It's VERY SAFE for Biden to permit Ukraine to fire shells back over the Russian border when attacked - it is Russia should stop firing
- Ukraine has the right to defend itself under the UN Charter and the Budapest memorandum
Biden has decided to let Ukraine fire shells over the border into Ukraine in Kharkiv oblast. Putin won’t do anything. This is why they are bluffs. He says he will escalate or makes some other vague threat. But when the red line is crossed he just stops talking about that red line and does nothing and starts bluffing about something else after a pause.
See also:
Video: It's VERY SAFE for Biden to permit Ukraine to fire shells back over the Russian border when attacked
He has been doing this every few days or weeks for over two years now. Sometimes he will walk back the red line by saying that the NATO weapons are useless but often he says nothing and doesn’t comment on it being crossed.
“The president recently directed his team to ensure that Ukraine is able to use U.S. weapons for counter-fire purposes in Kharkiv so Ukraine can hit back at Russian forces hitting them or preparing to hit them,” one of the U.S. officials said, adding that the policy of not allowing long-range strikes inside Russia “has not changed.”
There is nothing aggressive or escalatory about this.
Ukraine as the defender is the country that DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE AT ITS ATTACKER over the border with Russia.
Russia as the invader is the country that DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE AT UKRAINE
This is normal in warfare and Putin knows it. His red line is just him trying it on because he has so much experience in this war of his bluffs working. He sees NATO being timid and obeying what he says if he vaguely threatens nukes no matter how bizarre and ridiculous his request is.
To see what it means lets look at the front line near Kudviika, which is one of the places where Russia attacked. I have no idea where the Russian tanks are or the Ukrainian defenders. But this is a natural place for Russia to place a tank on the right hand image since it can drive along the road.
This shows it from above.
Text on graphic: Because Biden stopped obeying Putin's bizarre red line:
Biden NOW also permits Ukrainians to drop shells in this wood across the front line in Russia.
Ukrainian soldiers here can now fire back at the tank across the border in Russia.
Biden ALWAYS let Ukraine drop shells in this field in Ukraine.
Russia is currently attacking these villages less than 2 km from the Russian border.
Map from here Google Maps
This graphic shows a couple of positions either side of the current front line in the battle between Russia and Ukraine as it was before Biden removed this bizarre restriction that Ukraine couldn’t fight back with the M777 howitzers across the border into Russia:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC.
Front line near Kudviika.
Russia can position a tank here and fire shells all day across the border into Ukraine.
The field behind these trees is in Ukraine.
Russia.
The UN charter is very clear.
- Russia is NOT permitted to fire its shells into Ukraine.
- Ukraine is PERMITTED to fire back to defend itself.Possible Russian tank position about here:
SAFE, PERMITTED AND NOT escalatory to let Ukraine fire back at Russia.
The situation before Biden stopped obeying Putin's bizarre red line:
Biden does NOT let Ukraine hit these trees in Russia.
Biden DOES let Ukraine hit this field in Ukraine.
Any Ukrainian soldiers here, less than 700 meters
away can't shoot back with US shells.They can only sit here waiting and hoping they won't be killed by the next shell.
This is why the speaker of the House in the USA, the leader of NATO, and many other leaders and experts are asking Biden to follow UK's example and drop this requirement.
Street view images from:
Streetview in Russia Google Maps
Streetview in Ukraine. Google Maps
This is a closer zoom in on that position using Bing maps which is higher resolution
:
Bing maps make it 1803 feet from the last spot where a tank could fit in comfortably on the road in Russian territory or 550 meters.
Or if the tank drove to that open patch in the woods, 1171 feet or 358 meters
YOU CAN GET A FIRST IDEA OF THIS BLOG POST BY READING JUST THE TITLES OF THE SECTIONS AND LOOKING AT THE GRAPHICS
I design my blog posts so that the titles are like mini abstracts, they summarize what the section says. So you can just read the titles of each section and give a first idea.
EXAMPLE FOR READERS FROM THE USA - SUPPOSE BIZARRELY CANADA WAS FIRING MISSILES AT THE USA - SUBSTITUTE YOUR OWN COUNTRY - OF COURSE THE USA IS LEGALLY PERMITTED TO FIRE BACK AT WHATEVER IS FIRING MISSILES AT THE USA
This is to help American readers especially but those in other countries can choose other neighbours. Suppose bizarrely that Canada was attacking the USA. And suppose the UK supplied you with weapons to help defend yourself. Would it make sense to say you can use those weapons only on targets inside the USA? Would that be a sensible limitation?
