Ukraine will be able to use Danish and Dutch F-16s to strike into Russia, while Belgium is saying only for use in 1991-border Ukraine.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/Iv4Fu
Ukraine: “I consent.”
Denmark: “I consent.”
Russia: “Was there somebody you forgot to ask?”
The myth of consentual flights of F-16s into Russian territory.
Same way Russia forgot to ask Ukraine, Ukraine forgot to ask Russia. Seems fair.
forgot to ask Ukraine
After how many Minsk Agreements mediated by the OSCE would you consider Ukraine properly “asked”?
The same ones that Russia and Ukraine hates? They can’t even agree on the meaning of them, since they are such an ambiguous mess that doesn’t specify anything.
Skill issue. Were I the Ukrainians I simply would have negotiated a better treaty.
Skill issue on Russia’s part too. Let’s be fair here.
No doubt. Russia placed too much faith in the OSCE and France and Germany approaching the process in good faith. Merkel later came out and said that the Minsk process was just a time-buying exercise so that NATO could arm Ukraine as a proxy against Russia.
Ukraine, of course, knew that it was being armed and trained and had the carrot of NATO and EU membership dangled before it. Circling back to the original point, the fact that Ukraine was being armed and trained at such a rate is good evidence that Ukraine absolutely knew what was about to happen.
Russia placed too much faith in the OSCE and France and Germany approaching the process in good faith.
I’m not sure if you’re calling Putin a stupid man that is easily manipulated or incompetent. No politician ever in their lives did anything in good faith, Putin included. You must be very naive to think that.
<…> good evidence that Ukraine absolutely knew what was about to happen.
That’s an empty speculation. Knowing and preparing for a possibly are completely different things. Also, if you note the timing on the war, it stared a month before a US company was about to start extracting oil and gas from the Ukraine territory and cut off Russia from Europe as supplier. The reason for the invasion was pure greed and not some stupid notions of NATO expansion or cries for help from Russian separatist groups.
Lmao what a cop out. At bare minimum Ukraine should have stopped allowing fascist paramilitary groups to shell civilians in the east, an act that was illegal a half a dozen other ways, too. And Angela Merkel admitted the agreements were not an attempt to actually resolve that issue or the issue of the west installing a hostile foreign government via coup, but to give Ukraine time to arm up to fight Russia:
In an interview published in Germany’s Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to “give Ukraine time” to build up its defences.
Well since neither of them included any sort of language to the effect of “Russia gets to invade if the terms of this agreement aren’t upheld”, I’m gonna go with more than two. Especially considering DPR forces kept pushing for Debaltseve after both agreements.
The same way Ukraine forgot to ask the families of Jewish people killed in the Holocaust if they could put up statues and monuments commemorating Nazi collaborators including OUN members who participated in carrying out the Holocaust?
On the other hand, who gives a shit if Russia burns for their ongoing aggression.
Not many people complain when an entire country reaches the “find out” part of “fuck around and find out” when they’ve had many years to course correct.
I think what they meant is that those planes are not getting to Russia before being destroyed.
The problem with the Danes is that they have been so sheltered for so long that the concept of their actions having consequences simply don’t register any more. Everything is going to be welfare, roast pork and padding ourselves on the back for all eternity, war and disaster and calamity is something they have in “the warm countries”, it will never affect us.
So what happens if some Danish military bases get bombed or a frigate gets sunk with dozens of dead? Does Denmark pull back or call for WWIII?
Lots of commotion internally in Denmark while the reaction would be decided upon in Washington.
I don’t think Russia wants to retaliate so directly though. As I see it they have very little to gain from taking that bait. More likely acts of retaliation would be plausibly deniable cyber attacks or supporting some proxy in attacking Danish interests abroad. If I was a Danish troop in Iraq, I would be watching my back after this.
I doubt Russia would escalate in that way. If it happens, I’d imagine a “tit for tat” thing happening, where the Nordic countries sink the Russian Baltic Fleet and say that they consider the matter resolved.
When you say nordic countries, you mean sweden, norway, and finland would do a massive escalation, and open themselves up to retaliation? Surely they’d do the calculus and see there’s nothing to gain and a lot to lose? I’ve heard the political situation in the EU was not great, but I expect that kind of hawkishness here on the other side of the planet, not from the countries that actually stand to lose anything.
It’s not hawkish, it’s the opposite. If there is no retaliation, then that signals that NATO is a joke, and bombing member states is fair game. If we don’t shoot back, we lose our own protection, and we are much, much closer to war.
Nobody wants a precedent where NATO is called into question. Remember when there was a stray Russian missile that went into Poland, and immediately half of NATO leadership was there, and it was quickly swept under a rug? If Poland pulled the trigger there, NATO would have went to war.
The point is, Article 5 is not escalation, it’s the status quo. If someone gets attacked, we all retaliate. Fucking that up would actually be a massive escalation against peace in Europe.
