His words could have brought NATO into a war with Russia on false premises. That's negligence on a criminal level. — Isaac

I know that you scare easily, but this is ridiculous even by your chicken little standards. NATO does not take its orders from Zelensky. Beside, it's not yet certain that Zelensky is wrong on the origin of the missile.

I've quoted it back to you several times:

You misunderstood my claim. I was referring precisely to the following condition: “each side saw it was in their best interest to avoid a large scale nuclear war”. The best interest of both US and Soviet Union was calculated by taking into account the deterrence means they both had (but Ukraine doesn’t have!), and this was pre-condition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue. — boethius

You keep quoting only the claim that triggered your misunderstanding without taking into account all my clarifications. But you misunderstood that quote: "taking into account the deterrence means they both had" is the "precondition for the kind of agreements they could rationally pursue" (like the NTP and prior to that the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ). So "precondition" refers to a rational requirement for the US and Soviet Union to take into account their deterrence means while pursuing their agreements (like the NTP and prior to that the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ).

It cannot be clearer that your implication is that it would not be rational for Ukraine to enter the same agreements without nuclear weapons. — boethius

I clarified what I could infer from my claim about Ukraine (not having nuclear bombs): since Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons, the deterrence strategy available to Ukraine in negotiating with Russia (which has nuclear weapons) can not be like the one available to the US in dealing with the Soviet Union. Therefore Ukraine is rationally looking for alternatives (e.g. security guarantees, NATO membership and the like)
So you must have understood from that too that I couldn't mean what you keep attributing to me like a fool.

Since, you moved the goalpost from "pre-condition" (the word you use) to "rational requirement" to "taking into account". — boethius

You understand words the way you like without double check, then you iterate on a huge strawman argument built out of this misunderstanding, and despite all the clarifications I've given to you. And you wanna get away with it? Are you crazy, dude?!

NATO does not take its orders from Zelensky. — Olivier5

NATO are required to respond by treaty to any threat made to a member country. If there is doubt as to the origin of the missile, NATO will be some degree more inclined than otherwise to respond as if it were Russia. He negligently increased the risk of NATO concluding it was more likely Russia and responding accordingly. It's nothing to do with 'giving orders', it's to do with brazenly lying about some facts which are really important to get correct.

But of course, all your bleating about the importance of 'facts' goes out the window the moment it goes against your mainstream narrative.

NATO will NOT respond even if it they conclude the missile was fired by Russia. It's evidently a mistake, a stray missile. Calm down already.

NATO will NOT respond even if it they conclude the missile was fired by Russia. It's evidently a mistake, a stray missile. Calm down already. — Olivier5

What evidence? I thought the origin of the missile was shrouded in mystery.

Weird. They don't know who fired it, but they know why.

Maybe they are a bit smarter than you are, or a little more interested in understanding things than you seem to be. A good thing you don't work in NATO.

More claims and conjectures and ornamental blablabla. — neomac

What I describe is not conjecture, but a potential scenario that makes clear the ornamental nature of any "guarantees" to any peace deal concerning Ukraine.

I am not "conjecturing" that this scenario will come to pass, but developing such scenarios is how decisions are made. Ukraine's concern about "security guarantees" comes from asking "what if Russia reinvades later anyways".

For the word "guarantee" to be more than an ornament would mean that the US et. al. would fulfil whatever it is they promised to do, or make sure Russia doesn't do, even if it's no longer their policy to do.

For example, if it's policy to want to pour arms into Ukraine if Russia re-invades for the same reasons they did the first time or then entirely new reasons, then they don't really need an agreement. NATO wasn't bound by treaty to pour arms into Ukraine in February, they did so because they wanted to.

Now, imagine things change and NATO no longer wants to pour arms into Ukraine.

Would the agreement itself compel them to act (such as supply arms again) just in order to keep a promise, even if it's in total contradiction to their national interests and policies at this future time?