The answer very obviously is no.
And would Canada have the right to require the USA to only use its weapons against targets on its own territory when defending against the attack from Canada?
The answer again very obviously is no.
That is why this is not required in international law or in the UN charter and makes absolutely no sense and is just another bizarre rule made up by Putin to try to get the US to make it harder for Ukraine to defend itself against Putin. For obvious reasons because he is the attacker and he wants the defender to be as weak as he can make it.
That is the sole purpose of his bluff. Just using words and bluffs to make it harder for Ukraine to defend itself so it is easier for Russia to attack.
And there is nothing in any international law or ethics or anything that requires the US to set any limits on how far Ukraine can fire into Ukraine against genuine defensive targets such as airports where Russia stations bombers that do daily bombing runs against Ukraine. They are not protected under international law from attack if they are bombers that fly every day to Ukraine and drop glide bombs on Ukraine - for obvious reasons. Because they are attacking Ukraine. They lose the protection by attacking Ukraine.
IF Putin stops attacking Ukraine and withdraws from Ukraine THEN Ukraine can no longer legally attack these fighter jets and bombers in Russia.
UKRAINE HAS USED US HARM ANTI-RADAR MISSILES AGAINST TARGETS IN RUSSIA SINCE OCTOBER 2022 - AND PATRIOT TO SHOOT DOWN FIGHTER JETS AND ATTACK HELICOPTERS OVER RUSSIA SINCE MAY 2023 - AND RUSSIA DOES NOT ATTACK THE USA AND NEVER WILL - IT JUST IGNORES THESE EVENTS IN THE RUSSIAN NEWS
First, weapons suppliers are not combatants.
It may help to know that Ukraine already used some US weapons against targets in Russia since 2022. And of course Russia didn't attack NATO.
Ukraine has been using HARM anti-radar missiles against targets in Russia at least since October 2022. They home in on radar signals and destroy the radar systems. This is from 22nd October 2022 and it hit Belgorod airport which Russia uses to target Ukraine.
TWEET A Russian SAM system getting hit by a Ukrainian missile - probably a HARM anti-radiation missile - at Belgorod airport, Russia.🔥Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) on X
🔥Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) on X
They have been using Patriot air defences to shoot down fighter jets and helicopters over Belgorod oblast at least since May 2023, first story here with the German supplied Patriot air defence system:
Two fighter jets and three helicopters, may 2023, confirmed in November 2023.
TWEET STARTS Rob is completely right with his assumption. Already in July 2023, we knew it was the (first) German-delivered Patriot battery who shot down the two fighter jets and three helicopters inside Russia back in May 2023.
This was first officially confirmed in an interview with Yuri Ihnat, the then spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, which was published in November 2023.
The US also has no restrictions on using their Patriot against targets flying towards Ukraine from Russia.
They have to permit this. A hypersonic missile the Khinzal headed for Karkhiv flies at 12,350km/h or 3.43 km / second faster than a hypervelocity bullet. Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile, Russia
It can travel from the Ukraine border to the center of Karkhiv which is about 34 km in about 10 seconds. So it is absurd to require Ukraine to wait until it crossed the Ukraine border when they can see it is fired directly at Karkhiv city.
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.
CIVILIAN OBJECTS AND CIVILIANS ARE PROTECTED
It may help to say a bit more about what are legitimate defensive targets.
Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
The oil refineries are a sensitive area and I wouldn't expect them to use the stormshadow against an oil refinery although they are legitimate targets in the sense that they finance the war. Everything else then can't see UK / France etc having any concerns about them.
They could attack
missile depots and missile factories if there are any within range of the missiles, those are very clear. So long as the factory is essential to the war.
E.g. if it is a factory for making Khinzal missiles or for making tanks. Ukraine has already hit several such during the war. And those are not gray area at all.
The oil refineries are more gray area, things like that need to be decided case by case.
Wikipedia gives as a gray area example “The girl that makes the thing that drills the hole that holds the ring that drives the rod that turns the knob that works the thing-ummy-bob”
This is a Gracie Fields WW2 song. As you get more remote from directly involved the more gray area it is. For instance it would likely be illegal to target a factory that makes parts some of which are used for the Kinzal and some of them used for civilian purposes.
. Gracie Fields - The Thing-Ummy-Bob lyrics
FOUR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONDUCT TO PROTECT CIVILIANS
They also have to respect the four principles of the law of armed conduct (which summarizes the complex international law).
