Russia invades Ukraine

[DynamicSpirit]

1) There is a vast difference when it comes to Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia, Germany, and most other such countries you care to name - they're all NATO members and thus protected by NATO's mutual defence obligation (Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty), whereas Ukraine isn't.

2) The Russian veto you're thinking of relates to the UN Security Council, not NATO.

1) In other words, they are basically protected by a bit of paper, which they hope that other NATO countries will honour. I'm not sure that all our panicking about, we can't do anything that risks direct combat with Russian forces, gives that much hope there.

2) The Russian veto would still prevent the UN from taking action, so those countries would be entirely reliant on NATO for support.

 

[squizzler]

I wonder if there is already a NATO response formulated in case of a radiological incident deliberately perpetrated by the Russian forces? Or for that matter, if they use chemical weapons or other WMD in urban areas (including the so-called thermobaric bombs). There certainly should be, and it should be communicated to the Russian side via the usual back channels. For once we should be pro-active, rather than acting to every atrocity as if it came as some kind of surprise. Putin wants us always on the back foot and we should not play his game.

Free nation armies do not "do" chemical warfare on the whole, our WMD option is nuclear or nothing. Unfortunately Russia has done so including in the UK, and are apparently trying to normalise this starting at a very small or deniable scale. Putin knows that if Russian forces used such WMD on scale it may well lead to NATO thermonuclear response, as there are such red lines that we in the west do not allow to be crossed. This might be the real reason for his bluster about atomic weapons previously discussed. It might well be the realisation that West that is forced to use nuclear weapons first to retaliate against a chemical attack, surely more plausible than Russia using nuclear weapons first in response to declaration of a "no fly zone".

Or perhaps that was again typical russian deflection. I heard somebody once saying that with russia it is important not to respond to what they are saying but look for what they are trying to distract you from. A chemical war or deliberate radiological incident could be that thing. And we must not allow bluster on nuclear missiles to be used as a means to make chemical or radiological attacks seem somehow acceptable by comparison. We need to keep our "red lines".

I feel that the incident at the atomic power plant is very bad and should be the pretext for NATO involvement in this war. Demilitarised zones of, say, 100km radius around these major facilities should be established, and the cities while we are at it. And NATO ground as well as air troops should be deployed to enforce them.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A part of me does wonder whether the attack on the nuclear power station and on the Estonian ship might in part represent, Putin still pushing to see just how far he can go without the West responding. (Of course, to be fair, it's also possible that they might be things that weren't authorized that high up the chain of command).

 

[adc82140]

A part of me does wonder whether the attack on the nuclear power station and on the Estonian ship might in part represent, Putin still pushing to see just how far he can go without the West responding. (Of course, to be fair, it's also possible that they might be things that weren't authorized that high up the chain of command).

I will reiterate from earlier. The ship was Estonian owned, not Estonian registered or crewed. The responsibility for the ship lies with Panama, its state of registration.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2022 ==

I feel that the incident at the atomic power plant is very bad and should be the pretext for NATO involvement in this war. Demilitarised zones of, say, 100km radius around these major facilities should be established, and the cities while we are at it. And NATO ground as well as air troops should be deployed to enforce them.

It isn't happening. NATO will not be sending in any ground forces. No one has suggested it, not even the more hawkish Eastern flank NATO nations.

 

[DustyBin]

A part of me does wonder whether the attack on the nuclear power station and on the Estonian ship might in part represent, Putin still pushing to see just how far he can go without the West responding. (Of course, to be fair, it's also possible that they might be things that weren't authorized that high up the chain of command).

It may simply be that the Ukrainians want to defend their essential infrastructure and the Russians want to take it, and in the ensuing battle an unguided projectile or two hit something they shouldn’t have (which wasn’t the main plant remember).

That isn’t to trivialise or downplay the matter as it’s incredibly dangerous, but so was the fighting around Chernobyl last week. All I’m saying is that there’s nothing to suggest it was a deliberate act, it may well have been a (reckless) accident.

 

[dgl]

It may simply be that the Ukrainians want to defend their essential infrastructure and the Russians want to take it, and in the ensuing battle an unguided projectile or two hit something they shouldn’t have (which wasn’t the main plant remember).

