The invasion is a Week Old...Part 7

[Damnloginpopup]

Unbelievable. Thread 6 is almost full, to be found here : www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4495271-The-Invasion-is-ongoing-Part-6?pg=1

Still a fascinating and thoughtful set of documentation of our evolving thoughts, fears, questions, analyses and updates. And still a credit to the eyes, ears and knowledge of those on here.

Pinched from one poster on thread 6 whose name I can't recall:

Latest claims from both sides about casualties
Ukraine's army regularly puts out updates on the damage it says it's inflicting on Russian forces, which continue to press on key cities, particularly in the south.

We should stress that the BBC can't verify this information, but the latest update from the General Staff of the Armed Forces says that approximately 9,000 Russian personnel have been killed or wounded.

It also says Ukrainian forces have destroyed:

217 tanks
90 artillery systems
31 helicopters
30 planes or other aircraft
For its part, Russia yesterday for the first time gave a specific number for casualties it had suffered in Ukraine, saying 498 Russian soldiers had died and nearly 1,600 had been wounded.

It said it had killed 2,870 Ukrainian soldiers and "nationalists".

@elephantmarchingin - I asked this question earlier today and nobody seemed to answer it properly.
The treaty is very short form. An international lawyer would have to comment.
As there have been 8 invocations of Article 4 this is a current conflict. I would say a country going out on its own offensive would contravene the spirit of the treaty, for example, they would contravene:
“Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

If you are in breach of the treaty, presumably the other members do not have to observe it anymore. But as a matter of contract law I think one breach does not stop other clauses still applying in theory unless it is a fundamental breach when the contract is rescinded, at least under English law.
There is nothing specific to state what happens if this were the case. I assume it has never been tested in real life.

Simple - NATO fears Russia.

No, NATO fears nuclear war with the madman in control of Russia.

Anyone sensible fears Nuclear war

The difference between Kosovo and Ukraine is that Serbia didn't have nuclear weapons.

But yes NATO is not purely defensive, there is also Afghanistan and Libya.

@alltheapples your posts highlight the crux of the matter well!

@yeahthat thank you for your reply but can you link the actual essay? I can just see commentaries. When I click on the essay it appears to have been removed. Thanks

@dreamingbohemian

The difference between Kosovo and Ukraine is that Serbia didn't have nuclear weapons.

But yes NATO is not purely defensive, there is also Afghanistan and Libya.

Afghanistan was allegedly defensive.

I must admit...I do set store by star signs actually.

@Notoironing thanks

And Libya was under UN Mandate.

FatFreds I was referring to the ISAF mission after the original invasion. That was not defensive.

Though interesting ly NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever after 9/11

Libya was authorised but not defensive

m.jpost.com/international/article-699357/amp

Zelensky has avoided three assassination attempts this week. What is very interesting about this article is that it seems to say an attempt was foiled by anti war Russians ??

@dreamingbohemian

FatFreds I was referring to the ISAF mission after the original invasion. That was not defensive.

Though interesting ly NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time ever after 9/11

The ISAF mission was under a UN mandate.

@FatFredsFriedEgg

The Minsk Agreement came after the Russian invasion.

You said that Russia invaded. I said that the footage shot over a period of a year doesn't reflect the chicken egg scenario you suggested. Hope that is clearer now.

The Minsk agreement came after quite a lot of fighting from both sides

twitter.com/SkyAndyHughes/status/1499863194575200268
Sky journalist team attacked by Russian gun men.

@dreamingbohemian

Libya was authorised but not defensive

Quite - it's either/or. Defending another member or by UN mandate.

@alltheapples

A country led by a dictator has invaded a democratic country. That is all we need to know.

Totally agree. We're not the bad guys here

Having missed about 30 odd pages it seems that the thread still includes posts going on ‘..but NATO’ and ‘…but Azov’.

Still, Putin/Russia are bombing the sh*t of Ukraine killing thousands and making 1 million homeless and stateless, separating families and creating a crisis with starving citizens, parents watching their children dying, and children left without parents. Are you not watching the news?

But yeah, NATO.

@derxa

twitter.com/SkyAndyHughes/status/1499863194575200268 Sky journalist team attacked by Russian gun men.

Fucking hell, must be terrifying to be journalists there

You said that Russia invaded. I said that the footage shot over a period of a year doesn't reflect the chicken egg scenario you suggested. Hope that is clearer now.

Well, no. It was part of Ukraine and it still would be without Russian interference - unless Ukraine agreed otherwise. That's how countries work.

[quote aweekoldnow]@yeahthat thank you for your reply but can you link the actual essay? I can just see commentaries. When I click on the essay it appears to have been removed. Thanks[/quote]
www.rusemb.org.uk/article/708

• I'm still puzzled by the close the sky.i get they are desperate but closing the sky equates to war.

I've seen the plane problems getting them to Ukraine and pilots to fly them.

So what about drones?

Flying drone's over tanks?

Agree all the apples.