Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Apart from the less responsible parts of Hill's interview, there's an also an important point there we shouldn't lie to ourselves about or sugar-coat. The year of 2008 that I've often mentioned, when he went off the rails and started destroying civil society, was also the year that NATO gave an open door to Ukraine, after he'd issued his threats against the previous year. Alongside his inbuilt tendency to be a nasty autocrat, which was only briefly challenged and he tempted away from, that was one of two significant western unforced and unnecessary errors - the first being Iraq. That doesn't change where we are now and the imperative of holding the line for the future, but it's structurally important to know, even if it's definitely not what we should be prioritising at the moment.
The big less negative considerations to think about for the upcoming times are ; the strong possibilities for intra-regime collapse, from both oligarch and army sources ; collapse of pubic legitimacy following escalated bombing ; and economic collapse caused by a rupture with china. They're all very possible.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
If things got too dangerous on Twitter and other social media sites, Western governments might have to shut them down or restrict their use. After all, we managed without them until about 10 years ago.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes, quite concenrning really. But also optimistic too.
Optimistic? After reading that it seems like the only options are to nuke Moscow or hurl myself off the nearest tall building. And since I do not have any nukes handy...
I mean, what is the point? There is f--- all I can do about it other than watch it on the telly. I am certainly not going to take Ms Truss's advice and head off to Ukraine to see if I can fire a gun.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
If things got too dangerous on Twitter and other social media sites, Western governments might have to shut them down or restrict their use. After all, we managed without them until about 10 years ago.
Seriously?
I mean, I'm all for banning Russia Today and have little sympathy for the wishy-washy hand-wringing naive liberalism which starts bleating about civil liberties on this one.
But twitter? It's not like it's a state-funded media machine. Just a conglomeration of mostly worthless individuals spouting this or that rubbish in 280 characters.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
Yup. And the escalating public rhetoric about the forms of support from western governments in the last day or two should be toned down. The most likely and safest escape route is, by very, very far, internal collapse.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
Yup. And the escalating public rhetoric about the forms of support from western governments in the last day or two should be toned down. The most likely and safest escape route is, by very, very far, internal collapse.
We’re egging each other on and making the impossible possible, day after day. Everything has flipped and rather than inertia preventing action, we’re now all looking for the next thing.
If I was drafting his speeches I’d be arguing strongly for a switch to “must not succeed” simply because of the risk of accidentally saying “fall” one too many times.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
Yup. And the escalating public rhetoric about the forms of support from western governments in the last day or two should be toned down. The most likely and safest escape route is, by very, very far, internal collapse.
We’re egging each other on and making the impossible possible, day after day. Everything has flipped and rather than inertia preventing action, we’re now all looking for the next thing.
When you say 'we' you mean western governments?
What's the alternative? We let the mad bully Putin demolish a free country?
We screwed up the build up to this many years ago, letting the tyrant get away with blue murder countless times. It's too late now to turn back the clock.
We better start building a list of war criminals. Put hundreds and hundreds of names on it. Not only the top brass, but anyone who in any way continues to fund the Putin regime.
What's the policy goal here? Because if the best hope is a palace coup, you want to be sure to leave an offramp, if not for Putin, at least for the other people in the palace.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
We better start building a list of war criminals. Put hundreds and hundreds of names on it. Not only the top brass, but anyone who in any way continues to fund the Putin regime.
What's the policy goal here? Because if the best hope is a palace coup, you want to be sure to leave an offramp, if not for Putin, at least for the other people in the palace.
As the moment I think we should make clear that our only goal is the removal of Putin. Don't widen it. Turn a blind eye (at present) to others acting under orders. Be pragmatic. Incentivise them with anything it takes.
Why?
Because it is only Putin who threatens the very existence of western civilisation.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
So should the media not report the threat?
It was me that said that. And I still feel the nuclear danger is further away than on Sunday lunchtime.
But Western governments again need to think about something very cooly and calmly. At the moment they're responding to the momentums of opinion, becoming more and more open in their explanations of military and logistical support. That is not wise or helpful , because he also seems to be fairly impervious to various levels of rational calculation ; so if this is also imagined to be primarily deterrence as much as public-pleasing, I don't think it's achieving anything.
We also need to think about the risk / benefit calculus again. Increasingly public military stances, rather than largely unofficial or semi-official supplying of Ukraine that Putin does not quite seem to interpret in the same way, makes *no* sense from that perspective - it is *not* a critical interest for the West.
On the question of the nuclear threat, it certainly is there. But I don't think advertising it so publicly, especially as a government-associated figure, is helpful. It's always liable to influence flows of public debate from one country to another, which are extremely volatile at the moment. The media should also start thinking about this a little more at the moment, as well as politicians.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
"Russian advance on Kyiv makes 'little progress' in 24 hours - MoD The Ministry of Defence has provided an intelligence update this morning.
According to the latest, Russia has made "little progress" in its advance on Kyiv in the last day - "probably as a result of continuing logistical difficulties". It is thought Moscow has significantly underestimated the Ukrainian defence, which has managed to resist Russian fighting in several regions. The MoD adds Russia has increased its use of artillery north of Kyiv and in Kharkiv and Chernihiv, "greatly increasing the risk of civilian casualties". There has also been a shift to night operations after Moscow was unable to gain control of the airspace over Ukraine."
One thing I will say: if it wasn't for nukes Putin's forces would take an absolute pasting from NATO. I've never seen a juicer target for allied airpower than that 40 mile tank column this morning. It'd be like what happened to Saadam's forces in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and the Russians simply don't have the modern jets and C&C systems to cover them.
The US airforce would make absolute mincemeat of them.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
If things got too dangerous on Twitter and other social media sites, Western governments might have to shut them down or restrict their use. After all, we managed without them until about 10 years ago.
Yes - but I think we are close to or at that point now. The trouble is that social media 'selects' ideas that feel superficially good, but are often not in our interests at all. For instance, western governments being twitterstormed in to making public pronouncements about the arms they are giving to Ukraine - something that plays straight in to Putins narrative that this is a western war of aggression. We feel like we are winning, but actually we are being played.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
Apart from the less responsible parts of Hill's interview, there's an also an important point there we shouldn't lie to ourselves about or sugar-coat. The year of 2008 that I've often mentioned, when he went off the rails and started destroying civil society, was also the year that NATO gave an open door to Ukraine, after he'd issued his threats against the previous year. Alongside his inbuilt tendency to be a nasty autocrat, which was only briefly challenged and he tempted away from, that was one of two significant western unforced and unnecessary errors - the first being Iraq. That doesn't change where we are now and the imperative of holding the line for the future, but it's structurally important to know, even if it's definitely not what we should be prioritising at the moment.