If the answer is ... yeah, no, they'd just "look out for number 1" as they always do, then all this talk of "guarantee" is an ornamental sense, adds nothing to whatever the promise the guarantee is attached to, just embellishes the promise, which may have some consequences as far as embellishments (they maybe really very sorry for breaking a guarantee, truly regret it, rather than simply be just sorry and regret it, breaking a promise that was not also guaranteed).

They may have some excuse, like " 'assurance' means absolutely nothing", which would be likely the case if there's a peace deal as the wording will be such that nothing was really promised anyways, for the simple reason that the US doesn't need to. Or, if they really are breaking a promise but they just can't fulfil it (consistent with their policies at this future time) then they may just say that it's unfortunate but they can't afford to try to rescue Ukraine again ... or, they just say nothing and do nothing.

The reason to believe Russia won't just re-invade is exactly as you describe: it's costly.

Of course, they were willing to take this risk and pay this cost once, so that's not really a "guarantee" just the reasons they don't invade is that it's costly, and the reasons they do reinvade is ... it's costly but they're willing to pay the cost.

The whole point of fighting a more powerful state is to demonstrate that there's a high cost to the use of force, to then negotiate a resolution using that leverage that, sure, Ukraine maybe entirely destroyed by the end of a war, but it's still a big cost and hassle to Russia too.

This is what Finland did with the Soviet Union, demonstrate war isn't easy and then negotiate a compromise ... but somehow Finland is only a model on killing Russians and not their diplomatic efforts that they carried out consistently, continuously, reasonably and earnestly in parallel to the fighting.

Maybe they are a bit smarter than you are? — Olivier5

Who?

Paul Massaro, a prominent American supporter of Ukraine and member of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, said around the same time that “Russian terrorism” had reached Poland, adding shortly after that it was “[h]ard to believe this was an accident.”

“Very concerned by Russian missiles dropping in Poland,” tweeted Slovakian Defense Minister Jaroslav Nad at 2:46 pm. “Will be in close contact with [NATO allies] to coordinate [a] response.”

A “senior European diplomat” echoed Nad in a Politico piece, saying that it was “appalling to see a desperate regime attacking critical infrastructure of Ukraine and hitting allied territory with victims.”

Anders Aslund of the Atlantic Council argued at around 3:30 pm. In a message aimed directly at President Joe Biden, Aslund said, “You have promised to defend ‘every inch of NATO territory.’ Are you going to bomb Russia now?”

Sergej Sumlenny, a prominent European policy expert, implied in a viral tweet that the attack was an intentional extension of Russia’s assault on Ukrainian infrastructure.

Mykhailo Podolyak, one of the top advisors to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, declared that the strikes were “not an accident, but a deliberately planned ‘hello’ from [Russia], disguised as a ‘mistake.’”

Zelensky tweeted that the “Russian attack on collective security in the Euro-Atlantic is a significant escalation” of the conflict.

Podolyak maintained that NATO should enact a no-fly zone in Ukraine,

It is simply utter bollocks to say they knew it was an accident but didn't know where it came from. The facts are that they learned where it most likely came from first, and prior to that considered several theories involving hostile intent.

...but I think we've established how little the actual facts of the case have any influence on your propaganda.

If Zelensky believes in good faith that the missile was sent by Russia, then he is not following a political line in saying so. He is just saying what he believes is the case. — Olivier5

You have an interesting idea of "good faith" which is actually to the total opposite. What Zelensky believes is irrelevant; he needs to have reason to believe it.

One of the tests of "good faith" is that the action has to be reasonable. You cannot maintain that acting, or urging others to act, on beliefs that are not grounded in facts is reasonable. Facts which you maintained were not available. I can honestly believe we'll be struck by a meteor tomorrow and urge everyone to go out and get drunk but I wouldn't be acting in good faith, since claiming such a thing without any evidence is unreasonable.

