The security council cannot continue and without that what is left?
Surely it is needed more than ever? A global forum to discuss the issue while the UN Security Council remains a forum for dialogue with Russia even if it has a veto on any UN action
Has Mrs Heathener explained how this fits with her adamant prediction that “Putin will not invade”
I said Putin will invade, he has invaded. I still can’t quite believe he’s insane enough to occupy the entire country. What’s the point? He will want a quick war, secure air superiority, annexe a couple of provinces, regime change in Kiev. Then retreat but with menacing control of everything. Ukraine will be Belarus 2.0
He will then wait and expect us to tire of sanctions and heavy defence expenditure.
I thought he would take most of Eastern Ukraine.
But, maybe he takes the whole country, but allows the borders with the EU to remain open.
Simultaneously, this rids him of the most troublesome.
And causes a large flow of refugees into the EU (into countries not especially keen to have an long-term influx of Ukrainians, such as Poland.)
IMV he wants to hurt Ukraine enough that he can make it a satellite state, take the parts he wants, install a puppet government and hold sham elections. Then he can leave and say that the will of the Ukrainian people is clear.
In many ways that's a good case for us in the short-term as well. In other ways it's really, really bad in the medium and long-term.
Mr. Farooq, did you search for that, or did you already have a prepared file of quotes from various posters to throw at them?
Agree entirely with those who raise the Baltic states. We should be working together to put defensive plans into place, including sending them equipment ASAP.
Glad I’m extremely heavy on gold and cash. Stock markets going into full panic mode.
2-3% down is hardly full panic mode facing the biggest war in Europe in 75 years, wouldnt have been surprised if it was 5-10% down.
The lesson of these things is that the first day is only the start. As in March 2020.
But folk are determined to *never* learn from history.
Remember the Sudetenland? Too many clearly forgot. Remember that the next time a “muscular Unionist” (sic) proposes the partition of Scotland. They’re not the good guys.
Some diehard Remainers were happy to propose the partition of the UK after Brexit
So Trump wins in 24. NATO destroyed. Game, Set and Match Putin.
Even if Trump did win again it would not destroy NATO. France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Turkey, Italy and Canada would all still be members and enough combined to contain Putin even without the USA.
Trump also may not be bothered about Putin but he is bothered about Communist China. Indeed Trump would even go to war with China if it invaded Taiwan based on his rhetoric which Biden would not, merely imposing sanctions on China as he will do on Russia after the Ukraine invasion.
Remember the last time we were at war with Russia in the Crimean War it was us, France and Turkey v Russia with no US involvement
The Crimean War is woefully irrelevant, as Wallace found yesterday with his idiotic comments. Turkey under Erdogan also cannot be relied on at all, as an ally, with his local and pan-islamist ambitions.
ISTANBUL — Ukraine’s ambassador to Ankara called for Turkey to close its airspace and to forbid passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to warships.
ny times blog
Whatever you think of him Erdogan has been quite supportive of Zelensky.
I realise it's not productive to get riled by Putin's lies, but one thing which especially rankles is his claim to be 'denazifying' Ukraine - a country which overwhelmingly democratically elected a President many of whose forbears were murdered in the Holocaust.
Putin is far more of a fascist than those he is attacking.
Our Prime Minister, for example, is a compulsive liar, a charlatan and unfit for office. What he is not is a genocidal neo-imperialist maniac.
That's only because Johnson lacks the energy and competence of Putin. He'd like to be just as evil he just doesn't know how and can't be arsed.
This isn't the time for comments like this IMO.
It bloody well is. Putin has played the long game. Throw time and money at destabilising the west so that when he breaks international law in very specific and limited way he isn't facing western countries at the height of their powers. Instead he faces defanged pygmies like Johnson and absolute lunatics like Trump (not in office but clearly still holding power and authority over US politics) and preening peacocks like Macron.
Putin looks at all our leaders and sees them as puny idiots. His assessment - and how that drives his decision making - is absolutely the thing we need to be discussing now. Because unless the west recognises its weak position and does something about it, Putin might think there really are no barriers to retaking the ex Soviet NATO states.
Which would be bad.
This all sounds plausible when you put it like that but I'm just trying to think what it means in practice.
Putin is going to invade the country next door to him which isn't in NATO, and western countries are going to put a load of sanctions on Russia which will cost him a lot of money, which is presumably a price he's willing to pay. But they're not going to go to war to stop him, not least because they have a rational fear of it escalating into nuclear armageddon.
If we imagine the western countries were all united and at the height of their powers and run by sane yet strong leaders, what would the said united western countries be doing differently?
Good question. I think we do need to bluntly recognise that (a) this is straightforward aggression by Putin, and appears remarkably stupid and (b) it's not likely that the most balanced and intelligent Western leadership could have prevented it. I'm not inclined to blame Johnson or anyone else in the West at this point.
Crystal clear threat to use nuclear weapons from Putin. Bone-chilling to listen to.
It was always obvious that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never going to be the only and final victims. Who’ll be No.3?
It does not bear thinking about but never before has our nuclear deterrent been as important
Well it hasn't deterred Putin thus far.
I would say it is totally useless against Putin. Mutually assured nuclear destruction is no threat to someone who doesn't give a ****!
Of course it has. Ukraine isn't a member of NATO The rest of Eastern Europe would be in trouble if they weren't either.
Come back to me on the one when the Baltic States are part of the Russian Federation.
Ukraine had nukes, Soviet nukes, they gave them up in good faith. They gave up their nuclear deterrent. They were hoodwinked by Russia.
We are not going to launch a strike for Ukraine and neither will we for the Baltic States, Poland, or Finland. If we do it's game over for everyone. It's Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome.
The nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent if it deters. It has not and will not deter Putin.
Crystal clear threat to use nuclear weapons from Putin. Bone-chilling to listen to.
It was always obvious that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never going to be the only and final victims. Who’ll be No.3?
It does not bear thinking about but never before has our nuclear deterrent been as important
Well it hasn't deterred Putin thus far.
I would say it is totally useless against Putin. Mutually assured nuclear destruction is no threat to someone who doesn't give a ****!
Of course it has. Ukraine isn't a member of NATO The rest of Eastern Europe would be in trouble if they weren't either.
Come back to me on the one when the Baltic States are part of the Russian Federation.
Ukraine had nukes, Soviet nukes, they gave them up in good faith. They gave up their nuclear deterrent. They were hoodwinked by Russia.
We are not going to launch a strike for Ukraine and neither will we for the Baltic States, Poland, or Finland. If we do it's game over for everyone. It's Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome.
The nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent if it deters. It has not and will not deter Putin.
Of course it’s a deterrent. Has anyone attacked North Korea? Or really tried to annihilate Israel?
Putin would never invade France or the UK, because we have nukes. Because he would seriously risk the entire obliteration of Russia, and tens of millions dead
The question is, how wide and strong is NATO’s combined nuclear umbrella over non-nuke states? Would we launch nukes to stop an invasion of Germany, or Italy? I think yes.