The big less negative considerations to think about for the upcoming times are ; the strong possibilities for intra-regime collapse, from both oligarch and army sources ; collapse of pubic legitimacy following escalated bombing ; and economic collapse caused by a rupture with china. They're all very possible.
The problem with the 'we made errors' view is that it ignores Putin's wishes.
It's clear he sees much of eastern Europe as being 'Russian' territory, either in full or as vassal states. We see them as autonomous, independent states who can make their own decisions on things.
Putin's initial end-game is to have those states under Russia's thumb. He has tried to undermine some using democratic processes, succeeding in some and failing in most. But whatever we did, he would find an excuse to further his aims. Allow Ukraine to join NATO? An unheralded provocation! NATO talks in Ukraine? An unprecedented threat against Russia! Not allow Ukraine into NATO? You are unfriendly to them, they need Russian protection!
Russia might not want Ukraine and other eastern European states to join NATO or the EU. The problem is, Russia has no right to stop which groups independent states join any grouping Russia is not part of - in the same way we don't have any way to stop countries joining the EU now. We can moan and bellyache, but we have no rights.
Usyk joins Kyiv's defence. Can't we get Putin in a room with Usyk, Lomachenko, and the Klitschko brothers (all 4 of them millionaires many times over and signed up to territorial defence, 3 in Kyiv) and resolve this in a more civil manner?
But Vlad has Steven. Once his corset is laced up he can take anyone.
And Gerard Depardieu - which saddens me greatly because I thought he was an outstanding actor. Now I just think he is a thick ex-French twat.
I skimmed that and for a moment there I thought you were saying that Steven Seagal "was an outstanding actor", which would quite possibly be the most preposterous thing ever posted on PB.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
As I keep on saying, nuclear is just one approach, and one that he knows may have very severe consequences.
There are other approaches open to him, ones where the west's reactions are less firm. Chemical or biological weapons. He has the former, and may well have the latter. And as has been seen, he has the will to use them. They are also more deniable, as was seen in Syria (*), as non-state actors can have or create them. "It wasn't us guv!" is much harder with nukes.
I reckon he'll use the BC components of NBC before he uses the N. What may be staying his hand are his talk that he sees Ukraine as Russian people. Using such techniques against them may not sit easily with him - although he is invading them.
(*) Shame on those who denied Assad's culpability.
We better start building a list of war criminals. Put hundreds and hundreds of names on it. Not only the top brass, but anyone who in any way continues to fund the Putin regime.
What's the policy goal here? Because if the best hope is a palace coup, you want to be sure to leave an offramp, if not for Putin, at least for the other people in the palace.
Policy goal is to make sure that nobody can make any money in Russia until Putin "leaves office". Nobody with money can spend money. Essentially, the Russian economy grinds to a halt.
The final piece in that jigsaw is to say that hydrocarbon payments will be put into escrow accounts with the Bundesbank or whoever, released once Putin "leaves office". Sure, turn off the gas then - but that just means there's no chunk of money to restart the Russian economy once Putin does, finally, "leave office".
Usyk joins Kyiv's defence. Can't we get Putin in a room with Usyk, Lomachenko, and the Klitschko brothers (all 4 of them millionaires many times over and signed up to territorial defence, 3 in Kyiv) and resolve this in a more civil manner?
But Vlad has Steven. Once his corset is laced up he can take anyone.
And Gerard Depardieu - which saddens me greatly because I thought he was an outstanding actor. Now I just think he is a thick ex-French twat.
I skimmed that and for a moment there I thought you were saying that Steven Seagal "was an outstanding actor", which would quite possibly be the most preposterous thing ever posted on PB.
Give me half an hour…
TBF Steven Seagal was a stand out actor…
Never seen a film with him in and never will but I did see the moment he pushed poor Jack Whitehall into a pond and thought to myself, 'what a dick'.
And of course, accused by a large number of women of multiple sexual assaults. A thug. No wonder he loves Putin's regime.
Everyone agrees that Putin must fail and ideally be overthrown. But the danger is that we see the question in a similar manner to a domestic policy campaign, where a head of steam builds up, eventually resulting in state action that leads to 'change'. International relations does not necessarily work that way. What feels like progress, may actually be a regression.
This feels like a very dangerous situation. Whereas until recently diplomacy was carried out very carefully by state actors, now it is being driven by twitter. Consequently, there is rapid escalation, and it is out of the control of Western governments. The suggestion that the Ukranian air force can use airfields in NATO countries, endorsed by the social media accounts associated with the Ukranian regime, is an example of a very bad move. Of course, it the idea has merit, but it gives Putin all the evidence he needs to justify further escalation. And he is running out of options.
I don't see a good solution other than the disposal of Putin. And that must come from within Russia.
If things got too dangerous on Twitter and other social media sites, Western governments might have to shut them down or restrict their use. After all, we managed without them until about 10 years ago.
Yes - but I think we are close to or at that point now. The trouble is that social media 'selects' ideas that feel superficially good, but are often not in our interests at all. For instance, western governments being twitterstormed in to making public pronouncements about the arms they are giving to Ukraine - something that plays straight in to Putins narrative that this is a western war of aggression. We feel like we are winning, but actually we are being played.
Yes. Putin and Russia accept the fact we supply arms just like the cold war proxy wars of the past .Its part if the established agreed game. What they don't accept is the hubris behind it caused by modern media ways. Cue Liz Truss with her amazing nativity. World elites are a club .They orchestrate disagreements and its all controlled. I dont like that but it's a fact and one way to never get to the stage of nuclear war when logically there should have been one by now. Sometimes you cannot win everything. A fact the UK and a lot on here have difficulty with. I get it . But you need to be pragmatic and cool headed in a situation like this
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
By which I mean, that I'm expecting at least one nuclear device to be exploded in Europe. Perhaps several or even many.
We have to remove Putin. That is the only preventative.
There's no safe way for us to remove him. It has to come from inside the regime.
If we can do it, we should drone strike him out.
Special forces is more tricky because that's a pretty overt action.
We should be ready to offer backing to any replacement.
But we HAVE to stand up to Putin.
Maybe it's time for a war cabinet, perhaps with opposition figures being invited to take part.
Get the Led By Donkeys boys on board, a few centrist Dads and Chris Bryant as Minister of armaments. The country demands it.
“Let's get tough. The time for talking is over. Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major -- and I mean major -- leaflet campaign, and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a whist drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK? Now, if that's not enough, I'm sorry, it's time for the T-shirts”.:
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
So should the media not report the threat?
The West has over three times as many nukes as Putin and far better defence and targeting systems.
If he did go down that road he'd be annihilated, and before he got off even a fraction of what he had.
