Ukraine IS permitted to fire back in self defence when its border is the front line with Russia - and it does NOT make its suppliers combatants
Ukraine’s fundamental right for self defence under the UN Charter
This is to help people understand why it is very safe for the UK and likely eventually the US to permit Ukraine to fire weapons across the border into Russia. Ukraine has every right to do this. Under article 59 of the UN Charter, Ukraine has a right to self defense if it is attacked by an invader. So it is
NORMAL and NOT ESCALATORY for Ukraine to fire its weapons back over the border into Russia when Russia makes its border into a front line in the war.
NORMAL and NOT ESALATORY for Ukraine's weapons suppliers to permit it to fire back over its border when its border is a front line.
This is just Ukraine exercising its legitimate right to self defence under the UN charter.
Russia on the other hand has
NO RIGHT under the UN charter to fire missiles at Ukraine
That is because Russia is the aggressor that attacked Ukraine and Russia is not under attack from Ukraine. More on this later.
Video: Ukraine IS permitted to fire back in self defence when its border is the front line with Russia
According to the New York Times, the US administration is currently debating whether to let Ukraine use its shells and other missiles across the border to hit targets in Russia. The UK already told Ukraine to go ahead over a week ago.
So why is this coming up now, over two years into the war?
What happened is that Russia is that for the first time since 2022, Russia has attacked Ukraine from across the border in Russia. This makes the border of Ukraine into a front line in the war. All the other front lines are well inside Ukraine.
By attacking Ukraine across its border with Russia in Karkhiv oblast, Russia has made this border into a front line in the war. Then the big change since 2022 is that Ukraine has transitioned almost entirely to the NATO shells. It has used up just about all its Soviet era shells. So it has no shells left to fire back except the US ones.
This then highlights how bizarre the US restrictions are on how Ukraine uses its missiles.
It makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to prohibit Ukraine from firing weapons across the front line with an invading country when the invader is attacking it across its border with Ukraine. There is nothing in international law, nothing in the UN charter, nothing ethically and nothing politically that makes the USA a combatant for supplying Ukraine with weapons it needs for its legitimate right for self defence under article 51.
This analogy with the US war against Canada in 1812 may help you see how bizarre it is to set such a rule
.
Text on graphic: When the USA invaded Canada to "liberate" the Canadians in 1812, should the British have prohibited the Canadians from firing their 12 pounder canons across the border into the USA?
12 pounder Howitzer as used in the 1812 war between USA and Canada.
Range 25 to 1,100 yards.
Of course not. The Canadians who were firing back at the Americans weren't attacking the USA. They were just defending Canada.
In the same way, when Ukrainians fire across the border in Kharkiv oblast, this is defensive and not escalatory.
Background photos: Soo Locks-Sault-Ste Marie.png - Wikimedia Commons and War of 1812 cannon photo by Mark Sardella
Artillery range from War of 1812 Issue 12
This is about how the war started in July 1812 as a war to liberate Canadians from Britain:
With thousands of American troops under his command, American General William Hull invaded Upper Canada at Sandwich (present-day Windsor), proclaiming his invasion as liberating the Canadians. However, his army quickly turned the inhabitants against it by looting farms and burning homes.
It’s not an exact analogy. The British also invaded USA in many times during the war, even after the war was over when it took point Peter in the St Mary’s river between the signing of the treaty and ratification.
. Battle of New Orleans - Wikipedia
. Battle of Fort Peter - Wikipedia
Similarly, the distance from Vovschank to Russia is only 5 kilometers
.
EXT ON GRAPHIC: If Russian artillery here fires shells into Vovschank here, Ukrainian soldiers with M777 howitzers with a range of 30 kilometers currently have to stop them down to less than 5 kilometers range to prevent the shells from crossing the border to hit the artillery in Russia.
Ukraine has every right to fire back under the UN charter as an invaded country.
Background graphic: Vovchans'k · Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine
Article 51 does NOT give the invading troops sanctuary in the invading country. It is illegal for Putin to invade Ukraine under the UN charter. But it is legal for Ukraine to fight back and attack Russian soldiers that are invading it.
So this has got the UN Charter back to front
Russia as the invader is the country that should be prohibited from attacking Ukraine.
Ukraine as the defender is the country that has a legitimate right to self defense to fire its missiles at the invading country Russia.