Zelensky's willingness to make these claims without knowledge, or more likey with knowledge to the contrary, is a reminder that our interests do not align 100% with that of Ukraine. The most charitable interpretation is that he wants to secure arms deliveries for the foreseeable future in light of Biden's mention of "ally fatigue" beginning of this month but that requires him to be stupid enough not to realise the possible consequences. But he did realise because he expressly referred to an escalation when he said: :

Hitting NATO territory with missiles. … This is a Russian missile attack on collective security! This is a really significant escalation. Action is needed. — Zelensky

So he doesn't know (according to you) but he's totally fine with calling for an escalation of a war with a nuclear super power right here in Europe without knowing whose missile it was. That's not reasonable and considering the very serious potential consequences, is a textbook example of "bad faith" as it in no way, shape or form takes into consideration the safety of people currently not involved in this war.

Not everything Ukrainian is necessarily sinister, you know?

How strangely your mind works.

What Zelensky did yesterday was insane! Does he not understand that such reckless acts will harm Ukraine much more than the current war?

A nuclear war would destroy every single Ukranian, European and likely the majority of the world's population.

I can understand and sympathize with the situation his country is in, it's not nice to have fellow citizens dying from missile barrages. But to suggest without evidence that Russia attacked Poland is one of the most dangerous acts in recent history.

I think they are aware that if things don't close soon in this war, Russian reservists will enter and basically wreck everything they want. It's probably won't be too long before something like this happens. This crazy act was probably meant to stop that.

It would be nice to negotiate before massive bloodshed happens with the reservists coming in.

But of course you have to immediately spin it to some pro-Ukrainian stance — Isaac

I'm not spinning anything. I'm describing what the scenario would be if it was Russian. But you can't even accept speculation based on a possible conclusion out of the investigation. Or even what it would have been if it had been Russian.

Your constant straw-manning and intentional misinterpretation of other's posts in order to spin it in your direction in this thread makes you a dishonest interlocutor, I'm not engaging with your dishonest posts and inability to understand what the fuck others are writing. Spin away into a corner somewhere.

I don't know why you go through this process as a reaction to my post as it's not very relevant to the point I'm making. Zelensky called for action as a clear reaction to what he called a "Russian escalation". You mind-reading Zelensky that he would think it won't lead to an article 5 consequence, which requires him to mindread NATO decision makers, is quaint but I'll take what Zelensky actually said over that particular invention.

Btw, irrespective of who fired the missile, you get an article 4 event if invoked.

The fact is that the US and Poland have both said conflicting things within their own nations so there's nothing conclusive at all about this. — Christoffer

I've read "Russian missiles, we don't know who did it" and read several people clamoring the Russians did it, including the Ukrainian president and several US news outlets, on Wednesday and that changed to "Russian missiles, fired by Ukraine" according to NATO and the USA when I opened my browser this morning. Seems pretty conclusive to me and I can't for the life of me think of a good reason for NATO/USA to claimy it wasn't a Russian fired missile when it actually was and to do so before the investigation has been finished unless they have very high confidence levels to make such statements.

So, at this point in time, I'm going with "Ukraine accidentaly hit Poland while defending against a Russian barrage" as the most rational position.

What Zelensky did yesterday was insane! Does he not understand that such reckless acts will harm Ukraine much more than the current war?

A nuclear war would destroy every single Ukranian, European and likely the majority of the world's population. — Manuel

How does a Russian misfire into Poland lead to nuclear war? It's engaging Article 4, not 5 and would most likely lead to higher political pressure on Russia because such an event would clearly give Nato political ammunition they didn't have before and a clear reason for higher-ups in Russia to de-escalate. Zelensky knows this and might have tried to take advantage of the situation.

They all know the MAD consequence, that's not an outcome of a misfire. If Russia deliberately fired into a Nato nation, that would be another thing, but that's not what happened even if Russia was responsible for this.

