This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Responsibility for the missile strike in Poland is still being established.
But the way countries responded to the incident before the facts were known was revealing.
Ukraine was swift to blame Russia. President Zelensky called it "a Russian missile attack on collective security" and as such "a very significant escalation". Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was "a conspiracy theory" to suggest missiles were part of Ukrainian air defences. These claims about Russia subsequently appear unfounded.
This kind of rhetoric is beginning to exhaust the patience of some Western diplomats. They fear that Kyiv's at times maximalist language and demands risk adding to so-called "Ukraine fatigue" among allies.

Baltic states on the front line with Russia were quick to call on the collective defence of Nato. The President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda declared on Twitter: "Every inch of NATO territory must be defended!" And others said the incident made the case for even greater military support for Ukraine.
Latvia's defence minister, Artis Pabriks, suggested NATO could provide more air defences for Poland and "part of territory of Ukraine". Kaja Kallas, Estonia's prime minister, said the West should give Ukraine more military, humanitarian and financial support.

In contrast, the initial response from the United States and other Western countries was to call for calm and wait for the facts to emerge.
There was a clear desire to avoid any escalation that could involve a collective Nato military response. American officials were among the first to suggest the missiles were part Ukrainian air defences.

Ukraine war: Poland missile strike reveals Nato divisions

James Landale on what different responses to the missile deaths in Poland say about Nato.

www.bbc.com

 

[seminole97]

View embedded media

Milley should know better.
He’s either wrong, or calling Bill Clinton a war criminal.

Link
Two oil refineries and a substantial portion of Serbia’s stored POL stocks. The two refineries, which constituted the FRY’s en- tire refining capacity, were largely destroyed.
…
Nine of Serbia’s major electric power–generating facilities and a number of Serbian electric power transmission towers. The attacks on electric power targets produced major power disrup- tions (some of protracted length) throughout Serbia, causing electrical blackouts and a lack of running water in many cities, towns, and villages. As a result of the May 22 attacks alone, some 70 percent of Serbia’s power reportedly went down.

Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia​

Using the Protocol I definition and his own review of state practice, Major General A.P.V. Rogers, a former Director of British Army Legal Services has advanced a tentative list of military objectives:

…military personnel and persons who take part in the fighting without being members of the armed forces, military facilities, military equipment, including military vehicles, weapons, munitions and stores of fuel, military works, including defensive works and fortifications, military depots and establishments, including War and Supply Ministries, works producing or developing military supplies and other supplies of military value, including metallurgical, engineering and chemical industries supporting the war effort; areas of land of military significance such as hills, defiles and bridgeheads; railways, ports, airfields, bridges, main roads as well as tunnels and canals; oil and other power installations; communications installations, including broadcasting and television stations and telephone and telegraph stations used for military communications. (Rogers, Law on the Battlefield (1996) 37)

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Milley's comments...retracted progressive caucus letter....seems policy on negotiations is shifting.



President Joe Biden’s recent diplomatic interventions in the Russia-Ukraine war have given Washington whiplash. In just the past two weeks, reporting has revealed that the Biden administration has had discussions with Ukraine to nudge it toward negotiations and engaged in secret direct talks with Russia to prevent nuclear escalation. The administration also recently agreed to resume inspections under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty in coordination with Russia.

Ironically, the revelations of Biden’s diplomacy come less than a month after the now infamous — or perhaps visionary — retracted letter from 30 House progressives calling on Biden to invest more in diplomacy to bring about an acceptable end to the war. While that letter was mischaracterized and roundly criticized by much of the Washington establishment as appeasement, it turned out that Biden was already sensibly using diplomacy to try to reduce harm and help end the war on terms beneficial to Ukraine. It’s a promising development: Biden should be commended for shifting toward diplomacy and de-escalation.

Recent reporting has revealed that national security adviser Jake Sullivan earlier this month started discussions with Ukraine on ending the conflict while nudging Kyiv to show greater openness to diplomacy. Ukraine “must show its willingness to end the war reasonably and peacefully,” U.S. officials reportedly relayed to Kyiv. As a direct result of Sullivan’s efforts, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy outlined five conditions for negotiations last week that no longer included the non-starter demand that Russian President Vladimir Putin be out of power before talks can take place.


At the same time, Sullivan has initiated direct communications with his Russian counterpart, Russia’s Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, ensuring that U.S.-Russia diplomacy is no longer exclusively in the hands of the American generals. Extensive American support has helped Ukraine retake large swaths of land, including Kherson, forcing the Russians to give up territory it had formally annexed only weeks ago and adopt a defensive posture. “It’s increasingly apparent that Russia has now moved to a more definitively defensive position along most of the front lines,” a Western official told NBC.

