[MrMatt]

Yes. At this point the west is bleeding Russia dry. If they keep at this their country will collapse... they simply don't have the resources to combat the west.

That's the point, the sooner Russia starts negotiating the better.

 

[andrewf]

I think it would be exceedingly bad idea to capitulate to Russia's sabre rattling about nuclear weapons. Showing other bad actors that threatening to use nuclear weapons to extract concessions from the West is effective would be a very bad idea in terms of avoiding further proliferation. Reward it and give Iran more reasons to sprint for nukes. Not to mention that abandoning Ukraine is a clear signal to others that feel threatened by nuclear powers that they should pursue their own nuclear deterrent. Countries like S Korea, Japan, Poland, Saudi.

 

[bgc_fan]

But I thought I heard Russia say, more than once, that they want NATO to stop expanding into countries that border Russia. And NATO seems to be doing exactly the opposite, which doesn't seem like de-escalation at all.

NATO isn't doing the opposite, but Russia has made other neutral countries decide to run to NATO. It was policy that Ukraine wouldn't be approached to join NATO, but given what happened, Ukraine is turning towards NATO. Same with Finland and Sweden who historically were "neutral". Russia just failed big time on the world stage thinking that they could bully other countries into not joining NATO.

Sadly many countries have attacked other countries over the years, and although I know it makes a good story, it's unrealistic to rush in to intervene every time. Why isn't Canada fighting in the Congo, or in Yemen, or countless other countries that have seen conflicts and skirmishes?

Simple reason, there's nothing in it for us.

If someone had said prior to this war that the allies' intervention would allow Ukraine to accomplish that and push Russian forces out of numerous cities, you and many others would have surely warned against it because Putin would launch nuclear weapons. But that didn't happen, did it?

I think the argument was always that if NATO intervened DIRECTLY that would lead to nuclear war. Providing equipment isn't crossing the line given that the way things work, countries provide other countries with weapons.

 

[AlwaysMissingTheBoat]

I think the argument was always that if NATO intervened DIRECTLY that would lead to nuclear war. Providing equipment isn't crossing the line given that the way things work, countries provide other countries with weapons.

Depends on whose argument that your citing.

 

[sags]

The creep of war is real and could have terrible consequences in the nuclear age.

 

[MrMatt]

I think the argument was always that if NATO intervened DIRECTLY that would lead to nuclear war. Providing equipment isn't crossing the line given that the way things work, countries provide other countries with weapons.

Providing equipment and support, without troops to avoid DIRECT involvement is the whole point of a proxy war.

 

[bgc_fan]

Depends on whose argument that your citing.

You have a quote from someone saying that provide arms to Ukraine would lead to nuclear war?

 

[AlwaysMissingTheBoat]

You have a quote from someone saying that provide arms to Ukraine would lead to nuclear war?

I won't dig through this thread to find it, but I'm sure I read that exact sentiment right here from at least one poster.

 

[james4beach]

I think the argument was always that if NATO intervened DIRECTLY that would lead to nuclear war. Providing equipment isn't crossing the line given that the way things work, countries provide other countries with weapons.

Yeah I actually got into some depth with this with my member of parliament.

I said to the MP: I really don't want Canada involved in a European-based WW III. The MP's counter-argument (same as what you're saying) was that countries do supply arms to friendly nations, and that's been established as a reasonable way to help other countries. It's not direct warfare.

I respect that argument, but it still makes me anxious and I'd prefer that we supply humanitarian aid & medical & financial assistance, not weapons.

There are risks to us here. For example Canada is flying military supplies right to the edge of the war zone. It's very possible that a Russian missile could shoot one of our planes out of the sky and we could lose soldiers.

War is awful, and there are almost always unforeseen consequences of war. So I'm just trying to remind everyone that there COULD be consequences for our involvement in this. One potential consequence is that our children may have to live in fear of nuclear strikes on their cities. I just want everyone to think through what it means to be [pseudo] involved in war with a nuclear power.

Here's another potential consequence. If that regions breaks apart, the weapons we and NATO are supplying could end up in someone else's hands. It's certainly happened in the middle east, repeatedly. So it's not a harmless act to send a bunch of weapons into an unstable war zone. These are chaotic scenarios and weapons don't always remain in the hands of the good guys.