The further east you go, however, the weaker the moral will of the West.
One of the reasons that Egypt started the trend of making peace with Israel was that Israel made clear that if defeated they would use the Sampson Option. Nuke everyone at war with them at the time.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
If no side had nukes, we could have had WW3 in Europe decades ago.
My hatred for Putin today is so great, that as a staunch leaver I'd offer the UK to rejoin the EU just because I know it would piss him off.
[1] Gotta talk about Brexit I suppose. Wouldn't be a PB thread without it.
I think both you and Nick are right - refighting the Brexit debate, whether one believes it a good decision or a mistake, is utterly irrelevant this morning.
I'm afraid I don't see that happening. Much of current daily politics is still about quite fundamental questions which will not go away.
There has been no slowdown in of snide-asides about UK and UK-politicians in the Brussels-based yellow media. When Dave Keating reported on statements by FMs, he still added "with a photograph" to the tweet wrt Liz Truss - following his usual line of a smidgeon of studied contempt while boosting EU/UK polarisation.
Macron is still in his post-Aukus sulk and in search of a Greater France and reelection, and Boris will still use whatever ammunition is necessary to save his miserable neck. Will Macron really wind down maximum bureaucracy on frontiers with the UK? Angela Rayner will continue her usual mudslinging with anything she can get her hands on, whether true or fabricated. And so on.
Some of the intra-UK politics may be recast in form to suit the time, just as it was for COVID, but it will not go away.
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
Hi Nick, I agree with your three points. But Point 2 is hampered by the hobby-horse you don't want us to talk about - the Russian money awash in London, the Tory party and Tory donors. We need to smash Russian interests here and this government simply won't do so. Whats worse they have refused the ISC evidence of Russian meddling, the need for a deeper investigation and even the need for defences against more.
As for RT I don't want a political ban, I want the terms of their license to be upheld. They cannot broadcast enemy propaganda like that under the Broadcasting Code. Nor should we - the taxpayer - be providing RT with banking services through state-owned Natwest.
While not unexpected, still rather horrible to wake up to a new war in Europe.
Did you ever expect to write that post?
I did.
David Cameron (pbuh) did warn us all that if Brexit happened the peace we've known in Europe after WWII was at risk.
(I mean he didn't say that but the reaction of Brexiteers was hilarious to the spin Gove put on the speech before it happened.)
If you think that no Brexit would have prevented this then you are more of a fucking lunatic than I already took you for.
Like all hypothetical pasts it's impossible to know, but the idea is entirely plausible. Russian tactics on dividing the EU and ruining America's trust in government fail, so Russia abandons the more physically aggressive parts of its strategy, and Ukraine remains merely in a frozen conflict instead of subject to a wider invasion.
It doesn't make Brexit wrong, but the above is an entirely believable timeline.
All of which ignores the fact that this all started at least as early as 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. Well before Brexit was a serious possibility. Putin saw the reaction of the West then (nothing) and knew he could do this when he was ready. This was confirmed to him when he saw the way the West scuttled out of Afghanistan and lots of us on here were saying that Russia and China would be taking clear lessons from that debacle as well.
Not saying you're wrong but what do you think would have been an appropriate reaction to Crimea? Like it seems like the threat of sanctions was credibly made this time, so it's not that. Take Crimea back by force? US/UK troops in the rest of Ukraine?
Crystal clear threat to use nuclear weapons from Putin. Bone-chilling to listen to.
It was always obvious that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never going to be the only and final victims. Who’ll be No.3?
It does not bear thinking about but never before has our nuclear deterrent been as important
Is that IMPORTANT or IMPOTENT?
Indeed.
Shocking how many mugs swallow the “Nuclear Deterrent” (sic) propaganda. Their equivalents in Russia are cheering on Putin.
Orwell had England sussed.
Only 2 nations in Europe have nuclear weapons, us and France.
If Putin used nuclear weapons against a NATO nation it would therefore be you whinging Scottish Nationalist anti Trident haters who would be relying on the UK PM to launch a Trident nuclear missile on Moscow in response
Diplomats tell us following sanctions are tricky: - ITA, AUS, DE concerned abt broad banking-sector sanctions - ITA resistant to sanctions that include railways - ITA wants carve-out for luxury goods - BEL wants carve-out for diamonds + broad reluctance to sanction energy sector
Not good.
Putin has a very good chance of getting away with this, and then a few years all those sanctions will drop one by one.
Oh and also the Tories need to deal with their Russia issue with their funding right now.
The Tories need to dump Boris before lunch. He was never fit for office, and right now someone as incompetent as he is is a danger to our country. Just about anyone in the Tory party would be better.
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
If no side had nukes, we could have had WW3 in Europe decades ago.
and to think Ukraine have up its (inherited) nuclear arsenal in 1992 (in return for security guarantees from the West).... not that they could have fired them.
ISTANBUL — Ukraine’s ambassador to Ankara called for Turkey to close its airspace and to forbid passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to warships.
ny times blog
Whatever you think of him Erdogan has been quite supportive of Zelensky.
The pinnacle of Greater Russian Nationalism is taking "Constantinople" - which the really far-out types think will magically cause all the Orthodox to re-unite under the Russian..... Tsar.
Yes, "Game of Risk" level lunacy, but... The Crimean War....
A grinding occupation of Ukraine that ultimately goes the way of most such escapades, the the depressing but most obvious possibility.
Meanwhile someone has got our clown out of bed and he is promising to be decisive.
In all honesty, I think Johnson should resign. Today. He will not be up to this, at all. I really don't want him to be British Prime Minister. He needs replacing immediately.
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
To back up 3, I would add issuing a list - a very long list - of those who will face war crimes trials. Anyone remotely using power given by Putin and his clique. Anyone complicit in his decision to go to war. Until these trials are held, their assets in any of the following (long list of) countries will be seized - and used as reparations for rebuilding Ukraine.
Seize their yachts, their villas, reduce their playground to their dachas again. Until this Putin regime is over and the tanks return back inside Russia's accepted international borders, we should be determined - they will have nowhere to go.
Yes. Seize all the assets. Shut down all their banks. Close all their rich playgrounds. Throw the whole fecking book at them. Their playtime in europe is over.
Oh and also the Tories need to deal with their Russia issue with their funding right now.
The Tories need to dump Boris before lunch. He was never fit for office, and right now someone as incompetent as he is is a danger to our country. Just about anyone in the Tory party would be better.
ISTANBUL — Ukraine’s ambassador to Ankara called for Turkey to close its airspace and to forbid passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to warships.
ny times blog
Whatever you think of him Erdogan has been quite supportive of Zelensky.
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
To back up 3, I would add issuing a list - a very long list - of those who will face war crimes trials. Anyone remotely using power given by Putin and his clique. Anyone complicit in his decision to go to war. Until these trials are held, their assets in any of the following (long list of) countries will be seized - and used as reparations for rebuilding Ukraine.