Biden’s laudable shift toward diplomacy is perhaps a bit surprising given how the Washington establishment has treated any hint of negotiations as appeasement and a betrayal of the Ukrainians. Just two weeks ago, the Financial Times’ Ed Luce concluded that diplomacy “is a taboo word in American politics right now.”

Opinion | Biden proves progressives were right all along on diplomacy with Russia

Turns out widely criticized congressional progressives were helping Biden, not hurting him.

www.msnbc.com

 

[VodkaSam]

View embedded media

Wow…for the first time since the start of their war, the Russian propagandist was on point.

 

[Joes Place]

Ukraine was swift to blame Russia.

Who ELSE is there to blame?

Seriously.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Who ELSE is there to blame?

Seriously.

Take it up with the BBC.

Context...


Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was "a conspiracy theory" to suggest missiles were part of Ukrainian air defences.

Looks like they were Ukrainian air defense missiles.

 

[Joes Place]

Take it up with the BBC.

Context...


Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was "a conspiracy theory" to suggest missiles were part of Ukrainian air defences.

Looks like they were Ukrainian air defense missiles.

So? HOW does that take the responsibility away from the folks that shot the original missile?

Did you miss the posts on how gunmen in shootouts ARE responsible for the deaths of innocent bystanders who are hit by police bullets? Because that is where we are here. Russia has NO NEED to send missiles the entire way across the country of Ukraine to hit civilian infrastructure. Those areas and people are NOT in the war zones.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

So? HOW does that take the responsibility away from the folks that shot the original missile?

Did you miss the posts on how gunmen in shootouts ARE responsible for the deaths of innocent bystanders who are hit by police bullets? Because that is where we are here. Russia has NO NEED to send missiles the entire way across the country of Ukraine to hit civilian infrastructure. Those areas and people are NOT in the war zones.

Why are you arguing with me? It's a BBC article.

I think Russia is ultimately responsible because they launched the unprovoked attack. Agree.

Point is Ukraine Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was "a conspiracy theory" to suggest missiles were part of Ukrainian air defences.

It appears they were in fact Ukrainian Air Defense missiles and not Russian launched missiles. At least that's what the US has been saying...

There is a difference...at least as far as a possible NATO response...in regards to whether they were Russian launched or Ukrainian launched. Like it or not that makes a difference.

 

[Joes Place]

Why are you arguing with me? It's a BBC article.

You're (apparently) agreeing with the article

I think that point is grossly mistaken, and a defensive missile used by Ukraine against an incoming Russian missile far from the war-front still puts 100% of the responsibility on Russia.

Simple solution: Quit firing missiles into civilian infrastructure.

And NATO should arm Ukraine with resources to make that point clear i.e. take out another 10 sections of Putin's Crimea bridge.

Ukraine should ALSO publicly state that there can be NO NEGOTIATIONS with Russia so long as they continue sending missiles into civilian infrastructure, away from the fronts. There will be No Quarter for the Russians so long as this continues.

 

[notlongago]

Responsibility for the missile strike in Poland is still being established.
But the way countries responded to the incident before the facts were known was revealing.
Ukraine was swift to blame Russia. President Zelensky called it "a Russian missile attack on collective security" and as such "a very significant escalation". Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was "a conspiracy theory" to suggest missiles were part of Ukrainian air defences. These claims about Russia subsequently appear unfounded.
This kind of rhetoric is beginning to exhaust the patience of some Western diplomats. They fear that Kyiv's at times maximalist language and demands risk adding to so-called "Ukraine fatigue" among allies.

Baltic states on the front line with Russia were quick to call on the collective defence of Nato. The President of Lithuania Gitanas Nauseda declared on Twitter: "Every inch of NATO territory must be defended!" And others said the incident made the case for even greater military support for Ukraine.
Latvia's defence minister, Artis Pabriks, suggested NATO could provide more air defences for Poland and "part of territory of Ukraine". Kaja Kallas, Estonia's prime minister, said the West should give Ukraine more military, humanitarian and financial support.

In contrast, the initial response from the United States and other Western countries was to call for calm and wait for the facts to emerge.
There was a clear desire to avoid any escalation that could involve a collective Nato military response. American officials were among the first to suggest the missiles were part Ukrainian air defences.

Ukraine war: Poland missile strike reveals Nato divisions

James Landale on what different responses to the missile deaths in Poland say about Nato.

www.bbc.com

US handled that situation (as we civilians/general public understand it) perfectly.
Assuming the truth is what's being reported, it was very telling, and yes, it was off-putting to hear the cries for escalation before fact finding.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

You're (apparently) agreeing with the article

I think that point is grossly mistaken, and a defensive missile used by Ukraine against an incoming Russian missile far from the war-front still puts 100% of the responsibility on Russia.

Simple solution: Quit firing missiles into civilian infrastructure.

