The Ukraine Situation

[raptor9]

I am sure that people know me well enough to know that there was no disrespect in this. I love the Ukraine and it's people, having been there.

[Canberra TT.18]

https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/statem ... to-ukraine

Interesting
No number of aircraft is mentioned.

[Pune]

I am sure that people know me well enough to know that there was no disrespect in this. I love the Ukraine and it's people, having been there.

No disrespect at all and amusing, keep smiling

[seven]

https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/statem ... to-ukraine

Interesting
No number of aircraft is mentioned.

'All their', so 23 or so previously mentioned IIRC.

Edit, they also suggest other NATO MiG users do the same. So one wonders if Slovakia and Bulgaria will get the same deal.

[binbrook87]

A promising move. Who else can supply the same? Bulgaria, Slovakia? What would be the chances of any other non NATO or non European countries to do the same perhaps?

[Thunder]

I fear this may be a move too far, supplying defensive weapons is one thing but providing combat a/c will not go un noticed or be accepted by Moscow by any means. A step closer to a larger scale war, which obviously the Russians can't fight conventionally, and may result in them unleashing the unthinkable.

[XWP29]

It’s an offer from Poland, not a signed up deal. It’s been in the news for a few days. Not sure what’s different other than an official offer from Poland. If it was a done deal there’s no joint announcement?

[page_verify]

Poland has made an announcement this evening, so new news. First example of an article I could find is here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... us-ukraine

The suggested approach is very clever - who would Russia attack in retaliation and why? Poland is purely supplying its aircraft to the US by moving them to a US air base in Germany. If the US wants to repaint them and make them magically appear at Ukrainian air bases - all Russia could conclude is that Ukraine seems to have move Migs than it thought. Not that Poland or the US is overtly supplying arms to Ukraine.

[XWP29]

Smoke and no mirrors offer. Any attack on a NATO country is an attack on all.
Be interesting to see the US reply to it.

[Thunder]

Except that the whole World now knows about the deal, so Russia don’t need to come to any conclusion.

As for who would they attack? That is the scary bit, as I don’t think Putin would really care or genuinely think it through fully before launching an attack against any country whether a NATO member or not that is providing assistance. In Putins eyes it would be justifiable just like he thought 2 weeks ago. He’s being pushed into a corner with very little to lose, like he said last week “what’s a World when Russia isn’t part of it”.

[Thunder]

According to BBC news neither Poland or the US seems to know what’s going on with this.

[slogen51]

NATO Treaty Article 5

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.

So , Hypothetically Russia attacks Estonia . How far would we the people , given the choice be prepared to go to protect and restore the way of life in Estonia? The EU/UK general population don't get a say in NATO enlargement and also continued NATO membership is not rubber-stamped every 10 years or so by a democratic process.

I realize as members of FC and enthusiasts of NATO aviation we have a passing understanding of NATO and it's objectives but but how many other people even know what countries are members of NATO and even where they are and what Article 5 means? We are learning now.

Don't misunderstand me I think NATO is a beneficial organisation providing a means of keeping peace and cooperation in the North Atlantic region. But the NATO enlargement subsequent to the break up of the Soviet Union is worthy of public debate.

NATO is very expensive for the tax payer and has to be fit for purpose - if we can't protect a small nation neighbouring Russia because of the risk of nuclear war, then the country in question is theoretically only receiving the reciprocal protection i.e Russia won't invade because of the risk of nuclear war! But what happens if Russia does attack - will the good people of Surbiton want to risk all out war to protect another former Soviet territory?

Just a question as I don't know my own position. Maybe try to drive Russian forces out of Estonia (for example) by ground troops and targeted airstrikes without moving in to Russian lands.

It seems like a bizarre form of catch 22 - 'the one for all and all for one' protection only works if nobody moves!

[Thunder]

Unfortunately the nuclear deterrent is just that. In my opinion the rapid expansion of NATO Eastwards during the last 20yrs has been against the ethos of what it was set up to do and has been counter productive to the point where it has in fact now put itself in a very precarious position. There are two sayings that I think are pretty apt “ you’re only as strong as your weakest link” and “the bigger you are, the harder you fall”.

As much as we may want to get involved militarily in Ukraine, unfortunately it’s just not an option, providing defensive aid and by all accounts humanitarian aid is as far as we should go. Hopefully the sanctions that are being imposed on Russia by the World, will cause an ousting of Putin from within.

[plmc135]

I don't think you will find that the UK population are quite as ignorant about NATO as you are making out. Did you know what Article 5 said before looking it up? Let us not start hypothesising about what may happen and concentrate on the present.

The Polish Mig deal seems to have been discounted. Greece and Turkey, both full NATO members do not exactly border on to the North Atlantic.

[page_verify]

NATO has provided a level of European stability not seen for a long time as it's had three purposes:

deterring Soviet expansionism
forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent
encouraging European political integration

We hear most now about its role as a deterrent against Russia trying to recreate the Soviet Union, but we shouldn't overlook how Europe has has its most peaceful 70 years since NATO was formed. Nevertheless, I suspect your question points to its value right now.

Let's look at recent events. Russia is invading a non-NATO country yet we've seen NATO confirm its collective ambition to deter Russian aggression in its backyard never mind in any of its members' countries. Germany has made defence commitments in the last two weeks it'd put off for two decades. Some NATO countries have tried to push the boundaries of what NATO can do without committing it to a near-peer conflict. But, I'm conscious a lot of this above and beyond action and support has come from Europe's most troubled and vulnerable nations - Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania.

Would Russia get such a response if it invaded Estonia? I suspect many NATO countries are doing as much right now to convince themselves it would as Russia.

[page_verify]

As much as we may want to get involved militarily in Ukraine, unfortunately it’s just not an option

It is an option, but one not currently being considered as the disadvantages outnumber the advantages. But what if the security of millions or nuclear assets becomes intolerable, or Russia uses chemical weapons or starts shelling into NATO countries etc. etc. There will be red lines on someone's planning page.

[Thunder]

What nuclear assets would that be?

If Russia started shelling into a NATO country then that no longer confines the conflict to the Ukraine, so not understanding that point.

[page_verify]

What nuclear assets would that be?

Ukraine has 15 nuclear power plants.

[Thunder]

Ah ok, just when you said millions of nuclear assets I thought I was missing something. It’s 15 reactors over 4 plants.

[Alf]

What nuclear assets would that be?

Ukraine has 15 nuclear power plants.

It actually has 4 plus the "decommissioned' Chernobyl. Each power station has multiple reactors which is where I think your 15 comes from.