What I wrote was a speculation on the outcome if it was Russian. Zelensky wants a no-fly zone over Ukraine, he knows a full-blown Article 5 intervention would be too much for the world to handle and that no one wants to initiate that. But if he could push Nato, out of the situation that Russia misfires into Nato nations, then a no-fly zone could become a reality based on that fact and Nato could deal with the diplomacy towards Russia in a way where they initiate a no-fly zone without concluding it all to be a direct war with Russia, but instead in order to defend against irrational misfires. It would be diplomatic ammunition to pressure Russia in ways they couldn't have done before.

Yes, we know that now that Russia was not deliberately aiming at Poland.

That's not what Zelensky and people in his cabinet said at the time these missiles hit Polish territory.

I think it should be obvious that some kind of official investigation should occur before reaching conclusions based on the relevant facts, due to the stakes involved. They did not wait to announce who did what to whom.

This incidentally led to several politicians both in the US and Europe to start claiming that it was time to get in the war. Luckily Biden waited for the Polish intel, which concluded this was not a deliberate attack, contrary to Zelensky's statements.

That's not what Zelensky and people in his cabinet said at the time these missiles hit Polish territory. — Manuel

If you were in his situation, asking for a no-fly zone and more help to defend his people and push back the Russians, what would you have done? Especially since right-wing nationalists around the world keep hinting of leaving Ukraine in the dust by stopping aid.

Are you saying that Zelensky should put the world on his shoulders and be the perfect leader for everyone around the world while backward politicians around the world keep hinting of turning their backs on him. I wouldn't, I would probably do whatever I could to try and defend Ukraine and push for the aid that is required.

It's insane what people demand of him in the situation he's in from behind the safety of our own nations.

So your interpretation of "Action is needed" is Zelensky wanting a no-fly zone? Have you seen the entire address where here comes to that conclusion? I don't feel that's a reasonable interpretation of what he said.

Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died. Please accept condolences from all Ukrainian brothers. Poland, the Baltic states. it's only a matter of time before Russian terror goes further. We must put the terrorist in place. the longe Russia feels impunity, the more threats there will be to everyone who can be reached by missiles. To strike with missiles NATO territory isa Russian strike on collective security. It's a significant escalation. Action is required. I now want to tell our Polish brothers and sisters - Ukraine will always support you. free people won't be broken by terror. Victory is possible when there is no fear. And we and you are not afraid. — Zelensky

It's not an easy situation, that much is true.

But what should be clear to him, is that getting direct NATO involvement would signify the end of Ukraine and of Europe. This is not secret information.

I'd like to believe that I would wait for the facts, knowing the consequences of my statements. But I'm not him.

"Action is needed" — Benkei

And you, of course, interpret that as "initiate Article 5 and bomb Russia to hell".

In no way is what he said directly pushing for a direct world war with Russia. Why wouldn't "action is needed" also mean a no-fly zone that he has been asking for since the beginning of the war? Or more serious pressure from Nato towards Russia than just sending weapons.

How is my interpretation and speculation in any shape or form less true than what you suggest?

But what should be clear to him, is that getting direct NATO involvement would signify the end of Ukraine and of Europe. This is not secret information. — Manuel

Direct Nato involvement is not a single event. It can also mean other structures of pressure on Russia than some final nuclear war. It's this type of black-and-white assessment of the situation, disregarding any kind of more serious diplomacy against Russia as an outcome.

The most likely outcome, out of this specific situation, that Nato can deal against Russia would be to pressure them that they will initiate a no-fly zone to block possible rogue missiles going into Nato nations. That would be a kind of soft no-fly zone that doesn't become a full confrontal war and it would have legitimacy within the context of what has happened here. Within that diplomacy, they would have the foundational reasoning against Russia for such a no-fly zone that isn't a full-blown Article 5 movement.

But people seem to argue about both Russia and Nato as being just people with their finger over the red button. That's the depth some of these discussions seems to have.

And how would they decide what missiles count as rouge or not? There is very little margin of error here.