And NATO should arm Ukraine with resources to make that point clear i.e. take out another 10 sections of Putin's Crimea bridge.

Ukraine should ALSO publicly state that there can be NO NEGOTIATIONS with Russia so long as they continue sending missiles into civilian infrastructure, away from the fronts. There will be No Quarter for the Russians so long as this continues.

Well....it's mind blowing that you can't see that it effects the NATO/US response whether they were fired by the Russians or Ukrainians. It's blatantly obvious that it has effected the response....jeesh.

 

[Joes Place]

Well....it's mind blowing that you can't see that it effects the NATO/US response whether they were fired by the Russians or Ukrainians.

LOLWUT?

If it was an errant Russian missile, the NATO response is the same. Russia SHOULD NOT be firing missiles anywhere within range of NATO territory, if they want to avoid a full-on rout.

And NATO Article IV still applies. They need a resounding warning.

 

[kc78]

View embedded media

In other words... "You failed us Trump and we've moved on. We have new Republicans we're paying to enact our agenda within the US after you proved incapable of continuing them. Your announcement is only going to hinder those people we think can actually enact Russia's policies from getting to power."

 

[NorthDSMHawk]

Zelenskiy has 'no doubt' Ukrainian missile did not cause blast in Poland​

KYIV, Nov 16 (Reuters) - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was quoted by Interfax Ukraine news agency as saying on Wednesday he had no doubt that an explosion that killed two people in Poland was not caused by a Ukrainian missile.

"I have no doubt that it was not our missile," he was quoted as telling Ukrainian media.

He said he believed Tuesday's explosion was caused by a Russian missile, adding that he based his conclusions on reports from Ukraine's military which he "cannot but trust".

Zelenskiy was quoted as saying he believed Ukraine should already have been given access to the site of the explosion.

"Do we have the right to be in the investigation team? Of course," he said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...did-not-cause-blast-poland-agency-2022-11-16/

 

[VodkaSam]

Zelenskiy was quoted as saying he believed Ukraine should already have been given access to the site of the explosion.

"Do we have the right to be in the investigation team? Of course," he said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...did-not-cause-blast-poland-agency-2022-11-16/

Zelenskiy should trust Poland’s investigation. If anyone wants it to be a Russian missile, it’s Poland. So if they say it isn’t, it isn’t. Still, wouldn’t be there if not for Russia.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

LOLWUT?

If it was an errant Russian missile, the NATO response is the same. Russia SHOULD NOT be firing missiles anywhere within range of NATO territory, if they want to avoid a full-on rout.

And NATO Article IV still applies. They need a resounding warning.

It wasn’t a errant Russian missile though…it was a Ukrainian air defense missile.

Russia-Ukraine War: NATO and Poland Say Deadly Blast Was Likely Unintentional

The secretary general of NATO said that a Ukrainian air defense missile most likely caused the explosion on the Polish-Ukrainian border on Tuesday.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Joes Place]

It wasn’t a errant Russian missile though…it was a Ukrainian air defense missile.

Which would not have been fired if the Russians had not shot the missile into Ukraine.

This concept seems beyond your grasp here...

 

[h-hawk]

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Which would not have been fired if the Russians had not shot the missile into Ukraine.

This concept seems beyond your grasp here...

What’s beyond your grasp is it effects the US/NATO response to the incident.

Big difference between a deliberate Russian attack on Poland and Ukrainian air defense missiles landing in Poland.

Hell, a deliberate Russian strike on Poland could have invoked article 5.

 

[h-hawk]

Another version was deleted. This is said to be airfield in Crimea.

 

[h-hawk]

 

[Joes Place]

What’s beyond your grasp is it effects the US/NATO response to the incident.

No. It does not.

An unintended hit from an offensive Russian missile warrants the same response.
It was not a direct/intended attack.

 

[notlongago]

Zelenskiy has 'no doubt' Ukrainian missile did not cause blast in Poland​

KYIV, Nov 16 (Reuters) - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was quoted by Interfax Ukraine news agency as saying on Wednesday he had no doubt that an explosion that killed two people in Poland was not caused by a Ukrainian missile.

"I have no doubt that it was not our missile," he was quoted as telling Ukrainian media.

He said he believed Tuesday's explosion was caused by a Russian missile, adding that he based his conclusions on reports from Ukraine's military which he "cannot but trust".

Zelenskiy was quoted as saying he believed Ukraine should already have been given access to the site of the explosion.

"Do we have the right to be in the investigation team? Of course," he said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...did-not-cause-blast-poland-agency-2022-11-16/

This is how you alienate your supporters.

 

[notlongago]

No. It does not.

An unintended hit from an offensive Russian missile warrants the same response.
It was not a direct/intended attack.

The fact theres a meeting happening right regarding invocation of article 4 says you're wrong. Best off just letting this one go.