Seize their yachts, their villas, reduce their playground to their dachas again. Until this Putin regime is over and the tanks return back inside Russia's accepted international borders, we should be determined - they will have nowhere to go.
Does simply starting a war amount to a war crime?
Read the unanimous declaration from the Estonian Parliament yesterday for chapter and verse.
It is pointless anyway, since Estonia is not going to kidnap Putin and deliver him to The Hague (nor the American or Chinese presidents, come to that).
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
To back up 3, I would add issuing a list - a very long list - of those who will face war crimes trials. Anyone remotely using power given by Putin and his clique. Anyone complicit in his decision to go to war. Until these trials are held, their assets in any of the following (long list of) countries will be seized - and used as reparations for rebuilding Ukraine.
Seize their yachts, their villas, reduce their playground to their dachas again. Until this Putin regime is over and the tanks return back inside Russia's accepted international borders, we should be determined - they will have nowhere to go.
Yes. Seize all the assets. Shut down all their banks. Close all their rich playgrounds. Throw the whole fecking book at them. Their playtime in europe is over.
Send the bailiffs down Bishops Avenue?
Not sure what Ghana, Nigeria, China and various Arab countries have done to get involved with this?
Oh and also the Tories need to deal with their Russia issue with their funding right now.
Why? Nobody cares enough for it to make a difference.
Because we won't go after Russian assets because the Tories and their patrons are on the tit for Russian money. Because we won't properly address Russian meddling and cyberwarfare because to do so is to accept they meddled in Brexit. Did you hear the jeers from the the Tory ultras yesterday when this was pointed out?
Protecting money, and protecting the ultras dream to turn us into Singapore and make more money is apparently more important than anything else. It is directly providing succour to Putin and his efforts. As Trump is even more overtly in America.
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No, he will first have to win this war of aggression, and then fight and win another one. That is far from guaranteed.
TheValiant, it's a nice thought. But it won't happen.
Conservative MPs should've axed the buffoon last year, or earlier this year. They were spineless and the fool is shameless, so he'll stay in place. Unless MPs realise governing a country is a serious matter and finally grow some balls.
So Trump wins in 24. NATO destroyed. Game, Set and Match Putin.
Even if Trump did win again it would not destroy NATO. France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Turkey, Italy and Canada would all still be members and enough combined to contain Putin even without the USA.
Trump also may not be bothered about Putin but he is bothered about Communist China. Indeed Trump would even go to war with China if it invaded Taiwan based on his rhetoric which Biden would not, merely imposing sanctions on China as he will do on Russia after the Ukraine invasion.
Remember the last time we were at war with Russia in the Crimean War it was us, France and Turkey v Russia with no US involvement
The Crimean War is woefully irrelevant, as Wallace found yesterday with his idiotic comments. Turkey under Erdogan also cannot be relied on at all, as an ally, with his local and pan-islamist ambitions.
Turkey is in NATO and Erdoğan hates Putin so can be relied on.
The Crimean War is highly relevant as the same European coalition would be needed to contain Russia
IMV he wants to hurt Ukraine enough that he can make it a satellite state, take the parts he wants, install a puppet government and hold sham elections. Then he can leave and say that the will of the Ukrainian people is clear.
In many ways that's a good case for us in the short-term as well. In other ways it's really, really bad in the medium and long-term.
That's broadly what I'm thinking. I consider it the most probable and least bad scenario, and it's still very bad.
Crystal clear threat to use nuclear weapons from Putin. Bone-chilling to listen to.
It was always obvious that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never going to be the only and final victims. Who’ll be No.3?
It does not bear thinking about but never before has our nuclear deterrent been as important
Is that IMPORTANT or IMPOTENT?
Indeed.
Shocking how many mugs swallow the “Nuclear Deterrent” (sic) propaganda. Their equivalents in Russia are cheering on Putin.
Orwell had England sussed.
Only 2 nations in Europe have nuclear weapons, us and France.
If Putin used nuclear weapons against a NATO nation it would therefore be you whinging Scottish Nationalist anti Trident haters who would be relying on the UK PM to launch a Trident nuclear missile on Moscow in response
If Putin uses nuclear weapons against a NATO nation we are all going down into the dark.
Today is not a day to be arguing about Brexit. Putin has been aided by general Western diffidence for many years and from all parts of the political spectrum. Hopefully, lessons will be learned and we will all remember who our true friends are.
Arguing about the whys and wherefores? I completely agree. But - and its a big but - there are critical lessons we needed to learn about Russian meddling and infiltration. Because Big Dog refused to investigate and covered it all up, Russia's ability to continue fucking with us may be stronger than it otherwise would have been.
Brexit is done. We aren't rejoining the EU any time in the foreseeable future. But BREXIT hasn't happened. We haven't deregulated and won the culture war and profiteered as expected. So we can't undermine the resolution behind Brexit by pointing to he security holes that Russia cut which we won't even recognise are there.
I hope the world of sport reacts strongly. No Russians in the Giro or Tour. No football tournaments. No ice hockey. Ban 100% of Russian competitors, all the way down to junior level. Give them the full South Africa apartheid treatment.
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
There are NATO troops in the Baltics and Poland. Numbers increasing by the day. To start with, Russia would have to invade against NATO air superiority. Which leads to things like - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-108
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
NATO will launch a war against him if he tries to take the Baltic states.
I don't know what this "serious domestic grief" would be to wide ranging sanctions.
Perhaps it would be a good way of finding out who is on the Russian payroll because you can be damn sure that 96% of the country is in favour.
Fuel prices way up, and disruption to supplies. Food and other commodities sharply rising. Inflation going even higher. The economic blowback may be considerable.
Our sanctions should be so heavy that we feel pain, let alone Russia. Such an act of unprovoked war in Europe cannot go unpunished and we should be collectively willing to pay some sacrifice to make sure Russia suffers for these actions.
Freeze and start legal action to confiscate assets of anyone linked to Putin. Ban anyone in the West from holding Russian government or Ruble denominated debt. Cut access to Swift. Sanction all Russian banks. Implement a energy plan that makes Europe independent of Russian oil/gas as soon as possible.
Agreed. We need a complete and 100% isolation of Russia akin to and beyond what happened to the Apartheid South Africa. Ban them from finance, from sports, from anything and everything.
On the latter, not to be replaced with "I can't believe it's not Russia" Olympic teams ... Banned full stop. Cut off entirely from the world.
So, about yesterday's debate where you were dead against freezing Russian assets and suspected Russian assets in the UK...
What Russian assets?
Yesterday we were talking about British assets of Britons who are Putin's enemies who have lived in the UK and acquired citizenship for decades?
Are you wanting to revert to Russophobia and racistly seizing the assets of all of Putin's enemies who happened to be born in Russia?
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
No offence taken, because you are wrong.
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size than Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
Hi Nick, I agree with your three points. But Point 2 is hampered by the hobby-horse you don't want us to talk about - the Russian money awash in London, the Tory party and Tory donors. We need to smash Russian interests here and this government simply won't do so. Whats worse they have refused the ISC evidence of Russian meddling, the need for a deeper investigation and even the need for defences against more.