If the margin were as big as you imply, such actions would have already been considered and probably implemented, given how long the war has been going on.

And how would they decide what missiles count as rouge or not? There is very little margin of error here.

If the margin were as big as you imply, such actions would have already been considered and probably implemented, given how long the war has been going on. — Manuel

If a no-fly zone were initiated, or a "soft" one, that would basically mean Nato shoots down the missiles shot into Ukraine. If that happened without the context of this event, it would be considered a direct oppositional act by Nato against Russia, but if it's within a context of diplomatic pressure against Russia that "this is the only way Nato can assure Russia that they will not escalate into war but instead protect themselves from Russian misfires". It's an escalation, sure, but not a direct war and it would set a specific context around why it's initiated as a direct pressure point toward Russia to stop sending in missiles.

A Russian misfire is a serious blow to Russia, not anyone else. There's little diplomatic ammunition that Russia can gain out of this situation as Nato has always been clear about its focus on defense. Russia's claims that Nato is trying to be on the offense against Russia has no merits and is proven by Nato not involving itself in battles, but if Russia misfires into a Nato nation they could argue that they need to defend themselves against such events and Russia has little to argue against that.

He waves with the spectre of Russia attacking Poland and the Baltic States in a similar fashion as Ukraine and you're thinking about a no fly zone and not pre-emptive defence? And he references NATO, knowing full well the article 5 obligations in that treaty, because shits and giggles, "no fly zones" because where exactly are those mentioned in the treaty?

As I said, I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation at all.

but if it's within a context of diplomatic pressure against Russia that "this is the only way Nato can assure Russia that they will not escalate into war but instead protect themselves from Russian misfires". It's an escalation, sure, but not a direct war and it would set a specific context around why it's initiated as a direct pressure point toward Russia to stop sending in missiles. — Christoffer

As I said, they have probably considered and dismissed this option. Every time any type of No-Fly Zone has been proposed, it has been immediately rejected. Why? Because this would force Russia to go nuclear.

It's direct interference in war. NATO members know that, even Stoltenberg agrees that a no-fly zone would lead to World War III. They would be best positioned to know what would happen in this case, so I don't think your proposals are realistic.

but if Russia misfires into a Nato nation they could argue that they need to defend themselves against such events and Russia has little to argue against that. — Christoffer

Sure. This is true.

It's insane what people demand of him in the situation he's in from behind the safety of our own nations. — Christoffer

He's the leader of a nation and the commander in chief of an army. He's not a five year old having a go at 'My First Country'. We can, and should, expect exactly the level of diplomacy and restraint being suggested. Not taking an ambiguous and dangerous option which could potentially put thousands more lives at risk is basic.

If he doesn't want to have his decisions held to account by those who might be affected by them then he's in the wrong job.

As many as theorized, there's a good possibility Russia has reached its strategic goals (land access to Crimea) and if that is the case, they are likely looking to end the conflict sooner rather than later. Giving up Kherson may very well be the price. — Tzeentch

They were obviously trying to take Kiev, and we now know that Putin was trying to stamp out the Ukrainian identity in Kherson. Putin is without a doubt, the scum of the earth. He's a turd on top of a mountain of slimy poop. He's... well, I'm sure you agree. He sucks.

take the wretched bombs out already, aggressively, throughout, whether it takes lots or more or special or expensive tech or not — jorndoe

NASAMS air defense system have 100% success rate in Ukraine- Pentagon chief
^{— Reuters · Nov 16, 2022}
Pentagon chief: NASAMS intercept all Russian missiles in Ukraine
^{— The Kyiv Independent · Nov 16, 2022}
U.S. NASAMS Having 100% Success Rate in Stopping Russian Missiles: Pentagon
^{— Newsweek · Nov 17, 2022}

:up:

Better stop shooting down missiles and kamikaze drones then — jorndoe

Yes — Isaac

Can't tell if trolling or not. Choosing between downing incoming bombs and letting them fall isn't much of a choice. (NASAMS can help, too. :up:) Could always try to calculate (expected) numerical differences I guess; there is a fair amount of data to go by:

The Ukraine war in maps | Russia launches largest missile attack of the conflict against key infrastructure
^{— Javier Galán, Mariano Zafra · EL PAÍS · Nov 16, 2022}

Because this would force Russia to go nuclear — Manuel

They wouldn't be forced to start nuking. Besides, if they did, then that'd likely end up worse for Russia(ns) anyway. They'd still have decisions to make.