Ukraine ALWAYS stops at the international border. Two years ago, 16th May 2022, the Ukrainians pushed Russia back away from Karkhiv city and reached the border with Belgorod oblast. They carried a Ukrainian post with them and put it in the ground at the same point as the international border iwth Russia. Story about it here: ukrainian-troops-defending-kharkiv-reach-state-border-with-russia-governor-2022-05-16
Text on graphic: Ukrainian soldiers replacing its former border post with Russia after liberating part of Kharkiv oblast on May 16 2022.
Unlike the counterattacks by Canada in the 1812 war when the USA invaded Canada to “liberate” it from the British, Ukraine ALWAYS stops at the international border between Russia and Ukraine. It never tries to take even 1 meter of Russian territory.
Back then Ukraine had an opportunity if it so wished to try to push a bit further into Russia and take even a few 10s of meters of Russian territory and it didn't do that.
In the entire war Ukraine has never once tried to take ANY of the Russian territory in Belgorod oblast.
That’s the main difference. But it’s close enough to hopefully help American readers to understand why it isn’t escalatory for Ukraine to defend itself by firing over the border into Russia.
Ukraine is not the invader. It is the defender only, defending itself against attack.
Putin with his propaganda tries to frame it as an attempt by NATO to attack Russia. But this fails the most basic fact check as NATO countries weren’t helping Ukraine even in its fighting against the separatists in Donbas in any way. The USA supplied Ukraine with a few Javelin anti-tank missiles only useful against an invasion by tanks. Very shortly before Russia invaded, Lithuania and Latvia also supplied some Stinger anti-aircraft missiles only useful against low flying attacking fighter jets and helicopters, neither of those of any use in Donbas.
Putin made yet another of his very bizarre bluffs. He claimed that Russia will attack the UK if the UK gives permission to Ukraine to use its stormshadow cruise missiles against targets in Russia
It is just a bluff and nonsensical. Russia will do absolutely nothing if Ukraine starts to use US M777 Howitzers to fire shells across the Russian border which is also currently the front line between Russia and Ukraine.
So this is not dangerous at all. Putin's bluff isn't to be taken seriously. NATO is very cautious.
Many military experts and politicians are all reminding us that Ukraine has a legitimate right to defend itself under the UN Charter including:
Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO
Mike Johnson, speaker of the house
Boris Johnson, ex UK prime minister
David Cameron another ex UK prime minister and current UK foreign minister.
and many other military experts are all saying it is safe, not escalatory and the only sensible thing for the USA to do.
I will describe the legal and military situation first. But because of all the false and confusing claims in the sensationalist press, the people I help struggle with the basic concept that it is not escalatory to fire back across the border into Russia. So I’ll use a historical example first to help make this clear.
I have done this graphic to help you see how bizarre and silly his bluff is, as always.
UKRAINE DOES NOT ATTACK CIVILIANS IN RUSSIA
This is Russian propaganda to try to stop the US and other countries from giving it the missiles it needs for legitimate self defense. Sadly someone on the staff of the New York Times fell for that propaganda. It got this image from Getty Images which mislabeled the photograph as the result of an attack by Ukraine. That label in turn was based on Russian propaganda.
Open source analysis after that showed that it is likely the result of a Russian bomber accidentally dropping a glide bomb over Belgorod city. It is not the first time Russian bombers have accidentally dropped bombs over Russian territory. It has happened quite often in the war but this time it was particularly destructive. Not intentional, just a mistake or some problem with maintenance or whatever.
Text on graphic: This photograph featured by the New York Times is VERY MISLEADING and RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
This shows the aftermath of a Russian glide bomb that one of its bombers accidentally dropped on a Russian apartment block in Belgorod.
Ukraine does NOT target Russian civilians - it wants permission to hit legitimate defensive targets in Russia. Such as the artillery firing shells at Vovschank from just over the border 5 kilometers away .
Tweet thread: Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) on X
There’s been a lot of discussion of this photograph on Twitter by experts who follow the war closely.
WHY IT DOESN’T MAKE THE USA INTO A COMBATANT TO SUPPLY WEAPONS TO UKRAINE THAT IT CAN FIRE ACROSS THE BORDER WHEN THE BORDER IS A FRONT LINE
If impossibly there was a similar war today would a country that supplied Canada with weapons to defend itself from the USA have to tell the Canadians that they can't use them to fire across the border into the USA? Of course not.
And if a country only supplied weapons to Canada but didn’t fight with Canada and it gave permission for Canada to use those weapons across the border, would that make that country a combatant? Of course not.
This is a very bizarre restriction indeed. You don’t normally require a country defending against an invader to only use your weapons against targets in its own country.
So it doesn't make the USA a combatant today if the USA tells Ukraine it can use its weapons to fire across the border into Ukraine.
