Dwesa posted:

isn't it still just Senate proposal?

Tigey posted:

Certain parties in the US may be willing to make these symbolic political gestures that they consider an incident like that to be a red line that is Article 5 worthy, but would all of NATO? Would Germany, or France do so?

Gejnor posted:

Uh.. Maybe, just maybe, they would care even more since a nuke or a busted nuclear power plant would irradiate Germany, France, potentially all of Europe too if the winds are right?

If they do nothing, they could also very well be next.. i.. i do not understand your way of thinking here honestly.

Tiny Timbs posted:

Yes, that's the idea behind it but it's far from a given that a country like Germany would actually be willing to enter a full-scale confrontation over an environmental disaster like that.

Gejnor posted:

I just think its more likelier that a country or set of countries in the immediate area would have an easier chance of responding to this than a nation that is , essentially, outside of the zone of consequences.

mobby_6kl posted:

I don't see how you could pass a national law to make it trigger Art 5. You'd need to amend the NATO treaty.

Just give Poopin an ultimatum to GTFO, like with Saddam.

Gejnor posted:

Uh.. Maybe, just maybe, they would care even more since a nuke or a busted nuclear power plant could irradiate Germany, France, potentially all of Europe too if the winds are right?

If they do nothing, they could also very well be next.. i.. i do not understand your way of thinking here honestly.

Tigey posted:

Where did I say they wouldn't care? Of course they would be extremely concerned, and worried about the (literal) fallout.

But would they care enough to consider it a direct attack, requiring a military response? That could lead to a nuclear exchange? Some countries might, but would enough?

Countries like Germany might be willing to take some action, like ramping up more sanctions, condemnations, weapon shipments. But would Germany be 100% willing to go to war with Russia over an incident in a non-NATO where the circumstances were murky and unclear? Where there are a lot of narratives flying about that it was an accident, that Ukraine did it, etc?

This is why you don't create red lines you aren't sure you are willing or able to back up.

Tigey posted:

Solovyov is such an insincere opportunist that I genuinely believe if the West offered him amnesty and a comfy role producing anti-Russian propaganda on a major Western news network, he'd take it in a heartbeat.

Alan Smithee posted:

wonder if we can get bobo to vote for it if crossshitfit won't

CommissarMega posted:

Tucker goes to Russia, Solovyev goes to the West, nothing is lost, nothing is gained.

Tiny Timbs posted:

The point is that they're the ones at the front line and thus would bear the most responsibility and risk of enacting Article 5. The stakes are higher for them and they won't necessarily follow unilateral decision-making by the US.

mllaneza posted:

It's a Senate resolution, totally non-binding. What it is is a very strong show of support for Ukraine.

And bobo and MTG aren't Senators (thank all that is holy) so they have nothing to do with this.

Gejnor posted:

I have to say, i think this is a very American-centric way of thinking, yes Euopean nations would be worried, but a lot of them also have modern historical beef with Russia and have been waiting for a way to pay them back directly.

For a lot of them, this would be the last straw.

CommissarMega posted:

Tucker goes to Russia, Solovyev goes to the West, nothing is lost, nothing is gained.

Tiny Timbs posted:

We got a dose of the Euro-centric thinking early in 2022 when Germany was prevaricating on a response because they had utterly entangled themselves with the Russian energy industry.

Anders posted:

I think the point is that it's a sizable pro-putin russian dispora...


... but I think most of them was the dispora before the war broke out. I know a Ukrainan boomer who have lived in Scandinavia for a decade that's all in favor of Russia (she's from the east) - but she doesn't represent Russians that fled from Russia thanks to the war

Vengarr posted:

Article 5 can be invoked by any member and requires a response from all parties to the treaty. This would just make it official that “yes, the US would invoke Article 5 if you do this.”

In reality Poland would have a better case, as the radioactive material would be decorating their front lawn.

quote:

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.

quote:

Article 4

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Horrorosaurus posted:

I have a Ukrainian friend who's lived in Finland for most of his life now. His dad was some kind of mafia type person and died well before the war or occupation of Crimwa. He came here with her grandma and her mother.

They own property in Ukraine. Not rich, but still doing better than most. He oftentimes tells me how her grandmother is kinda alone here, hasn't settled in. All she watches is the Russian state tv. She's all for the invasion, hates her own country and believes whatever the Russian state tv says.

What weirded me out was how he himself would oftentimes refer to Putin as a great example of a strong leader. The tone has changed now, and he's more for Prigozhin nowadays. He doesn't buy the state tv propaganda but hates his own country for being "a corrupt piece of poo poo". It's sometimes baffling to hear.

Reminds me, I should ask him how he would feel if the counter offensive proved successful. But all in all there's a really strange divide there. The guy isn't exactly "for" Russia but just hates his own country and sees no future in it. He's smart, well read etc all without education but denies any hope of Ukraine being a stable western country.

fizzy posted:

Discouraging news for Ukraine - Putinist "Western officials" are downplaying Ukrainian successes in the counter-offensive

BrassRoots posted:

Wagner leadership ... hammer

Dwesa posted:

Girkin's response to Prigozhin, says oligarchs don't want war, calls him traitor + some antisemitism

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1672239980347785216

Edit:

putinists downplaying... come on

Tai posted:

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1672224405273952260

Why the long face Solo? I thought you've smashed 400+ tanks in the last couple of weeks and Rybar keeps reporting that Russia is holding the line and capturing settlements.

If you're so worried about death how about you loving leave you hypocritical rich gently caress.

bad_fmr posted:

bad_fmr posted:

mobby_6kl posted:

I don't see how you could just pass a resolution to make an attack on a Ukrainian NPP fall under this, even if you can (maybe?) technically invoke the article if you just feel like it. Everyone else has to agree with it. So seems pretty dumb, which is not surprising if it's coming from the Lindsey Graham. Article 4 would make more senes.