War

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
printer said:
NATO played a very active supporting role during the first Gulf Crisis and War in 1990-1991
Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, SHAPE implemented precautionary measures to ensure the security of NATO's Mediterranean members and prevent the spread of tension and conflict.

Such measures included increased coverage of the area by NATO Airborne Early Warning aircraft, deployment of NATO naval forces to deal with any threats to shipping in the Mediterranean, provision of significant logistics and air defence support to Turkey, and the deployment of the Ace Mobile Force (Air) to Turkey in January 1991.

Thus while NATO was not a direct participant in the Gulf War, Allied Command Europe played a major role in supporting those NATO member states threatened by the conflict.

The Libya intervention (2011): neither lawful, nor successful
The intervention in Libya in 2011 was claimed to have been a triumph in two respects: on the one hand the UN Security Council, by passing resolutions 1970 and 1973, had demonstrated its ability to react to humanitarian crises without any of the five permanent members of the council resorting to a veto. On the other hand the concept of humanitarian intervention in its more recent guise of the "responsibility to protect" was seen by some as having finally gained recognition within the international community as a legal concept. More than three years after the intervention it will be argued here that such optimistic claims were premature. It will be shown that the way a coalition of NATO and other states implemented resolution 1973 was not in accordance with that resolution and therefore violated international law. As a direct consequence of this, the Security Council has now reverted to its former paralysis, as Russia and China are, understandably, no longer willing to grant NATO states a mandate for action. This has been most evident in respect of the civil war in Syria. Moreover, developments in Libya since the intervention have done more to discredit the concept of the "responsibility to protect" than any criticism from an international law perspective possibly could.
Click to expand...
First gulf war was UN sanctioned and Canada participated, Iraq broke international law by invading, just like Russia is doing now. NATO partners participated, but not NATO as an organization, the same for Libya, NATO countries participated, but not NATO as an organization. France and Canada got a hard time from Bush for skipping the second bullshit Iraq war. Libya was sanctioned by the UN and was an air campaign with no boots on the ground and like Kosovo was a humanitarian action. As far as Russia is concerned, there are no boots on the ground or planes in the air in Ukraine, but a lot of arms, training and intelligence were given to the Ukrainians. Trying to get NATO to attack anybody is like trying to herd cats! NATO does humanitarian and peace keeping work for the UN like in Serbia.

www.bbc.com

Kosovo: Fresh clashes as Nato troops called in to northern towns

Serb protesters are angry at ethnic Albanian mayors being installed in Serb-majority areas.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
printer said:
NATO played a very active supporting role during the first Gulf Crisis and War in 1990-1991
Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, SHAPE implemented precautionary measures to ensure the security of NATO's Mediterranean members and prevent the spread of tension and conflict.

Such measures included increased coverage of the area by NATO Airborne Early Warning aircraft, deployment of NATO naval forces to deal with any threats to shipping in the Mediterranean, provision of significant logistics and air defence support to Turkey, and the deployment of the Ace Mobile Force (Air) to Turkey in January 1991.

Thus while NATO was not a direct participant in the Gulf War, Allied Command Europe played a major role in supporting those NATO member states threatened by the conflict.

The Libya intervention (2011): neither lawful, nor successful
The intervention in Libya in 2011 was claimed to have been a triumph in two respects: on the one hand the UN Security Council, by passing resolutions 1970 and 1973, had demonstrated its ability to react to humanitarian crises without any of the five permanent members of the council resorting to a veto. On the other hand the concept of humanitarian intervention in its more recent guise of the "responsibility to protect" was seen by some as having finally gained recognition within the international community as a legal concept. More than three years after the intervention it will be argued here that such optimistic claims were premature. It will be shown that the way a coalition of NATO and other states implemented resolution 1973 was not in accordance with that resolution and therefore violated international law. As a direct consequence of this, the Security Council has now reverted to its former paralysis, as Russia and China are, understandably, no longer willing to grant NATO states a mandate for action. This has been most evident in respect of the civil war in Syria. Moreover, developments in Libya since the intervention have done more to discredit the concept of the "responsibility to protect" than any criticism from an international law perspective possibly could.
Click to expand...
Even after Russia invaded Ukraine NATO did not formally act until much later after the initial invasion was beaten back, as an organization they gradually became involved on coordinating aid, but the alliance against the Russian invasion is larger than NATO.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
printer said:
NATO played a very active supporting role during the first Gulf Crisis and War in 1990-1991
Following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, SHAPE implemented precautionary measures to ensure the security of NATO's Mediterranean members and prevent the spread of tension and conflict.

Such measures included increased coverage of the area by NATO Airborne Early Warning aircraft, deployment of NATO naval forces to deal with any threats to shipping in the Mediterranean, provision of significant logistics and air defence support to Turkey, and the deployment of the Ace Mobile Force (Air) to Turkey in January 1991.

Thus while NATO was not a direct participant in the Gulf War, Allied Command Europe played a major role in supporting those NATO member states threatened by the conflict.