As for RT I don't want a political ban, I want the terms of their license to be upheld. They cannot broadcast enemy propaganda like that under the Broadcasting Code. Nor should we - the taxpayer - be providing RT with banking services through state-owned Natwest.
The Tory cash from the Russians is bad, I agree. They should make an equivalent donation to Ukrainian humanitarian charities and get some new cash in from the O&G companies that will get the contracts for the new gas fields off Shetland, or something.
But Putin doesn't give a fuck about it. He just invaded Ukraine, to the horror of all his mates in the Kremlin. You're shoehorning a domestic political issue into a full fat geopolitical catastrophe. It's irrelevant.
I think the only real option is NATO deployment into Eastern Europe and possible air defence of what remains of Ukraine by the end of the day.
If the Baltic states do something mad like blocking the Oresund strait we should support that too.
My hatred for Putin today is so great, that as a staunch leaver I'd offer the UK to rejoin the EU just because I know it would piss him off.
[1] Gotta talk about Brexit I suppose. Wouldn't be a PB thread without it.
I think both you and Nick are right - refighting the Brexit debate, whether one believes it a good decision or a mistake, is utterly irrelevant this morning.
I'm afraid I don't see that happening. Much of current daily politics is still about quite fundamental questions which will not go away.
There has been no slowdown in of snide-asides about UK and UK-politicians in the Brussels-based yellow media. When Dave Keating reported on statements by FMs, he still added "with a photograph" to the tweet wrt Liz Truss - following his usual line of a smidgeon of studied contempt while boosting EU/UK polarisation.
Macron is still in his post-Aukus sulk and in search of a Greater France and reelection, and Boris will still use whatever ammunition is necessary to save his miserable neck. Will Macron really wind down maximum bureaucracy on frontiers with the UK? Angela Rayner will continue her usual mudslinging with anything she can get her hands on, whether true or fabricated. And so on.
Some of the intra-UK politics may be recast in form to suit the time, just as it was for COVID, but it will not go away.
Ah, I'm sure you're right, and democracy extends to them too. If anyone wants to talk about Brexit or whatever, feel free. I'm just saying that personally I don't want to, even with my own usual preoccupations.
On the actual events unfolding, the most significant is perhaps the report of troop landings in Odessa. That is well past the claimed borders of the self-declared eastern statelets, and if confirmed it does suggest he aims to go for the whole country.
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
No offence taken, because you are wrong.
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size to Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
Ah, plebiscites. CNN published polling data, yesterday....
Glad I’m extremely heavy on gold and cash. Stock markets going into full panic mode.
3% is hardly full panic mode. This will be partly factored in
It will eventually present a buying opportunity.
Cash is a depreciating asset. Unless you can beat inflation.
Yes, of course cash will depreciate. At maybe 5% per annum. But not 5% per day.
I am sitting tight on my equities. While some are vulnerable to sanctions and war related economic changes it is hard to see why UK builders etc should be down.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m still very exposed on equities. It’s just that I’ve been steadily moving out of them into other assets over a long period (accelerated over last few months).
Of course, in the long term, equities still likely to be the wisest base in any portfolio. But far, far too many folk have an idiotic faith in equities at the expense of a spread of risk strategy.
So Trump wins in 24. NATO destroyed. Game, Set and Match Putin.
Even if Trump did win again it would not destroy NATO. France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Turkey, Italy and Canada would all still be members and enough combined to contain Putin even without the USA.
Trump also may not be bothered about Putin but he is bothered about Communist China. Indeed Trump would even go to war with China if it invaded Taiwan based on his rhetoric which Biden would not, merely imposing sanctions on China as he will do on Russia after the Ukraine invasion.
Remember the last time we were at war with Russia in the Crimean War it was us, France and Turkey v Russia with no US involvement
The Crimean War is woefully irrelevant, as Wallace found yesterday with his idiotic comments. Turkey under Erdogan also cannot be relied on at all, as an ally, with his local and pan-islamist ambitions.
Turkey is in NATO and Erdoğan hates Putin so can be relied on.
The Crimean War is highly relevant as the same European coalition would be needed to contain Russia
Erdogan has established a good working relationship with Putin at tmes. It's been rocky, but there's also actually been quite a lot of collaboration. I wouldn't trust him in this context particularly ; any decisions he makes with access to the Black Sea will be important.
On a day like today it seems almost churlish to mention it, but Russia and Ukraine are both seriously important sources of the raw materials required in the manufacture of semiconductors. Putin’s actions are going to have major, multiple ramifications across the world.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
Crystal clear threat to use nuclear weapons from Putin. Bone-chilling to listen to.
It was always obvious that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never going to be the only and final victims. Who’ll be No.3?
It does not bear thinking about but never before has our nuclear deterrent been as important
Is that IMPORTANT or IMPOTENT?
Indeed.
Shocking how many mugs swallow the “Nuclear Deterrent” (sic) propaganda. Their equivalents in Russia are cheering on Putin.
Orwell had England sussed.
Only 2 nations in Europe have nuclear weapons, us and France.
If Putin used nuclear weapons against a NATO nation it would therefore be you whinging Scottish Nationalist anti Trident haters who would be relying on the UK PM to launch a Trident nuclear missile on Moscow in response
If Putin uses nuclear weapons against a NATO nation we are all going down into the dark.
In reality though I am not sure if the US, UK or France would use nuclear weapons on Russia to defend another NATO state if Putin launched nuclear weapons against them. Although in theory they could on the basis of mutual NATO defence to keep him guessing.
If Russia launched a nuclear attack on London, Paris, Washington and New York and LA however then yes, the UK, France and US would respond with a nuclear missile attack on Moscow and St Petersburg
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
No offence taken, because you are wrong.
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size than Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
Your solution would not avoid war. The Donbass voted 84/16 % for independence from Russia in 1991. Do you truly believe that Putin cares about the views of its inhabitants, or would respect any vote to remain part of Ukraine?
As to your final point, if eighty years ago, England had invaded Wales, murdered its political and military leaders, and deported tens of thousands of Welsh people to be worked to death in concentration camps, then an independent Wales would have every right to join such an alliance. That is the position that the Baltic States are in.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
The sub commander will open the envelope and inside there'll be two letters from the PM, with a note saying "which one do you think is best?"
Our sanctions should be so heavy that we feel pain, let alone Russia. Such an act of unprovoked war in Europe cannot go unpunished and we should be collectively willing to pay some sacrifice to make sure Russia suffers for these actions.
Freeze and start legal action to confiscate assets of anyone linked to Putin. Ban anyone in the West from holding Russian government or Ruble denominated debt. Cut access to Swift. Sanction all Russian banks. Implement a energy plan that makes Europe independent of Russian oil/gas as soon as possible.
Agreed. We need a complete and 100% isolation of Russia akin to and beyond what happened to the Apartheid South Africa. Ban them from finance, from sports, from anything and everything.