Also, given how vastly outmatched Russia is by UK technologically and how Russia can only rarely move short distances against Ukraine, he does NOT want it to get involved in fighting Russia directly, he'd lose the war very fast if he did, its F-35s alone would give it total control of the Ukrainian air space in hours, and its Tomahawk cruise missiles would sink the entire Black Sea fleet soon after, and the war would quickly end after that in Ukraine's favour. He clearly won't do anything.
The reason Putin does these bluffs is precisely to try to STOP NATO sending even old NATO technology like ATACMS and F-16s from the 1970s and 1980s to Ukraine.
So the last thing he wants in reality is for the UK or any other NATO country to be directly involved And nukes can't win this war for Putin, they make no sense.
WHAT JENS STOLTENBERG SAID - THAT THIS IS JUST UKRAINE’S LEGITIMATE RIGHT FOR SELF DEFENSE TO FIRE ACROSS THE BORDER WHEN AN INVADING COUNTRY MAKES ITS BORDER INTO THE FRONT LINE IN THE WAR
Summary of what Jens Stoltenberg says based on his transcript:
1. Allies need to lift some restrictions on weapons given to Ukraine now that fighting is going on close to the border in Karkhiv.
2. It is very hard for Ukraine to defend itself if they are not permitted to use these weapons against targets in Russia.
3. Ukraine has the right to defend itself and that includes striking targets in Russian territory.
4. Some allies have already lifted this restriction including the UK and it is time for them all to lift it.
5. The US is the most important ally that needs to lift it.
6. In places in Karkhiv, the border between Russia and Ukraine is also the battlefield front line
7. If you don't give Ukraine permission to fire weapons over to the Russian side of the front line you make it far harder for Ukraine to defend itself.
8. Self defence is enshrined in the UN charter. It is legal and legitimate and NATO allies are helping Ukraine to uphold that right.
9. This should include the ability to hit legitimate defensive targets in Russian territory
.
Text on graphic: Self-defense is enshrined in the UN charter. It's legal it's legitimate and we are helping Ukraine with upholding that right and that should include the ability to also strike targets on Russian territory when they are military legitimate targets we're talking about.
In more detail:
TRANSCRIPT:
I think the time has come for allies to consider whether they should lift some of the restrictions they have put on the use of weapons they have donated to Ukraine especially now, when a lot of the fighting is going on in Kharkivr close to the border.
To deny Ukraine the possibility of using these weapons against legitimate military targets on Russian territory makes it very hard for them to defend themselves/
Q. So to be clear you're asking the US to lift the restrictions on the use of American weapons over Russian territory?
A. I believe the time has come for allies to consider whether should lift some of the restrictions that are imposed on weapons donated to Ukraine because we need to remember what this is this is a war aggression by Russia against Ukraine/
Ukraine has the right to defend themselves and that includes also striking targets on Russian territory.
Some allies have already lifted those restrictions allowing [Ukraine to use their weapons against milary Targets in Ukraine and I believe the time has come for all allies to consider this.
The UK has effectively lifted the restrictions and it is the US that's really the single most important one.
I think what we see now demonstrates the need to reconsider those restrictions not least because we have fighting going on along the border between Russia and Ukraine especially in the Kharkiv region where the front line and the borderline [between Russia and Ukraine] is more or less the same and then of course if you deny Ukraine the right to hit military Targets on uh Russian territory then you make it very hard for them to uphold the right for
self-defense.Self-defense is enshrined in the UN charter. It's legal it's legitimate and we are helping Ukraine with upholding that right and that should include the ability to also strike targets on Russian territory when they are military legitimate targets we're talking about.
Video: NATO’s boss wants to free Ukraine to strike inside Russia
Part of longer video: YouTube
This DOES NOT MAKE THE US INTO A COMBATANT. This is the MOST NORMAL THING TO DO. It is obvious that at some point the US will make this decision. Putin's threat is just more bluffs.
Putin will NOT ATTACK NATO IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE MIKE JOHNSON ON PREVENTING UKRAINE FIRING ACROSS THE BORDER - “They need to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us.”
Remember Mike Johnson was criticised for holding up the Ukraine bill? He is the last person to suggest USA does anything reckless in its support for Ukraine. He is not even that interested in the war and thinks the Mexican border is far more important. But he also agrees this restriction makes no sense.
SPEAKER: I think, they need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fits. They need to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us.