 

[Joes Place]

Hell, a deliberate Russian strike on Poland could have invoked article 5.

No one was claiming this was a "deliberate hit" on a random farm in Poland. It was ALWAYS being viewed as an errant missile.

 

[Joes Place]

The fact theres a meeting happening right regarding invocation of article 4 says you're wrong. Best off just letting this one go.

I've never stated this was/was not an Article IV issue.
The end result is the same: NATO should be warning Russia over sending anything remotely close to NATO lands. Period.

This was their one mulligan.

 

[torbee]

No. It does not.

An unintended hit from an offensive Russian missile warrants the same response.
It was not a direct/intended attack.

Gonna disagree with you on that one, Joe.

Yes, it is Russia's "fault" that Ukraine was forced to deploy an anti-missile weapon that unfortunately caused collateral damage to innocents in a neighboring country.

But that is still quite different from a deliberate, targeted attack on Poland by Russia.

MILES different, honestly. There is a reason the word is "collateral" damage. And it absolutely warrants a more measured response.

The Western response so far has been appropriate, IMO.

 

[h-hawk]

"The calculation of Stugna of the 58th brigade sends the Russian operator of the Kornet ATGM into orbit"

 

[h-hawk]

This is how you alienate your supporters.

I don't know if Zalensky is still saying this or if it is just the Russians replaying it over and over to make it sound that way.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

No one was claiming this was a "deliberate hit" on a random farm in Poland. It was ALWAYS being viewed as an errant missile.

No one?

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

Zelensky calls Russian missiles hitting Poland ‘really significant escalation’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday called the death of two people in Poland from Russian missiles a “really significant escalation” of the war between Kyiv and Moscow. “Hitting NAT…

thehill.com

 

[Joes Place]

But that is still quite different from a deliberate, targeted attack on Poland by Russia.

Again, I've never stated it was a "deliberate attack" on Poland. My posts indicated a misguided/errant missile, if it came from Russia.

That's an Article IV issue.

 

[torbee]

No bueno:

 

[torbee]

Again, I've never stated it was a "deliberate attack" on Poland. My posts indicated a misguided/errant missile, if it came from Russia.

That's an Article IV issue.

Right, but you did say "An unintended hit from an offensive Russian missile warrants the same response."

And I disagree with that.

Intention matters.

 

[Joes Place]

No one?

Zelensky calls Russian missiles hitting Poland ‘really significant escalation’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday called the death of two people in Poland from Russian missiles a “really significant escalation” of the war between Kyiv and Moscow. “Hitting NAT…

thehill.com

Did he claim they "intended" to hit two random people in Poland?
Not seeing that.

Is it a significant escalation? Yep. Because a missile intended to hit Ukrainian civilians results in Polish civilians dying.

Just like when the cops in a shootout accidentally hit a bystander. We don't necessarily blame the cops returning active fire against an active shooter. We charge the shooter with those deaths. And it seems the same concept hold true, here.

Putin isn't firing missiles anywhere near any war front.

 

[Joes Place]

Right, but you did say "An unintended hit from an offensive Russian missile warrants the same response."

It does warrant the same response.

Which is NOT an Article 5 response.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Did he claim they "intended" to hit two random people in Poland?
Not seeing that.

Is it a significant escalation? Yep. Because a missile intended to hit Ukrainian civilians results in Polish civilians dying.

Just like when the cops in a shootout accidentally hit a bystander. We don't necessarily blame the cops returning active fire against an active shooter. We charge the shooter with those deaths. And it seems the same concept hold true, here.

Putin isn't firing missiles anywhere near any war front.

“Russian attack on collective security”?

 

[h-hawk]

Good troll job by the bad guys.

 

[notlongago]

Did he claim they "intended" to hit two random people in Poland?
Not seeing that.

Is it a significant escalation? Yep. Because a missile intended to hit Ukrainian civilians results in Polish civilians dying.

Just like when the cops in a shootout accidentally hit a bystander. We don't necessarily blame the cops returning active fire against an active shooter. We charge the shooter with those deaths. And it seems the same concept hold true, here.

Putin isn't firing missiles anywhere near any war front.

Just stop. Its clear you're trying to backtrack now. The quote is very clear, "Hitting NATO territory with missiles…This is a Russian attack on collective security!"

 

[Joes Place]

This is a Russian attack on collective security!"

It IS a Russian attack on collective security.

Because if Russia thinks it can keep shooting missiles near NATO borders w/ impunity and w/o a response when "bad things happen", collective security of those border communities is no longer guaranteed.

 

[Joes Place]

“Russian attack on collective security”?

Yep. That's what it is.

Because if Russia continues sending missiles near NATO borders, the outcome here will be repeated. And NATO member citizens in those border towns no longer have the "security" of living where bombs won't fall.