On the latter, not to be replaced with "I can't believe it's not Russia" Olympic teams ... Banned full stop. Cut off entirely from the world.
So, about yesterday's debate where you were dead against freezing Russian assets and suspected Russian assets in the UK...
What Russian assets?
Yesterday we were talking about British assets of Britons who are Putin's enemies who have lived in the UK and acquired citizenship for decades?
Are you wanting to revert to Russophobia and racistly seizing the assets of all of Putin's enemies who happened to be born in Russia?
Get a grip!
Yep. "you're all racists if you impose sanctions on russian accounts of russian passport holders and russian property in the UK" is providing succour to Putin.
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
No offence taken, because you are wrong.
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size to Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
Ah, plebiscites. CNN published polling data, yesterday....
There is no way Putin would have agreed to a plebiscite unless he was confident he could determine the result, so as a suggested way forward it's pointless.
Argentina hasn't abandoned its claim to the Falklands after votes there, for example.
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
Hi Nick, I agree with your three points. But Point 2 is hampered by the hobby-horse you don't want us to talk about - the Russian money awash in London, the Tory party and Tory donors. We need to smash Russian interests here and this government simply won't do so. Whats worse they have refused the ISC evidence of Russian meddling, the need for a deeper investigation and even the need for defences against more.
As for RT I don't want a political ban, I want the terms of their license to be upheld. They cannot broadcast enemy propaganda like that under the Broadcasting Code. Nor should we - the taxpayer - be providing RT with banking services through state-owned Natwest.
The Tory cash from the Russians is bad, I agree. They should make an equivalent donation to Ukrainian humanitarian charities and get some new cash in from the O&G companies that will get the contracts for the new gas fields off Shetland, or something.
But Putin doesn't give a fuck about it. He just invaded Ukraine, to the horror of all his mates in the Kremlin. You're shoehorning a domestic political issue into a full fat geopolitical catastrophe. It's irrelevant.
I think the only real option is NATO deployment into Eastern Europe and possible air defence of what remains of Ukraine by the end of the day.
If the Baltic states do something mad like blocking the Oresund strait we should support that too.
I know that Putin doesn't care about that £2m or whatever it is. But that cash is preventing Big Dog from going after all of the Russian assets and Russian-backed assets. We are either shutting down Russian oligarchs laundering money through London money and property markets or we are not. And at the moment we are not.
£2m is small change but it has bought big influence.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
That's the point though. The weapon system we can never use also means the enemy can never use theirs.
Without nukes, the Cold War would not have remained Cold.
Trident and our allies having it too has saved probably hundreds of millions of lives. It prevents WWIII which would be far worse than WWII if it ever started - with or without nukes.
Nuclear weapons have done more to prevent war than probably all "Nobel Peace Prize" winners in history combined.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
And the only circumstances we would ever fire it would be - for the foreseeable anyway - those in which the US would also be using nukes. Ours would just be sprinkles on the top of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Whilst NATO exists, I cannot envision any situation in which we would unilaterally fire nuclear weapons. Against Russia? They would scorch every inch of our green and pleasant land, just to make a point.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
Since the retirement of WE.177 and the various arms agreements, some of the Trident missiles have been downloaded to a single warhead. If you commanded the software not to inject the tritium, the warhead would have a yield of 300 tons of TNT (aprox). Most of that yield would be in neutrons, incidentally - way more than half.
So you have a very, very expensive way of reliving a tactical nuclear weapon.
So Trump wins in 24. NATO destroyed. Game, Set and Match Putin.
Even if Trump did win again it would not destroy NATO. France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Turkey, Italy and Canada would all still be members and enough combined to contain Putin even without the USA.
Trump also may not be bothered about Putin but he is bothered about Communist China. Indeed Trump would even go to war with China if it invaded Taiwan based on his rhetoric which Biden would not, merely imposing sanctions on China as he will do on Russia after the Ukraine invasion.
Remember the last time we were at war with Russia in the Crimean War it was us, France and Turkey v Russia with no US involvement
The Crimean War is woefully irrelevant, as Wallace found yesterday with his idiotic comments. Turkey under Erdogan also cannot be relied on at all, as an ally, with his local and pan-islamist ambitions.
Turkey is in NATO and Erdoğan hates Putin so can be relied on.
The Crimean War is highly relevant as the same European coalition would be needed to contain Russia
Erdogan has established a good working relationship with Putin at tmes. It's been rocky, but there's also actually been quite a lot of collaboration. I wouldn't trust him in this context particularly ; any decisions he makes with access to the Black Sea will be important.
It was Syria which really divided the 2 with Putin pro Assad and the Turks supporting the rebels
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
No offence taken, because you are wrong.
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size to Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
Ah, plebiscites. CNN published polling data, yesterday....
I used to have some respect for you, but your posts these days are really stupid.
Your smearing of me as a supporter of White Australia after I posted something specifically in support of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia was really quite something.
There is a big difference between a CNN poll and a UN organised plebiscite. As any fule know.
The results of any UN plebiscite would be binding -- Silesia was divided, Schleswig/Slesvig was divided.
The plebiscite may have divided Donetsk & Luhansk, I really don't know. So be it.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
What bollocks. It’s a deterrent. “You hit us, you destroy us, we can still utterly annihilate you”. So they are deterred from hitting us in the first place
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
Our sanctions should be so heavy that we feel pain, let alone Russia. Such an act of unprovoked war in Europe cannot go unpunished and we should be collectively willing to pay some sacrifice to make sure Russia suffers for these actions.
Freeze and start legal action to confiscate assets of anyone linked to Putin. Ban anyone in the West from holding Russian government or Ruble denominated debt. Cut access to Swift. Sanction all Russian banks. Implement a energy plan that makes Europe independent of Russian oil/gas as soon as possible.
Agreed. We need a complete and 100% isolation of Russia akin to and beyond what happened to the Apartheid South Africa. Ban them from finance, from sports, from anything and everything.
On the latter, not to be replaced with "I can't believe it's not Russia" Olympic teams ... Banned full stop. Cut off entirely from the world.
So, about yesterday's debate where you were dead against freezing Russian assets and suspected Russian assets in the UK...
What Russian assets?
Yesterday we were talking about British assets of Britons who are Putin's enemies who have lived in the UK and acquired citizenship for decades?
Are you wanting to revert to Russophobia and racistly seizing the assets of all of Putin's enemies who happened to be born in Russia?
Get a grip!
Yep. "you're all racists if you impose sanctions on russian accounts of russian passport holders and russian property in the UK" is providing succour to Putin.
Well done.
More racism. Calling Britons by their nation of birth, rather than their real nationality, is unadulterated racism.
sanctions on russianBritish accounts of russianBritish passport holders and russianBritish property in the UK.
Glad I’m extremely heavy on gold and cash. Stock markets going into full panic mode.
2-3% down is hardly full panic mode facing the biggest war in Europe in 75 years, wouldnt have been surprised if it was 5-10% down.