Retaliation is the opposite of hawkish? Are you listening to yourself?
The only reason there is no war between NATO member states and Russia is NATO itself. If a NATO member gets attacked and NATO does not retaliate, NATO ceases to exist. If there is no NATO, there is no defence for the Baltics, no defence for Moldova, no defence for Poland, and no defence against the stated goal of Russia, the finlandization of the whole of Europe.
A policy of retaliation against warmongers is a policy of promoting peace.
the stated goal of Russia, the finlandization of the whole of Europe.
Would love a source for whatever you think this means
A policy of retaliation against warmongers is a policy of promoting peace.
The U.S., by far, is the most aggressive country on the planet. You certainly don’t apply this logic to it, and there has not been a single time retaliation against the U.S. has deterred it from future aggression.
Don’t bother arguing with @hexbear, their history books skip the 30s
If Article 5 applies to responses from NATO countries bombing foreign soil, then any NATO country could bomb anyone they wanted, and if they fight back, expect the entirety of NATO to attack that country.
Which is how the US operates, but I doubt the rest of NATO wants to back Victor Orban if he decides to relive the heady days of 1940 and bomb Serbia or Erdowan feels like recreating the Ottoman Empire.
Denmark isn’t bombing foreign soil, Ukraine is bombing the country that invaded them. If giving equipment to Ukraine would be equal to joining the war, we’d be at war with China and Iran. We are not.
If Russia bombs Danish military targets, that is an unilateral attack from Russia towards Denmark, and if Denmark decides it wants to call NATO to war, either NATO goes to war, or they effectively dissolve. Which means that at the very least all countries that rely on NATO for their security - the Nordics and the Baltics for sure, Poland and most of Eastern Europe as well - have to go to war as if their own security is threatened, because it effectively is.
Ukraine is bombing the country that invaded them
Wait Russia invaded Ukraine? Why would they do that? And Ukrainian bombing came second, right, and the invasion first?
Well considering both the EU and NATO have articles of mutual defence, they’ve already agreed to it twice (or once, for Norway and Iceland). I’m not sure sinking a ships qualifies as an escalatory response to bombing bases and sinking ships though. At that point the escalation has already happened.
But you don’t understand, if a Russian soldier shoots a NATO soldier, that’s realpolitik, if a NATO soldier shoots back it’s
ESCALATION
patting*
The Kremlin’s jets are flying over Ukraine and part of their barbaric land grab, why shouldn’t Ukrainians fly over Russia to stop attacks on their home?
Go bomb the shit out of them. Shoot down the terrorist bombers launching missiles at markets and playgrounds.
Nice gesture but why would Ukraine risk losing their new toys on adventurism where is work closer to to home to be done.
Now if they were supplying rockets with ranges over 200km and then they gave consent to such use… That would be a more meaningful move and would let Russia know that using NK rockets has consequences.
Nice gesture but why would Ukraine risk losing their new toys on adventurism where is work closer to to home to be done.
Where the frontline is close to the official border, Russia is able to keep its artillery and logistics on the Russian side of the border where Ukraine is not allowed to use half of its equipment. Russia’s ongoing Kharkiv offensive is an example of this
Now if they were supplying rockets with ranges over 200km
France and Britain have been supplying the storm shadow missile, which has almost three times that range. Ukraine has been launching it from its own Su-24 aircraft, but those are very old and there aren’t a lot of them left. The F-16 could be a good new platform to launch them from. As I understand it, storm shadow and F-16 are not compatible out of the box and would need some modification, but the same was true for the Su-24 and that appears to have worked out
Would Ukraine be able to fly planes close enough to strike within Russia given Russian strong anti air set up?
Can Ukraine use stormshadows within Russia?
Well they’ve been flying Su-24s, and the F-16s certainly shouldn’t be any less capable than those for this sort of thing
Can Ukraine use stormshadows within Russia?
The UK okayed it a couple of weeks ago, France this week
Ukrainian planes entered Russian air space?
Oh, that I’m not sure of. I misunderstood what you were asking, sorry about that
While I don’t know about actual jets launching munitions over Russian airspace, Ukraine did successfully hit a Shahed drone factory over 1,000 km from the Russia-Ukraine border with what appears to have been one of these light aircraft converted to be unmanned. So Russia’s air defence is definitely not impenetrable.
Got it. I am aware of Ukraine striking deep into Russia but it has always been with their own tools.
But back original all premises, I still doubt Ukraine would risk f16 getting that close to Russian air defense.
Western missile are perfect for the job. Now that UK and fr on board, US must also approve and deliver a large batch for the party.
Great opportunity to disrupt Russian ops near kharkiv IMHO and retaliate for NK missiles used there.
This means it is the US who has authorized them flying over Russian territory, Usually it is the country of origin that holds the right to specify how those arms should not be used.
Good thing Russia allowed Ukraine to use all those Migs and SUs against them.
The country of origin of those jets no longer exists. The USSR fell a while ago.
