces sent to the other border nations, big words and that's it. Europe isn't willing to go to a really big war with thousands of casualties anymore.

I don't think that it would really have much of a choice. Unless it decided to leave NATO in which case it would leave itself isolated and without military support.

[Oberon]

Fighting around Donets'k, aircraft (Su-24, MiG-29) and helicopters (Mi-24) active in the area. Gunfire audible on this livestream:

http://ukrstream.tv/en/stream/kharki...2#.U4MwFSirHFn

[Jimbuna]

Hopefully any action will be measured and not excessive or Russia may change from what is looking like a passive style of understanding over the past couple of days.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I don't think that it would really have much of a choice. Unless it decided to leave NATO in which case it would leave itself isolated and without military support.

Article 5 is forumlated to leavce a wide gat5e open for interpretation and word-turning. All member states as a matter of fact are free to decide how to react to any "incident".

what Article 5 means to imply and what people understand it as, by popular myth - and what it really states, are two very different things.

*****
Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


*********


The formulations to watch out for are "individually and in concert with the other Parties", and especially "such actions as it deems necessary".



This open a can of worms farting interpretations and arguments. You know how this kind of game is played by bureaucrats and sophisters. If Germany "deems necessary" to fall back to other, "more promising" options to support the attacked member and solve the crisis, then it may be so. That military options must be the consequence, is just one of several options countries can chose.


Do you really believe that any nation would have signed that treaty back then if that meant that in case of an attack it gives up all national sovereignty over its choice on how to react to that? If so then you know nations and governments not well.


It's word gaming, yes, I know. But that is what it was designed to be, right that: to leave open the option to weasel out of treaty obligations by playing word games. Must not necessarily the option chosen by a NATO member. But leaves open the option to chose that way.



Happens all the time in politics. Ask the Ukrainians and the guarantees given to them by France, Britain, the US and Russia in return for them giving up nuclear weapons. Legally, these guarantees were binding. But to what outcome now?

Anyhow, what should be done by NATO, and what could be done by NATO, are two totally different pairs of shoes. I have strong doubts that the German forces are in the shape for waging a major war against a determined Russian attack.

[Jimbuna]

TBH I've been long of the opinion that nothing much has changed in mainland Europe since the end of WWII and I suspect if the chips were ever layed down and the UK was attacked the US are possibly the only ally we could really count on.

[Oberon]

I think France might jump into the gap, at the very least under the current government, and Poland maybe, but otherwise, you're probably right Jim.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

TBH I've been long of the opinion that nothing much has changed in mainland Europe since the end of WWII and I suspect if the chips were ever layed down and the UK was attacked the US are possibly the only ally we could really count on.

Logical, in case of an attack on Europe, Britain gets conquered first. It's so terribly exposed. The Russians just bypass Poland, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and fly and swim their invasion troops right to the cliffs of Dover. And then poor Germany gets mauled from the rear.

[Catfish]

^ Or the reason for anyone to attack just of all England.
Sure not Russia, and if not, who else ?

Or is it "First England and then the whole .. Faroer Islands?"

[Alex]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Meanwhile Ukraine's very own Willy Wonka, Petro Poroshenko has won the presidential election:http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...ictory/5476738

An oligarch (Poroshenko) replaces another oligarch (Yanukovich).
Much ado about nothing.
Hopefully those useful idiots from that Maidan stuff are still happy.
A brilliant revolution, really, in the end it made Putin able to act the way he wanted to.
Those damned WaffenSS just spread terror before getting dissolved, in fact, while NATO failed to reach any goal.

The fact Poro got elected is some good news in the end though.
1. Now Yats and Timochenko are out - maybe she will serve her sentence in prison, 2. the one who's been elected is an atlanticist sitting on two chairs - hopefully a détente is coming ; one thing is sure : if they don't want to get on Putin's wrong side, they better not host on their soil a military base coming from the other side of the Atlantic, 3. it's the end of the reign of Nazis and Academi in the streets, 4. it's also the end of russophobia and overall tensions against Russia in Ukraine, 5. of course presstitutes keep saying it's a brilliant victory for the EU, doing their best to keep up appearances.

Conclusion : a few months ago, a few thousands people paid by the CIA drove Yanukovich from power, who was an elected president both pro-Europe and a friend of Putin... We might as well say the one in power now is a new Yanukovich who's going to try to remain at peace with Russia while doing the necessary to get his country integrated in the EU being into its actual status/final days, Ukraine being the poorest country in eastern Europe, heavily in debt, waiting for Germany to bail it out of its problems.

All in all, the Z kommando won a victory looking much like a defeat.
What ? No, you can find only two persons in this photo, there's nobody on the right.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Logical, in case of an attack on Europe, Britain gets conquered first. It's so terribly exposed. The Russians just bypass Poland, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands and fly and swim their invasion troops right to the cliffs of Dover. And then poor Germany gets mauled from the rear.

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ Or the reason for anyone to attack just of all England.
Sure not Russia, and if not, who else ?

Or is it "First England and then the whole .. Faroer Islands?"

I doubt Germany has done anything but put France in a major European pole position (Europe-wise) in recent years.