Things are heating up in the Donbass

[holdover]

Aggression by NATO will be seen as an act of war, its real simple.

Nato has no intention of defeating Russia there, they are planning to bleed her in a guerrilla war that will last for years and break her economy.

 

[spat]

That would still be an act of unprovoked war by NATO.

NATO sending troops into Ukraine at the request of the Ukrainian government is an act of war ?

Either Putin wants to fight NATO, or he doesn't.

All talk of whats justified or not is academic.

All the rhetoric and political posturing is meaningless.

There are no real rules for any of this.

There is only power and who uses it for what.

So, if NATO starts blowing up Russian jets and tanks in Ukraine, the Putin has to decide if he wants to fight NATO or not.

Since this whole thing started because he *doesn't* want to fight NATO, it seems like that answer is settled.

It's really that simple.

 

[GOPerfect]

NATO sending troops into Ukraine at the request of the Ukrainian government is an act of war ?

Either Putin wants to fight NATO, or he doesn't.

All talk of whats justified or not is academic.

All the rhetoric and political posturing is meaningless.

There are no real rules for any of this.

There is only power and who uses it for what.

So, if NATO starts blowing up Russian jets and tanks in Ukraine, the Putin has to decide if he wants to fight NATO or not.

Since this whole thing started because he *doesn't* want to fight NATO, it seems like that answer is settled.

It's really that simple.

Yes, an unprovoked act of war against Russia. Yes indeed.

 

[spat]

Aggression by NATO will be seen as an act of war, its real simple.

Nato has no intention of defeating Russia there, they are planning to bleed her in a guerrilla war that will last for years and break her economy.

What sovereign nation would NATO be aggressing against ?

What if NATO held an emergency meeting and approved Ukraine as a new member first ?

Is the *meeting* an aggressive act ?

Remember, this all started with an invasion by Russia. They are the aggressor.

 

[holdover]

NATO sending troops into Ukraine at the request of the Ukrainian government is an act of war ?

Either Putin wants to fight NATO, or he doesn't.

If they participate Yes!

He does'nt.

But attack Russian troops is forcing him .

 

[spat]

Yes, an unprovoked act of war against Russia. Yes indeed.

Russia shouldn't even be in Ukraine. They have already declared war.

This is like a big 6th grader picking a fight with a small one. Then when the small kids 12th grade buddy walks in the big 6th grader saying "this isn't your fight, let me just keep beating on him".

 

[spat]

If they participate Yes!

He does'nt.

But attack Russian troops is forcing him .

Forcing him to retreat. He's not stupid enough to commit suicide over it.

 

[holdover]

What sovereign nation would NATO be aggressing against ?

What if NATO held an emergency meeting and approved Ukraine as a new member first ?

Is the *meeting* an aggressive act ?

Remember, this all started with an invasion by Russia. They are the aggressor.

Well if your Attacking Russian troops, by default your attacking Russia. If US troops are attacked while in a foreign country , it will be understood as an attack against the US .

 

[spat]

That would still be an act of unprovoked war by NATO.

Hardly unprovoked.

Was Desert Storm an unprovoked war on Iraq ?

 

[GOPerfect]

Russia shouldn't even be in Ukraine. They have already declared war.

This is like a big 6th grader picking a fight with a small one. Then when the small kids 12th grade buddy walks in the big 6th grader saying "this isn't your fight, let me just keep beating on him".

Regardless if Russia should be there or not, if NATO attacks, they will put forth an Act of war against Russia.

This is not supposed to make sense.

NATO has laws and guidelines that need to be followed, if not disband NATO.

Article five....

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.

 

[holdover]

Forcing him to retreat. He's not stupid enough to commit suicide over it.

No guy, its an act of war under international law. Hes going to defend himself.

 

[spat]

Well if your Attacking Russian troops, by default your attacking Russia. If US troops are attacked while in a foreign country , it will be understood as an attack against the US .

So, if russia kills some NATO "advisors" in Ukraine, then we're all justified right ?

 

[GOPerfect]

Hardly unprovoked.

Was Desert Storm an unprovoked war on Iraq ?

Key NATO allies went to Kuwait and Iraq, not NATO.

NATO is talking about attacking Russia. Huge difference.

 

[holdover]

advisors dont count. They are not supposed to take part in any fighting, wink wink.

 

[GOPerfect]

So, if russia kills some NATO "advisors" in Ukraine, then we're all justified right ?

Nope. Not according to the charter.

 

[spat]

Regardless if Russia should be there or not, if NATO attacks, they will put forth an Act of war against Russia.

This is not supposed to make sense.

NATO has laws and guidelines that need to be followed, if not disband NATO.

Article five....

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.

Right. So NATO emergency meeting to approve Ukrainian's membership, then the next Russian bomb that falls is an attack on NATO.

 

[GOPerfect]

Right. So NATO emergency meeting to approve Ukrainian's membership, then the next Russian bomb that falls is an attack on NATO.

Won't happen. But if it did occur, yes.

 

[spat]

No guy, its an act of war under international law. Hes going to defend himself.

There is no such thing as international law.

Just a bunch of agreements that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

 

[spat]

Won't happen. But if it did occur, yes.

If NATO decided to get involved, you don't think that would happen in about 4 hours first ?

 

[holdover]

yep all they have to do is sign her up, and the war is on.

 

[holdover]

There is no such thing as international law.

Just a bunch of agreements that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

no such thing as international law? come on man.

 

[spat]

Key NATO allies went to Kuwait and Iraq, not NATO.

NATO is talking about attacking Russia. Huge difference.

Well, to be fair, the US went into Kuwait and brought along a bunch of cheerleaders for legitimacy.

They brought along a bunch of non NATO members too.

And so far I haven't seen any discussion of NATO itself getting involved here either. Just NATO members acting outside of the auspices of that organization. Same as Desert Storm

 

[holdover]

Thats totally possible,

but you know happens next right?

 

[spat]

yep all they have to do is sign her up, and the war is on.

Or give Putin 48 hours to get his shit back across the line.

You really think his answer to that would be a full on nuclear strike and certain annihilation ?

 

[holdover]

yes I do.

 

[spat]

no such thing as international law? come on man.

Nope. There are a few agreements that countries seem to mostly follow, but no, there is no international law.

What is the penalty for violating "international law" ? Without a proscribed penalty, a law isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

If there *was* such a thing, then problem solved. Arrest Russia for violating "international law".

 

[holdover]

SUn tsu called it death ground.

Never put an enemy on death ground, in other words trapped with no where to go but fight. I know you dont see it that way, but thats how the Russians would see it.

 

[holdover]

Nope. There are a few agreements that countries seem to mostly follow, but no, there is no international law.

What is the penalty for violating "international law" ? Without a proscribed penalty, a law isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

If there *was* such a thing, then problem solved. Arrest Russia for violating "international law".

Your correct, but it gives legal justification to act.

 

[spat]

Your correct, but it gives legal justification to act.

And what are the consequences for acting *without* such legal justification ?

Right, nothing. That's why the whole concept is a farce.

 

[Deplorable Me]

Just accidentally leave a couple of loaded and fueled A-10's running at the airport. Plane theft happens all the time. When the planes return, arrest the pilots. With bail reform they'll be out by happy hour.