Kraft Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 13 minutes ago, Offshoot said: This is Visegrad so I had to double check and unfortunately this looks like a misrepresentation. McCaul is part of a group that has just called on the Biden administration to allow ATACM strikes inside Russia ( https://armedservices.house.gov/news/press-releases/rogers-mccaul-turner-kean-calvert-hudson-call-biden-harris-administration-lift ) but this does not mean that a decision has been made or that McCaul even has the authority to make such an announcement prior to Blinken going to Kyiv. Biden is meeting Starmer, the UK PM, on the 13th to discuss this subject so it would also be surprising to make such an announcement before then ( https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/09/10/7474376/ ). Ugh, then my question reopens, I guess and Vizegrad gets muted. As far as I saw it this was a possible answer to these ballistic missiles, which was mentioned some time prior I think as a reason as to why it had been continously kept off the table. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 Have seen this news posted a few places. Quote Russians attacked from Korenevo towards Snagost with a fairly big mechanized column. The outcome of the attack is unclear, but some UA sources already confirmed the situation slightly worsened due to more Russian presence. Video footage reportedly shows Russian units of the 51st Guards Airborne Regiment launching an armored assault on the village of Snagost, advancing with a significant amount of equipment. According to Russian sources, the attack began from the north. The outcome is still unclear. + Video of an armored column with at least 8 tanks and armored vehicles from the Russian VDV's 51st Airborne Regiment assaulting Snagost in Kursk oblast. It appears Russia was able to get the armored force across the Seym River, despite Ukrainian strikes on the bridges. @Deepstate_UA says the situation has worsened on Ukraine's left flank in Kursk oblast. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 52 minutes ago, Butschi said: We are all a bit testy today (me too), how come? Full moon? Honestly this thread is great, when it works. I have been watching it get slowly hijacked over time. Special interest, single issue and basically a bunch of old men flexing their opinions like they come from the word of God. I get it. I am an old man too, and I definitely have opinions. But people are not even doing the basics of backing them up with facts. "Wot I think" is happening far too much. Worse it is hijacking every observation about this war. "A thing happens" - Tank nuts - "ah ha, see tanks." - Angry Western shamers/bashers - "it is all the US/Europes/NATOs fault! Cowards!" - Fanbois - "It is all a clever Ukrainian ploy. Ukraine is never wrong. Ukraine should be given nukes." - Russian hating zealots - "See, this is why we need to exterminate all Russians!" - Maga drivebys - "It is all Biden's fault!! Global elitists!" - Contrarians - "Ukraine will never win this war...see!" I am probably missing a few. I know my patience is getting lite. Maybe time for a break. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) RU continuing to make ground in Donetsk Slightly better maps Edited September 10 by Fenris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probus Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 Report on The War Zone: https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-using-atacms-missiles-to-strike-inside-russia-now-on-the-table I think its supposed to be 'lift not' 'life'. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 Well, it's not like we didn't guess China was directly aiding Russia and what China is getting in return: https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-accuse-china-help-russia-war-kurt-campbell/ So while individual companies and institutions in China are showing concerns about breaking sanctions, the government is open for business. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraft Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, The_Capt said: Just going to pick this one. Because they were not honest questions!! You were grandstanding to make your point that the West is idle, weak and not standing up to anyone. You did not genuinely ask a question, you rhetorically used one to make a statement...the same statement you have been making for months. And now you are playing the crippled dove in some weird attempt to say "I was only asking" I clearly seperated where I stand and where not. I just gave you my opinion of Biden, Scholz and other escalation managing experts - might include Macron and Merkel, for their legendary foresight since I usually dont mention them. I also made clear which positions you are concluding for yourself which I do not actually hold. If you want to shoe my opinion as "nato f16s protects drones from killing kids" continously, then yes I take offense. It was neither what I actually wrote, or what my post was in large about. If you do not belive I am discussing in honest and that secretly I despise nato despite my claims to the opposite, then we cannot discuss anything. Quote So drones along the