HELSINKI COMMISSION AND CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ALSO SAYING UKRAINE MUST BE PERMITTED TO FIGHT BACK ACROSS THE RUSSIAN BORDER FRONT LINE
Helsinki commission
Experts and bipartisan members of Congress agree: Ukraine must not only be allowed but encouraged to target military sites within Russian borders. 🇺🇦
. U.S. Helsinki Commission (@HelsinkiComm) on X
TWEET: Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee @RepMcCaul asks @SecBlinken whether the administration will lift the restrictions on how to use weapons provided to Ukraine.
“They cannot achieve victory with the restrictions you placed on them.”
BORIS JOHNSON
The UK made the announcement over a week ago now about permission for Ukraine to use the stormshadow against targets in Russia. I don't see any news about it actually being used yet but both Russia and Ukraine would likely keep it quiet if they did.
Boris Johnson here talks about how ridiculous it is that Russia is invading Ukraine and firing over the border into Ukraine and yet is trying to prevent Ukraine from firing back across its border to defend itself.
QUOTE Give the Ukrainians what they need. Give them the weapons, give them the authorization to use those weapons outside their own borders. Absolutely ludicrous that Ukrainians should be forbidden from doing what Putin is doing himself and attacking Ukrainian forces. Why on Earth shouldn't Ukrainians be able to attack Russian forces mustering on their borders?
As an example if a city happens to be right against the Russian border, Russia can attack it over the border and nobody in the city is permitted to fire back at their attackers until they cross the border even if they are firing hundreds of shells at the city every day. How does that make sense? It doesn't and doesn't correspond to anything in any international law or the Geneva conventions or the UN charter or anything.
It is basically Putin as a bully saying to Ukraine: "you can fight back but only if you tie one hand behind your back first".
All his red lines are like that. He would require Ukraine to go to battle with nineteenth century canons, or to use only horses and historically accurate reconstructions of Roman chariots and forbidden from even using a longbow if he felt he could get away with it.
And as soon as his red lines are ignored he ignores them too
.
Text on graphic: Reconstruction of Roman chariot.
Putin would require Ukraine to only use historically accurate Roman chariots in war if he felt he could get away with it.
His red lines are arbitrary and ludicrous in a modern war and he knows it. As soon as they are crossed he does nothing and ignores what he just said.
He has to ignore them because he is already escalating to the max and can’t use nukes.
Photo: Biga. Festa do esquecemento. Xinzo de Limia, Ourense, Galicia.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
As an example, the UK has given Ukraine permission already to use its Stormshadow cruise missile against Russia. Putin isn’t going to do anything about that.
Ukraine has often used the stormshadow against Crimea, including destroying one of Russia's diesel electric subs when in dry dock in Sevastopol harbour. In these photos the Conflict Intelligence Team shares photos they got of the hit. This was the first Russian nuclear sub destroyed for decades and it was destroyed by a missile made by the UK and supplied to Ukraine.
But it is Ukraine fired the missile, not the UK. So this didn’t make the UK a combatant in the war.
TWEET: CIT (en) (@CITeam_en) on X
About the submarine, the “Rostov on Don”: Russian submarine B-237 - Wikipedia . It was one of four submarines Russia uses to launch the Kalibr hypersonic missiles at Ukraine so was a legitimate defensive target.
Russia stopped protesting about the stormshadow and Ukraine using it against Crimea long ago.
Ukraine has been using the Stormshadow against Russia for over a year now. The UK confirmed delivering them on 11th May 2023. They would have spent some weeks or months training the Ukrainians to fly them in the UK before the delivery.
. UK confirms supply of Storm Shadow long-range missiles in Ukraine
THE UK AND USA ARE NOT COMBATANT AND WON’T BE - BUT POINT OF CLARITY - BEING A COMBATANT DOESN’T MEAN YOUR COUNTRY WILL BE TARGETED EITHER - BOTH THE USA AND UK HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN NUMEROUS WARS AS COMBATANTS AND NEVER ONCE TARGETED BACK
The UK is not a combatant and won't become a combatant. But to clarify, being a combatant doesn't mean your country will be targeted either.
The UK has been combatant in many wars both this century and last. It wasn't targeted in any of them, even the Falklands war which was UK territory off the coast of Argentina. The UK itself, as in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were never at any risk of being targeted, just the Falkland Isles.
Similarly, with the Vietnam war. Even with Russia supplying the other side of the war and training them, there was no possibility of the war extending to include the USA.
Similarly for the Iraq war, Kuwait war, the engagements in Syria etc etc. None of those ever involved combat in Europe or the Americas.
Even if UK ever did send troops to Ukraine it would still make no sense for Russia to attack UK Itself.
