How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Letter from Prague]

15 minutes ago, Butschi said:

In that case don't hold your breath. That seems to be a red line for Scholz.

Yeah, the Germans are always good at finding excuses not to help too much.

[Holien]

15 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

Yeah, SOME Germans are always good at finding excuses not to help too much.

Fixed it for you...

It would be like me saying that about America at the moment..

[Rokko]

21 minutes ago, Butschi said:

It's not actually a new position, though. The explanation was floating around since roughly when this discussion had started.

It wasn't really clear from this article what the technical issue really was. I guess the problem is that it is either not possible to build some kind of geofencing into the software or they don't trust the Ukrainians not to (be able to) tinker with it. So the Ukrainians aren't allowed to target the missiles themselves.

Not sure if that's true - there was an article some months ago that suggested something similar. That would kind of imply Germany getting directly involved in the war.

In that case don't hold your breath. That seems to be a red line for Scholz.

So basically what he is saying is:

1) GER will not get involved in the war directly under any circumstances.

2) Taurus requires GER boots on the ground for target data programming

3) Therefore, sending Taurus is impossible, RU might retaliate against GER, leading to 1).

But if we think this through to conclusion:

- UK and FRA have put boots on the ground for target data programming.

- UK and FRA are allied to GER.

- If RU were to retaliate against UK/FRA, GER apparently does not intend not assist on their behalf, despite being in a military alliance, because 1) otherwise sending Taurus would not make a difference.

I'm fairly sure a RU attack on either UK/FRA/GER in retaliation for them providing personnel for programming cruise missile targeting data would be grounds for invoking Article 5, maybe NATO allies should press Germany on this.

[Butschi]

1 minute ago, Rokko said:

So basically what he is saying is:

1) GER will not get involved in the war directly under any circumstances.

2) Taurus requires GER boots on the ground for target data programming

3) Therefore, sending Taurus is impossible, RU might retaliate against GER, leading to 1).

But if we think this through to conclusion:

- UK and FRA have put boots on the ground for target data programming.

- UK and FRA are allied to GER.

- If RU were to retaliate against UK/FRA, GER apparently does not intend not assist on their behalf, despite being in a military alliance, because 1) otherwise sending Taurus would not make a difference.

I'm fairly sure a RU attack on either UK/FRA/GER in retaliation for them providing personnel for programming cruise missile targeting data would be grounds for invoking Article 5, maybe NATO allies should press Germany on this.

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?

Anyway I'm not going to argue for or against one side but it's really up to each nation to decide if they want get actively involved in war (outside of NATO obligations, of course), I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.

 

[Carolus]

15 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?

I think he meant an attack on the mainland (in retaliation), not the local forces.

Otherwise, your assumption is fully correct.

As per international law it is legal for any nation to join a war on the defensive side in an illegal invasion. But it is the decision of that specific country (unless they have an offensive alliance, but I think that's basically unheard of nowadays, or basically illegal) and as a voluntary war party, its defensive alliances would not be triggered.

Edited February 27 by Carolus
typos

[Zeleban]

9 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.

This is everything we need to know about Western unity

[panzermartin]

Oh boy, there is no return if we go that way. I think there is little chance if one western country puts boots on the ground that the rest will sit and watch. 

[Carolus]

4 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

This is everything we need to know about Western unity

Western boots on the ground in Ukraine is incredibly unlikely at the moment. If it happened it would be well discussed in advantage, and in that case, every Western nation would know its exact role and the extent of the involvement of any partner, e.g. France and UK would know 100% that Germany provides logistical support or AWACS but no combat troops if such a plan was reached (which I cannot ever see happening). That's not disunity, but planning.

 

Edited February 27 by Carolus

[Grigb]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?

An attack on an ally is reason enough to get involved.

  

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

...but it's really up to each nation to decide if they want get actively involved in war (outside of NATO obligations, of course), I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.

What you're saying is that the German government values legal justifications over alliances. And it begs the question: what if the German government finds a legal justification not to respect Article 5?

[Carolus]

6 minutes ago, Grigb said:

What you're saying is that the German government values legal justifications over alliances. And it begs the question: what if the German government finds a legal justification not to respect Article 5?

.... article 5 is a legal clause.

Yes, there is also a lot of symbolism attached to it and for good reason.

But it is ultimately a legal procedure which requires legal justification to invoke. A legal procedure which all nations of the treaty agreed to follow as per its carefully worded letter.

Edited February 27 by Carolus

[Kraft]

Aah I remember being told "its only a matter of time" half a year ago, silly me was pessimistic about the politician who has brickwalled new aid every step of the way for 2 years, now its suddenly "dont hold your breath", or to say it as Scholz does: "whatever it takes".