Black Sea and Modovian border...so freakin what? You did not answer any of the other points. Where did those F16 come from? How much lead time did they have...not muhc as we are talking right by the border. Shahed drones are spotted often times already in Belarus. They are not a hypersonic stealth jet. They literally fly at speeds civilian one-engine planes exceed. If Nato cant scramble for that in your opinion, okay. Somehow Patriot downs Kinzhals regardless. I dont need to provide flight numbers and airbase locations for this piece of knowledge. Quote This is an outright lie. You can try and play the "language barrier" all day long. Escort - even in the police sense - implies that Romania had control of those dumped them on Odessa. You bring this up to deride NATO escalation management. At least have the stones to own it. I told you where I stand. I do not belive that Ro "dumped", "protected", "guided" or whatever them. They accompanied them for the possibility to intervene. Fly into a NPP airspace and tell me how quickly you are escorted out by fighters. This word has no positive meaning here for me. You are put into a position where you either dont pose a threat or get neutralized. It was decided these drones didnt pose one. I do bring this up to deride escalation management. Its the point of my post and why I laid out why there should be a clear stance on these continued aggressions, whether they are intended for Ukraine or just "accidents" in flight planning. Quote So there is a Western conspiracy to keep this war going to "grind Russia down" and not actually achieve a level of victory for Ukraine? Isnt it you who advocates for "boiling the frog slowly", to prevent "collapse", and keep unknown sources from gaining access to Nuclear arsenals? Giving putin an out on each step of this attrition war ladder that consumes a thousand per day? russian collapse wont happen with 31 Abrams, thats for sure. Quote Ok, beyond your overinflated highly uniformed opinion...what possible proof do you have of this. Wait...I know...NATO escorted Russian drones to Odessa...of course. So here is what we do. I am going to put you onto an ignore list with kraze. You feel free to do the same with me. Then you can spin away at your hearts content. Besides the massive strawman, drones hurr durr, good talk. Nice discussion. May you forever believe Tokmak is just another week of grinding "force in recon" 15 Bradleys through minefileds with Ka-52s above. The 2023 russian manpower collapse, we have all witnessed it. Surely, using prisoners as soldiers means the end for russia! Bakhmut and Avdiivka didnt matter because it leads to nowhere.. ah what is Prokrovsk?! Who could have known. Not you, Capt_KnowItAll. Edited September 11 by Kraft 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Probus said: Report on The War Zone: https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-using-atacms-missiles-to-strike-inside-russia-now-on-the-table I think its supposed to be 'lift not' 'life'. This wasn't making much sense: if Blinken had told him two days ago they would allow ATACM strikes inside Russia, why did McCaul as part of a group send a letter dated Sep 9 (two days ago; https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-armedservices.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/ATACMS-letter-FINAL.pdf ) with strong language urging Biden to allow it? Now we have the clarification Edited September 10 by Offshoot 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FancyCat Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 @nykyt0sha on twitter pointed this out, https://en.zona.media/article/2022/05/20/casualties_eng Russian opposition news outlet Mediazone found 172 confirmed conscript deaths out of 66,471 in their database. much more information as well linked, but this was such a interesting stat to see. Quote Russia maintains that conscripts are not involved in the war. Broadly speaking, this is accurate: with few exceptions, they are not deployed to Ukrainian territory. However, they do serve in border regions, which have now also become active war zones. Additionally, some conscripts participated in the initial invasion in February 2022. Russia later acknowledged this and claimed they were subsequently withdrawn. In total, we have confirmed 172 conscript fatalities throughout the entire war, excluding most of the recent losses in the Kursk region. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 35 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: Well, it's not like we didn't guess China was directly aiding Russia and what China is getting in return: https://www.politico.eu/article/united-states-accuse-china-help-russia-war-kurt-campbell/ So while individual companies and institutions in China are showing concerns about breaking sanctions, the government is open for business. Steve A rather large lack of detail in what the US says China is providing Russia. I'm sure on some level it is true but what that level is matters quite a lot. Watch that space, I guess. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 3 hours ago, Offshoot said: Yes, there will always be things we don't know about. But what about the Latvian situation? From the Reuters article, Latvia appears to be asking for NATO to develop a policy for what should happen in such circumstances. Why has this not already been done 2.5 years into this war? (I can't remember the details, but didn't a Russian surveillance drone go for a wander and dive over southern Romania quite early on?) Did this scenario not occur to NATO, or is it caught in a bureaucratic imbroglio? Or is The_Capt right and it is considered escalatory not only to fire US/European missiles into Russia but also to shoot down Russian drones that wander into the airspace of NATO members? I think the easiest answer to the question is that it wasn't yet done because many other more (and often extremely) pressing issues had to be dealt with first. It is also a question of high pertinence to Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, etc, each with it's own political and military perspective. It's vanishingly easy for us to yell "Do somefink." from the sidelines...quite another to actually create NATO wide policy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 53 minutes ago, billbindc said: I think the easiest answer to the question is that it wasn't yet done because many other more (and often extremely) pressing issues had to be dealt with first. It is also a question of high pertinence to Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, etc, each with it's own political and military perspective. It's vanishingly easy for us to yell "Do somefink." from the sidelines...quite another to actually create NATO wide policy. This article makes it sound like there has been reluctance in NATO to even develop a policy due to their stance of non-involvement and NATO may have impeded members from dealing with Russian drones pro-actively. But the countries most affected are now agitating for change: NATO countries push for powers to defend themselves as Russian drones enter Romanian and Latvian airspace 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FancyCat Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-administration-working-potentially-lifting-ban-ukraine-long-range-2024-09-10/ Quote Sept 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that his administration was "working that out now" when asked if the U.S. would lift restrictions on Ukraine's use of long range weapons in its war against Russia. Yeah, its not yes, but its not no anymore, so i suppose the iranian missiles might be the breaking point. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 I just watched the latest K-2 video. What the Hell did they drop in this last sequence? 120mm mortar round? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 4 hours ago, sburke said: I dunno, personally I am feeling pretty relaxed today - and I expect Elvis is too. Eagles won last week and the 49ers sent the Jets packing last night! I particularly enjoyed the close up shot of Aaron Rodgers face after he threw that interception. as a Meme it is pretty good. Putin after realizing getting missiles from Iran meant UA just got thumbs up from US on strikes into Russia. Ha! that's great, I loved that moment. I can't stand that anti-science narcissitic s--tbird! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sross112 Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: We've had some very, very long discussions about this topic quite a few times, but not for a year or more as Russian tactics haven't changed very much. The problems with their initial invasion were more to do with unreasonable expectations than anything else. If you ask a 200k force to do the job of a 500k force, expect no significant resistance and get tenacious defenders, and plan for everything wrapping up in a couple of weeks tops... well... it just won't go very well no matter what. No NATO force would do any better under the same conditions. Specific to Russia, though, is that they screwed up the careful balance that the Soviets laid out. They partially shifted to a NATO style approach without actually doing the hard bits. It's like deciding that you're going to build a house with screws, but still only have a hammer. Worse, thanks to corruption, half the timbers you were planning on screwing together aren't even there. Neither are most of the screws. And the hammers are from the 1940s. How this is applicable to our current discussion is this... The Russians have long since abandoned the notion that they can pull off a complex offensive maneuver. Partly because they weren't well suited for it, but also because Ukraine's defenses were pretty nasty to run into. There are exceptions, such as unmanned systems and EW, but for the most part Russia has returned to Soviet doctrine of blowing everything up and driving over the ruins into the enemy's rear, regardless of losses, and putting the defender into a difficult position. It is something they know how to do and their forces are well designed for brute force operations. And yet, brute force maneuver warfare isn't working. We're still trying to figure out exactly why it isn't working, but the consensus here and other places is because a combination of ISR, unmanned systems, precision artillery, precision AT, and