'Back of the queue' with war and a nuclear-armed nation led by a man fond of aggression may not work well, as others have suggested. Support Ukraine, tone down the rhetoric.
Except it isn't. Can't describe the news as 'good' can one, and, here anyway, it's a miserable wet start to meteorological Spring. Still, Dydd Gwyl Dewi Hapus! Things can only get better!
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
So should the media not report the threat?
The West has over three times as many nukes as Putin and far better defence and targeting systems.
If he did go down that road he'd be annihilated, and before he got off even a fraction of what he had.
Don't be stupid. Nobody wins a nuclear war. Its not something that we should come anywhere near to doing.
This is not rational policy, and should be challenged quite strongly now. Johnson thinks he's performiing a public stance of Churchilian heroism, but he's fundamentally too shallow a politician to understand the full parameters of the situation outside the glories of his own head.
Putin is only going to fail if the regime collapses ; we cannot defeat him. Johnson' team may also be telling him that this sort of rhetoric will increase the internal panic, or bring about more concessions at negotiations. With the kind of regime that Putin possesses, it won't. It's just making it harder both for him to come to terms and his internal foes to get rid of him.
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
There does seem to be foolishness here. Lots of jingoistic talk, looking for a quick easy fix. Putin isn’t going to just give up. It’s bizarre that some people are actually arguing for a hot war with a nuclear power. MADness.
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
My brother is the same.
But I think it's too late. The escalation is occurring. That's in large measure because Russian forces are not succeeding on the ground and the more they escalate the style of campaign the more our horror turns to indignation and then to action. Russian forces have gone from waltzing in as apparent liberators now to carpet bombing.
Surely we have little choice? We cannot sit back and let this deranged lunatic annihilate a country just because he shouts at us not to get involved. Perhaps I'm wrong and we just sit on our hands and let him do it. Let him destroy an entire country. But he won't stop there.
I was thinking this morning about Putin and if there has ever been an example in history of a more pointless build up of personal wealth?
If he’s worth as some estimates claim 200b then why? He’s president of Russia so not exactly able to spend the year hopping from one luxury property after another chasing the sun and social season.
He can’t buy a formula one team or football team and sit and watch them and get involved.
He can’t use his mega yacht that much as frankly he’s probably too busy to take loads of holidays.
It’s not like he can retire and swan around living like some huge film star as he’s unlikely to get to retire and if he does he’s going to be hunted for the rest of his life.
It’s just utterly pointless and clearly a massive ego thing rather than enjoyment.
On solutions I’m hoping, even though they are scum bags, that oligarchs and senior military are being contacted behind the scenes by the west and being told that if they stop this with Putin removed then the west will turn a blind eye to their money and properties again. It’s really grim to think of them living the high life off their I’ll gotten gains but maybe for the greater good.
This is not rational policy, and should be challenged quite strongly. Johnson thinks he's performiing a public stance of Churchilian heroism, but he's fundamentally too shallow and insulated a politician to understand the perspective and stakes of the situation outside the glories of his head.
Putin is only going to fail if the regime collapses ; we cannot defeat him. Johnson' team may also be telling him that this sort of rhetoric will increase the internal panic, or bring about more concessions at negotiations, but it won't. It;s just making it harder both for him to come to terms and his internal foes to get rid of him.
I only hope that Boris does not turn up on the Ukrainian border decked in flags and sliding down a zip-wire whilst waving at the cameras.....
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
'Back of the queue' with war and a nuclear-armed nation led by a man fond of aggression may not work well, as others have suggested. Support Ukraine, tone down the rhetoric.
Right now, the West is 'winning' because Ukraine is progressively degrading Russian combat capability, and resources.
If this goes on much longer it won't be in a position to invade or threaten anyone else for some time.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
Some bizarre and unhelpful ideas circulating above. Building a wall around Russia? Idiotic. Not an advertisement for the ‘free west’, and counter-productive in that experience and contact with better societies plays a key part in undermining dictatorships. Which is why it is the dictators that build walls.
I am also uneasy about banning RT, which has, or is being, done. It is not doing any demonstrable harm and we should never fear a flawed message. Again, during the Cold War it was the East that tried to jam western radio; as a child I used to pick up the news from Radio Moscow and Radio Tirana and it never did me any harm (no votes on that one pls).
In our eagerness to do everything we can other than actually fighting, let’s not lose sight of the high ground we purport to be defending.
The EU has already banned RT - in the UK the decision will be made by OFCOM not the government. So one presumes your ire is directed at the EU.
Well... technically the UK government's sanctions might not ban RT, but they do prevent it from paying carriage fees to Sky. Now Sky may continue out of the goodness of their hearts to carry RT (and/or may reckon that continuing to carry them will have other advantages for the Murdoch empire), but the UK government have certainly made RT's job much harder.
Err Rupert Murdoch hasn’t owned Sky for nearly four years.
'Back of the queue' with war and a nuclear-armed nation led by a man fond of aggression may not work well, as others have suggested. Support Ukraine, tone down the rhetoric.
Right now, the West is 'winning' because Ukraine is progressively degrading Russian combat capability, and resources.
If this goes on much longer it won't be in a position to invade or threaten anyone else for some time.
They have the second largest nuclear arsenal. Of course they will be in a position to threaten especially if they lose face. Some agreement needs to be made and uk politicians stop being so naive and hybrid. Sack Liz Truss for a start. If not for what she said but for saying stuff outside of a controlled process this is too big for hubris and Churchill impressions and getting Ukraine to like you
'Back of the queue' with war and a nuclear-armed nation led by a man fond of aggression may not work well, as others have suggested. Support Ukraine, tone down the rhetoric.
Right now, the West is 'winning' because Ukraine is progressively degrading Russian combat capability, and resources.
If this goes on much longer it won't be in a position to invade or threaten anyone else for some time.
They have the second largest nuclear arsenal. Of course they will be in a position to threaten especially if they lose face. Some agreement needs to be made and uk politicians stop being so naive and hybrid. Sack Liz Truss for a start. If not for what she said but for saying stuff outside of a controlled process this is too big for hubris and Churchill impressions and getting Ukraine to like you
Yes, Truss should go. Being on manouevres at a time like this is unforgivable.
A 'war cabinet' with opposition members would be very Churchillian.
I realise our current PM would desperately want to lead it it. But would anyone from outside his current Parliamentary supporters be willing to serve?
We dont need something called a war cabinet . Talk about pointless escalation. Jesus. By all means get cool adult heads in from anywhere where they are but please don't bill it as that
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
You seem to react to situations like Leon.