(1) Distinction – to distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and direct operations only against military objectives.”
(2) Proportionality – Loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage
(3) Military Necessity – “…[E]very injury done to the enemy, even though permitted by the rules, is excusable only so far as it is absolutely necessary; everything beyond that is criminal.”
(4) Unnecessary Suffering – “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”
. Online training on the Law of Armed Conflict for non-State actors
(slightly shortened the first two)
See also
. Fundamental principles of IHL
RUSSIA HAS ACHIEVED ALMOST NOTHING EVEN FIGHTING UKRAINE WITH ITS HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK LIKE THIS AND SHORT OF SHELLS
This graphic shows how little Russia has achieved in the last 20 days of fighting in Kharkiv oblast - which the media run as if it is a big victory!
Note the scale on the second image in the sequence.
The war is very contained. It has barely moved since fall 2022. It is not going to spread to any other countries. No sign of that. There is no way Putin attacks NATO he hasn't prepared anything for that. He wouldn't have left Russia so defenseless if he was planning to attack NATO. Ukraine still has a shortage of shells but it is rapidly being resolved.
For Russia a rapid advance is one mile a month along a front a few miles wide. That is NOT going to let them take large areas of Ukraine.
The advances near Karkhiv were just because the Ukrainians couldn't fire back over the border and they seemed rapid to the press because they could travel more than a kilometer per week. But they are stopped by Ukraine as soon as they get about 5 kilometers from the border.
Now that Biden has given Ukraine permission to fire back over the border, Russia will have to move its artillery and soldiers back from the border just as Ukaine had to and that will make it impossible for Russia to do such rapid attacks again.
But it is hardly very rapid!
Russia has advanced a kilometre or so in a small part of Staryskya and Voychansk. Ukraine has advanced a kilomter in Hilyboke. Nothing changed in Hoptivka. Total area captured on both sides about 2 square kilometers each in 20 days, end result virtually the same area occupied by Russia on May 29 as May 19.
This is the RUSSIAN ARMY ESCALATING TO THE MAX. And at a time when Ukraine had a severe shortage of shells and couldn't fire back across the border into Ukraine.
Russia haven't yet reached Ukraine's front line fortifications which they had to build set back from the border by 13 km and probably never will reach them. .
They are similarly achieving almost nothing in their attempt to approach Chasiv Yar.
This is what the media are claiming is a great victory by Russia!
UKRAINE IS NOT ATTACKING RUSSIAN CIVILIANS AND DOESN’T WANT PERMISSION TO DO THAT WHICH WOULD BE ILLEGAL - VERY SHODDY REPORTING FROM THE NY TIMES RUNNING RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA WITHOUT CHECKING IT
And - Ukraine are NOT attacking Russian civilians. The NY Times did a shoddy bit of reporting when they shared this graphic which so many believed. It was NOT an attack by Ukraine.
The Russians all through the war for some reason have often accidentally dropped bombs in Russian territory from their bombers on bombing raids in Ukraine. They often land harmlessly in fields but sometimes they fall in cities. This bomb hit the apartment from the Russian side. It was far too big a bomb for a Ukrainian drone attack. And the experts are pretty certain it was a glide bomb that a bomber must have dropped by mistake flying over Belgorod on the way to drop it on Ukraine.
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 shown in screenshot: Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) on X
Open source analysis: Oliver Alexander (@OAlexanderDK) on X
The photograph is of a bomb that hit an apartment from the direction of Russia and a very big bomb matching a glide bomb.
The UK Ministry of Defence on 11th May said there were 20 such incidents in Belgorod oblast alone in March through to mid May
It has been reported that a Russian fighter aircraft accidentally released a FAB-500 munition on a civilian area in Belgorod, Russia on 04 May 2024. The Belgorod Regional Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov confirmed the explosion and damage on Razdobarkina street, Belgorod without identifying the cause. 30 houses and 10 cars were damaged, with five individuals requiring hospital care, illustrating the destructive power of the munition.
This is not an isolated incident. On 18 February a FAB-250 was reportedly released on Soloti in the Belgorod area which led to the evacuation of 150 residents.
Media outlets suggest that such discharges are fairly common with 20 lost munitions accidentally dropped in the Belgorod region alone between March to April 2024. These instances indicate Russia's continued inability to successfully employ their munitions on intended targets. Such errors have destructive and lethal consequences for the Russian population.
