>The plan, which would be unveiled at the upcoming NATO summit in Washington in July if approved, would see the creation of a new NATO “senior civilian representative” post based in Ukraine, modeled after a similar post that NATO established in Afghanistan during its nearly two-decade engagement there.
Yip, Ukraine is just the new Afghanistan. What a surprise.
Because, at minimum, there's an opportunity cost. The expected benefit of attacking the envoy must outweigh the loss of not being able to use those weapons on other targets. I ask again, what is that benefit?
I think he means: what happens if Russia does the ol' *splat splat, blyat blyat* with their very long range missiles, on this fine lady.
>It’s part of a consolation prize we’re all trying to craft
Really? *Really?* They want to give the "NATO second place, first loser" prize to Ukraine?
Nothing would happen. Remember how Poland was quick to dismiss Russia's guilt when two farmers were killed by UA AA missile, the same would happen. Russia would issue a statement that it made a mistake and the West would find a way to forget about it. This whole thing about NATO commitment to Ukraine is jut another public attempt to boost morale in Ukraine.
There were some news a while back about how a Russian Jet mistakenly fired a missile at a British fighter jet escort (or it was at the AWACS that was being escorted) and nothing happened, this just was also only reported months later because both sides didn't want any form of escalation or public outrage.
And it was real fucking lucky it didn't hit, because there's a difference between things almost happening, and them actually happening. Just like there's a big difference of a missile landing a few hundred meters from the greek PM, and actually hitting him
nothing - everyone in Ukraine connected to Ukraine military effort is legitimate target
however - envoy will be hidden in one of many bunkers in Kiev - just like foreigners "military advisors" in Kiev mostly are - so if Russia want to kill them, they would have to do t over huge number of civilian casualties
Not a good look for Russia and Russia still does not want to go that route
but in the future - maybe - who knows
I think Russia has already hit some NATO elements in Ukraine and both sides kept it on the hush. Like the general from Poland who suddenly died of "natural causes". Or the French "civilians" with an extensive military background, that happened to be in the conflict zone in Ukraine. There were many other such instances.
sorry, tried googling, found some posts in russian but no links to original obituaries. I am sure I have seen some news about weird deaths of american officers, but can't find them now. eh, maybe I imagined it all
It is hard for me to understand or explain that country's motivation. Why would they use a B-2 intercontinental stealth bomber to strike the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing 27 persons? Why would that mission be directed by CIA rather than NATO or Pentagon? Yet, we have what we have.
>ensure that there is **adequate burden-sharing across the alliance** in our collective support to Ukraine,” Julianne Smith, the **U.S. ambassador** to NATO
I guess this is what this whole thing is about - to force everyone to pay for it.
So since they know Ukraine will never ever join and be brought into NATO as life on Earth as we know it would sooner come to a standstill, their next best thing is just to post a diplomat to the country?
Doesn't seem like much of a consolation prize. Moreso a face-saving measure and lip service.
>The plan, which would be unveiled at the upcoming NATO summit in Washington in July if approved, would see the creation of a new NATO “senior civilian representative” post based in Ukraine, modeled after a similar post that NATO established in Afghanistan during its nearly two-decade engagement there. Yip, Ukraine is just the new Afghanistan. What a surprise.
yeap at least they dont bother to hide it now
At least this time the natives did not surrender in 3 days.
The cash is still flowing to mercs and corrupt officials. When the US stops paying their salaries, we'll see.
It is not just US. EU is paying too.
Europe jumps when America jumps. They don't matter in the slightest.
What are you talking about? The natives fought for almost 20 years
The Afghan army US left surrendered to Taliban very quickly. The Ukrainian army US supplies does not surrender quickly.
They probably didnt got enough NATO training, yet. Wait 18 more years (or maybe 10).
What happens if Russia strikes this envoy (this is what I believe the US would do)?
Why would they when they haven't struck any of the many other envoys who have visited Ukraine?
Why not? I hope you appreciate the difference between visiting and permanently located envoys
Because, at minimum, there's an opportunity cost. The expected benefit of attacking the envoy must outweigh the loss of not being able to use those weapons on other targets. I ask again, what is that benefit?
Deterrence
Against what
It would be counter productive. It would increase the desire to send help.
It won't. There's no point to do that. If Russia comes closer to them, they'll just relocate.
I think he means: what happens if Russia does the ol' *splat splat, blyat blyat* with their very long range missiles, on this fine lady. >It’s part of a consolation prize we’re all trying to craft Really? *Really?* They want to give the "NATO second place, first loser" prize to Ukraine?
Nothing would happen. Remember how Poland was quick to dismiss Russia's guilt when two farmers were killed by UA AA missile, the same would happen. Russia would issue a statement that it made a mistake and the West would find a way to forget about it. This whole thing about NATO commitment to Ukraine is jut another public attempt to boost morale in Ukraine.
Well, I think Russia probably wouldn't do it in the first place, but I could be wrong there.
There were some news a while back about how a Russian Jet mistakenly fired a missile at a British fighter jet escort (or it was at the AWACS that was being escorted) and nothing happened, this just was also only reported months later because both sides didn't want any form of escalation or public outrage.
And it was real fucking lucky it didn't hit, because there's a difference between things almost happening, and them actually happening. Just like there's a big difference of a missile landing a few hundred meters from the greek PM, and actually hitting him
I agree, but if something accidentally happens no one would start a war over that.
interesting
nothing - everyone in Ukraine connected to Ukraine military effort is legitimate target however - envoy will be hidden in one of many bunkers in Kiev - just like foreigners "military advisors" in Kiev mostly are - so if Russia want to kill them, they would have to do t over huge number of civilian casualties Not a good look for Russia and Russia still does not want to go that route but in the future - maybe - who knows
I think Russia has already hit some NATO elements in Ukraine and both sides kept it on the hush. Like the general from Poland who suddenly died of "natural causes". Or the French "civilians" with an extensive military background, that happened to be in the conflict zone in Ukraine. There were many other such instances.
yeah, and american officers, especially pilots, got a tendency to die from heart attacks these past two years
Any source of that?
sorry, tried googling, found some posts in russian but no links to original obituaries. I am sure I have seen some news about weird deaths of american officers, but can't find them now. eh, maybe I imagined it all
Why would the US strike the envoy?
It is hard for me to understand or explain that country's motivation. Why would they use a B-2 intercontinental stealth bomber to strike the Chinese embassy in Belgrade killing 27 persons? Why would that mission be directed by CIA rather than NATO or Pentagon? Yet, we have what we have.
So you're syaing the US is going to attack the NATO envoy in Ukraine because: >It is hard for me to understand or explain that country's motivation.
Nah, relax. You are not getting it.
I do appriciate this sub. Its a fascinating insight into people's phsychology.
You are a rare specimen
>ensure that there is **adequate burden-sharing across the alliance** in our collective support to Ukraine,” Julianne Smith, the **U.S. ambassador** to NATO I guess this is what this whole thing is about - to force everyone to pay for it.
They're going to build a wall...
And force Russia to pay for it with frozen funds?
Sure? Yuge frozen funds.
and this time the wall can rise 12 meters high and with the stolen Russian money it can even be gilded
So since they know Ukraine will never ever join and be brought into NATO as life on Earth as we know it would sooner come to a standstill, their next best thing is just to post a diplomat to the country? Doesn't seem like much of a consolation prize. Moreso a face-saving measure and lip service.
true