We are not going to war with Russia. If there is a nuclear conflict then there is. There is little we can do about it. Your path makes it more, not less, likely.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
Whilst I get the rational I dont think it needs saying on social media that can be used by Russia or even took note of by Putin. Its not an unobvious idea that it needs raising so leave it be.
'Back of the queue' with war and a nuclear-armed nation led by a man fond of aggression may not work well, as others have suggested. Support Ukraine, tone down the rhetoric.
Right now, the West is 'winning' because Ukraine is progressively degrading Russian combat capability, and resources.
If this goes on much longer it won't be in a position to invade or threaten anyone else for some time.
They have the second largest nuclear arsenal. Of course they will be in a position to threaten especially if they lose face. Some agreement needs to be made and uk politicians stop being so naive and hybrid. Sack Liz Truss for a start. If not for what she said but for saying stuff outside of a controlled process this is too big for hubris and Churchill impressions and getting Ukraine to like you
My hope is that someone, somewhere has a cool head, an eye on the endgame and is doing the groundwork to get us there safely.
There are probably a few grownups left in the us state department and amongst the joint chiefs. Hopefully also in the U.K. government services.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
So should the media not report the threat?
The West has over three times as many nukes as Putin and far better defence and targeting systems.
If he did go down that road he'd be annihilated, and before he got off even a fraction of what he had.
Don't be stupid. Nobody wins a nuclear war. Its not something that we should come anywhere near to doing.
Even one nuke being successfully detonated is a very bad thing - and of course I'm not advocating a nuclear war.
Nevertheless my analysis is correct: it would guarantee his total and certain destruction whilst it wouldn't be certain this would apply to the West.
Therefore, it'd be an entirely irrational move by him.
Meanwhile, Putin is preparing to lay siege to a city of 3m people. A series of ugly war crimes is likely to get very much uglier in the next few days.
There is not the remotest excuse for this, in anything either Ukraine or the west has done - or indeed in Putin's own pronouncements - and his commanders must be aware that they are now following, and giving illegal orders.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
You asked a question, and you got the answer.
So, to focus on your argument, you watched someone giving an hour-long speech and have concluded that it is time for nuclear war?
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
My brother is the same.
But I think it's too late. The escalation is occurring. That's in large measure because Russian forces are not succeeding on the ground and the more they escalate the style of campaign the more our horror turns to indignation and then to action. Russian forces have gone from waltzing in as apparent liberators now to carpet bombing.
Surely we have little choice? We cannot sit back and let this deranged lunatic annihilate a country just because he shouts at us not to get involved. Perhaps I'm wrong and we just sit on our hands and let him do it. Let him destroy an entire country. But he won't stop there.
Europe has irrevocably altered.
I don't think we have a choice but to face him down. He's not going to stop here. And it would embolden others (like China) if we didn't.
The alternative is all of Eastern Europe falls and we're subject to permanent geopolitical blackmail across Europe and the World by authoritarian states.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
So should the media not report the threat?
The West has over three times as many nukes as Putin and far better defence and targeting systems.
If he did go down that road he'd be annihilated, and before he got off even a fraction of what he had.
Don't be stupid. Nobody wins a nuclear war. Its not something that we should come anywhere near to doing.
Even one nuke being successfully detonated is a very bad thing - and of course I'm not advocating a nuclear war.
Nevertheless my analysis is correct: it would guarantee his total and certain destruction whilst it wouldn't be certain this would apply to the West.
Therefore, it'd be an entirely irrational move by him.
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
My brother is the same.
But I think it's too late. The escalation is occurring. That's in large measure because Russian forces are not succeeding on the ground and the more they escalate the style of campaign the more our horror turns to indignation and then to action. Russian forces have gone from waltzing in as apparent liberators now to carpet bombing.
Surely we have little choice? We cannot sit back and let this deranged lunatic annihilate a country just because he shouts at us not to get involved. Perhaps I'm wrong and we just sit on our hands and let him do it. Let him destroy an entire country. But he won't stop there.
Europe has irrevocably altered.
All this is true. But upping the rhetoric, or even bombing Russia or trying to eliminate him merely secures his domestic position, and on the international scene plays in to his assertion that he is under attack from the west - fuelling the 'two sides' narrative that justifies neutrality from countries that are not involved in the conflict.
Unfortunately dealing with this is a long game, there is no quick solution. In the meantime we can support Ukraine as best we can, mainly by giving them supplies.
One thing I don't understand about Russian military tactics is their lack of use of their airforce and having a 40 mile convoy of vehicles which everyone can see.
The war is building into a massacre of Ukrainian civilians. It is proof how desparate the Russian side now is. They are pushing on all fronts and sadly they are making progress just through simple savagery. However this is a very short window. The inability of Russia to pay for anything will impact their fighting capability, but not overnight or even in a few days. The Ukrainian army and state needs to survive for weeks or even months and feeding the cities will become a problem. Only if they can stand firm will the Russian attack abate and it is asking a lot. We are entering a point of maximum danger for the Ukrainians and the Russian high command will do to Kharkiv or Kyiv what they already did to Grozny and Aleppo. War crimes indictments will surely follow.
This marks a comprehensive break between the West and the current form of Russia. These are not sanctions, they mark the utter shunning of Russia in every single sphere of contact. The reputation of Russia and the Russians has been totally trashed and, even if the war stops tomorrow, the change in perception will be lasting.
Johnson is arriving in Tallinn later today, but I am not sure calling for Putin´s head is such a good move. Even those who also want him gone in the regime won´t want to be pushed around so obviously, so it is likely to be counter productive, even though it is now quite clear that VVP is not a man we can do (any) business with.
Now the tide has gone out, at least we now know who picked the wrong side: Farage, Salmond, Trump, various Tories and many others. I said that the day of reckoning would be delayed until the crisis cools, but when that happens, the reckoning should be sure and complete.
On e thing I don't understand about Russian military tactics is their lack of use of their airforce and having a 40 mile convoy of vehicles which everyone can see.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
You asked a question, and you got the answer.
So, to focus on your argument, you watched someone giving an hour-long speech and have concluded that it is time for nuclear war?
To be fair, I sometimes wish for that during long PowerPoint presentations.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
You seem to react to situations like Leon.
Is that a bad thing? And to be compared to Leon is an honour.
Dogmatism and lack of ability to adapt to situations isn't in my view helpful.
It was Putin's broadcast which made me realise he is doolally. 'Gone full tonto' as Ben Wallace so memorably put it.
I’m also getting increasingly worried about the head of steam that seems to have built, especially in Europe (less so the US). People need to cool it.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
My brother is the same.
But I think it's too late. The escalation is occurring. That's in large measure because Russian forces are not succeeding on the ground and the more they escalate the style of campaign the more our horror turns to indignation and then to action. Russian forces have gone from waltzing in as apparent liberators now to carpet bombing.