I have not been able to find any detailed explanation of why this is but Russia has been dropping its bombs accidentally over Belgorod oblast in large numbers throughout the war. I don’t know if it is a mechanical issue or their pilots mistaking their targets or pressing the wrong button or what it is but it is very common.
UKRAINE KEEPS TO THE UN CHARTER CAREFULLY AND THE RULES ON SELF DEFENCE, NEVER TAKES EVEN A METER OF RUSSIAN TERRITORY
Ukraine always stop at the 2014 border with Russia in their advances.
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.
They do this to comply with international law. So long as Ukraine doesn’t take any Russian territory then under the UN charter it is not an invader and has every right to defend itself against Russia’s illegal attack.
If Ukraine took even one square meter of Russian territory intentionally then both sides would be breaking the UN charter.
So Ukraine never takes any Russian territory. You get stories sometimes about Russian rebels that crossed over into Ukraine to fight against Russia early in the war and sometimes cross back over to Belgorod and capture a small village or two. They do NOT capture this village for Ukraine. They capture it symbolically for the Russian rebels in Belgorod oblast. They usually return to Ukraine after a day or two.
If that was Ukraine it would be as illegal as Russia’s invasion even though it’s small scale. There are sometimes questions about how much Ukraine knew about these activities. They don’t try to stop them but they are not in support of them.
Nothing like that is happening right now in Kharkiv oblast it was entirely started by Russia.
ADMIRAL RADAKIN CHIEF OF THE UK ARMED FORCES ABOUT HOW RUSSIA WILL NOT ATTACK THE UK OR NATO
Admiral Radakin’s main point is that 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
NO PUTIN WILL NOT RESPOND BY ATTACKING NATO - NOT AT ALL LIKE INVADING UKRAINE - THAT WOULD MEAN HE HAS LOST THE POWER OF COHERENT THOUGHT - WHILE HIS BLUFFS ARE THE ACTIONS OF A RATIONAL MAN WHO SEES THEY WORK
You can guarantee he won't attack NATO so long as he is capable of coherent thought and isn't completely mad.
It is very different from the invasion of Ukraine. There he built up for it with his soldiers doing exercises outside Ukraine. He had a plan for it which he thought was such a clever idea he never had a plan b, to distract Ukraine's army by attacking all around the border and quickly send an elite troop via helicopters to HOstomel airport, take it over, drive into Kyiv and take over the government before it had time to react.
But he can't have any such plan for attacking NATO.
Putin has not amassed any troops on NATO borders. The opposite, he removed them
.
Putin is NOT preparing for a war with NATO - if he was his top priority would be to protect Moscow
Putin can’t find even one modern tank in Moscow for his Red Square Parades in 2023 or 2024.
By Sept 2022, Russia had lost much of its 1st Guard tank army
“Russia’s conventional force to counter NATO is severely weakened” UK Defence Intelligence
Background graphics: screenshot of this tweet from the UK MoD from 2022 Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) on X
Photograph from Red Square parade on May 9, 2023.
File:2023 Moscow Victory Day Parade 36.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
This is about how they had only one tank in 2024 too.
He removed the tanks from Moscow - not even one modern tank in Moscow for the red square parade
He removed much of the air defences.
He removed most of his soldiers from the very long border with NATO.
His nukes are not able to win a war without soldiers to back them up indeed they can't win a war at all. All they would achieve is to turn the entire world against him politically, to lose even neutral support from China and India, and to make it so that NATO's top objective is to make sure Russia can't launch any more nukes.
The Ukraine war was the plan of
a ruthless, over confident, but basically rational man who thought he had a cunning plan to win quickly and prepared for it carefully for at least a year (from his previous exercises a year before)..
A plan to attack NATO without any preparation when Russia is at its weakest ever is
a totally dim incoherent plan by a man who has lost his ability for coherent thought, and has done no preparation and has to be delusive at the level where perhaps he thinks Ukraine is being attacked by skyscraper sized spiders or something equally bizarre.
Do you see the difference?
And meanwhile constant bluffing is the reaction of
a rational man who has seen that his bluffs always lead NATO countries to delay sending significant capabilities to Ukraine to help it idefend itself and has previously achieved months and sometimes years of delay of critical ssytems that could have helped Ukraine defend itself by bluffing about nukes.
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 Short debunks For Russia to attack NATO is like a midget attacking a mammoth with soap bubbles - it can't do it
[if it doesn’t jump to the section search the page for “mammoth” or look under world war in the left menu]
Ukraine’s 900,000 soldiers is about 2% of its population while Russia’s 1.32 million soldier is less than 1% of its population.