 

[MrMatt]

There are risks to us here. For example Canada is flying military supplies right to the edge of the war zone. It's very possible that a Russian fighter jet could shoot one of our planes out of the sky and we could lose soldiers.

War is awful, and there are almost always unforeseen consequences of war. So I'm just trying to remind everyone that there COULD be consequences for our involvement in this. One potential consequence is that our children may have to live in fear of nuclear strikes on their cities. I just want everyone to think through what it means to be [pseudo] involved in a major war.

The thing is that the alternatives are worse.

Also, they'd have to be incredibly careless to shoot NATO aircraft in NATO airspace. That's literally an act of war against NATO... maybe they shouldn't do that.

I'm really wondering why China is playing that game right now though.

 

[james4beach]

The thing is that the alternatives are worse.

Also, they'd have to be incredibly careless to shoot NATO aircraft in NATO airspace. That's literally an act of war against NATO... maybe they shouldn't do that.

I agree with you that alternatives could be worse, but I'm reminding people of the risks we're signing up for.

As for an act of war against NATO, not necessarily. If the NATO plane is seen inside the war zone delivering weapons, that itself is an act of war. That would be NATO seen with troops & weapons in the airspace, and would be NATO committing an act of war against Russia.

This is way too dangerous a game for Canada to be playing. I don't want our planes full of weapons buzzing around the edge of the war zone.

I'm sure you know the history of the various global conflicts and how it's sometimes unclear which airspace a plane is in. I sure as hell hope those NATO planes are far enough away from conflict air space, but it sounded to me like they are skirting right at the edge of it. If NATO is in the airspace that is NATO aggression, and is an act of war against Russia.

 

[AlwaysMissingTheBoat]

There are risks to us here. For example Canada is flying military supplies right to the edge of the war zone. It's very possible that a Russian missile could shoot one of our planes out of the sky and we could lose soldiers.

War is awful, and there are almost always unforeseen consequences of war.

You express concern over the possibility that a handful of Canadian soldiers could be killed but mention nothing about the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost. Do those people have no meaning to you?

 

[james4beach]

You express concern over the possibility that a handful of Canadian soldiers could be killed but mention nothing about the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost. Do those people have no meaning to you?

No my primary concern is that Canada drags itself into (or contributes to starting) WW III, and then potentially many of us -- and your children/grandchildren -- die.

The boomers may start WW III but it's my generation who will eat the consequences. And the children of everyone on this board. There are huge consequences of sparking WW III.

 

[MrMatt]

I agree with you that alternatives could be worse, but I'm reminding people of the risks we're signing up for.

As for an act of war against NATO, not necessarily.

BS, If someone shoots at NATO in NATO airspace, that is an act of war.

If the NATO plane is seen inside the war zone delivering weapons, that itself is an act of war. That would be NATO seen with troops & weapons in the airspace, and would be NATO committing an act of war against Russia.

Maybe,
As long as the NATO aircraft don't enter Russian territory they can legitimately go anywhere they want.
I think it's a bad idea, but it is NOT an act of war against Russia to fly aircraft outside Russian airspace.

If NATO is in the airspace that is NATO aggression, and is an act of war against Russia.

If NATO is in Russian airspace without permission that is an infringement on their territory, not necessarily an act of war.
If NATO takes military action (ie shoots) against Russian assets, that is an act of war.
If Russia is in NATO airspace without permission that is an infringement on their territory, not necessarily an act of war.
If Russia takes military action (ie shoots) against NATO assets, that is an act of war.

If they are in the airspace of a third country, there is no territorial infringement.

The simple act of moving military units outside of a countries territory is NOT IMO an act of war.
Maybe a provocation.

I hold to the Cornell definition.

Definition: act of war from 18 USC § 2331(4) | LII / Legal Information Institute

act of war
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;


FYI, I think China "buzzing" NATO aircraft is "only" a provocation.

 

[james4beach]

Maybe,
As long as the NATO aircraft don't enter Russian territory they can legitimately go anywhere they want.
I think it's a bad idea, but it is NOT an act of war against Russia to fly aircraft outside Russian airspace.

As you know there's lots of grey area and confusion in warzones. Misunderstandings or technical errors can easily result in escalation towards full-on NATO vs Russia war.