Surely we have little choice? We cannot sit back and let this deranged lunatic annihilate a country just because he shouts at us not to get involved. Perhaps I'm wrong and we just sit on our hands and let him do it. Let him destroy an entire country. But he won't stop there.
Europe has irrevocably altered.
I don't think we have a choice but to face him down. He's not going to stop here. And it would embolden others (like China) if we didn't.
The alternative is all of Eastern Europe falls and we're subject to permanent geopolitical blackmail across Europe and the World by authoritarian states.
"Germany’s ‘Putin-caressers’ start coming to terms with their naivety Analysis: politicians who believed Putin could be ‘tamed by empathy and accommodation’ are having to hurriedly rethink their positions Kate Connolly in Berlin"
The key player to watch here is the US. They are noticeably showing restraint. For all of Europe’s positioning, the US calls the shots here and it will be the US to whom the Russian government will be looking for indicators.
I am not saying we shouldn’t be worried. War in Europe as a thing is enough cause for worry without adding talk of MAD into the equation.
People are very anxious to take out the Russian mega-column. Quite a few football types on twitter (Gary Neville) retweeting the Piers Morgan article - will be hitting a very non-PB demographic.
Oddly, the BBC piece with the RAF over Eastern Europe was reassuring. The crew doing a good job of coming across as professional, calm and dispassionate.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
So should the media not report the threat?
The West has over three times as many nukes as Putin and far better defence and targeting systems.
If he did go down that road he'd be annihilated, and before he got off even a fraction of what he had.
Don't be stupid. Nobody wins a nuclear war. Its not something that we should come anywhere near to doing.
Even one nuke being successfully detonated is a very bad thing - and of course I'm not advocating a nuclear war.
Nevertheless my analysis is correct: it would guarantee his total and certain destruction whilst it wouldn't be certain this would apply to the West.
Therefore, it'd be an entirely irrational move by him.
The problem is: if he drops a nuclear bomb on Ukraine, we're not allowed to do anything. Unless I've misunderstood the position.
One thing I don't understand about Russian military tactics is their lack of use of their airforce and having a 40 mile convoy of vehicles which everyone can see.
Yes, I thought that too. On the other hand, the Ukraine forces don't seem to be able to attack the convoy.
Reynolds: The more we talk, the more we’re using World War II analogies. There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III.
Hill: We’re already in it.
She thinks he would use nuclear weapons.
Not sensible talk, whatever the risks. Politicians should tone down their pubic rhetoric a couple of notches, and media should also not cause panic.
It's a tricky one.
I understand why people don't like the talk of nuclear war or the talk of world war three but to what extent is that just us wish-casting? Actually, wasn't it you who posted over the weekend that you just had a feeling in your gut that it was all about to get better?
I'm not being critical of you. In some ways I operated on the same denial about the invasion in the first place.
But Fiona Hill is right: “Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would,” Hill said. “And he wants us to know that, of course. It’s not that we should be intimidated and scared…. We have to prepare for those contingencies and figure out what is it that we’re going to do to head them off.”
We are already sucked into this war. We are supplying intelligence, weaponry and even personnel. The whole of the EU is now involved. There is war in Europe.
As for nuclear. I am convinced Putin is deranged enough to use it and he may even use it against any western countries who are seen to be aiding Ukraine's defence.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
You seem to be swinging all over the place with your predictions! Not so long that you argued that none of this was going to happen at all. Be careful, or people will start wondering whether we have the next Leon amongst us already….
To be fair, I genuinely believed he wasn't that stupid to launch a full-scale invasion because I doubted Russia's military might to win in Ukraine. That part was correct.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
Fine, but this site thrives on (or at least aspires to) level-headed and dispassionate analysis. Yours is heavily disguised.
I don't understand that last bit Ian? What is disguised?
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
You appear to be cunningly disguising your objective analysis of the Ukraine geopolitical and military crisis beneath a haze of emotional posts, misdirecting us into thinking either that you’ve gone off the deep end after having been so wrong initially, or have picked up Leon’s mantle of simply posting whatever hyperbole you happen to think of or find lying about, without thinking about it at all?
Play the ball not the lady Ian. It's cheap and lazy to character attack when you don't agree with the content.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
So, to focus on your argument, you watched someone giving an hour-long speech and have concluded that it is time for nuclear war?
Don't be silly.
I am with Fiona Hill, however, who is rather more of an expert on Putin than you are. That's what began this debate downthread if you recall. Like her, I am convinced that over the last few weeks Putin has lost it. Some are even suggesting it might be covid-related. Whatever the cause, his speech was crazed. Just rambling, incoherent, bizarre and unnerving.
I have no doubt in my mind that Putin will use nuclear weaponry in this conflict if he feels it is necessary. As someone below pointed out (Taz?) he's more likely to use the BC of NBC first. As Fiona Hill states, whenever we think, 'he wouldn't, would he?' he then goes and does it.
But be in no doubt that Putin's threats on this are for real.
We cannot sit idly by and let Ukraine be destroyed and this mad ogre to think he can get away with threatening the rest of civilisation. We have to stand up to him.
The war is building into a massacre of Ukrainian civilians. It is proof how desparate the Russian side now is. They are pushing on all fronts and sadly they are making progress just through simple savagery. However this is a very short window. The inability of Russia to pay for anything will impact their fighting capability, but not overnight or even in a few days. The Ukrainian army and state needs to survive for weeks or even months and feeding the cities will become a problem. Only if they can stand firm will the Russian attack abate and it is asking a lot. We are entering a point of maximum danger for the Ukrainians and the Russian high command will do to Kharkiv or Kyiv what they already did to Grozny and Aleppo. War crimes indictments will surely follow.
This marks a comprehensive break between the West and the current form of Russia. These are not sanctions, they mark the utter shunning of Russia in every single sphere of contact. The reputation of Russia and the Russians has been totally trashed and, even if the war stops tomorrow, the change in perception will be lasting.
Johnson is arriving in Tallinn later today, but I am not sure calling for Putin´s head is such a good move. Even those who also want him gone in the regime won´t want to be pushed around so obviously, so it is likely to be counter productive, even though it is now quite clear that VVP is not a man we can do (any) business with.
Now the tide has gone out, at least we now know who picked the wrong side: Farage, Salmond, Trump, various Tories and many others. I said that the day of reckoning would be delayed until the crisis cools, but when that happens, the reckoning should be sure and complete.
In the meantime, Happy St. David´s Day!
Indeed, after this we need to have a forensic, transparent, open and comprehensive inquiry into the role of Russian money and influence of Russian individuals in the British polity over the last 20 years. The Russia report I suspect barely skimmed the surface.
