Matrix Games Forums

Breaking news: At least one, possibly stay, missile landed in Poland. Two civilians killed. Unconfirmed.

EDIT: New reports could have been a Ukrainian SAM.

Perhaps a proper NATO response would be to declare a 50-75 nm no fly zone in the western Ukraine where NATO ADA-2A/AD systems can/will engage any Russian aircraft/missiles within that zone.

Too early to say.

But just read that there are remnants of a Kh-101 russian missile. The first pic from Poland, the second from Kiev days ago, identical.





Edit: or 5V55K from S-300 or Kh-55... Too early

BeirutDude wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 8:07 pm Perhaps a proper NATO response would be to declare a 50-75 nm no fly zone in the western Ukraine where NATO ADA-2A/AD systems can/will engage any Russian aircraft/missiles within that zone.

Agree, a perfect excuse for a NFZ, but in all Ukraine, and a first step to end this sh...

BeirutDude wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 8:07 pm Perhaps a proper NATO response would be to declare a 50-75 nm no fly zone in the western Ukraine where NATO ADA-2A/AD systems can/will engage any Russian aircraft/missiles within that zone.

A possible issue is that this could be interpreted as NATO intervention in the conflict. It would mean an ongoing NATO presence in Ukraine, and if Russian aircraft enter the no-fly zone intentionally or accidentally, shooting down Russian aircraft could trigger Russian retaliation. I don’t think it is the best response to what is likely an accident.

As dangerous as it may be, if there has to be a response, a limited strike on Russian forces in Ukraine conducted by Poland alone would be best. Russia would certainly retaliate but good intelligence should allow lives to be saved even if damage is incurred. The rest of NATO would partake in pure defensive operations, of course.

What I’m thinking is if this does become a kinetic situation, something similar to Iran’s attack on the American base in Iraq would hopefully be emulated- both sides get their licks in and it ends. Prolonging this level of escalation is not a good idea.

Ideally there would be no further escalation at all, or it would come in the form of increased aid to Ukraine (namely ATACMS), but I understand that a desire to retaliate may exist in some circles.

While I agree in principle, I would keep it to NATO effective Aerial Denial range with time to ID the target. That was where I pulled the 50-75 nm range from.

Hopefully this is a wake up call and this war is brought to an end.

A possible issue is that this could be interpreted as NATO intervention in the conflict.

No defense of NATO Territory by NATO forces to prevent another "Accident."

It would mean an ongoing NATO presence in Ukraine,

Not at all Patriot, and other NATO A2/AD systems, have the range to do it from NATO Territory without entering the Ukraine.

and if Russian aircraft enter the no-fly zone intentionally or accidentally, shooting down Russian aircraft could trigger Russian retaliation.

Yeah, they were warned. Putin isn't the only individual who gets to say what goes.

I don’t think it is the best response to what is likely an accident.

OK

As dangerous as it may be, if there has to be a response, a limited strike on Russian forces in Ukraine conducted by Poland alone would be best.

Actively striking Russian forces by a NATO Country?????? This makes more sense than a NFZ? Really???

Russia would certainly retaliate but good intelligence should allow lives to be saved even if damage is incurred. The rest of NATO would partake in pure defensive operations, of course.

Yikes, what DEFCON are you taking us too????????????

What I’m thinking is if this does become a kinetic situation, something similar to Iran’s attack on the American base in Iraq would hopefully be emulated- both sides get their licks in and it ends. Prolonging this level of escalation is not a good idea.

Russia is not Iran and Putin is not Biden. I don't see your idea working. If Russia truly attacks NATO territory in response to your symbolic attack it could be bad, very bad!

Ideally there would be no further escalation at all, or it would come in the form of increased aid to Ukraine (namely ATACMS), but I understand that a desire to retaliate may exist in some circles.

A message needs to be sent, a modest NFZ (50-75nm from the border) says we're not going to take a chance on further "Accidents" by the Keystone Cops that represent the Russian military.

Hopefully this brings this war to an end, but I doubt it.

The polish government and other NATO sources are saying that it was a Ukrainian AD missile, so launched from a S-300.

This should not matter and was a perfect excuse for the NFZ, but no way...

No defense of NATO Territory by NATO forces to prevent another "Accident."

Not at all Patriot, and other NATO A2/AD systems, have the range to do it from NATO Territory without entering the Ukraine.

Unfortunately, Ukraine is not NATO territory. Lviv is within your proposed NFZ. Do NATO forces shoot down incoming missiles targeting Lviv, that don't threaten NATO members?

If Russia was defending North Korean missile bases near the border with S-400s or S-300s in a hypothetical conflict on the Korean peninsula, what would we do?

Actively striking Russian forces by a NATO Country?????? This makes more sense than a NFZ? Really???

Yikes, what DEFCON are you taking us too????????????

Russia is not Iran and Putin is not Biden. I don't see your idea working. If Russia truly attacks NATO territory in response to your symbolic attack it could be bad, very bad!

What I am proposing is a limited strike in response to the deaths of citizens in NATO countries caused by Russia. So long as Russia does not attack civilians, and no deaths are incurred among NATO forces, we then accept damage from a retaliatory Russian strike in the name of stabilizing the situation.

