Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
It is domestic politics for Erdogan, he wants to be re-elected and this is his way to win some political points.

The Hungarians must say yes and they most likely will if they want to have a functional air force. The Hungarian air force is flying JAS with a no, they would be forced to buy other fighter planes

They are both trying to play on the both sides of the road. It usually doesn't work well when governments have tried to walk down that path
Click to expand...

Why MUST the Hungarians say yes ?
Erdogan is PM of Turkey and Orban is PM of Hungary ,they are not the PM of Ukraine .
Their mission is to serve the interests of Turkey /Hungary, not the interests of Ukraine .
Or the interests of the 535 people in Capitol Hill .
To play on the both sides of the road is the only realistic policy for neutral countries .
US was playing on the both sides of the road by selling war materials to China and Japan . And the rape of Nanking did not stop this .
After the Russian invasion in 2014 most NATO countries continued to sell war materials to Russia,til last year . Thus NATO is the last person on earth to lecture Hungary and Turkey .
 
lljadw said:
Why MUST the Hungarians say yes ?
Erdogan is PM of Turkey and Orban is PM of Hungary ,they are not the PM of Ukraine .
Their mission is to serve the interests of Turkey /Hungary, not the interests of Ukraine .
Or the interests of the 535 people in Capitol Hill .
To play on the both sides of the road is the only realistic policy for neutral countries .
US was playing on the both sides of the road by selling war materials to China and Japan . And the rape of Nanking did not stop this .
After the Russian invasion in 2014 most NATO countries continued to sell war materials to Russia,til last year . Thus NATO is the last person on earth to lecture Hungary and Turkey .
Click to expand...

If they want to continue to use JAS as a fighter. Turkiey and Hungary aren't neutral countries, they are members of NATO.

There is another option for all this. All the countries that have ratified Finland and Sweden just ignore Turiey and Hungary and perceive Finland and Sweden as member states.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
If they want to continue to use JAS as a fighter. Turkiey and Hungary aren't neutral countries, they are members of NATO.

There is another option for all this. All the countries that have ratified Finland and Sweden just ignore Turiey and Hungary and perceive Finland and Sweden as member states.
Click to expand...

Certainly NATO may need to look at its constitution and amend it to stop individual nations holding it hostage.
They could achieve a similarly robust process by setting a high percentage acceptance requirement such as 75% or higher which would do away with individual nations playing politics and holding the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
 
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk said:
If they want to continue to use JAS as a fighter. Turkiey and Hungary aren't neutral countries, they are members of NATO.

There is another option for all this. All the countries that have ratified Finland and Sweden just ignore Turiey and Hungary and perceive Finland and Sweden as member states.
Click to expand...

1 US can not dictate what should be the policy of NATO .
2 Ukraine is not a member of NATO,but a neutral country .
3 There is no need to make Ukraine a member of NATO.
4 The other option is illegal:for Finland,Sweden and Ukraine to become members of NATO,the consent of ALL,ALL NATO members is needed .
5 The Russian attack on Afghanistan is not the business of NATO,because the business of NATO is to defend all members if they are attacked .
There was a war between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia some 30 years ago : no one said that because of this war Austria should become a member of NATO .
40 Years ago the Soviets invaded Afghanistan : no one said that because of this Afghanistan should become member of the CENTO.
When China invaded Vietnam, when India invaded Pakistan, no one gave Vietnam and Pakistan any help . Thus ,there is no need to help Ukraine or to make it a member of NATO.
If China attacked Russia, would the US demand that Russia became member of NATO?
 
MontyB said:
Certainly NATO may need to look at its constitution and amend it to stop individual nations holding it hostage.
They could achieve a similarly robust process by setting a high percentage acceptance requirement such as 75% or higher which would do away with individual nations playing politics and holding the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
Click to expand...

A change of the constitution of NATO is impossible without the consent of Turkey and Hungary .
Besides : there is no need for Finland or Sweden to become members of NATO and for NATO to accept them as members ,as the risk that Russia would attack Finland or Sweden is nihil .Both Sweden and Finland are neutral countries since 1945 ,but that this not resulted in an attack of the USSR against them .And the USSR was much, much stronger than is today Russia .
Stalin,who had a big army, did not attack Sweden, why would Putin,with a small army,tied in Ukraine,attack Sweden ?
 