Im sure theres German boots in SK right now, making sure they dont bomb NK with it, might draw Germany into a war

Edited February 27 by Kraft

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Carolus said:

.... article 5 is a legal clause.

Yes, there is also a lot of symbolism attached to it and for good reason.

But it is ultimately a legal procedure which requires legal justification to invoke. A legal procedure which all nations of the treaty agreed to follow as per its carefully worded letter.

What if, for example, Germany, despite legal norms, still refused to participate in the NATO war (after all, no one wants to be drawn into a third world war)? Is there a mechanism for enforcement to comply with the requirements of these legal norms? After all, we all know that any law must have a mechanism of enforcement. Otherwise, it’s just an ordinary declaration that is not binding.

[Grigb]

3 minutes ago, Carolus said:

.... article 5 is a legal clause.

Yes, there is also a lot of symbolism attached to it and for good reason.

But it is ultimately a legal procedure which requires legal justification to invoke. A legal procedure which all nations of the treaty agreed to follow as per its carefully worded letter.

So, if an unknown submarine (from RU) torpedoes US boat in Pacific Ocean will Germany gets involved or (given RU denial and US unwillingness to disclose intelligence sources publicly) just say it was probably China, so not our problem?

[Grigb]

34 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Aah I remember being told "its only a matter of time" half a year ago, silly me was pessimistic about the politician who has brickwalled new aid every step of the way for 2 years, now its suddenly "dont hold your breath", or to say it as Scholz does: "whatever it takes"

Though Germany position is... well, Germany position, the overall EU situation is not that bad in the long term (it's bad in short term).

I'm slowly summarizing RU Opposition economist Milov's recent report on the Russian economy. He stated that he recently visited the European Parliament and spoke to several EU MPs. There are both bad and good news:

• Bad news - EU is politically bickering around Ukraine assistance, also faster work (for example enforcing sanctions) is not possible due to democratic bureaucracy of EU parliament. And it is unlikely to improve in the short term.
• Good news - EU core politicians know the seriousness of war and about their bickering and slowness problem. They are committed to resolve it in the long term (long term means around year).

He cited an example: he was privately told that the EU needs to recruit 50 professionals to successfully stop Russia from dodging sanctions. However, this requires passing money through EU democratic procedures, which is extremely lengthy owing to the politicking of MPs from various nations. But eventually, the EU will hire them and cut RU off. In a year.

Edited February 27 by Grigb

[Carolus]

35 minutes ago, Grigb said:

So, if an unknown submarine (from RU) torpedoes US boat in Pacific Ocean will Germany gets involved or (given RU denial and US unwillingness to disclose intelligence sources publicly) just say it was probably China, so not our problem?

... are you aware of how article 5 works?

When invoked, the NATO countries meet for a decision on whether article 5 was invoked for a good reason by a country based on available intelligence.

It's not a criminal court case in which guilt has to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt", so the standard of evidence is lower. 

But article 5 is not an automatism. And whichever head of government convenes for that meeting is aware of the gravity of what will be decided together.

 

Edited February 27 by Carolus

[Carolus]

37 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

What if, for example, Germany, despite legal norms, still refused to participate in the NATO war (after all, no one wants to be drawn into a third world war)? Is there a mechanism for enforcement to comply with the requirements of these legal norms? After all, we all know that any law must have a mechanism of enforcement. Otherwise, it’s just an ordinary declaration that is not binding.

It's not a law, it's an international treaty. These are two legally distinct things. 

And the norm is simply that a country must want to participate in international law and behaving in an orderly and reliable manner, or deal with the diplomatic consequences of not doing so.

Theoretically the other countries might decide to sanction that country in some way, but enforcement on an international scale is inherently difficult. Individual persons are subject to the authority of a state because the state owns the monopoly of violent enforcement (as an ultimate end) and the inherent massive power difference between state and indiviudal makes this enforcement easy and reliable, but states see themselves as ultimately sovereign actors on the same legal level, and much depends on their individual status versus each other.

Edited February 27 by Carolus

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, Carolus said:

... are you aware of how article 5 works?

When invoked, the NATO countries meet for a decision on whether article 5 was invoked for a good reason by a country based on available intelligence.

It's not a criminal court case in which guilt has to be proven, so the standard of evidence is lower. 

But article 5 is not an automatism. And whichever head of government convenes for that meeting is aware of the gravity of what will be decided together.

 

In addition, even if article 5 is invoked it doesn't oblige anyone to anything beyond sending a letter of condolences. It says every nation supports the nation under attack in a way it deems appropriate.