That isn’t to trivialise or downplay the matter as it’s incredibly dangerous, but so was the fighting around Chernobyl last week. All I’m saying is that there’s nothing to suggest it was a deliberate act, it may well have been a (reckless) accident.

Hitting a Nuclear site is no accident and any sane leader would not use explosives around them, Russia, unfortunatly, don't ahve a sane leader.

Also remember that the Chernobyl diaster helped to bring down the USSR, this could have the same outcome as it's not something you can easily cover up.

 

[tommy2215]

China have said they are 'very concerned' about the situation and urging restrain, according to the Independent. I imagine panic is really starting to build up in Beijing. Though I also think Xi Jinping is relishing this opportunity to present China as a supposed peace loving, bridge building country.

 

[DustyBin]

Hitting a Nuclear site is no accident and any sane leader would not use explosives around them, Russia, unfortunatly, don't ahve a sane leader.

Read my post again; the Ukrainians appear have taken up defensive positions in the area around the site. I agree re the Russian president’s sanity (or lack of it).

 

[adc82140]

Hitting a Nuclear site is no accident and any sane leader would not use explosives around them, Russia, unfortunatly, don't ahve a sane leader.

Also remember that the Chernobyl diaster helped to bring down the USSR, this could have the same outcome as it's not something you can easily cover up.

The nuclear site was not hit. A training building outside the perimeter was. There are two sources of propaganda coming from this conflict. That from Moscow, and that from Kyiv. The facts probably lie somewhere between the two.

 

[Scotrail314209]

China have said they are 'very concerned' about the situation and urging restrain, according to the Independent. I imagine panic is really starting to build up in Beijing. Though I also think Xi Jinping is relishing this opportunity to present China as a supposed peace loving, bridge building country.

I believe the highest chance of a ceasefire will come from mediation by China.

And in a way, I am hoping they step in as they may be able to sway Putin due to how close their nations are.

 

[dgl]

The nuclear site was not hit. A training building outside the perimeter was. There are two sources of propaganda coming from this conflict. That from Moscow, and that from Kyiv. The facts probably lie somewhere between the two.

It's close enough esp. given the accuracy of some of Russia's attacks.

 

[DustyBin]

It's close enough esp. given the accuracy of some of Russia's attacks.

It’s too close for comfort, but if the Russians intended to cause a nuclear catastrophe (which is what some posters were alluding to) they’d have slammed a cruise missile into the plant itself.

 

[Bantamzen]

The nuclear site was not hit. A training building outside the perimeter was. There are two sources of propaganda coming from this conflict. That from Moscow, and that from Kyiv. The facts probably lie somewhere between the two.

Not the point, artillery could have hit one of the reactors. We are just lucky they didn't. Shooting at a nuclear power plant that could endanger the lives of millions is not OK.

 

[Yew]

Issue is that if you stop a nuclear reactor form accessing the grid then you potentially lose the power it needs for it's essential services, and you don't want a reactor that can't cool itself! That's what happened at Fukushimia, no grid power and no backup power and no cooling.

Indeed, it's not as simple as dropping the the control rods, there is a lot of 'decay heat' that needs to be removed from the core whilst the neutron activity subsides.

 

[birchesgreen]

Not the point, artillery could have hit one of the reactors. We are just lucky they didn't. Shooting at a nuclear power plant that could endanger the lives of millions is not OK.

Yes, even if the reactor isn't directly targeted the odd bit of ammunition in wartime has been known to go off target...

 

[Chingy]

When all this started a week ago, there were many posts stating that it won't spread outside Ukraine, it won't turn into WW3, it won't turn Nuclear etc.

It will be interesting to hear if anyone has changed their thoughts on how far they think this will escalate now we are a week in and have witnessed the barbaric actions we have all seen etc.

 

[DanNCL]

When all this started a week ago, there were many posts stating that it won't spread outside Ukraine, it won't turn into WW3, it won't turn Nuclear etc.

It will be interesting to hear if anyone has changed their thoughts on how far they think this will escalate now we are a week in and have witnessed the barbaric actions we have all seen etc.

My view on this hasn’t changed at all. WW3 will only happen if a NATO country is attacked, which is highly unlikely.

 

[adc82140]

My view on this hasn’t changed at all. WW3 will only happen if a NATO country is attacked, which is highly unlikely.

