Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[mapuc]

The recommendations provide for a multi-level approach to guarantees. A core group of allies would make clear commitments to support Ukraine's armed forces, while a broader group would provide non-military guarantees built around sanctions mechanisms.

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news...komendac-77729

Markus

[Skybird]

I am surprised the Ukrainians would be satisfied with "guarantees". They were under protection of guarantees after they gave up their nuclear weapons. They enjoyed guarantees when Russia occupied Crimea, and they had guarantees when Russia attacked this year once again.

I think they better wipe their rear with European guarantees. They should get all money they can get and then buy weapons, weapons, weapons, and more weapons. They should also consider to rebuild nuclear arms. Secretly. The next war after this one will come, its only a question of time as long as Russia exists.

Heck, they got burned three times now. I would have assumed they had learned their lesson by now.
----------------------

The war is far form over. Even with theb great success at Karkhiv, which was apparently was the result of a phenomenal deception manouver, the offensive at Cherson seems to meet stiffer resistence - their gains on the ground are much smaller, and they suffer losses.

Its also an open quesiton what will happen if they turn their announcement into rerality and start to attack crimea on the ground. By Russian self-proclamation and their new doctrin, Russia claims that as Russian territory and reserves the right to react to attacks on its own soil and ground with nuclear weapons. Of course their self-justification is bollocks and ht elgic of cmrinals cum, but its the argument they make.

Somebody needs to give Ukraine some tactical nukes with sufficient range to threaten targets in Russia, to make Russia think twice on this option. It makes no sense for Ukraine to nuke their own country, so such weapons must have a bit longer legs. Russia must understand this: if they set the other places ablaze, Russia itself must inevitably burn in the same fire.

I wonder how often they have bitten their a### by now for having given up their nuclear weapons that they once had.

[mapuc]

Can one hope it will be different this time ??

Edit

In late March, the Ukrainian delegation to the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations in Istanbul put forward a draft peace agreement. The keystone of this agreement was a mutual defense guarantee, similar to NATO’s Article 5, to protect Ukraine. Treaty-bound guarantors would come to Ukraine’s defense in the event of an attack on the country, in exchange for Ukraine’s neutrality. But it is possible that Ukraine’s borders will be altered as part of a final peace settlement. As such, states should understand the territorial issues at stake and how those issues could trigger any negotiated security guarantee mechanisms.

https://www.usip.org/publications/20...antees-ukraine
End edit

Markus

[Skybird]

America is no longer willing to serve as Scholz' alibi to not deliver armour. Focus writes:
-----------------------
Time and again, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has justified his refusal to supply German tanks to Ukraine with agreements among NATO partners. But a statement from the U.S. Embassy now casts doubt on this.

With a single sentence, the U.S. Embassy has pulverized the German chancellor's procrastination tactic: "The decision on the type of aid is ultimately up to each country itself."

This means nothing less than: From now on, Olaf Scholz can no longer justify his refusal to supply Ukraine with German tanks with an alleged agreement by NATO. The Social Democratic chancellor can no longer hide.

"No German unilateral action." That was Olaf Scholz's mantra for months, basically since the beginning of Vladimir Putin's criminal Ukraine campaign. No going it alone, that meant: German policy takes place in a NATO convoy.

But this NATO convoy no longer exists, if it ever did, according to the U.S. Embassy. Instead, a different doctrine applies: the Western leader gives its allies "free rein" - it leaves it up to Germany to decide how it will help.

This does not change everything, but it does change a great deal: If Olaf Scholz, with his directive authority, were to decide today to supply German battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine, this would be a German "solo effort.

But not one for which Scholz would have to fear criticism from the leading Western power - on the contrary. The new U.S. ambassador to Germany, Amy Gutman, had already said in her first TV interview that she wanted Germany to provide more support for Ukraine than it had in the past.

And from the recent meeting of Western defense ministers at the U.S. base in Ramstein it leaked out - certainly no coincidence - that Washington was seriously considering supplying its own tanks (Abrams) to Ukraine.

In this respect, the current announcement by the U.S. Embassy is at the end of a chain. Its political goal: Germany should finally take the lead in Europe. And thus - this too unspoken - relieve the Americans in Europe, who are increasingly focused on security in the Pacific and the looming conflict with China.

Washington's action of using a social network, with the help of a tweet, to exert serious influence on German domestic politics, and nothing else is happening here right now, is unusual enough. But isn't it also legitimate?

After all, Scholz in particular has always justified his refusal to equip Ukraine with German tanks by citing American policy. In this respect, a "rematch" of the Americans is taking place here.

Washington apparently no longer wants to play the scapegoat for an appeasement policy of the Germans toward Russia that is also perceived by the most loyal Ukraine helpers, the Eastern Europeans.

However, it must be said that Germany has supplied substantial amounts of weapons since the beginning of the war, such as the Gepard anti-aircraft gun tank and rocket launchers, which have been used so skilfully by the Ukrainian military that they have enabled remarkable military successes against the Russians.

But Germany delivered late and mostly only under pressure - and mostly lagged behind the Ukrainian wishes, which were well-founded from a military tactical point of view. Too late, too little, that was the accusation most frequently leveled against the German government - not only by Ukraine, but also by NATO allies such as Poland or the Baltic states.