[Grigb]

1 minute ago, Carolus said:

... are you aware of how article 5 works?

It seems you are not.

 

1 minute ago, Carolus said:

It's not a criminal court case in which guilt has to be proven, so the standard of evidence is lower. 

This relies on the US readiness to reveal intelligence sources to NATO heads of states, like Orban. Otherwise, you will have to trust the US claim that it was a RU submarine. Imagine Trump says RU submarine torpedoed out boat, but I will not disclose how I know it. 

 

1 minute ago, Carolus said:

But article 5 is not an automatism. And whichever head of government convenes for that meeting is aware of the gravity of what will be decided together.

So, the ultimate decision rests with the heads of state. We have Orban, we have Scholtz and possibly few others (Austrian). Can NATO overcome their opinion?

 

[Butschi]

54 minutes ago, Grigb said:

What you're saying is that the German government values legal justifications over alliances.

No.

55 minutes ago, Grigb said:

An attack on an ally is reason enough to get involved.

Is it? NATO is a defensive alliance. If an ally gets attacked directly, sure. But when an ally gets involved in a war elsewhere (without getting a mandate or something from the other allies) and then wants to be defended by his allies, I dont think so.

[Zeleban]

19 minutes ago, Carolus said:

It's not a law, it's an international treaty. These are two legally distinct things. 

And the norm is simply that a country must want to participate in international law and behaving in an orderly and reliable manner, or deal with the diplomatic consequences of not doing so.

Theoretically the other countries might decide to sanction that country in some way, but enforcement on an international scale is inherently difficult. Individual persons are subject to the authority of a state because the state owns the monopoly of violent enforcement (as an ultimate end) and the inherent massive power difference between state and indiviudal makes this enforcement easy and reliable, but states see themselves as ultimately sovereign actors on the same legal level, and much depends on their individual status versus each other.

That's right, that is, NATO's military effectiveness will be based on the unity of NATO member countries. Is it worth reminding that there is no such thing as unity among NATO member countries? We have Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia and Germany whose chancellor "is not obliged to do what France and the UK are doing"

[Rokko]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

No.

Is it? NATO is a defensive alliance. If an ally gets attacked directly, sure. But when an ally gets involved in a war elsewhere (without getting a mandate or something from the other allies) and then wants to be defended by his allies, I dont think so.

I think we are not talking about invoking Article 5 over some RAF specialists getting targeted in Western Ukraine in a missile strike but rather about Russia launching Kalibrs at London "decision making centers" in retaliation for UK involvement in providing target data for Storm Shadows. I don't know what people like Scholz would otherwise mean (and be fearful of) by "direct involvement" in the war.

[Butschi]

Gents, I can try to explain why the decision is like it is and I can give my opinion on what I think b the NATO treaty does or does not oblige an ally to do. If you just want to vent steam and do another round of (irrational) Germany bashing, look for someone else.

[Butschi]

2 minutes ago, Rokko said:

I think we are not talking about invoking Article 5 over some RAF specialists getting targeted in Western Ukraine in a missile strike but rather about Russia launching Kalibrs at London "decision making centers" in retaliation for UK involvement in providing target data for Storm Shadows. I don't know what people like Scholz would otherwise mean (and be fearful of) by "direct involvement" in the war.

I got that. But the attack would be a direct consequence of UK's involvement in both cases. So, don't know... Question for the experts, not my layman opinion, really.

 

[Butschi]

8 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

That's right, that is, NATO's military effectiveness will be based on the unity of NATO member countries. Is it worth reminding that there is no such thing as unity among NATO member countries? We have Turkey, Hungary, Slovakia and Germany whose chancellor "is not obliged to do what France and the UK are doing"

You are mixing up two things here. I said Germany is not obliged to get directly involved in the war because UK and France are. Germany is obliged to get involved if article 5 is invoked. You can doubt that we really will but to be fair you can't be sure with any country because there was no precedence so fair, except Afghanistan (in which case Germany answered the call, btw).

[Grigb]

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Is it?

Yes. It is either you are ally or not.

 

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

NATO is a defensive alliance. 

So, German gov will honor only what it labels defensive. 

RU Nats shells  send dozens of drones to hit Gdansk from Kaliningrad. RU gov declares they have nothing to do with that. German gov declares it will not get involved in any offensive actions and Poland must swallow it.

 

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

But when an ally gets involved in a war elsewhere (without getting a mandate or something from the other allies) and then wants to be defended by his allies, I dont think so.

So, for Germany US is not truly ally. Good that we are all on the same page.