traditional defensive capabilities can degrade an attacking mechanized force faster than it can achieve what it traditionally could. Russia has attempted to compensate for these losses by applying larger amounts of mechanized mass at one time. This has generally lead to higher losses without a commensurate improvement in outcome. To be glib, sending in a battalion means they lose a battalion to take 2 trenches instead of losing a company to take 1 trench. This despite Russia trying all kinds of traditional means of paving the way for maneuver forces, such as insane amounts of artillery fire, massed infantry attacks to tie down the defenders, and of course "tank rushes" (to use a game term). None of this works in any reasonable fashion. The best Russia has been able to do is wear out the defenders' ability to defend a particular line, which they then occupy along with piles of decomposing countrymen from the previous attacks. The attacks are so costly that momentum is nearly impossible because there's nothing left to advance with and by the time there is Ukraine has dug in again. The cycle repeats over again. The conclusion I, and others, have come to is that there's really not much Russia can do given Ukraine's proven capabilities other than wearing them out through repeated attritional attacks. Maneuver is just not possible. On the other side, Ukraine has similar problems. Russia will defend territory to the last man and then, somehow, find more last men. Ukraine also doesn't have the ability to break through the Russian lines and have enough resources active to push further in. At least not on a regular basis or on a large scale. The previous Kharkiv and current Kursk attacks are exceptions to the rule and for very obvious reasons. Maneuver warfare can still work if the defenders aren't up to defending and the attackers are very much up for attacking. But not for very long because it's too easy to slow down a maneuver operation before it achieves too much. OK, enough ramblings for one night Steve The only way I can see for the RA to overcome is by using true mass. Like 1944-45 Soviet Army Bagration style mass without regard for losses and just keep going. I think that would be the only way, basically having more targets than the UA has ammunition. Of course that just isn't and won't be an option, so it is the penny packet meat assault tactics (PP-MAT ). Which in turn, actually favor the kind of war that Ukraine can whack the PPs as long as the flow of ISR and ammo keeps coming. The question I have is if you can diminish the enemy ISR and own the skies, does that restore maneuver warfare? What seems to be the most destructive thing to maneuver warfare is the inability to concentrate and surprise. It's like a constant Battle of Kursk going but with both sides seeing the others concentrations and intentions and being able to counter so very little moves. Maybe this battle of Kursk was the test as not only was it a lightly defended area, but the UA apparently used new tactics to inhibit RA ISR. It's really hard to know though as the UA can't push outside of their Air Denial bubble. If they had the assets to obtain air superiority even over that section, could they have really punched out and put maneuver warfare into motion? Or do the other factors pointed to here endlessly still maintain a defensive primacy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said: I just watched the latest K-2 video. What the Hell did they drop in this last sequence? 120mm mortar round? Or anti-tank mines, which have been used before for busting Russian dugouts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 6 hours ago, Jarran said: Here is the whole message from the Government, it's google translate so it might be some spelling errors etc: New military support package that strengthens Ukraine's defense capabilities. Published 09 September 2024 Today, September 9, the government has presented the 17th military support package to Ukraine. The package, worth 4.6 billion SEK, meets Ukraine's highest priority military needs and creates freedom of action for the future. It includes donation of equipment, direct procurement, equipment kits and financial donations. With support package 17, Sweden has contributed SEK 48.1 billion in military support to Ukraine since Russia's brutal war of aggression began in February 2022. In 2024 alone, Sweden has contributed a total of SEK 25 billion in military support. Procurement for donation With package 17, Sweden enters a new phase of military support to Ukraine through a greater focus on production instead of donation. Support package 17 contains three major procurements of equipment that is a special priority for Ukraine. The procurements must be carried out by either the Swedish Armed Forces or the Swedish Defense Materiel Administration (FMV). The value of these procurements totals approximately SEK 600 million. Sweden has previously sent 50 combat vehicles 90 to Ukraine. These combat vehicles have been proven very useful by Ukraine and therefore an additional 40mm ammunition for these combat vehicles is to be procured for delivery to Ukraine. Support package 16 included over 200 Pansarbandvang 