For example some kind of misunderstanding a few years ago resulted in Turkey (NATO country) shooting down a Russian jet. It didn't escalate into war because there was no hostility at the time. NATO also de-escalated and defused the situation. The Russian plane went into Turkish air space for 17 seconds. Russia says their satellites show that the plane never entered Turkish airspace.

That was a NATO plane shooting down a Russian plane! The first time since 1953. What better proof do you need of the kinds of confusion and misunderstandings that can happen?

I don't want WW III. Is this really so controversial a position?

 

[AlwaysMissingTheBoat]

I don't want WW III. Is this really so controversial a position?

Maybe the military industrial complex would be happy with WW III, but the rest of us don't want it either. However, many of us will live with elevated risk of a global conflict for the sake of insuring the territorial interests of Ukrainians. Putin picked this fight, after all.

 

[bgc_fan]

Yeah I actually got into some depth with this with my member of parliament.

I said to the MP: I really don't want Canada involved in a European-based WW III. The MP's counter-argument (same as what you're saying) was that countries do supply arms to friendly nations, and that's been established as a reasonable way to help other countries. It's not direct warfare.

I respect that argument, but it still makes me anxious and I'd prefer that we supply humanitarian aid & medical & financial assistance, not weapons.

Considering that Putin doesn't believe the Ukranians shouldn't exist as a people, I'd say that providing weapons is humanitarian aid in this situation.

There are risks to us here. For example Canada is flying military supplies right to the edge of the war zone. It's very possible that a Russian missile could shoot one of our planes out of the sky and we could lose soldiers.

Not many, and not likely. Russia is having a difficult time being pushed out of the north western region of Ukraine, that it's a low risk. And should that actually happen, Russia would open itself to a NATO attack as it would have essentially declared war. So, it's not really in Russia's best interest.

War is awful, and there are almost always unforeseen consequences of war. So I'm just trying to remind everyone that there COULD be consequences for our involvement in this. One potential consequence is that our children may have to live in fear of nuclear strikes on their cities. I just want everyone to think through what it means to be [pseudo] involved in war with a nuclear power.

Here's another potential consequence. If that regions breaks apart, the weapons we and NATO are supplying could end up in someone else's hands. It's certainly happened in the middle east, repeatedly. So it's not a harmless act to send a bunch of weapons into an unstable war zone. These are chaotic scenarios and weapons don't always remain in the hands of the good guys.

The cold war comes to mind, so no changes there. Even as a kid, I remember that nuclear war was always held as the bogeyman to worry about. This doesn't change anything. In fact, it just reinforces the idea that Russia is a paper tiger and can't handle a near peer adversary.

That's normal that weapons end up all over the place after the war. That's always a possible risk, but in the grand scheme of things, not really a big issue.

 

[sags]

Many "near launches and accidents" have occurred since the first nuclear bombs were developed ?

From computer generated false alarms in both the US and Russia, to lost nuclear weapons on sunk submarines, to a near explosion of an ICBM in the US due to a dropped wrench during routine maintenance, and not even counting the near catasrophic core meltdowns at 3 several nuclear plants.

Nuclear is dangerous, always has been and always will be.

Nuclear weapons change what aftermath of the next global war would look like. World War 3 will likely be the last war.

I doubt Putin would respond by sending ICBMs hurtling towards North America, because he would fear the consequences.

But he might.....just might....calculate that a small tactical nuclear weapon used on Ukraine wouldn't cause a world ending response by NATO.

Ant therein lies the danger of presuming how an upward creep in the war would play out.

 

[andrewf]

Capitulating to regimes like Russia I think increases the risk of miscalculation. It makes it difficult for regimes like Russia to know what crosses the line for the West when they are flouting international law. They may take action that they think they can cow the West into inaction over by waving some nukes, only to overstep the boundaries and brook direct intervention and escalation. Russia has long wanted to snatch Gotland from Sweden, and China would like to take Taiwan. Making it clear that these are likely to lead to a lot of pain is a good way to prevent future wars.

 

[MrMatt]

I don't want WW III. Is this really so controversial a position?

Not at all.

I just think Russia and others will escalate as long as they think that we'll stand back and let them.
By not opposing actions like the invasion of Ukraine (or Crimea) actually INCREASES the chances of WW III.

That's really the issue, your position IMO, increases the likelihood of further escalation putting us all at risk.

Misunderstandings happen sure, but I think it's worth the risk to stop these types of conflicts.