As the US secretary of state has just reiterated. He has repeated the line about defending every inch of NATO territory. Much as I respect the sheer guts and courage of Zelensky, his overblown rhetoric overnight about having to evacuate Europe has not helped matters.

 

[najaB]

In other words, they are basically protected by a bit of paper, which they hope that other NATO countries will honour. I'm not sure that all our panicking about, we can't do anything that risks direct combat with Russian forces, gives that much hope there.

To be fair, we don't want to *start* a conflict with Russia, but if they start it...

 

[dgl]

To be fair, we don't want to *start* a conflict with Russia, but if they start it...

We will end it.
Naturally Russia now don't have to directly attack a NATO country for NATO to get involved, just do something that could harm them.

 

[GB]

Naturally Russia now don't have to directly attack a NATO country for NATO to get involved, just do something that could harm them.

Indeed. Now I am not saying Russia would do it, or the events of last night were it, but if they specifically target nuclear facilities in an effort to release radiation then action must be taken against them. What action or how who knows.

 

[adc82140]

The targeting of nuclear facilities to release radiation would be self defeating. Most of the fallout would be over Russia. Last night was not a deliberate attack, but more localised fighting getting out of control. You have to wonder if the sudden cessation of fighting in the area and the aloowing of rapid deployment of firefighters came after a command from somewhere on high.

 

[najaB]

You have to wonder if the sudden cessation of fighting in the area and the aloowing of rapid deployment of firefighters came after a command from somewhere on high.

The reporting is that there was an agreement between Russian and Ukrainian officials to allow firefighting efforts to proceed unhindered.

 

[Chingy]

The targeting of nuclear facilities to release radiation would be self defeating. Most of the fallout would be over Russia. Last night was not a deliberate attack, but more localised fighting getting out of control. You have to wonder if the sudden cessation of fighting in the area and the aloowing of rapid deployment of firefighters came after a command from somewhere on high.

Actually, the weather forecast for the next week or so suggests easterly winds over much of Europe and the UK, with Scandinavian block, therefore any nuclear fallout will be blown Europe's way.

 

[ainsworth74]

The targeting of nuclear facilities to release radiation would be self defeating. Most of the fallout would be over Russia. Last night was not a deliberate attack, but more localised fighting getting out of control. You have to wonder if the sudden cessation of fighting in the area and the aloowing of rapid deployment of firefighters came after a command from somewhere on high.

Yeah that one felt light local unit commanders running away with themselves and I'd imagine that once it filtered to more senior levels the reaction will have been along the lines of: "THEY'RE DOING WHAT?!?" [insert several swear words before, after and in the middle of sentence] and will have ordered steps to be taken to at least stop the active combat at the nuclear power plant.

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah that one felt light local unit commanders running away with themselves and I'd imagine that once it filtered to more senior levels the reaction will have been along the lines of: "THEY'RE DOING WHAT?!?" [insert several swear words before, after and in the middle of sentence] and will have ordered steps to be taken to at least stop the active combat at the nuclear power plant.

I feel it was a deliberate attack to take the power station but not a deliberate attack to blow up the power station. Personally ( and I am not a military man) I don't think I would use a tank or AFV thing to do that!

I suspect Russia wants to control utilities so they can turn them off and exert greater pressure on the civilian population.

 

[AlterEgo]

1) In other words, they are basically protected by a bit of paper, which they hope that other NATO countries will honour. I'm not sure that all our panicking about, we can't do anything that risks direct combat with Russian forces, gives that much hope there.

NATO's Article 5 hasn't been tested in practice yet. Indeed, it is a piece of paper.

I am not certain I want Britain to be at war with a nuclear power over the occupation of Latvia.

Who here will die willingly for Lativa?

 

[adc82140]

Article 5 was triggered after 9/11

 

[DarloRich]

I am not certain I want Britain to be at war with a nuclear power over the occupation of Latvia.

but that is what we are obliged to do.

 

[AlterEgo]

but that is what we are obliged to do.

We are obliged to do many things, but whether we actually do them is another matter.

I'm not saying NATO definitely won't uphold its security guarantee, but it is...just a piece of paper at the moment. An agreement that has not been tested.