Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2022, 5:11 pm

pembsexile wrote: March 8th, 2022, 10:24 am No. We need to be quite clear about this. The only way that the UK (as part of NATO) could respond militarily is if Russia attacked a NATO state. Ukraine is not part of NATO. The liar Putin knows our hands are tied. Apart from the refugee problem, there is not much we can do at the moment other than:

Continue to attempt to isolate Russia via economic, social and sporting sanctions.
Continue to provide logistical support to Ukraine to help them to fight.
Continue to provide moral support to the Ukrainian people.
Continue to report on the situation on the ground by extensive media coverage.

It will be interesting today to see what the Ukrainian President says when he addresses Parliament at 5pm. He is asking for immediate entry into the EU. That could be a talking point.

I am not sure that's quite accurate Mike. The UK was certainly a member of NATO in1982. That membership did not prevent the UK going to war with Argentina.

What I wrote is/was accurate Brendan. The UK going into conflict against Argentina in 1982 was not a NATO event.

Article 5 of NATO constitution states that an attack against an ally is considered an attack against all allies. Article 6 of the same constitution defines an attack as that which is against the territory or on islands in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. We all know where the Falkland Is are.

In modern times NATO has only invoked article 5 once, after the 9/11 attacks in the USA. This attack was against the US mainland so they were able to invoke article 5. Article 6 allowed for this. NATO command discussed and agreed with this. All the allies were consulted. NATO missions followed.

Furthermore, the UK government did not ask for invocation of article 5 after the Falklands invasion. For the reasons stated we wouldn’t have got it if we had. Militarily we did it on our own. In spite of the French and Spanish. In spite of initial US indifference but we may not have been successful if it hadn’t been for the actions of Chile. But that’s another story.

pembsexile wrote: March 9th, 2022, 6:51 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2022, 5:11 pm

pembsexile wrote: March 8th, 2022, 10:24 am No. We need to be quite clear about this. The only way that the UK (as part of NATO) could respond militarily is if Russia attacked a NATO state. Ukraine is not part of NATO. The liar Putin knows our hands are tied. Apart from the refugee problem, there is not much we can do at the moment other than:

Continue to attempt to isolate Russia via economic, social and sporting sanctions.
Continue to provide logistical support to Ukraine to help them to fight.
Continue to provide moral support to the Ukrainian people.
Continue to report on the situation on the ground by extensive media coverage.

It will be interesting today to see what the Ukrainian President says when he addresses Parliament at 5pm. He is asking for immediate entry into the EU. That could be a talking point.

I am not sure that's quite accurate Mike. The UK was certainly a member of NATO in1982. That membership did not prevent the UK going to war with Argentina.

What I wrote is/was accurate Brendan. The UK going into conflict against Argentina in 1982 was not a NATO event.

Article 5 of NATO constitution states that an attack against an ally is considered an attack against all allies. Article 6 of the same constitution defines an attack as that which is against the territory or on islands in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. We all know where the Falkland Is are.

In modern times NATO has only invoked article 5 once, after the 9/11 attacks in the USA. This attack was against the US mainland so they were able to invoke article 5. Article 6 allowed for this. NATO command discussed and agreed with this. All the allies were consulted. NATO missions followed.

Furthermore, the UK government did not ask for invocation of article 5 after the Falklands invasion. For the reasons stated we wouldn’t have got it if we had. Militarily we did it on our own. In spite of the French and Spanish. In spite of initial US indifference but we may not have been successful if it hadn’t been for the actions of Chile. But that’s another story.

Hi Mike,
Exactly. I am not saying that the UK should take military action in the Ukraine but they are not prevented from doing so.
The internationally recognised government of Ukraine has requested foreign help. As a consequence each individual country would not be in breach of international law if they were to intervene militarily. My understanding of the articles of protocol applied by Nato is that if the UK were to be attacked all Nato nations would be obliged to defend the UK. My understanding is that a unilateral decision to engage would not invoke said articles. (Let me know if this is not the case.)
I would be interested in your view on this point. Since the 1950s there has been a balance of terror. Countries with nuclear weapons were unable to fight full scale wars. Now we have a situation where a nuclear power is invading a neighbour and saying they will use nuclear weapons if anyone tries to stop them. If Russia/Putin makes the calculation that the USA won't risk New York to save Tallin, what then?

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 10th, 2022, 9:09 am

pembsexile wrote: March 9th, 2022, 6:51 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 9th, 2022, 5:11 pm

pembsexile wrote: March 8th, 2022, 10:24 am No. We need to be quite clear about this. The only way that the UK (as part of NATO) could respond militarily is if Russia attacked a NATO state. Ukraine is not part of NATO. The liar Putin knows our hands are tied. Apart from the refugee problem, there is not much we can do at the moment other than:

Continue to attempt to isolate Russia via economic, social and sporting sanctions.
Continue to provide logistical support to Ukraine to help them to fight.
Continue to provide moral support to the Ukrainian people.
Continue to report on the situation on the ground by extensive media coverage.

It will be interesting today to see what the Ukrainian President says when he addresses Parliament at 5pm. He is asking for immediate entry into the EU. That could be a talking point.

I am not sure that's quite accurate Mike. The UK was certainly a member of NATO in1982. That membership did not prevent the UK going to war with Argentina.