EU trade with Russia in 2021 (the Russian invasion of Ukraine started in 2014 )
Imports : 158,5 billion euro,of which 98,9 billion of mineral fuels
Exports : 99 billion euro
Total :257,5 billion
UK
Exports to Russia ( 2nd Q of 2021 -2nd Q of 2022 ) 4,2 billion pound ,- 2 % for the same preceding time span
Imports from Russia (same period ) 11,1 billion pound + 4,2 %
Between 2014 and 2020 France and Germany sold for 273 million euro of war materials to Russia .
Conclusion: for Johnson,Macron and Merkel the rubles from Putin were as good as the money from Zelinsky .
Their loss,your gain .
In 2020 Sweden exported $ 2 billion to Russia .
Their loss ,your gain .
 
lljadw said:
A change of the constitution of NATO is impossible without the consent of Turkey and Hungary .
Besides : there is no need for Finland or Sweden to become members of NATO and for NATO to accept them as members ,as the risk that Russia would attack Finland or Sweden is nihil .Both Sweden and Finland are neutral countries since 1945 ,but that this not resulted in an attack of the USSR against them .And the USSR was much, much stronger than is today Russia .
Stalin,who had a big army, did not attack Sweden, why would Putin,with a small army,tied in Ukraine,attack Sweden ?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a country should have to be attacked before they should consider their security needs?
I would also point out Sweden has had a policy of neutrality in effect long before 1945, Finland possibly would have also had a much longer period of neutrality had the Soviet Union not attacked them, just pointing out that someone in the region has a track record of attacking smaller less well protected nations which may be the driving force behind those smaller nations looking at defence ties with others.
Also Article 10 could possibly be used to remove a country from NATO, I know it has certainly been discussed regarding Turkiye in the past.
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
1 US can not dictate what should be the policy of NATO .
2 Ukraine is not a member of NATO,but a neutral country .
3 There is no need to make Ukraine a member of NATO.
4 The other option is illegal:for Finland,Sweden and Ukraine to become members of NATO,the consent of ALL,ALL NATO members is needed .
5 The Russian attack on Afghanistan is not the business of NATO,because the business of NATO is to defend all members if they are attacked .
There was a war between Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia some 30 years ago : no one said that because of this war Austria should become a member of NATO .
40 Years ago the Soviets invaded Afghanistan : no one said that because of this Afghanistan should become member of the CENTO.
When China invaded Vietnam, when India invaded Pakistan, no one gave Vietnam and Pakistan any help . Thus ,there is no need to help Ukraine or to make it a member of NATO.
If China attacked Russia, would the US demand that Russia became member of NATO?
Click to expand...

Yes, it can and it does dictate the policy of NATO.

Sweden and Finland are joining NATO, Ukraine is not joining NATO at this time. so why are you adding Ukraine to this discussion?

Sweden and Finland participate in the upcoming NATO meeting in Bucharest so practically Sweden and Finland are already members. International politics are based upon shared interests and not laws.

Sweden and Finland abolished neutrality when Sweden and Finland joined EU.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, it can and it does dictate the policy of NATO.

Sweden and Finland are joining NATO, Ukraine is not joining NATO at this time. so why are you adding Ukraine to this discussion?

Sweden and Finland participate in the upcoming NATO meeting in Bucharest so practically Sweden and Finland are already members. International politics are based upon shared interests and not laws.

Sweden and Finland abolished neutrality when Sweden and Finland joined EU.
Click to expand...

The EU has nothing to do with NATO : Britain is a member of NATO, but not of the EU .
The Ukrainian lobby wants Ukraine to become a member of NATO .
 
lljadw said:
The EU has nothing to do with NATO : Britain is a member of NATO, but not of the EU .
The Ukrainian lobby wants Ukraine to become a member of NATO .
Click to expand...

EU has a defense policy and both Sweden and Finland are member of the EU defense policy with the EU battlegroups and been on EU defense operations. Therefore, Sweden and Finland gave up the neutrality when these two countries joined EU.

NATO has an open door policy. Countries can apply for membership if the country wish to do so. Ukraine isn't an exception
 
MontyB said:
Are you suggesting that a country should have to be attacked before they should consider their security needs?
I would also point out Sweden has had a policy of neutrality in effect long before 1945, Finland possibly would have also had a much longer period of neutrality had the Soviet Union not attacked them, just pointing out that someone in the region has a track record of attacking smaller less well protected nations which may be the driving force behind those smaller nations looking at defence ties with others.
Also Article 10 could possibly be used to remove a country from NATO, I know it has certainly been discussed regarding Turkiye in the past.
Click to expand...

I am saying that not being a member of NATO does not mean that one is less safe than if one would be a member of NATO : Sweden was not a member of NATO and was not attacked by the USSR .Ukraine was not attacked because it was not a member of NATO . Austria was not a member of NATO during the Cold War and was not attacked by the Soviets .
A track record of attacking smaller nations ( why should anyone attack a stronger nation ?) was not the driving force behind those smaller nations looking at defense ties with others .
During the Cold War,Sweden remained neutral although the Soviets invaded a smaller nation : Afghanistan .The outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has removed any danger from Russia for Sweden :the Russian army is tied in Ukraine where it is fighting unsuccessfully and can thus not attack Sweden .
Besides : the Soviets were much stronger and did not invade Sweden .
The whole thing is only an artificial panic which benefits only the military-industrial complex .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
EU has a defense policy and both Sweden and Finland are member of the EU defense policy with the EU battlegroups and been on EU defense operations. Therefore, Sweden and Finland gave up the neutrality when these two countries joined EU.