This accusation always hit one person: the chancellor and his Social Democratic comrades. Their motive: not to provoke Russia with further arms deliveries, to expand the war into NATO territory or even to use weapons of mass destruction.

Scholz always " framed" this narrative with the word: "prudence." The Social Democratic defense minister provided a new rationale for not supplying more potent weapons to Ukraine.

This would harm national and alliance defense, Christina Lambrecht, flanked by SPD Secretary General Kevin Kühnert, had argued just yesterday. However, this had previously been contradicted by the NATO Secretary General - the Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg.

He said it was more important for the security of the West to defend it already in Ukraine than for the West to defend it first on its own alliance territory. Stoltenberg thus argued - strategically logically - military "prevention" in Ukraine was more important than later "reaction" to further Russian aggression.

In essence, Stoltenberg was defending NATO's old doctrine of deterrence, which, if the NATO Double-Track Decision of the late 1970s is taken as a reference, has proven its worth over 40 years as an instrument for securing peace.


Now the question is: Is Lambrecht, in anticipation of the American "release" of national go-it-alone, setting up the next hurdle of not supplying Ukraine with weapons? The next " excuse"? Olaf Scholz is now coming under increasing pressure.

He can no longer use the Americans as an argumentative shield. And he is increasingly on the defensive vis-à-vis his own coalition partners. The Free Democrats and the Greens, on the other hand, can feel strengthened. For those who like it pathetic, they also feel strengthened in their belief that they are on the right side of history.
------------------------------

[mapuc]

Markus

[ET2SN]

Sky, let me remind you again. Launching nukes just over your own border is suicidal.

You want Ukraine to target North Korea, fine. China? Knock yourself out. The UK? Sure. You get the idea?

Better yet, roll the dice and bring Ukraine into NATO as soon as possible. Let someone else launch the nukes, after they give Ukraine enough time to build shelters.

[Skybird]

No sane mind wants to nuke other countries. But Russia's doctrine now says that it will answer with nuclear attacks if soil and ground it claims to be "Russia" is being attacked and in danger. And they claim that Crimea is Russian soil. Of course it is Ukrainian territory, occupied by fascist Russia, but still Ukrainian. If Ukrainian troops try to conquer and liberate it, there is a chance that Russia will reply with nuclear strikes to that - on Ukraine.



For that case the Ukraine needs arguments that make Russia think twice before doing so. European security guarantees or economic sanctions will not do the trick.



Nobody said Ukraine wants to nuke Korea, Cina or the UK. Where did you get this nonsense?


Do you not know the concept of nuclear deterrance? Cold war'S mutual assured destruction doctrine: MAD? The fear that what one is doing to the other he will do to you?

[mapuc]

Have removed the quote and my reply it was somehow wrong

Markus

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nobody said Ukraine wants to nuke Korea, Cina or the UK. Where did you get this nonsense?

Sky, I'm trying to get you to understand. It isn't about Right and Wrong, its about Geography.

If Ukraine launched ICBMs at Russia, they would know the bombs went off after their own people started to die. Look at a map.

This is why India and Pakistan going nuclear never really made sense. Deterrence doesn't work if you have to kill yourself in the process.

Now, look at the US and the old USSR. We were separated by a large ocean and most of central Europe.

Now, do you understand?

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

Sky, I'm trying to get you to understand. It isn't about Right and Wrong, its about Geography.

If Ukraine launched ICBMs at Russia, they would know the bombs went off after their own people started to die. Look at a map.

This is why India and Pakistan going nuclear never really made sense. Deterrence doesn't work if you have to kill yourself in the process.

Now, look at the US and the old USSR. We were separated by a large ocean and most of central Europe.

Now, do you understand?

The question for me is

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine, if Ukraine had nukes ?

Markus

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by mapuc

The question for me is

Would Russia have invaded Ukraine, if Ukraine had nukes ?

Markus

I would say yes, Russia would have invaded if Ukraine had space lasers and fighter jets made out of Unobtanium. There's that question of WHY invade in the first place that will take years to answer.

You should also recall that when Ukraine had nukes, who were they aimed at?

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by ET2SN

I would say yes, Russia would have invaded if Ukraine had space lasers and fighter jets made out of Unobtanium. There's that question of WHY invade in the first place that will take years to answer.

You should also recall that when Ukraine had nukes, who were they aimed at?

I don't think Putin would have moved without the nukes going first.

Don't forget Putin agreed to the Budapest Memorandum as a condition to recognize The Ukraine's borders if they gave up their Soviet era nukes. Looks like a long planned invasion that he fumbled to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[danzig70]

This was in the comics yesterday. I thought it might apply:



EDIT: I do not know from where that signature banner originates. Mods please remove. There is certainly a war in Ukraine.

[ET2SN]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I don't think Putin would have moved without the nukes going first.

Don't forget Putin agreed to the Budapest Memorandum as a condition to recognize The Ukraine's borders if they gave up their Soviet era nukes. Looks like a long planned invasion that he fumbled to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Russia was lobbing shells at a couple of nuke power stations near their own border.

NOT
SMART.

Do you think that having a bunker of warheads would have slowed anything down? Ukraine was already being invaded, where were they supposed to aim them? The front lines? Maybe their own cities?

Nukes don't work when you share a common border.

[Buddahaid]

What! They had a third of the Soviet arsenal, plus production capacity, and delivery systems. They could have struck Moscow!