The Libya intervention (2011): neither lawful, nor successful
The intervention in Libya in 2011 was claimed to have been a triumph in two respects: on the one hand the UN Security Council, by passing resolutions 1970 and 1973, had demonstrated its ability to react to humanitarian crises without any of the five permanent members of the council resorting to a veto. On the other hand the concept of humanitarian intervention in its more recent guise of the "responsibility to protect" was seen by some as having finally gained recognition within the international community as a legal concept. More than three years after the intervention it will be argued here that such optimistic claims were premature. It will be shown that the way a coalition of NATO and other states implemented resolution 1973 was not in accordance with that resolution and therefore violated international law. As a direct consequence of this, the Security Council has now reverted to its former paralysis, as Russia and China are, understandably, no longer willing to grant NATO states a mandate for action. This has been most evident in respect of the civil war in Syria. Moreover, developments in Libya since the intervention have done more to discredit the concept of the "responsibility to protect" than any criticism from an international law perspective possibly could.
Click to expand...
With NATO when article 5 is invoked the member states must act and that has only happened once in Afghanistan. All other actions are voluntary and sanctioned by the UN, even if they are hornswoggled into it as with the second gulf war. Libya and Kosovo were sanctioned by the UN as humanitarian actions and NATO peacekeepers are there now. When NATO takes any action outside of article 5 they need to meet and agree which is why it took several conferences to get them where they are now in helping Ukraine, but some countries were helping more than others with Ukraine until NATO took a more active role in coordinating aid and training.

.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
We have an instance here where someone is enamored of a nonstandard definition, and seeks to generalize it through forceful repetition.

From my reading, a strategic nuclear weapon is distinguished by its delivery system: a long-range missile launched from land or sea, or a strategic bomber. Correlation with yield is incidental.

The arms treaties disallow missiles with intermediate range between 500 to 5500 km, making the division plain.

Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The US formally suspended the treaty on 1 February 2019,[12] and Russia did so on the following day in response.[13] The United States formally withdrew from the treaty on 2 August 2019.
 
GoatSoup

GoatSoup

Well-Known Member
It appears that the UKR Spring Offensive has begun, with Bakmutt taken I expect the UKR Army will drive south thru Zaporiestia (SP?) to the Sea of Azov and cut the east west rail and road transport to isolate the Crimea from any communication then cut the Kerch bridge to seal the Russians up and kill them. The mud season is coming to an end and the heavy western tanks can drive the Russian armor into the kill zones.
Long rangeweapons the UKR's have now will allow them to blow the ammo depots and the Oracs will surrender when they have no more ammo.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663688757235548162
Click to expand...
Oh, that's rich. Not for everyone but for those who are rich, it must give them a good laugh. Tell the youth of the a nation that has been robbed blind to "learn to eat bitterness" and celebrate hardship. Telling Chinese youth to go forth. away from cities to live as a subsistence farmer and live the life their parents worked like donkeys to get away from. Meanwhile Chinese oligarchs shipped the wealth of the nation offshore.

This is from 2014. One can only guess at the shenanigans that have gone on since. China's businesses keep opaque records and do not disclose to the public like US companies do. Xi has held absolute power for more than a decade. His hands have been dirty from the beginning.

www.icij.org

Leaked Records Reveal Offshore Holdings of China’s Elite - ICIJ

Files shed light on nearly 22,000 tax haven clients from Hong Kong and mainland China.
www.icij.org www.icij.org

Leaked Records Reveal Offshore Holdings of China’s Elite
Files shed light on nearly 22,000 tax haven clients from Hong Kong and mainland China.

Close relatives of China’s top leaders have held secretive offshore companies in tax havens that helped shroud the Communist elite’s wealth, a leaked cache of documents reveals.

The confidential files include details of a real estate company co-owned by current President Xi Jinping’s brother-in-law and British Virgin Islands companies set up by former Premier Wen Jiabao’s son and also by his son-in-law.

Nearly 22,000 offshore clients with addresses in mainland China and Hong Kong appear in the files obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Among them are some of China’s most powerful men and women — including at least 15 of China’s richest, members of the National People’s Congress and executives from state-owned companies entangled in corruption scandals.
 
GoatSoup

GoatSoup

Well-Known Member
It appears that the Russian resistance is taking up arms and attacking in raids in the UKR/Russia border. Drone strikes and grenade dropping in the Belgorad region and rail strikes are scareing the Russians.
Himars rockets attacks are clearing Orac's ammo dumps.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Russian state TV has been making threatening noises about Kazakhstan too, but are in no position to act against it, they also have Chinese security guarantees and plenty of oil to trade for it. By the time the Ukrainians are done with the Russians they won't be in any shape to attack anybody.

www.newsweek.com

Lukashenko's nuclear weapons offer rejected by Russia's neighbor

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said if nations wanted to join a pact with Russia and Belarus, there could be "nuclear weapons for everyone."
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

From the comments:
FabricatorGeneral
1 day ago

Tokayev's smart enough to see what's actually going on here.