The lesson of these things is that the first day is only the start. As in March 2020.
But folk are determined to *never* learn from history.
Remember the Sudetenland? Too many clearly forgot. Remember that the next time a “muscular Unionist” (sic) proposes the partition of Scotland. They’re not the good guys.
Some diehard Remainers were happy to propose the partition of the UK after Brexit
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
And the only circumstances we would ever fire it would be - for the foreseeable anyway - those in which the US would also be using nukes. Ours would just be sprinkles on the top of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Whilst NATO exists, I cannot envision any situation in which we would unilaterally fire nuclear weapons. Against Russia? They would scorch every inch of our green and pleasant land, just to make a point.
We wouldn't use them first.
However if Russia used them first against a NATO nation we might use them and if Russia sent a first strike nuclear weapon on London we would obviously send a Trident nuclear missile to Moscow in response
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
What bollocks. It’s a deterrent. “You hit us, you destroy us, we can still utterly annihilate you”. So they are deterred from hitting us in the first place
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
Although Israel was attacked by its neighbours in 1967, shortly after it had developed nuclear weapons. It wasn't conquered, though.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
And the only circumstances we would ever fire it would be - for the foreseeable anyway - those in which the US would also be using nukes. Ours would just be sprinkles on the top of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Whilst NATO exists, I cannot envision any situation in which we would unilaterally fire nuclear weapons. Against Russia? They would scorch every inch of our green and pleasant land, just to make a point.
We wouldn't use them first.
However if Russia used them first against a NATO nation we might use them and if Russia sent a first strike nuclear weapon on London we would obviously send a Trident nuclear missile to Moscow in response
I wonder if Putin’s yes men have fed him a line that Ukraine will collapse like a house of cards and after a few hours of attack will fold and a grateful people will welcome the liberators? He doesn’t strike me as someone welcoming to views that don’t conform with his own. Since COVID his circle of contacts has contracted markedly.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
What bollocks. It’s a deterrent. “You hit us, you destroy us, we can still utterly annihilate you”. So they are deterred from hitting us in the first place
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
US could nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki without fear. They were the only ones with the Big Stick.
Would they have done so if the quid pro quo was losing New York and Chicago?
So Trump wins in 24. NATO destroyed. Game, Set and Match Putin.
Even if Trump did win again it would not destroy NATO. France, Germany, Poland, the UK and Turkey, Italy and Canada would all still be members and enough combined to contain Putin even without the USA.
Trump also may not be bothered about Putin but he is bothered about Communist China. Indeed Trump would even go to war with China if it invaded Taiwan based on his rhetoric which Biden would not, merely imposing sanctions on China as he will do on Russia after the Ukraine invasion.
Remember the last time we were at war with Russia in the Crimean War it was us, France and Turkey v Russia with no US involvement
Come off it, ancient history does not help us.
NATO without the US is dead. And who knows what Trump might do, he might side with Russia against Europe.
Further to the earlier comment, I don't think we should divert ourselves with pursuing our various hobby-horses on Brexit, Conservative party funding, politicians who we disagree with, past mistakes that we've made or anything else. Let's focus on Putin's invasion and what we can usefully do at this point - we can revert to the rest afterwards.
My suggestions FWIW:
1. Large-scale NATO troop movements into NATO countries at potential risk. The reason that Putin feels able to attack Ukraine is that they aren't in NATO and we've repeatedly made clear that we won't defend it militarily. It needs to be crystal clear that that isn't the position in NATO countries. 2. Blanket financial and economic sanctions. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'd use every available financial and trade barrier, including retrospective legislation if necessary to freeze Russian assets. 3. Private channels to the Russian leadership on how to climb down from this if there's a palace coup or other changes in the leadership there. What sanctions would we remove if they did X? What precisely are our conditions?
I would not ban RT or deny air time to people who may disagree, including Farage or Corbyn or anyone else. We are a democracy, we are not at war ourselves and people remain free to express an opinion. It's the main way we distinguish ourselves from oligarchies, and if we lapse into censorship we undermine our own case.
Hi Nick, I agree with your three points. But Point 2 is hampered by the hobby-horse you don't want us to talk about - the Russian money awash in London, the Tory party and Tory donors. We need to smash Russian interests here and this government simply won't do so. Whats worse they have refused the ISC evidence of Russian meddling, the need for a deeper investigation and even the need for defences against more.
As for RT I don't want a political ban, I want the terms of their license to be upheld. They cannot broadcast enemy propaganda like that under the Broadcasting Code. Nor should we - the taxpayer - be providing RT with banking services through state-owned Natwest.
The Tory cash from the Russians is bad, I agree. They should make an equivalent donation to Ukrainian humanitarian charities and get some new cash in from the O&G companies that will get the contracts for the new gas fields off Shetland, or something.
But Putin doesn't give a fuck about it. He just invaded Ukraine, to the horror of all his mates in the Kremlin. You're shoehorning a domestic political issue into a full fat geopolitical catastrophe. It's irrelevant.
I think the only real option is NATO deployment into Eastern Europe and possible air defence of what remains of Ukraine by the end of the day.
If the Baltic states do something mad like blocking the Oresund strait we should support that too.
One thing which continually surprises me is how little money it takes to buy UK politicians and political parties.
Compare with the huge amounts of political donations in the USA.
Joint statement by the three Baltic foreign ministers 🇪🇪@eliimets, 🇱🇻@edgarsrinkevics, 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis in support of Ukraine 🇺🇦, condemning in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine
“ We, the foreign ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania condemn in a strongest possible way the open large scale Russian aggression against the independent, peaceful and democratic Ukraine. This act of aggression is not acceptable, it's a blatant violation of the international law, of all international norms and a crime against Ukrainian people that we condemn. All of us in the whole international community need to condemn it in a strongest possible way, to impose strongest possible sanctions on Russia, including disengaging Russia from SWIFT, isolating it politically and be firm in our support to the sovereignty, territorial integrity of independent Ukraine. We would need to urgently provide Ukrainian people with weapons, ammunition and any other kind of military support to defend itself as well as economic, financial and political assistance and support, humanitarian aid. In this difficult moment we stand united with the people of Ukraine. Dear Ukrainian friends, we are in your historic capital Kyiv, we support you and do anything possible so that Man SO 7Ukraini! 17 209 1 553 1
They are the ones who should be driving the responses, as the most under threat, with full backing of larger allies. Otherwise why spend all this time helping them go Western in the first place.
If we let the Baltic States fall, then NATO is effectively finished.
If Putin wants the Baltic states, all he has to do is sneeze.
No offence, but you've been Putin's cheerleader throughtout this crisis.
No offence taken, because you are wrong.
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size to Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
Ah, plebiscites. CNN published polling data, yesterday....
I used to have some respect for you, but your posts these days are really stupid.
Your smearing of me as a supporter of White Australia after I posted something specifically in support of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia was really quite something.
There is a big difference between a CNN poll and a UN organised plebiscite. As any fule know.