This will be painful for the Conservative Party and for certain individuals from across the political spectrum but by God, it is absolutely necessary.
The war is building into a massacre of Ukrainian civilians. It is proof how desparate the Russian side now is. They are pushing on all fronts and sadly they are making progress just through simple savagery. However this is a very short window. The inability of Russia to pay for anything will impact their fighting capability, but not overnight or even in a few days. The Ukrainian army and state needs to survive for weeks or even months and feeding the cities will become a problem. Only if they can stand firm will the Russian attack abate and it is asking a lot. We are entering a point of maximum danger for the Ukrainians and the Russian high command will do to Kharkiv or Kyiv what they already did to Grozny and Aleppo. War crimes indictments will surely follow.
This marks a comprehensive break between the West and the current form of Russia. These are not sanctions, they mark the utter shunning of Russia in every single sphere of contact. The reputation of Russia and the Russians has been totally trashed and, even if the war stops tomorrow, the change in perception will be lasting.
Johnson is arriving in Tallinn later today, but I am not sure calling for Putin´s head is such a good move. Even those who also want him gone in the regime won´t want to be pushed around so obviously, so it is likely to be counter productive, even though it is now quite clear that VVP is not a man we can do (any) business with.
Now the tide has gone out, at least we now know who picked the wrong side: Farage, Salmond, Trump, various Tories and many others. I said that the day of reckoning would be delayed until the crisis cools, but when that happens, the reckoning should be sure and complete.
In the meantime, Happy St. David´s Day!
Thanks. The danger with Johnson is that he uses the conflict as a distraction from his domestic problems. I think there is an element of that going on, but his assertiveness and charisma has been positive in other ways. Hard to judge, at the moment.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry To journalists in Poland & Estonia - #BorisJohnson is visiting you tomorrow (I know it’s difficult to believe but the scruffy clown really is PM) & you need to know something v important about him - he tells lies. Whoppers. https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1498430086395142157
The key player to watch here is the US. They are noticeably showing restraint. For all of Europe’s positioning, the US calls the shots here and it will be the US to whom the Russian government will be looking for indicators.
I am not saying we shouldn’t be worried. War in Europe as a thing is enough cause for worry without adding talk of MAD into the equation.
Yes, Biden won 't take any military action against Putin over this Ukraine, no matter what Putin does there as he won't take any military action against China if it invades Taiwan.
He is the least hawkish US President since Carter. He has already pulled all US troops out of Afghanistan and happily handed it back to the Taliban.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry To journalists in Poland & Estonia - #BorisJohnson is visiting you tomorrow (I know it’s difficult to believe but the scruffy clown really is PM) & you need to know something v important about him - he tells lies. Whoppers. https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1498430086395142157
"BREAKING - British Army warns its soldies not to go rogue and travel to Ukraine - Telegraph reports"
Unprecedented numbers of British soldiers heading out to the shops for a pack of cigs last I heard.
Heard the same today.
Second, or third, Truss misjudgment. I think she should be replaced by Mordaunt.
Not sure it's a misjudgement. Especially if Zelenskyy is intelligent enough to surround himself with the Western Special forces soldiers crossing the border. As I said as the invasion broke out, there's some people who went into elite UK units who have opted to go off the grid recently.
Is that not the only public position they can take, given recent ructions over Human Rights Law applied, or ruled out from being applied, to UK armed forces Personnel?
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry To journalists in Poland & Estonia - #BorisJohnson is visiting you tomorrow (I know it’s difficult to believe but the scruffy clown really is PM) & you need to know something v important about him - he tells lies. Whoppers. https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1498430086395142157
A really helpful comment. So glad she is no longer part of our public life.
Anna Soubry @Anna_Soubry To journalists in Poland & Estonia - #BorisJohnson is visiting you tomorrow (I know it’s difficult to believe but the scruffy clown really is PM) & you need to know something v important about him - he tells lies. Whoppers. https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1498430086395142157
She's not wrong. And I'm pretty pissed this has saved Johnson. But it's very funny how many 16 part Twitter threads there have been that start with:
Never, ever, give up. Never, ever, give in to despair. Keep going. We are on the right side here and we are on the strongest side.
Things are going to get bleak, perhaps horribly bleak, particularly for our incredibly brave Ukrainian allies, but however long it takes, we will prevail.
The war is building into a massacre of Ukrainian civilians. It is proof how desparate the Russian side now is. They are pushing on all fronts and sadly they are making progress just through simple savagery. However this is a very short window. The inability of Russia to pay for anything will impact their fighting capability, but not overnight or even in a few days. The Ukrainian army and state needs to survive for weeks or even months and feeding the cities will become a problem. Only if they can stand firm will the Russian attack abate and it is asking a lot. We are entering a point of maximum danger for the Ukrainians and the Russian high command will do to Kharkiv or Kyiv what they already did to Grozny and Aleppo. War crimes indictments will surely follow.
This marks a comprehensive break between the West and the current form of Russia. These are not sanctions, they mark the utter shunning of Russia in every single sphere of contact. The reputation of Russia and the Russians has been totally trashed and, even if the war stops tomorrow, the change in perception will be lasting.
Johnson is arriving in Tallinn later today, but I am not sure calling for Putin´s head is such a good move. Even those who also want him gone in the regime won´t want to be pushed around so obviously, so it is likely to be counter productive, even though it is now quite clear that VVP is not a man we can do (any) business with.
Now the tide has gone out, at least we now know who picked the wrong side: Farage, Salmond, Trump, various Tories and many others. I said that the day of reckoning would be delayed until the crisis cools, but when that happens, the reckoning should be sure and complete.
In the meantime, Happy St. David´s Day!
Thanks. The danger with Johnson is that he uses the conflict as a distraction from his domestic problems. I think there is an element of that going on, but his assertiveness and charisma has been positive in other ways. Hard to judge, at the moment.
Agreed, the critical British contribution has been via five eyes and the NLAWs, but Johnson (ironically) worked well with Macron in the good cop/bad cop attempt to save peace. However, I dont´think that makes up for his flaws in most other spheres though.
if Liz Truss gets sacked soon not only will it fit the punishment for speaking out of a controlled fashion in this very serious situation but also more importantly give a small victory to Putin (as he named her as being the reason he went up the nuclear ladder preps_) .No loss to us , a gain to him (thats frankly how this ends and we deescalate down from nuclear war. If Liz Truss's career has be be sacrificed to prevent nuclear war its a very small price to pay .
Comments
The big less negative considerations to think about for the upcoming times are ; the strong possibilities for intra-regime collapse, from both oligarch and army sources ; collapse of pubic legitimacy following escalated bombing ; and economic collapse caused by a rupture with china. They're all very possible.