If Russia attacked UK< other NATO countries would be obligated to help UK if it asked for their help, which is the last thing Russia would want to happen.
Even if UK or US troops were fighting on the front line against Russia - never going to happen - it would still make no sense for Russia to target the UK or US rather than to target soldiers in Ukraine.
But the UK and US are not combatants in any way.
WHY RUSSIA WILL NEVER ATTACK NATO - BECAUSE NATO IS VASTLY MORE POWERFUL LIKE A MIDGET ATTACKING A MAMMOTH WITH SOAP BUBBLES
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
NASA, huge and powerful but very timid
Russia knows it can't use nukes in reality
Russia tiny and weak, bluffs as meaningless as soap bubbles
Even the Soviet Union had no way to win a war with nukes
Imagine if your team was invisible - how easily you could win a game of football.
That is how much better NATO's F-35 jets are than anything Russia has.
300+ F-35s (USA), 100+ F-35s (Europe).
Russia's 5th generation fighter jet is not ready for war and may never be (expensive technology to develop).
NATO's technology is vastly superior (one of many ways)
NATO: Population 967 million
[it's 631 million leaving out USA]
Russia: Population 144 million
NATO: 3.5 million soldiers
Russia: 1.32 million soldiers
Ukraine: 900,000 soldiers
US defence spending $883.7 billion, 3% of GDP
NATO European allies $380 billion, 2% of GDP
Russia: $112 billion, 6% of GDP.
Ukraine: $43.23 billion, 22.1% of GDP
Based on this image created by Dall-E via Bing Chat Generated by Microsoft Copilot
American football photo from: US Navy 090608-N-3283P-018 The Yokosuka Seahawks face off against the Yokohama Harbors during the U.S. Forces Japan-American Football league at Yokosuka Field - Wikimedia Commons
Putin head from this graphic flipped Vladimir Putin (2017-01-17)
Details for the figures on the graphic, see
[if it doesn’t jump to the section search the page for “mammoth” or look under world war in the left menu]
LEGAL SITUATION - THE UK, US, FRANCE, AND OTHER NATO COUNTRIES, DO NOT SUPPORT UKRAINE UNDER THE NATO TREATY AS NATO IS NOT BEING ATTACKED - THEY ALL SUPPORT UKRAINE UNDER THE UN CHARTER - AND UK AND US UNDER THE BUDAPEST MEMORANDUM
NATO countries DO NOT SUPPORT UKRAINE UNDER NATO. They can only use NATO to support other countries in NATO.
Instead they support Ukraine under the UN charter article 51, the right for individual or collective self defence against an armed attack.
Ukraine has the legal right to individual self defence.
Other countries have the right to supply Ukraine with whatever is needed to defend itself by way of weapons.
QUOTE STARTS
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
It is Russia is breaking the UN Charter here not Ukraine.
In addition, when Ukraine gave its nukes back to Russia after it split from the Soviet Union it agreed to that on condition that the Soviet Union, UK, US, and France all agreed to support it against any attack by an invading country.
This is the Budapest memorandum.
Russia broke that agreement when it invaded Ukraine using the excuse that it doesn't consider the current government of Ukraine to be the same government it signed the agreement with.
But UK, and US see themselves as bound by the Budapest memorandum to help Ukraine
.
Budapest memorandum 1994 Ukraine gave all its nukes back to Russia. In return Russia, UK and USA all agreed not to attack or threaten Ukraine and gave security assurances if it is attacked (but not a mutual defence pact like NATO) Clockwise from top left, flags of Russia, UK, Ukraine and USA.
[the security assurances were only for a situation where nuclear weapons or a threat of nuclear weapons is used Text of the Budapest agreement]
So UK and US are committed to help Ukraine fight against Russia under a memorandum that Russia itself signed after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
This is why UK, and US have been especially vocal in support of Ukraine.
Other countries like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany etc are supporting Ukraine with weapons to defend itself under the UN charter.
Article 51 does NOT give an invader sanctuary for missile systems, soldiers etc on the invader's territory that are attacking the invaded country. Nothing in international law gives an invading country any protection against defensive counterattacks by the country it invades.
Here is a video of Russian cars stopping to wait for a Russian Grad to complete shelling Ukraine from Russia with unguided Grad missiles with a range of up to 50 kilometers.
https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/status/1790714542780989676
If this Grad system was in Ukraine, Ukraine could destroy it with HiMARS or even with the M777 howitzers as soon as it starts firing.
Because it is just over the border in Russia firing into Ukrainian cities just over the border, the Ukrainian commanders are not permitted to hit it with the M777s.