The results of any UN plebiscite would be binding -- Silesia was divided, Schleswig/Slesvig was divided.
The plebiscite may have divided Donetsk & Luhansk, I really don't know. So be it.
Excellent - so you are angry now.
You were selling the bollocks that all multi-ethnic states must be about to break into their constituent ethnicities - which is exactly the sales pitch of Blood and Soil Nationalist - "We! Must! Keep! The! Nation! Pure! And! Intact!"
A poll is indicative of the sentiment. The poll above shows that Putin isn't going to get an Anschluss style welcome in the disputed areas.
Any UN run poll that is vaguely free and fair will mean that Putin loses.
And, ah yes, salami slicing to find an area that Putin *will* win. How very nice for him. But haven't you noticed that he has claimed a bit more than that?
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
What bollocks. It’s a deterrent. “You hit us, you destroy us, we can still utterly annihilate you”. So they are deterred from hitting us in the first place
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
Although Israel was attacked by its neighbours in 1967, shortly after it had developed nuclear weapons. It wasn't conquered, though.
Did the Arab states know Israel had nuclear weapons?
Crystal clear threat to use nuclear weapons from Putin. Bone-chilling to listen to.
It was always obvious that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never going to be the only and final victims. Who’ll be No.3?
It does not bear thinking about but never before has our nuclear deterrent been as important
Is that IMPORTANT or IMPOTENT?
Indeed.
Shocking how many mugs swallow the “Nuclear Deterrent” (sic) propaganda. Their equivalents in Russia are cheering on Putin.
Orwell had England sussed.
Only 2 nations in Europe have nuclear weapons, us and France.
If Putin used nuclear weapons against a NATO nation it would therefore be you whinging Scottish Nationalist anti Trident haters who would be relying on the UK PM to launch a Trident nuclear missile on Moscow in response
Glad I’m extremely heavy on gold and cash. Stock markets going into full panic mode.
2-3% down is hardly full panic mode facing the biggest war in Europe in 75 years, wouldnt have been surprised if it was 5-10% down.
The lesson of these things is that the first day is only the start. As in March 2020.
But folk are determined to *never* learn from history.
Remember the Sudetenland? Too many clearly forgot. Remember that the next time a “muscular Unionist” (sic) proposes the partition of Scotland. They’re not the good guys.
Some diehard Remainers were happy to propose the partition of the UK after Brexit
I was a Remainer at the time and had just voted Remain in the referendum Leave won, so could be included in that category.
However I now accept Brexit and remain committed to our UK unlike some diehard Remainers
You may have accepted Brexit but many Scots who voted against it have not, so the reasonable thing to do given what you yourself have decided is their separate culture and identity is to ask them what they think and let them decide for themselves.
I hope the world of sport reacts strongly. No Russians in the Giro or Tour. No football tournaments. No ice hockey. Ban 100% of Russian competitors, all the way down to junior level. Give them the full South Africa apartheid treatment.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
That's the point though. The weapon system we can never use also means the enemy can never use theirs.
Without nukes, the Cold War would not have remained Cold.
Trident and our allies having it too has saved probably hundreds of millions of lives. It prevents WWIII which would be far worse than WWII if it ever started - with or without nukes.
Nuclear weapons have done more to prevent war than probably all "Nobel Peace Prize" winners in history combined.
Read what I said. I am pro-nukes. Bombs. Theatre weapons that don't end the world once fired. Its absolutely the case that nuclear weapons have prevented WWIII. As Thatcher once said "our own independent nuclear deterrent has helped to keep the peace for decades".
The problem is that with the withdrawal of RAF delivery we have been left with a doomsday weapon. Which we would not even fire as we were being destroyed if we were following NATOs warplan.
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
What bollocks. It’s a deterrent. “You hit us, you destroy us, we can still utterly annihilate you”. So they are deterred from hitting us in the first place
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
Although Israel was attacked by its neighbours in 1967, shortly after it had developed nuclear weapons. It wasn't conquered, though.
Did the Arab states know Israel had nuclear weapons?
Thank God we have Trident. It may be half-American, it may be quasi-non-independent, it may spend half the time up on blocks, but thank God we never listened to the crazed CND/Labour fuckwits and gave it away for no reason
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There is a major problem with Trident. It is a second strike weapon. Should we end up with codes input and keys turned it will be land weapons against land weapons, bombers against bombers.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
What bollocks. It’s a deterrent. “You hit us, you destroy us, we can still utterly annihilate you”. So they are deterred from hitting us in the first place
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
Although Israel was attacked by its neighbours in 1967, shortly after it had developed nuclear weapons. It wasn't conquered, though.
As has been said below, that was about the time the Arabs realised the extent of Israel’s nuclear armoury, and how Israel was willing to turn the entire mid-east to glass if it came down to it. No such large-scale assaults on Israel have happened since, even tho the Arabs have overwhelming strength in numbers and would eventually win a ‘conventional’ war
Bloomberg @bpolitics China opposes sanctions against Russia and criticizes the U.S. for inflaming the Ukraine crisis, suggesting its support for NATO’s expansion left Vladimir Putin with few options
Comments
In many ways that's a good case for us in the short-term as well. In other ways it's really, really bad in the medium and long-term.
Agree entirely with those who raise the Baltic states. We should be working together to put defensive plans into place, including sending them equipment ASAP.
However I now accept Brexit and remain committed to our UK unlike some diehard Remainers
Putin is far more of a fascist than those he is attacking.
But maybe, we have do deal out some pain to people.
Thank God we have nukes. The world is a cruel and dangerous place
There has been no slowdown in of snide-asides about UK and UK-politicians in the Brussels-based yellow media. When Dave Keating reported on statements by FMs, he still added "with a photograph" to the tweet wrt Liz Truss - following his usual line of a smidgeon of studied contempt while boosting EU/UK polarisation.
Macron is still in his post-Aukus sulk and in search of a Greater France and reelection, and Boris will still use whatever ammunition is necessary to save his miserable neck. Will Macron really wind down maximum bureaucracy on frontiers with the UK? Angela Rayner will continue her usual mudslinging with anything she can get her hands on, whether true or fabricated. And so on.
Some of the intra-UK politics may be recast in form to suit the time, just as it was for COVID, but it will not go away.
As for RT I don't want a political ban, I want the terms of their license to be upheld. They cannot broadcast enemy propaganda like that under the Broadcasting Code. Nor should we - the taxpayer - be providing RT with banking services through state-owned Natwest.
If Putin used nuclear weapons against a NATO nation it would therefore be you whinging Scottish Nationalist anti Trident haters who would be relying on the UK PM to launch a Trident nuclear missile on Moscow in response
Diplomats tell us following sanctions are tricky:
- ITA, AUS, DE concerned abt broad banking-sector sanctions
- ITA resistant to sanctions that include railways
- ITA wants carve-out for luxury goods
- BEL wants carve-out for diamonds
+ broad reluctance to sanction energy sector
Not good.