302. (Armored tracked vehicle 302 APC) In order to give the Ukrainian units greater opportunity to act covertly, package 17 will include a procurement of camouflage equipment for these combat vehicles. The Ukrainian need for smaller flying drones remains high. Therefore, the government intends to provide additional funds to support the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in this area. Strengthening the defense capability on the ground Support package 17 also contains military equipment for ground combat to a value of approximately SEK 500 million. Ukraine has a very large need for anti-aircraft equipment due to Russia's attacks on civilian and military infrastructure. Sweden has previously handed over a number of different anti-aircraft robot systems and this package includes additional anti-aircraft robots of the Robot 70 type. Ukraine has specifically requested anti-tank weapons and anti-tank mines to better operate against Russian mechanized units. The package therefore includes a number of pansarskott (AT4), grenade launchers (Carl Gustav) and anti tank mines. The package also includes: Protective masks and protective equipment to enable work/tasks in a contaminated environment Ammunition for grenade launchers and grenade launchers fine caliber ammunition Training materials for recruit training in Ukraine Delivery of helmets and winter equipment for soldiers ahead of the coming winter Reinforcement of the naval defense capability at sea There is still a Russian threat to Ukrainian merchant shipping, and piloting of these ships regularly takes place via mine-cleared routes down towards the Bosphorus. In addition, extensive fighting is taking place along the front lines defined by rivers, where the Ukrainian Navy supports ground forces. The support package therefore contains material transfers of marine equipment to a value of SEK 500 million. Ukraine's rivers are the subject of many military activities and the Swedish Stridsbåt 90 has been a welcome addition to the Ukrainian Navy. Support package 17 contains another six Stridsbåt 90 including a marine supply solution that will support the Ukrainian navy's maintenance unit to create endurance for the Swedish equipment. In order to be able to launch different types of boats after maintenance measures on land, two launching trailers that can handle several different types of boats, including Stridsbåt 90, are also handed over. Material kits and financial donations Material sets for JAS 39 At the moment, it is not relevant to transfer the JAS Gripen to Ukraine, as it would interfere with the introduction of the F-16. However, the government continues to work on creating the conditions to possibly support Ukraine with the JAS 39 Gripen at a later stage. In support package 17, this takes place by procuring equipment sets for the JAS 39 Gripen to a value of approximately SEK 2.3 billion. Materiel kits are the parts of the JAS 39C/D used in the construction of the new JAS 39E. By procuring material sets, conditions are created to be able to donate a number of JAS 39C/D, instead of the material sets being dismantled from operational JAS 39C/D. Financial donations The support package contains roughly SEK 700 million for financial donations to funds and other multilateral initiatives in 2024. International initiatives where several nations create the conditions for larger procurements have proven to be effective. Within the area, there are both temporary multilateral initiatives relating to a particular materiel object, such as ammunition initiatives, to more permanent regular funds such as, for example, the British-led International Fund for Ukraine. Thanks for de-lurking and posting this! I think it helps answer the questions about why there is Gripen components in this package and yet Ukraine doesn't have any Gripen. It is interesting that Sweden is thinking ahead by producing spare parts for the older model. Is this the first solid confirmation that Gripens are intended to go to Ukraine? I mean, we have seen hints and rumors for quite some time, but i can't remember if the Swedish government has officially announced a plan for this. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredTopHat Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 Great interview with a finely aged British legionnaire. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolus Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 (edited) 6 hours ago, The_Capt said: The topper and frankly puts you in the same shed with John Kettler. So there is a Western conspiracy to keep this war going to "grind Russia down" and not actually achieve a level of victory for Ukraine? Ok, beyond your overinflated highly uniformed opinion...what possible proof do you have of this. Wait...I know...NATO escorted Russian drones to Odessa...of course. That is, frankly, your own position. It's not a conspiracy, you have repeatedly said yourself that Ukraine is quite unimportant, and that people who think Ukraine should be given what it needs to win a victory, in material, financial and political support, are very unreasonable due to a variety of risks and potential consequences (with which one can or cannot