NATO has an open door policy. Countries can apply for membership if the country wish to do so. Ukraine isn't an exception
Click to expand...

The EU is not NATO .
Austria : member of the EU ,not a member of NATO but it is still neutral .
Norway : member of NATO, not a member of the EU
UK : member of NATO, not of the EU .
Besides : it is not so that the EU has a defense policy :it has even not an army .
NATO is a military treaty between independent states .
The EU is a political union of independent states and defense and foreign affairs remain the business of the members of the EU .The EU is not the USA.
The boss of the French Army is Macron, not Ursula von der Leyen .
Ukraine wants to be a member of NATO and of the EU ,because it is in its interests , But it is not in the interests of NATO and the EU :the membership of Ukraine is bad and dangerous for the members of NATO and Ukraine .
 
lljadw said:
The EU is not NATO .
Austria : member of the EU ,not a member of NATO but it is still neutral .
Norway : member of NATO, not a member of the EU
UK : member of NATO, not of the EU .
Besides : it is not so that the EU has a defense policy :it has even not an army .
NATO is a military treaty between independent states .
The EU is a political union of independent states and defense and foreign affairs remain the business of the members of the EU .The EU is not the USA.
The boss of the French Army is Macron, not Ursula von der Leyen .
Ukraine wants to be a member of NATO and of the EU ,because it is in its interests , But it is not in the interests of NATO and the EU :the membership of Ukraine is bad and dangerous for the members of NATO and Ukraine .
Click to expand...

You seem to be overlooking the fact that it is the decision of independent countries as to whether they want to join NATO irrespective of whether they feel threatened or not.

While it is true the EU does not have a military it is untrue that it doesn't have a defense policy,

The EU's Mutual Defence Clause — Article 42.7 in the Treaty of Lisbon — was approved in 2007 and has been in force since 2009.

It states that "if an EU country is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other EU countries have an obligation to aid and assist it by all means in their power."
Click to expand...


https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...ual Defence Clause,all means in their power."
 
MontyB said:
You seem to be overlooking the fact that it is the decision of independent countries as to whether they want to join NATO irrespective of whether they feel threatened or not.

While it is true the EU does not have a military it is untrue that it doesn't have a defense policy,




https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...ual Defence Clause,all means in their power."
Click to expand...

The practical value of the mutual defense close is nihil ,as it depends on the EU members only ( the obligation is only blahblah ) to decide if they will help the member who is attacked . They decide which are all the means in their power .If they say they have no means , they will do nothing .
The Belgian means are ( theoretically ) ONE battalion and it is out of the question that the public opinion will allow the transfer of 800 soldiers to a dangerous region .
What would be the help of Portugal, Ireland, Germany, Italy,etc if one of the Baltics was attacked by Belarus ?
The answer is obvious : NOTHING .
Do you imagine that Poland would allow the transport of German soldiers through its territory to help the Baltics ?
And, if there is a war between Hungary and Romania ?
The members of the EU are independent states, they are not California or New York .They decide what their ''obligations ''are , not Ursula von der Leyen .
 
Article 42.7 of the Treaty of Lisbon is the same as the British promise in April 1939 that ,if Germany attacked Poland, it would help Poland with all means in its possession .
Britain had never the intention to help Poland, neither had it the possibility to do it .And, it didn't do it .
It is the same for the members of the EU .
 
EU has seven ongoing military operations. Btw, EU and NATO don't have any armies, their member states have armies.

German units have participated in exercises on Polish soil so apparently, the Poles don't mind to have German forces in their land

We went off topic again. Can we return to discuss the war in Ukraine?
 
I was just reading a report stating that Russian troops have no socks, shorts com-cen or Doctors and many are freezing to death now winter is setting in. I also read somewhere that Putin is going to conscript 2 million troops including 300,000 women. Quite frankly I'm surprised no one has taken him out, or at least placed him under arrest .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
EU has seven ongoing military operations. Btw, EU and NATO don't have any armies, their member states have armies.

German units have participated in exercises on Polish soil so apparently, the Poles don't mind to have German forces in their land

We went off topic again. Can we return to discuss the war in Ukraine?
Click to expand...

As the EU has no army, it can't have military operations .
 
It is a very big illusion to think that if Ukraine would become a member of NATO/EU,NATO/EU members would send their armies to Ukraine to fight against Russia .
Zelensky knows this and his attempts to join NATO/EU are disguised attempts to blame NATO/EU for the fact that the war is not over .
Ukraine has a numerical superiority against Russia (600000 men against 200000 ),but the Russian technological superiority prevents the liberation of the whole of Ukraine .The mass deliveries by the West ($ a lot of billions ) has not resulted in the expulsion of the Russians from Ukraine ,neither has it prevent a Russian victory and we can expect that the war will last for a very long time .Russia will always remain the neighbour of Ukraine .This means that both countries are condemned to an armistice /peace treaty . But WHEN ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top