Yes and for good military reasons which are now being proved well-founded.
I didn't think he would be that stupid. As you know, I didn't think they had anything like sufficient forces in place to guarantee victory. I was correct.
But we're clearly dealing with a madman and when I saw his deranged national broadcast I changed my position. Yes, he really was that stupid or, rather, doolally.
Fiona Hill's point about Putin's state of mind is important here. I think he is crazed enough to trigger nuclear attacks.
I mean, what is the point? There is f--- all I can do about it other than watch it on the telly. I am certainly not going to take Ms Truss's advice and head off to Ukraine to see if I can fire a gun.
I mean, I'm all for banning Russia Today and have little sympathy for the wishy-washy hand-wringing naive liberalism which starts bleating about civil liberties on this one.
But twitter? It's not like it's a state-funded media machine. Just a conglomeration of mostly worthless individuals spouting this or that rubbish in 280 characters.
By which I mean, that I'm expecting at least one nuclear device to be exploded in Europe. Perhaps several or even many.
We have to remove Putin. That is the only preventative.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1498554996295712768
What's the alternative? We let the mad bully Putin demolish a free country?
We screwed up the build up to this many years ago, letting the tyrant get away with blue murder countless times. It's too late now to turn back the clock.
We have to stand up to him.
Why?
Because it is only Putin who threatens the very existence of western civilisation.
But when I saw his broadcast I realised he has gone potty. I mean he really is doolally. Deranged. Full tonto.
And that's why I am now sure he will stop at nothing. Which includes nuclear weaponry.
We have to remove Putin.
But Western governments again need to think about something very cooly and calmly. At the moment they're responding to the momentums of opinion, becoming more and more open in their explanations of military and logistical support. That is not wise or helpful , because he also seems to be fairly impervious to various levels of rational calculation ; so if this is also imagined to be primarily deterrence as much as public-pleasing, I don't think it's achieving anything.
We also need to think about the risk / benefit calculus again. Increasingly public military stances, rather than largely unofficial or semi-official supplying of Ukraine that Putin does not quite seem to interpret in the same way, makes *no* sense from that perspective - it is *not* a critical interest for the West.
On the question of the nuclear threat, it certainly is there. But I don't think advertising it so publicly, especially as a government-associated figure, is helpful. It's always liable to influence flows of public debate from one country to another, which are extremely volatile at the moment. The media should also start thinking about this a little more at the moment, as well as politicians.
Special forces is more tricky because that's a pretty overt action.
We should be ready to offer backing to any replacement.
But we HAVE to stand up to Putin.
The Ministry of Defence has provided an intelligence update this morning.
According to the latest, Russia has made "little progress" in its advance on Kyiv in the last day - "probably as a result of continuing logistical difficulties". It is thought Moscow has significantly underestimated the Ukrainian defence, which has managed to resist Russian fighting in several regions. The MoD adds Russia has increased its use of artillery north of Kyiv and in Kharkiv and Chernihiv, "greatly increasing the risk of civilian casualties". There has also been a shift to night operations after Moscow was unable to gain control of the airspace over Ukraine."
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-latest-news-putin-nuclear-deterrent-invasion-belarus-live-updates-12541713
The US airforce would make absolute mincemeat of them.
Of course none of us want to see a nuclear attack but if you were in Ukraine right now would you believe he'll do it? If he doesn't win on the ground, and soon, then absolutely.
We can't be naive about this. The world has unrecognisably changed. We may lament the fact but it has. The only way to claw back order is to go after Putin.
It's clear he sees much of eastern Europe as being 'Russian' territory, either in full or as vassal states. We see them as autonomous, independent states who can make their own decisions on things.
Putin's initial end-game is to have those states under Russia's thumb. He has tried to undermine some using democratic processes, succeeding in some and failing in most. But whatever we did, he would find an excuse to further his aims. Allow Ukraine to join NATO? An unheralded provocation! NATO talks in Ukraine? An unprecedented threat against Russia! Not allow Ukraine into NATO? You are unfriendly to them, they need Russian protection!
Russia might not want Ukraine and other eastern European states to join NATO or the EU. The problem is, Russia has no right to stop which groups independent states join any grouping Russia is not part of - in the same way we don't have any way to stop countries joining the EU now. We can moan and bellyache, but we have no rights.
Neither does Russia.
There are other approaches open to him, ones where the west's reactions are less firm. Chemical or biological weapons. He has the former, and may well have the latter. And as has been seen, he has the will to use them. They are also more deniable, as was seen in Syria (*), as non-state actors can have or create them. "It wasn't us guv!" is much harder with nukes.
I reckon he'll use the BC components of NBC before he uses the N. What may be staying his hand are his talk that he sees Ukraine as Russian people. Using such techniques against them may not sit easily with him - although he is invading them.
(*) Shame on those who denied Assad's culpability.
https://youtu.be/AZFCyMPvLd8
As ever the boys from Swindon understanding the zeitgeist (from c. 1980).
The final piece in that jigsaw is to say that hydrocarbon payments will be put into escrow accounts with the Bundesbank or whoever, released once Putin "leaves office". Sure, turn off the gas then - but that just means there's no chunk of money to restart the Russian economy once Putin does, finally, "leave office".
And of course, accused by a large number of women of multiple sexual assaults. A thug. No wonder he loves Putin's regime.
Everyone agrees that Putin must fail and ideally be overthrown. But the danger is that we see the question in a similar manner to a domestic policy campaign, where a head of steam builds up, eventually resulting in state action that leads to 'change'. International relations does not necessarily work that way. What feels like progress, may actually be a regression.
Speak softly and carry a big stick. Let Russia run out of cash, fuel and tanks, and the will to fight. It was working quite well. Stay on the moral high ground and try to get China on side.
The ramping up of WW3 rhetoric might cause a rallying to the flag in Russia. Has happened several times in Iran in response to Western pressure.
Red Dwarf.
If he did go down that road he'd be annihilated, and before he got off even a fraction of what he had.
So we didn't.
'Back of the queue' with war and a nuclear-armed nation led by a man fond of aggression may not work well, as others have suggested. Support Ukraine, tone down the rhetoric.
Except it isn't. Can't describe the news as 'good' can one, and, here anyway, it's a miserable wet start to meteorological Spring.
Still, Dydd Gwyl Dewi Hapus!
Things can only get better!
Putin is only going to fail if the regime collapses ; we cannot defeat him. Johnson' team may also be telling him that this sort of rhetoric will increase the internal panic, or bring about more concessions at negotiations. With the kind of regime that Putin possesses, it won't. It's just making it harder both for him to come to terms and his internal foes to get rid of him.