Ukraine’s 2% may seem a lot but it isn't all out war levels of conscription.
UK had 24.4% of the male population fighting in WW2, and it was similar in USA even higher in Germany and Axis countries.
. WWII: share of male population mobilized by country 1937-1945 | Statista
So that 2% fighting in Ukraine which would be about 4% of the male population is way below all out war levels of 24.4 % or 6 times as much. .
Ukraine could increase that % many times over if it needed to, if it was in an all out war where numbers of soldiers matter like in WW2, but chooses not to. Russia could increase its % too but chooses not to.
For Putin a larger % would begin to get very unpopular as his people are not fighting for the survival of their country. Although Putin is a dictator he is dependent on support from his people too, and they would be hard to govern if they seriously were opposed to the war. So he needs to keep them happy and especially the wealthier ones in the big cities he manages to insulate from the war so far to a large extent.
For Ukraine, it wants a low % so that it can keep its peace time economy and expertise and be prepared for the end of the war and recovery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? RUSSIA WILL JUST HAVE TO ADJUST TO A WAR WHERE UKRAINE FIGHTS BACK OVER THE BORDER
The US is sure to permit ATACMS eventually.
It does not risk escalation because Putin is ALREADY ESCALATING TO THE MAX. He is already using the full might of the Russian military to try to take a few square kilometres of Ukrainian territory and failing. Allowing Ukraine to target further back at legitimate military targets like fighter jets and helicopters on the ground in airports, say, will make it harder for Russia to fight in Ukraine and that will make it easier for Ukraine to eventually fight back and liberate parts of Ukraine.
The result of all this will reduce the intensity of the Russian attacks on Ukraine. It will also weaken the supply of weapons and fuel and tanks and soldiers to the front line and make it harder for Russia to conduct the war. It will make it harder for them to drop glide bombs on the front lines and on Ukrainian cities.
All this will make Ukraine safer. The reason that Putin bluffs so much is because he knows that Russia will be far less effective if the US / rest of Europe give Ukraine waht it wants.
So from the point of view of Ukraine and of the rest of NATO it is de-escalatory because it reduces Russia's capability to attack Ukraine and makes it more likely the war can end faster.
WE TAKE NUMEROUS MEASURES TO PREVENT A WORLD WAR - THE UN WAS SET UP TO PREVENT A WORLD WAR
There are numerous measures taken to prevent a world war. At the time of WW2 we didn't even have the United Nations. The UN was SET UP TO PREVENT A WORLD WAR
QUOTE As World War II was about to end in 1945, nations were in ruins, and the world wanted peace. Representatives of 50 countries gathered at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California from 25 April to 26 June 1945. For the next two months, they proceeded to draft and then sign the UN Charter, which created a new international organization, the United Nations, which, it was hoped, would prevent another world war like the one they had just lived through.
We have the Geneva conventions, the International Court of Justice - Wikipedia
Then there are the treaties. There are the deconfliction lines. There are the many measures to make sure that humans are in the loop at all times for nukes, to prevent any possibility of an accidental use. Many people think nukes themselves prevented a world war. There's NATO. That was created in 1949 and it provided collective security, which Europe never had before.
. Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations
All these many meetings we have, different groups, the UN Security council, the NATO countries working together what to do etc. None of that existed before WW2.
Then countries are far more dependent on each other than back then. Just the disruption of the grain exports through the Black Sea caused problems globally even though we never had any shortage of grain globally.
We are far more secure. People are healthier, live longer. We have much more communication globally than anyone could even have imagined was possible back then. What we are doing now, typing into computers and someone the far side of the world reads it almost instantly - that would have seemed a fantasy back then. That helps us be much more aware of what is going on in the world.
There is no need to EVER have another war. And many get the impression MISTAKENLY that the longer you have without a world war the more likely it gets. The opposite. The longer without a world war the LESS likely. If all the information you have is the number of years without a world war, the more years, the less likely.
But it is far more safe than that because we have a huge amount of attention to it.
You can ignore all the bluffs, behind the scenes people are very careful to avoid larger wars.
SEE ALSO
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
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking.
We also have many scared and panicking people use our group. If you can help as a first responder basically just to help people who are panicking to listen to them, help them to calm down a bit, find out what the issue is and so on it’s a great help as sometimes it’s some hours before someone can do a detailed debunk, whoever can help might be asleep or doing something else etc etc.. So that’s also a great help.
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.