Looks like Zelenskyy blundered horribly. And is getting a lot of attention for that. (Had to happen sooner or later? No re-election for Mr Zelenskyy (perhaps). If NATO is going to retaliate, I'd suggest starting with the east Kherson oblast. :grin:)

They wouldn't be forced to start nuking. Besides, if they did, then that'd likely end up worse for Russia(ns) anyway. They'd still have decisions to make. — jorndoe

Well if that is true - as some people here are gambling on, which is what it is, - then tell me, why hasn't NATO decided to implement such a no-fly zone?

Surely, you must figure, they are aware that Russia won't use nuclear weapons, because they aren't forced to do so. So, what prevents it? After all, send a large NATO coalition to carpet bomb the Russian military, then the war would be over.

NATO can surely do that much.

Choosing between downing incoming bombs and letting them fall isn't much of a choice. (NASAMS can help, too. :up:) Could always try to calculate (expected) numerical differences I guess; there is a fair amount of data to go by: — jorndoe

Of course it's a choice. It's exactly the choice military commanders make almost continuously during military operations - military objectives vs the risk of collateral damage.

Even the legal frameworks acknowledge the notion, let alone the ethical ones. Being attacked isn't an excuse to just do whatever you want by way of defense.

Clearly in this case, the decision to launch the defensive missile was sound, but if continued misses run a risk of extension or escalation then yes, those are exactly the sorts of collateral damage command are ethically, and in many cases legally, obliged to take into consideration when determining a course of defensive action.

It's not just 'throw everything at them and hang the consequences'...despite the ever more shrill cries from social media for world war three to get started already.

You have an interesting idea of "good faith" — Benkei

Not really, no. I go by the usual meaning, which implies a lack of lies and dissimulation, but does not imply that only reasonable statements are in good faith. The word 'faith' is not synonym of the word 'reason'. It's more an antonym in fact. Sometimes it is rational to lie. but one cannot lie in good faith.

Zelensky's willingness to make these claims without knowledge, or more likey with knowledge to the contrary, is a reminder that our interests do not align 100% with that of Ukraine. — Benkei

That would be true, and obvious, even if and when Zelensky argues in good faith. In fact, each and every country at play has its own interest. They just happen to coincide momentarily, in each camp (Russia and Belarus on one side, Ukraine and 'the West' on the other).

Tomorrow, it may be that the interests of Belarus and Russia do not align anymore. Or it could be that, say, Italy leaves the pro-Ukraine coalition. Not saying it will happen but it's perfectly possible

So he doesn't know (according to you) but he's totally fine with calling for an escalation of a war with a nuclear super power — Benkei

He is only calling for 'action'. That's vague enough. It could be anything. An increase in weapon delivery would qualify.

There are (most likely) two possibilities here: either 1 the Russian flew this missile, or 2 the Ukrainians did it. ( excluding other hypotheses a bit hastily perhaps but open to rebuttals)

If 1, then the US intell got it wrong, something which we haven't been used to during this war but it has happened before, and Zelensky is right, and right about opining so. He would be in his role. You can't expect the Ukrainian president to act otherwise, if indeed the Russians did send this missile and Zelensky have some reason to believe it (his own intell).

If 2, then either 2.1 Zelensky knows it and therefore he acts in bad faith in saying Ukraine didn't do it, or 2.2 Zelensky does not know it, and/or believes otherwise. He is still in good faith and in his role then.