Imagine what would have happened if instead of launching several ballistic missiles, Iran declared an NFZ over eastern Iraq?

This assumes the Russian missile is an accident. If it is deliberate, that obviously warrants a very different response.

This reply doesn't really pertain to the current situation because it is now deemed as being an S-300, but I think the discussion is still relevant in the event of a Kh-22 or something overshooting its target and hitting a NATO member.

It doesn't even have to have been a missile launched as part of an attack on Ukraine. A ground launched missile unit, or even a SAM unit, in the Baltics could have a mishap similar to the BrahMos incident in March.

Now that it is clear that Ukraine attacked a NATO member, will Poland invoke Article 5?

Unfortunately, Ukraine is not NATO territory. Lviv is within your proposed NFZ. Do NATO forces shoot down incoming missiles targeting Lviv, that don't threaten NATO members?

Yes

If Russia was defending North Korean missile bases near the border with S-400s or S-300s in a hypothetical conflict on the Korean peninsula, what would we do?

We have historical prescient to answer this question in 1951-1953 the UN forces did not attack into Chinese Territory and we did not attack into Chinese territory during the Vietnam War.

What I am proposing is a limited strike in response to the deaths of citizens in NATO countries caused by Russia. So long as Russia does not attack civilians, and no deaths are incurred among NATO forces, we then accept damage from a retaliatory Russian strike in the name of stabilizing the situation.

Sorry not buying your thought process. Any deliberate attack into NATO territory invokes Article Five, period.

Imagine what would have happened if instead of launching several ballistic missiles, Iran declared an NFZ over eastern Iraq?

Could they enforce it without loosing all of their SAMs in a DEAD strike. Now can the Russian Federation launch a successful DEAD or DEAD strike into eastern Poland, I doubt it.

This assumes the Russian missile is an accident. If it is deliberate, that obviously warrants a very different response.

Moot point now.

This reply doesn't really pertain to the current situation because it is now deemed as being an S-300, but I think the discussion is still relevant in the event of a Kh-22 or something overshooting its target and hitting a NATO member.

And this is why a 50-75 NM NFZ is desirable to take out any Russian cruise missile approaching NATO Territory with a standoff range before it can kill citizens in a NATO country. Russia bears the full responsibility for starting this war and as I said before Putin is not the only individual who has a say in how this goes.

And this is why a 50-75 NM NFZ is desirable to take out any Russian cruise missile approaching NATO Territory with a standoff range before it can kill citizens in a NATO country. Russia bears the full responsibility for starting this war and as I said before Putin is not the only individual who has a say in how this goes.

Wanna start a NATO kickstarter/patreon/onlyfans to fund maintaining the sortie rate costs to do that?

There was a great Harpoon scenario back in the day where somebody designed a cruise missile defense scenario against US nuclear Tomahawks. Pretty challenging IIRC.

M

We have historical prescient to answer this question in 1951-1953 the UN forces did not attack into Chinese Territory and we did not attack into Chinese territory during the Vietnam War.

China did not overtly intervene in either case. It was well understood in both cases that if China intervened properly, the US would need to strike targets there.

In addition, this is a very different situation from the Cold War. It isn't two superpowers managing their interests while maintaining a greater peace, it's more like Hitler trying to revive the German Empire. Ukraine is to Russia as Poland was to Germany, not as South Vietnam was to the US.

Even if this rhetorically began as a war over spheres of influence initially, it is pretty clear from Russian propaganda that this is more about pure empire rather than ideology. It isn't the US launching the Bay of Pigs, it's Japan invading Manchuria/China. Thus I would say the stakes are far higher and there is a higher likelihood Putin would attack NATO directly in response to an NFZ. The US was able to survive without South Vietnam and the USSR was able to (politically) survive without Afghanistan (I doubt the withdrawal had any effect on Pact countries' views of Soviet commitment to them), but Putin won't be able to survive without at least some part of Ukraine (beyond Crimea) at this point.

That's not to see he should be allowed that or anything. But only Ukraine alone* can defend itself without triggering a wider war.

*Alone in the sense that they do the fighting. Obviously, they need Western economic, material, and intelligence support.

Sorry not buying your thought process. Any deliberate attack into NATO territory invokes Article Five, period.

And yet Iran struck an American air base in Iraq, causing damage to equipment and severely injuring service members, and got away with it.

Could they enforce it without loosing all of their SAMs in a DEAD strike. Now can the Russian Federation launch a successful DEAD or DEAD strike into eastern Poland, I doubt it.

That's not the point. It's a matter of escalation. I don't know how they would respond, but they certainly would respond in some way.

The US does have the power to knock out this imaginary Iranian NFZ in real life. But for the purposes of the analogy, the US doesn't, just as Russia doesn't have SEAD/DEAD capability against NATO.

Would the US sit back and let Iran control what it can do in Iraq, or would we find some other way to respond?

Just for completeness, the AP reporter that broke this story has been fired for cause.

https://apnews.com/article/nato-europe- ... 846834157

There's the AP article about the firing, for those interested