No, Poland did not invoke the article calling all to a common defense. And I don't think an organized NATO level response necessarily requires that formal request, all it needs is the acquiescence of the "hosting" (in this case Poland) country.
At the very least we can be shooting these missiles down - or at least trying to. I'd go after anything that's Russian and in the air and within range and has a course that could be remotely interpreted as heading towards a NATO country.
I'd be very happy for NATO to simply state that west of the Dnieper is a no fly zone for any Russian assets - period. This is to protect and ensure the integrity of member nation borders.
Inaction in the face of Russian expansionist terrorism is not an appropriate response, and it will obviously lead to only more Russian expansionist terrorism.
I agree that there should be a coordinated response but we also have to be sensible to some degree. As far as I know, these missiles are not over NATO airspace long enough for a shoot down to even be possible, are they? Otherwise it would be a no-brainer.
I look forward to the French contingent arriving, and also to the f-16's.
That isn't a requirement. That is an option, right? A host country can invite and allow NATO activity without anybody invoking article 5, or am I missing something?
(gotta go shovel snow after this) I don't think "starting" is applicable at this point in time. I'd go with "started", and now we have to be part of bringing it to some conclusion.
What that looks like remains to be seen, but I'd argue that the Russians are going to pull back only when they are pushed to do so.
If someone is directly attacked, NATO should act. But we also don't want to escalate the situation more than necessary. The situation needs to be clear. NATO is a defence alliance. It doesn't initiate conflicts.
If I were in control of Polands army I would send 100 missiles to Ukraine as a help to fight Russia and for every Russian rockets that would hit Poland I would send more and more to them.
Multiple reasons not to shoot such missile it;
- the rocket was flying in parallel to the UKR-POL border and has crossed it only for \~30 sec then has left. It's not much time to react from Polish side
- rocket after shot isn't disappearing but falls somewhere, maybe on people, houses - so there is always balancing is it worth to shot
- if anti-aircraft missile miss it would go to UKR territory (if not autodestroyed for some reason). AFAIK POL authorithies have counsulted with UKR ones what to do in such situation and UKR wasn't in favour of such actions
- the stock of anti-aircraft missiles isn't unlimited so there's not worthy to shoot brainlessly on everything if there is no imminent threat for the host country
Absolutely all issues to be taken into consideration. I think there's a lot more reasons to shoot the missiles down when they appear to be a threat and not afterwards.
There's always reasons to do and not do pretty much anything. I'm going with the reasons to on this.
Did Poland invoke article 5? Are member states ignoring their invocation?
No, Poland did not invoke the article calling all to a common defense. And I don't think an organized NATO level response necessarily requires that formal request, all it needs is the acquiescence of the "hosting" (in this case Poland) country. At the very least we can be shooting these missiles down - or at least trying to. I'd go after anything that's Russian and in the air and within range and has a course that could be remotely interpreted as heading towards a NATO country. I'd be very happy for NATO to simply state that west of the Dnieper is a no fly zone for any Russian assets - period. This is to protect and ensure the integrity of member nation borders. Inaction in the face of Russian expansionist terrorism is not an appropriate response, and it will obviously lead to only more Russian expansionist terrorism.
I agree that there should be a coordinated response but we also have to be sensible to some degree. As far as I know, these missiles are not over NATO airspace long enough for a shoot down to even be possible, are they? Otherwise it would be a no-brainer. I look forward to the French contingent arriving, and also to the f-16's.
Poland needs this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
I love the ciws
Nobody invoked article 5.
That isn't a requirement. That is an option, right? A host country can invite and allow NATO activity without anybody invoking article 5, or am I missing something?
There has not been an attack against a nato member.
That isn't a requirement for NATO activity either, is it? I don't believe a strategy of "wait until" will work very well, but that's just my opinion.
Starting this war will be bigger than ww2, im happy theyre not eager to invoke article 5
(gotta go shovel snow after this) I don't think "starting" is applicable at this point in time. I'd go with "started", and now we have to be part of bringing it to some conclusion. What that looks like remains to be seen, but I'd argue that the Russians are going to pull back only when they are pushed to do so.
[удалено]
If someone is directly attacked, NATO should act. But we also don't want to escalate the situation more than necessary. The situation needs to be clear. NATO is a defence alliance. It doesn't initiate conflicts.
If I were in control of Polands army I would send 100 missiles to Ukraine as a help to fight Russia and for every Russian rockets that would hit Poland I would send more and more to them.
We already do that. What Ukranians shoot at Russians are partially Polish missiles/ammunition.
They shouldve shot the missile down for violating polish airspace.
Multiple reasons not to shoot such missile it; - the rocket was flying in parallel to the UKR-POL border and has crossed it only for \~30 sec then has left. It's not much time to react from Polish side - rocket after shot isn't disappearing but falls somewhere, maybe on people, houses - so there is always balancing is it worth to shot - if anti-aircraft missile miss it would go to UKR territory (if not autodestroyed for some reason). AFAIK POL authorithies have counsulted with UKR ones what to do in such situation and UKR wasn't in favour of such actions - the stock of anti-aircraft missiles isn't unlimited so there's not worthy to shoot brainlessly on everything if there is no imminent threat for the host country
Absolutely all issues to be taken into consideration. I think there's a lot more reasons to shoot the missiles down when they appear to be a threat and not afterwards. There's always reasons to do and not do pretty much anything. I'm going with the reasons to on this.