UK has already given Ukraine permission to use its weapons to fire back in situations like this but it hasn't supplied Ukraine with the sorts of weapons suitable over a short range like this. The Stormshadow cruise missile is far too expensive to use against a single Grad.
But the US could change Ukraine's situation overnight by giving them permission to use M777 howitzers and US supplied shells against the Grad.
Russia would do nothing in return. Putin is just bluffing yet again. In reality the last thing he would do is to attack a NATO country.
A NATO COUNTRY NEVER HAS TO COUNTERATTACK - ALL IT HAS TO DO IS TO PREVENT ANY ATTACK - THE COMMITMENT ENDS ONCE THE ATTACK STOPS
The NATO charter is not currently active for Ukraine. But there is so much confusion and frankly bulls**t said about the NATO charter so I think it helps to clear this up too.
If Russia attacked a NATO country then this would give that country the right under NATO to call for collective self defence. NATO countries would immediately send a small army of up to 40,000 in the rapid response force of soldiers, pilots and ships as needed with the first 20,000 or so arriving quickly within days, some within hours. E.g. suppose Russia attacked the small
Which is NOT offensive, is defensive it would do whatever is needed to stop the attack. When Russia stops attacking a NATO country the situation is over and there is no commitment to counterattack under NATO.
So that is a short summary,
So for instance if Russia ever actually kills a NATO general or admiral or visiting head of state in Ukraine or anyone in the military defense industry there to advise Ukraine or instruct them, then this is NOT an attack on NATO.
By article 6. It only counts as an attack on NATO in the sense of article 5 if it is an attack on NATO territory - or an attack on planes flying over NATO territory at the time of the attack or an attack on ships sailing through the coastal waters of a NATO country etc.
[Argentina's attack on the Falkland Isles didn't count because it's not in the North Atlantic area and so isn't NATO territory]
QUOTE STARTS
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 5 also is only about whatever action the attacked country deems fit or its allies DEEMS NECESSARY. It is not a commitment to do anything particular and the commitment ends once the attack is repelled / ends.
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.
To take an example, if Russia tried to capture Narva, a very small extension of Estonia that is between Russia and the Baltic sea, other NATO states respond in whatever way they deem necessary and that could take a while.
But right away, NATO has a 40,000 strong rapid response force that all the NATO allies are committed to support. It rotates from year to year with different countries responsible for filling the numbers but if Russia attacked any NATO country then within a few days there'd be 20,000 soldiers, rapidly building up to 40,000 all automatically. For sure Russia isn't going to attack with enough soldiers to defeat 40,000 in the Ukraine war - and many more would follow.
And NATO plans to increase that response force to 300,000 which means that within days it can have enough soldiers to stop a 900,000 strong Russian army given the ratio of 3 to 1 needed for defence / attack.
But that doesn't take account of the superior NATO technology. The missiles, air defences, fighter jets, everything is vastly superior to what Russia has at present and Russia with its weaker economy and the need to pay for the war too just doesn't have resources to compete with advanced technology and will stay behind
Russia does have the advantage of testing its technology in actual warfare - but so also does NATO through reports from Ukraine of how well its technology works.
So NATO also is doing rapid improvements of its technology too based on reports from Ukraine of what works and doesn’t in a war with Russia, even though not a combatant.
So there is no way Russia can catch up with never mind overtake the US / NATO technology.
The US has had a mature fifth generation fighter for many years now. Russia still hasn't managed to bring its 5th generation fighter to combat readiness. While the US is working on its highly secret 6th generation fighter for 2030.
. Next Generation Air Dominance Programme, US
Perhaps by 2030 Russia will have its 4th generation fighter jet.
Russia has plenty of brilliant scientists. The issue is the low GDP, the lack of funding and the corruption of the oligarchs syphoning away funding.
THE PROPOSAL FOR POLAND TO SHOOT DOWN MISSILES HEADED OVER UKRAINE TOWARDS POLAND IS GRAY AREA AND NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN
The reason Poland wants to shoot down cruise missiles over Ukraine is because
we don’t know how the cruise missile is programmed, they can be preprogrammed to follow a complex flight path
it can never know if it is programmed mistakenly for Poland.
If Poland shoots down missiles over Ukraine it is Poland firing the missiles.
if it is self defence it doesn’t make Poland a combatant.
if the self defence also protects Lviv because it is right next to the border- does that make Poland a combatant?
That is why it is gray area.