Putin stationing nukes in Belarus isn't to protect it, nor is it to further threaten the West or Ukraine (nukes in Kaliningrad are closer to the latter and nukes in Russia proper or on warships in the Black Sea are closer to the latter).

It's to cement Russia's control over Belarus once and for all. Once Moscow's nukes are on Belarusian soil, it justifies a permanent military presence to keep the people suppressed; considering Lukashenko's recent health issues, Putin's looking to keep Minsk under his thumb in case anything unexpected happens.
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
It looks more and more like Ukraine was behind the drone attack on Moscow and just targeted the elites and no doubt it was a well defended area since Putin and other Russian elites live there. It will cause the Russians to put more into homeland air defense and less into defending the disposable mobiks in Ukraine and it will be less for the Ukrainian airforce to deal with. It is the same thing for the recent border incursions, more resources will be deployed to defend these border towns and less in southern Ukraine where the action will end up happening. Even the drone attacks on Moscow are part of the pre offensive battlefield shaping plan to get the Russians to redeploy resources and try to defend even more shit.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1663866421401583617


Yesterday's drone attack targeted not just Moscow - it was aimed at Rublevka, an elite real estate area in Moscow region where many of Russia's richest and most influential people reside - including Putin.

Today, information appeared that yesterday, 30th May, Putin was likely in his Novo-Ogarevo residence and was woken up early by his security because of a high level of threat to his safety - one of the drones fell 3 km from his residence, in Ilyinskoye village.

Who else lives nearby:
- Gennadiy Timchenko, Putin’s friend;
- Mikhail Mishustin, Russian prime minister;
- Sergey Shoigu, defense minister;
- Yuriy Vorobyev, senator;
- Arkadiy and Boris Rotenbergs, Putin’s closest friends;
- Sergey Kirienko, ex prime minister;
- Igor Sechin, close ally of Putin;
- Viktor Zolotov, head of Russian Guards;
- Viktor Zorkin, head of constitutional court;
- Ruslan Tsalikov, deputy defense minister.

These are just the officials, many mistresses and various in-laws also reside in that area.

Central command post of Russian strategic missile forces was also targeted by a drone.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
That Russian base should be a favorite target since the GPS jammed drones will end up in the neighborhoods of the elites.


30 May: Mission Retribution. NO ONE EXPECTED SUCH RESULTS | War in Ukraine Explained
 
Last edited:
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
The State Duma proposed to take drones from the Russians
Russians who violate the rules for launching drones can have their drones confiscated. This proposal was made by a State Duma deputy from the United Russia faction Sergei Kolunov.

“If a person complies with all the requirements, namely not launching drones, why take them away? But the confiscation of the UAV in the event that a person was caught launching it and violated the established prohibitions can be introduced, ” Sergey Kolunov told the Podmoskovye Segodnya online publication . After the drone attack on the Kremlin, a number of Russian regions were banned from launching drones. There is a fine for violating the restriction.

In early May, the Kremlin was attacked by two drones . Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the attack was an assassination attempt on Putin. Peskov added that the Kremlin considers the attack a terrorist act . After that, the launch of aircraft was banned in many regions of Russia .
ura-news.translate.goog

В Госдуме предложили забирать у россиян беспилотники

Читайте на URA.RU
ura-news.translate.goog ura-news.translate.goog

Germany justified Ukraine for attacking Moscow with drones
The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), from the point of view of international law, can strike at Russia. This was stated by the official representative of the German government, Steffen Hebestreit, during a briefing, commenting on the strikes on Moscow on May 30.

“I gave an assessment not of the actual attack [of Ukrainian drones on Moscow], but an assessment from the point of view of international law. International law considers such strikes legitimate,” said Steffen Hebeshtreit. His words are quoted by TASS. He answered the question about the use of Ukrainian weapons to attack Russian territories.

On the morning of May 30, Moscow was attacked by UAV drones. The Ministry of Defense said that eight aircraft were shot down. Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed that the Russian Federation will take mirror measures against Ukraine. So, Russia struck at the center of military intelligence in Kiev.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
The Ukrainians will end up surrounding the place and cutting off the Russians from escaping, if they blow it up, they will end up cleaning it up until they die of radiation sickness. There will be no fighting near the plant, but it will be cut off and surrounded and if the Russians there do anything stupid they will die there.


Ukraine War: 'Worse than Chernobyl': The nuclear power plant where workers fear disaster

33,641 views May 31, 2023 #powerplant #zaporizhzhia #nuclearpowerplant
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was taken under Russia control in March 2022, becoming one of the first major areas to be captured by Vladimir Putin's forces.

People who work at the plant say they are intimidated by Russian troops to keep quiet about what's happening behind closed doors, fearing "devastation" on a scale "worse than Chernobyl".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top