Putin has a very good chance of getting away with this, and then a few years all those sanctions will drop one by one.
Perhaps it would be a good way of finding out who is on the Russian payroll because you can be damn sure that 96% of the country is in favour.
Yes, "Game of Risk" level lunacy, but... The Crimean War....
He will not be up to this, at all.
I really don't want him to be British Prime Minister. He needs replacing immediately.
The Russians live, mostly, elsewhere.
Protecting money, and protecting the ultras dream to turn us into Singapore and make more money is apparently more important than anything else. It is directly providing succour to Putin and his efforts. As Trump is even more overtly in America.
That is far from guaranteed.
Conservative MPs should've axed the buffoon last year, or earlier this year. They were spineless and the fool is shameless, so he'll stay in place. Unless MPs realise governing a country is a serious matter and finally grow some balls.
The Crimean War is highly relevant as the same European coalition would be needed to contain Russia
If, and I agree it's unlikely, Putin stops when in full control of the disputed areas in the East of Ukraine; what do we do then?
Brexit is done. We aren't rejoining the EU any time in the foreseeable future. But BREXIT hasn't happened. We haven't deregulated and won the culture war and profiteered as expected. So we can't undermine the resolution behind Brexit by pointing to he security holes that Russia cut which we won't even recognise are there.
https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1496758467943866374
Yesterday we were talking about British assets of Britons who are Putin's enemies who have lived in the UK and acquired citizenship for decades?
Are you wanting to revert to Russophobia and racistly seizing the assets of all of Putin's enemies who happened to be born in Russia?
Get a grip!
I have repeatedly drawn a difference between "Putin" and "Russia". Just as there is a difference between "England" and "Johnson"
I have repeatedly proposed the only solution that could have avoided war -- namely independently organised plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk. I have repeatedly (along with Nick Palmer) indicated that -- when organised by the UN/LoN -- this has been historically successful.
This could have worked, and the people who will now suffer from such inaction are those in the Ukraine.
As regards the Baltics, they are independent states, the historic homelands of the Estonians, the Letts & the Lithuanians.
They are smaller in population size than Wales. I instinctively sympathise with them, as I know what it is like to have a huge bully as a neighbouring country.
I understand how weak they are.
But if Wales was independent, do you seriously think it could join a military alliance against England, without very serious repercussions?
But Putin doesn't give a fuck about it. He just invaded Ukraine, to the horror of all his mates in the Kremlin. You're shoehorning a domestic political issue into a full fat geopolitical catastrophe. It's irrelevant.
I think the only real option is NATO deployment into Eastern Europe and possible air defence of what remains of Ukraine by the end of the day.
If the Baltic states do something mad like blocking the Oresund strait we should support that too.
Those should be the first thing to be sanctioned on a regime, not the exception (!)
On the actual events unfolding, the most significant is perhaps the report of troop landings in Odessa. That is well past the claimed borders of the self-declared eastern statelets, and if confirmed it does suggest he aims to go for the whole country.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014pfr
Of course, in the long term, equities still likely to be the wisest base in any portfolio. But far, far too many folk have an idiotic faith in equities at the expense of a spread of risk strategy.
During a nuclear war the function of all of the sub-launched systems is to ride it out. If you recall our sub commanders have a letter of last resort - what to do once they resurface for orders if we're all dead. Listening for the BBC World Service.
So what use is Trident? We would have been much MUCH better equipped with nuclear bombs we could drop on the bastards. Once you launch a bomber all sides can see where it is going and you can withdraw it right up to the final drop zone.
Once you fire a ballistic missile the other side will fire theirs. They are an Armageddon weapon, only a deterrent in the form of being able to kill you as you kill me. War - as horrific as it is - needs to be able to be fought without the threat of the end of all things. A weapon system you can never use? That is Trident.
If Russia launched a nuclear attack on London, Paris, Washington and New York and LA however then yes, the UK, France and US would respond with a nuclear missile attack on Moscow and St Petersburg
As to your final point, if eighty years ago, England had invaded Wales, murdered its political and military leaders, and deported tens of thousands of Welsh people to be worked to death in concentration camps, then an independent Wales would have every right to join such an alliance. That is the position that the Baltic States are in.
Well done.
Argentina hasn't abandoned its claim to the Falklands after votes there, for example.
£2m is small change but it has bought big influence.
Without nukes, the Cold War would not have remained Cold.
Trident and our allies having it too has saved probably hundreds of millions of lives. It prevents WWIII which would be far worse than WWII if it ever started - with or without nukes.
Nuclear weapons have done more to prevent war than probably all "Nobel Peace Prize" winners in history combined.
Whilst NATO exists, I cannot envision any situation in which we would unilaterally fire nuclear weapons. Against Russia? They would scorch every inch of our green and pleasant land, just to make a point.
So you have a very, very expensive way of reliving a tactical nuclear weapon.
It would look, approximately, like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs&t=215s
Your smearing of me as a supporter of White Australia after I posted something specifically in support of multi-ethnic Yugoslavia was really quite something.
There is a big difference between a CNN poll and a UN organised plebiscite. As any fule know.
The results of any UN plebiscite would be binding -- Silesia was divided, Schleswig/Slesvig was divided.
The plebiscite may have divided Donetsk & Luhansk, I really don't know. So be it.
Also, we are perfectly capable of lobbing just one missile and taking out a small city. As a warning.
Cf Hiroshima. It worked.
No nuclear armed state has ever faced full on invasion and conquest
sanctions on russian British accounts of russian British passport holders and russian British property in the UK.
Sanction Russians by all means. Not Britons.
However if Russia used them first against a NATO nation we might use them and if Russia sent a first strike nuclear weapon on London we would obviously send a Trident nuclear missile to Moscow in response
Would they have done so if the quid pro quo was losing New York and Chicago?
NATO without the US is dead.
And who knows what Trump might do, he might side with Russia against Europe.
Compare with the huge amounts of political donations in the USA.
The dates work strangely, as this is a 2021 document published now.
There is a fair bit of time-extensions-to-save-money, and similar.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-defence-equipment-plan-2021
Article: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-sets-out-plan-for-next-ten-years-of-military-purchases/
You were selling the bollocks that all multi-ethnic states must be about to break into their constituent ethnicities - which is exactly the sales pitch of Blood and Soil Nationalist - "We! Must! Keep! The! Nation! Pure! And! Intact!"
A poll is indicative of the sentiment. The poll above shows that Putin isn't going to get an Anschluss style welcome in the disputed areas.
Any UN run poll that is vaguely free and fair will mean that Putin loses.
And, ah yes, salami slicing to find an area that Putin *will* win. How very nice for him. But haven't you noticed that he has claimed a bit more than that?
There is no such thing as a good mass murder.
The problem is that with the withdrawal of RAF delivery we have been left with a doomsday weapon. Which we would not even fire as we were being destroyed if we were following NATOs warplan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/status/1496777883674714116
Also the classic 'your responding to the invasion is inflaming this crisis not the invasion itself'.