NOTHING GRAY AREA ABOUT UKRAINE FIRING MISSILES OVER A FRONT LINE INTO RUSSIA, IT IS TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUSLY JUST SELF DEFENSE
But there is no gray area with Ukraine using US shells against Russia. It doesn't make the UK a combatant and it is just the UK upholding Ukraine's legitimate right to self defense as enshrined in article 51 of the UN charter. There is nothing gray area at all, it is totally self defence by Ukraine as the only combatant fighting Russia.
So the answer is that the two situations seem similar to you due to not being familiar with thse details But Jens Stoltenberg will be very familiar with all this and for him as for Russia also they are totally different situations. The Poland one is grey area as to whether Poland is a combatant or just legitimate self defence. Poland isn't being reckless here. It knows that Russia would only respond by stopping firing missiles, it wouldn't try to hit Poland. So it's another example of NATO being hyper-cautious.
The Karkhiv one is unequivocally just Ukrainian self defence as the only combatant.
PUTIN WILL NEVER USE NUKES
Putin is never going to use nukes, he only uses them rhetorically as bluffs
Putin cares about many things. He has a vision of a future Russian empire and of himself as a type of Tsar figure. He doesn't care in the usual way about individual Rusisans, but many ordinary Russians too have a tradition from the past of doing as their tsar says to do and of sacrificing their lives to follow his commands.
Putin cares about Russianness, Faberge eggs the Russian culture and buildings and art and music
.
Putin cares about Russia - Russian culture and buildings and artefacts and "Russianness". He is like a modern day Tsar If he uses nukes, Russia will be harmed Saint Basil#s Cathederal and part of the Red Square, Moscow . Saint Basil's Cathedral and the Red Square
Putin cares about the imperial Faberge eggs of former Tsars - rosebud egg, one of nine eggs, total price $100 million bought for Russia by an oligarch friend Viktor Vekselberg and displayed in Faberge Museum, in Saint Petersburg
Putin wouldn't be president of Russia if he didn't care, he'd buy a comfortable home like a Russian oligarch and retire from politics. I talk about this here:
He would lose everything he has been working for his entire life if he used a nuke. Even just one tactical nuke in Ukraine and he sees his Black Sea Fleet sunk by neat precise conventional bombs delivered by the NATO tomahawk missiles which he can't stop, and which NATO hasn't provided to Ukraine. That would be utterly humiliating to him.
He'd lose even neutral support from India and China and Russia would become a rogue nation.
And he wouldn't win. And it wouldn't lead to a global nuclear war.
Yes Putin said he wouldn't invade and did invade. But that is different from his threats to use nukes. He invaded because he expected a quick success. He made a mistake there. But there is no way he can believe that using a nuke would lead to a quick success. That wouldn't be a miscalculation, that would be just incoherent, no longer able to reason properly.
BLOG: How nuclear deterrents work - like a bodyguard - their job is to prevent fights
Of course he doesn’t always bluff. But this is about knowing for sure any threat to attack NATO has to be a bluff.
This is not about whether he is ruthless enough or whether he is deceptive or not. It is whether he and his generals are capable of coherent thought
It is about whether Putin and his generals understand what a missile is, what a war is, what NATO can do and what Russia can do, and are able to make rational decisions, not delusive and are not living in a world of imagination such as thinking that Russia is being attacked by spiders the size of the Empre State building.
There is nothing to suggest Putin or his generals have lost the ability to think and Russia has many precautions to protect their nukes from being fired by insane people just as the US does.
Yes Putin can't be trusted. Jens Stoltenberg knows that as much as anything. Putin said over and over that he wouldn't invade Ukraine and then he did. A decision he has probably regretted ever since. He expected it to be easy and it wasn't.
But that does NOT mean he was mad. He was just misinformed. He invaded Ukraine because at the time it seemed to him a war he could win quickly in a fe days. There is no way he can have any similar belief about attacking NATO. That would just be total madness.
He constantly bluffs in order to PREVENT NATO from sending its weapons to Ukraine. How could it make sense to attack NATO and guarantee that NATO will then give Ukraine everything it asks for and more and evne take part in the war?
The ATACMS is 1980s technology. The F-16 is 1970s technology. He is bluffing as much as he can to try to stop NATO from sending decades old technology to Ukraine because he knows the Russian air defences can't stop the ATACMS and that his best fighter jets are only just equal to the F-16 with modern upgrades.
The last thing he wants is for NATO to supply Ukraine with fleets of F-16s quickly or to send them tomahawk cruise missiles iwth a range of over 1000 km which would likely quickly sink the entire Black Sea fleet -and if NATO was actually in the war on Ukraine's side its F-35s would take over the entire occupied air space quickly and also could take over the Russian airspace too as much as they wanted to and shoot out their radar systems from the air.