But I think it's too late. The escalation is occurring. That's in large measure because Russian forces are not succeeding on the ground and the more they escalate the style of campaign the more our horror turns to indignation and then to action. Russian forces have gone from waltzing in as apparent liberators now to carpet bombing.
Surely we have little choice? We cannot sit back and let this deranged lunatic annihilate a country just because he shouts at us not to get involved. Perhaps I'm wrong and we just sit on our hands and let him do it. Let him destroy an entire country. But he won't stop there.
Europe has irrevocably altered.
"There's only one way to face down Putin. And that is by independence for Scotland...."
If he’s worth as some estimates claim 200b then why? He’s president of Russia so not exactly able to spend the year hopping from one luxury property after another chasing the sun and social season.
He can’t buy a formula one team or football team and sit and watch them and get involved.
He can’t use his mega yacht that much as frankly he’s probably too busy to take loads of holidays.
It’s not like he can retire and swan around living like some huge film star as he’s unlikely to get to retire and if he does he’s going to be hunted for the rest of his life.
It’s just utterly pointless and clearly a massive ego thing rather than enjoyment.
On solutions I’m hoping, even though they are scum bags, that oligarchs and senior military are being contacted behind the scenes by the west and being told that if they stop this with Putin removed then the west will turn a blind eye to their money and properties again. It’s really grim to think of them living the high life off their I’ll gotten gains but maybe for the greater good.
If this goes on much longer it won't be in a position to invade or threaten anyone else for some time.
I'm not emotional about it. I'm resigned.
I watched Putin's hour long broadcast and realised we are dealing with an evil, dangerous, lunatic.
We need to wake up. And we have to stand up to this madman. For Ukraine's sake. For the sake of the western world. For the sake of the freedom that even gives you the right to go Ad hominem.
Comcast are the owners these days.
I realise our current PM would desperately want to lead it it. But would anyone from outside his current Parliamentary supporters be willing to serve?
We are not going to war with Russia. If there is a nuclear conflict then there is. There is little we can do about it. Your path makes it more, not less, likely.
There are probably a few grownups left in the us state department and amongst the joint chiefs. Hopefully also in the U.K. government services.
It would be nice if our leaders boxed clever.
Nevertheless my analysis is correct: it would guarantee his total and certain destruction whilst it wouldn't be certain this would apply to the West.
Therefore, it'd be an entirely irrational move by him.
A series of ugly war crimes is likely to get very much uglier in the next few days.
There is not the remotest excuse for this, in anything either Ukraine or the west has done - or indeed in Putin's own pronouncements - and his commanders must be aware that they are now following, and giving illegal orders.
So, to focus on your argument, you watched someone giving an hour-long speech and have concluded that it is time for nuclear war?
The alternative is all of Eastern Europe falls and we're subject to permanent geopolitical blackmail across Europe and the World by authoritarian states.
Unfortunately dealing with this is a long game, there is no quick solution. In the meantime we can support Ukraine as best we can, mainly by giving them supplies.
This marks a comprehensive break between the West and the current form of Russia. These are not sanctions, they mark the utter shunning of Russia in every single sphere of contact. The reputation of Russia and the Russians has been totally trashed and, even if the war stops tomorrow, the change in perception will be lasting.
Johnson is arriving in Tallinn later today, but I am not sure calling for Putin´s head is such a good move. Even those who also want him gone in the regime won´t want to be pushed around so obviously, so it is likely to be counter productive, even though it is now quite clear that VVP is not a man we can do (any) business with.
Now the tide has gone out, at least we now know who picked the wrong side: Farage, Salmond, Trump, various Tories and many others. I said that the day of reckoning would be delayed until the crisis cools, but when that happens, the reckoning should be sure and complete.
In the meantime, Happy St. David´s Day!
Dogmatism and lack of ability to adapt to situations isn't in my view helpful.
It was Putin's broadcast which made me realise he is doolally. 'Gone full tonto' as Ben Wallace so memorably put it.
Anyway, I have to pop out.
https://www.instagram.com/foreignanddevelopmentoffice/?hl=en
Totally agree
Analysis: politicians who believed Putin could be ‘tamed by empathy and accommodation’ are having to hurriedly rethink their positions
Kate Connolly in Berlin"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/germanys-putin-caressers-start-coming-to-terms-with-their-naivety
The key player to watch here is the US. They are noticeably showing restraint. For all of Europe’s positioning, the US calls the shots here and it will be the US to whom the Russian government will be looking for indicators.
I am not saying we shouldn’t be worried. War in Europe as a thing is enough cause for worry without adding talk of MAD into the equation.
Oddly, the BBC piece with the RAF over Eastern Europe was reassuring. The crew doing a good job of coming across as professional, calm and dispassionate.
I am with Fiona Hill, however, who is rather more of an expert on Putin than you are. That's what began this debate downthread if you recall. Like her, I am convinced that over the last few weeks Putin has lost it. Some are even suggesting it might be covid-related. Whatever the cause, his speech was crazed. Just rambling, incoherent, bizarre and unnerving.
I have no doubt in my mind that Putin will use nuclear weaponry in this conflict if he feels it is necessary. As someone below pointed out (Taz?) he's more likely to use the BC of NBC first. As Fiona Hill states, whenever we think, 'he wouldn't, would he?' he then goes and does it.
But be in no doubt that Putin's threats on this are for real.
We cannot sit idly by and let Ukraine be destroyed and this mad ogre to think he can get away with threatening the rest of civilisation. We have to stand up to him.
This will be painful for the Conservative Party and for certain individuals from across the political spectrum but by God, it is absolutely necessary.
Anna Soubry
@Anna_Soubry
To journalists in Poland & Estonia - #BorisJohnson is visiting you tomorrow (I know it’s difficult to believe but the scruffy clown really is PM) & you need to know something v important about him - he tells lies. Whoppers.
https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1498430086395142157
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340
She has been criticised by a few on here for daring to speak the unthinkable. But she's right to wake us up. Putin has to be stopped.
He is the least hawkish US President since Carter. He has already pulled all US troops out of Afghanistan and happily handed it back to the Taliban.
Appalling.
(Morning all)
This is war on OUR doorstep and we have to stand tall and strong.
"This is all on Putin"
... 14 tweets...
"ARRON BANKS"
Everton investor Alisher Usmanov has assets frozen due to close ties with Vladimir Putin
Unclear if club will be hit after sanctions against Russian billionaire, including travel ban and 'prohibition from making funds available'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/02/28/everton-investor-alisher-usmanov-has-assets-frozen-due-close/
Things are going to get bleak, perhaps horribly bleak, particularly for our incredibly brave Ukrainian allies, but however long it takes, we will prevail.
Don't forget that.