agree to various degrees). Normally I don't weigh in on two other people arguing, but after observing this exchange, I feel that I need to speak out on the side that is being treated somewhat unfairly. I think you started with an uncharitable impression of @Kraft after his comment on the Romanian incident (to which even Steve indicated that he would not find it unreasonable to assume that objects which are violating a nation's airspace and were positively identified should be shot down as a general principle, while taking into account the local political and legal situation) and then you read everything in that unnecessarily negative light, making personal jabs in addition. You are known for your military expertise, sharpness, humor and analytical ability, and every reader is blessed by the contributions you and others made to this thread - for free! Maybe Kraft has been too cheeky or exaggerating in his critique of how the West handles this tragedy of Ukrainians dying en masses in a conflict that follows quite directly from at least 15 years of Western nations appeasing, cooperating with and even encouraging through inaction various Russian crimes and acts of aggression as well as sabotage acts against themselves. But after all, for example, you wrote yourself more than once here that you would consider cutting all aid to Ukraine based on someone making a post on the internet you dislike. Would you apply the same lense to these statements which you use to look at Kraft's posts? Edited September 11 by Carolus 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolus Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 Quote The Ukrainian Armed Forces seem to have withdrawn from Marynivka , and the enemy's advanced units are breaking through between Ukrainske (which the enemy will probably also take control of in the near future) and Selidovo. Thus, it is very likely that the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be forced to completely abandon the bridgehead east of the Volchya River, in the direction of the village of Nevelskoye, and retreat to the line, probably Girnyk-Kurakhovka. In addition, the situation in the Selidovo area has also obviously worsened significantly. The enemy is very close to entering the city from the east and northeast, and has also managed to advance west of Novogrodovka. https://t.me/zvizdecmanhustu/2174 Mashovets on front developments in the south-east. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 (edited) 9 hours ago, Fenris said: Russians attacked from Korenevo towards Snagost with a fairly big mechanized column. The outcome of the attack is unclear, but some UA sources already confirmed the situation slightly worsened due to more Russian presence. Video footage reportedly shows Russian units of the 51st Guards Airborne Regiment launching an armored assault on the village of Snagost, advancing with a significant amount of equipment. According to Russian sources, the attack began from the north. The outcome is still unclear. + Video of an armored column with at least 8 tanks and armored vehicles from the Russian VDV's 51st Airborne Regiment assaulting Snagost in Kursk oblast. It appears Russia was able to get the armored force across the Seym River, despite Ukrainian strikes on the bridges. @Deepstate_UA says the situation has worsened on Ukraine's left flank in Kursk oblast. The latest update on the situation. Edited September 11 by Vanir Ausf B 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FancyCat Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 From FT, https://www.ft.com/content/48289996-e1bf-4c3e-befb-031698e89e1b, Pentagon and U.S intelligence oppose lifting restrictions, State inclined to support lifting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 9 hours ago, Offshoot said: This article makes it sound like there has been reluctance in NATO to even develop a policy due to their stance of non-involvement and NATO may have impeded members from dealing with Russian drones pro-actively. But the countries most affected are now agitating for change: NATO countries push for powers to defend themselves as Russian drones enter Romanian and Latvian airspace This is blame game. Again, NATO does not dictate internal defence policy. Any NATO policy requires an all-member buy in, which normally takes a long time. And even if NATO did develop some sort of Russian shoot down policy, it is ultimately up to the individual state to enforce it. NATO cannot “impede” a member state from defending itself and its airspace. It is a collective defence alliance not an operational authority. Now Latvia and Romania may be looking for assistance, which is another issue. But they are well within their rights to engage a hostile incursion into their sovereign airspace. They already have the “powers” to defend themselves under the UN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law Playing a “we wanted to but NATO would let us” card is political games. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said: The latest update on the situation. Kursk as a major raid was a good idea. To try and keep that ground is not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.