This is NOT what Putin wants. And he shows this by removing his defences against NATO from the entire border even when Finland and Sweden joined. Those aren't the actions of a man who plans to attack NATO.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUSTING PUTIN - IT IS ABOUT HIM ABLE TO HAVE COHERENT THOUGHTS - EVERY TIME HE DOES NOTHING WHEN HIS BIZARRE RED LINES ARE CROSSED CONFIRMS HE IS A RUTHLESS SANE PERSON BLUFFING, NOT A CARTOON CHARACTER ACTING OUT OF INCOHERENT MADNESS
It's not about trusting Putin. He is obviously not a trustworthy person. He lied about not invading Ukraine and he has lied on numerous equations.
I certainly don't trust Putin! Nobody should. But he isn't mad. He tries to give the impression that he might do almost anything because It's the only way his bluffs could work at all.
But every time his red lines are crossed and he does nothing that confirms that he is not mad. After 2 years of constantly using red-lines and doing nothing when they are crossed it shows over and over that he is a sane but ruthless man who only uses red lines to try to achieve particular aims.
Not a madman who sets red lines in order to do the totally insane thing of firing nukes. Which would immediately make Russia a pariah amongst all nations, lose the support of China, India even neutrally etc etc. And couldn't be hidden from his own people and so on.
Also nothing to suggest his generals are insane either. So - this is not based on any level of trust in Putin at all. I wouldn't trust him to deliver a letter for me 🙂.
It is just based on him being capable of coherent thought. Not in a world of his own imagination where he thinks the world is ruled by giant spiders. He is a real person not a cartoon character.
Could some fears be due to playing video games with simulated computer characters whose only reason for doing things is to make the game exciting for you as a player?
Putin is not a cartoon character or a simulated character in a computer game.
He is a real person. He has real person wishes and desires.
He wouldn't be president if he didn't have ambitions for Russia rather than just for himself.
Or even just wanting to be in power in Russia which again he wouldn't achieve if defeated by NATO. If he attacked NATO he knows he will lose and he’d likely end up with Russia giving him up to the ICC at the end of whatever war followed.
ADMIRAL RADAKIN CHIEF OF THE UK ARMED FORCES ABOUT HOW RUSSIA WILL NOT ATTACK THE UK OR NATO
This is what Admiral Radakin said.
QUOTE STARTS
Britain’s defence chief said Vladimir Putin does not want war with Nato because: "Russia will lose. And lose quickly."
…
He emphasised that he is not saying that Russia is not dangerous, …However, the CDS outlined the overwhelming odds Putin would have to overcome to confront, never mind defeat, Nato.
. Nato would defeat Russia quickly, looking to the future and more: Five key points from CDS' speech
In more detail he said:
The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly. ...
Secondly, can we take some time to pause and reflect on Russia’s so-called ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine? It was supposed to take between 3 days and 3 weeks. … Putin has failed in all of these strategic objectives.
At the operational level, Russia has demonstrated its continued inability to fight in a joint way.
Its Air Force has failed to gain control of the air. Its Navy has seen 25% of its vessels in the Black Sea sunk or damaged by a country without a Navy and Ukraine’s maritime trade is reaching back to pre-war levels. Russia’s Army has lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces and over 5,000 armoured fighting vehicles.
…
I am not saying that Russia is not dangerous. It has demonstrated that with the aggression it employs both domestically and internationally.
But at the same time it is also significantly less capable than we anticipated following its disastrous illegal invasion into Ukraine. And it faces an even stronger straitjacket with the introduction of Finland and Sweden into NATO. .
Russia is
more dangerous
but less effective
than they realized before the war started. By preparing in a strong way, they make it impossible for Putin to attack NATO.
See also my quote from General Radakin here
:
Text: The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.
For longer extracts from his speech:
SHORT DEBUNK: Nothing even remotely resembling a world war situation in Ukraine now or in the future (under World War in the left panel if it doesn’t open to it)
The speech itself is here Chief of the Defence Chatham House Security and Defence Conference 2024 keynote speech
DISABLED COMMENTS - WHEN FIRST POSTED
This is a post that might get comments from people who just read the title, and don't read the post itself and those can scare the people I help with their many mistaken statements that are often already debunked in the post they comment on - which they don’t even read.
This has happened so often that I now disable comments when I first do blog posts likely to attract comments by people who don’t read the article.
I then usually re-enable comments after giving time for it to drop out of people’s news feeds for Quora or from Google search results.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
Want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking.
Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.