What I wrote is/was accurate Brendan. The UK going into conflict against Argentina in 1982 was not a NATO event.

Article 5 of NATO constitution states that an attack against an ally is considered an attack against all allies. Article 6 of the same constitution defines an attack as that which is against the territory or on islands in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer. We all know where the Falkland Is are.

In modern times NATO has only invoked article 5 once, after the 9/11 attacks in the USA. This attack was against the US mainland so they were able to invoke article 5. Article 6 allowed for this. NATO command discussed and agreed with this. All the allies were consulted. NATO missions followed.

Furthermore, the UK government did not ask for invocation of article 5 after the Falklands invasion. For the reasons stated we wouldn’t have got it if we had. Militarily we did it on our own. In spite of the French and Spanish. In spite of initial US indifference but we may not have been successful if it hadn’t been for the actions of Chile. But that’s another story.

Hi Mike,
Exactly. I am not saying that the UK should take military action in the Ukraine but they are not prevented from doing so.
The internationally recognised government of Ukraine has requested foreign help. As a consequence each individual country would not be in breach of international law if they were to intervene militarily. My understanding of the articles of protocol applied by Nato is that if the UK were to be attacked all Nato nations would be obliged to defend the UK. My understanding is that a unilateral decision to engage would not invoke said articles. (Let me know if this is not the case.)
I would be interested in your view on this point. Since the 1950s there has been a balance of terror. Countries with nuclear weapons were unable to fight full scale wars. Now we have a situation where a nuclear power is invading a neighbour and saying they will use nuclear weapons if anyone tries to stop them. If Russia/Putin makes the calculation that the USA won't risk New York to save Tallin, what then?

Some complicated questions there Brendan. What I said was that the only way that the UK could respond (via NATO) was……..
Responding under international law via the United Nations is a completely different matter. This, as you know, is what happened in Korea in 1950. Getting UN support does not necessarily mean you will win. Ask South Korea that, ask Cypriots.

We would not be allowed and would indeed be foolish if we unilaterally invaded Ukraine. NATO has to be consulted before any military action is allowed and the command would never, ever allow it because retaliation would involve them. Thank goodness for democracy.

With regards to your last paragraph, here is my opinion on New York and Tallinn. Putin is playing a poker game at the moment. He is testing our resolve. We have been weak in Syria, Afghanistan and Chechyna (in his eyes). As I have mentioned before, he believes in a greater Russia. That is, any Slav land bordering Russia that has a significant Russian population. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine etc. This will have been discussed and will have all been factored in by the Russian leaders before this conflict started.

What the liar Putin is doing now that the war has at started is continually upping the ante. He is saying to the Ukrainians and the West, that if you resist or get involved, we will put our Nuclear forces on alert. Every time we do something he responds. We have seen him in the past week or so:
Threaten Finland and Sweden if they apply to join NATO.
Threaten to use thermobaric bombs.
Get his military chemical weapons ready.
Bomb defenceless civilians
Bomb maternity hospitals

I believe that he is a war criminal and he should be prosecuted. It will never happen though.

If you take away the appalling atrocities that people in Ukraine are suffering, what is it that the liar Putin is trying to achieve? It is nothing less than this:
He is telling the Ukrainian people and the West that the Russian government has made a decision to take over Ukraine. If Ukraine doesn’t surrender then everything that has happened is the past few weeks will get even worse. I mentioned that things would get a lot worse in the short term. It is up to the Ukrainian people whether they continue to resist. He is trying to tell them - resistance is futile. Hitler tried that in WW2. It didn’t work. They key issue at the moment is the resolve of the Ukrainian people. The liar Putin has made a big mistake if he has underestimated them. People who think they have nothing to lose by fighting are the worst enemy. The Russian soldiers are about to discover this.

Regarding nuclear weapons. I believe that there are still intelligent people in the Kremlin who will not want escalation. We hear that the high ranking US military are constantly communicating with their Russian counterparts. The liar Putin is playing poker. How many people will die before he blinks?

The Russians used thermobaric bombs on the children's hospital. There seems to be a debate as to whether the hospital had been evecutated first though. The bomb creates a vacuum and those close by are starved of oxygen, although it seems to be a method of rendering an unoccupied building useless, without raising it to the ground.

pembsexile wrote: March 10th, 2022, 9:47 am

With regards to your last paragraph, here is my opinion on New York and Tallinn. Putin is playing a poker game at the moment. He is testing our resolve. We have been weak in Syria, Afghanistan and Chechyna (in his eyes). As I have mentioned before, he believes in a greater Russia. That is, any Slav land bordering Russia that has a significant Russian population. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine etc. This will have been discussed and will have all been factored in by the Russian leaders before this conflict started.

What the liar Putin is doing now that the war has at started is continually upping the ante. He is saying to the Ukrainians and the West, that if you resist or get involved, we will put our Nuclear forces on alert. Every time we do something he responds. We have seen him in the past week or so:
Threaten Finland and Sweden if they apply to join NATO.
Threaten to use thermobaric bombs.
Get his military chemical weapons ready.
Bomb defenceless civilians
Bomb maternity hospitals

I believe that he is a war criminal and he should be prosecuted. It will never happen though.

If you take away the appalling atrocities that people in Ukraine are suffering, what is it that the liar Putin is trying to achieve? It is nothing less than this:
He is telling the Ukrainian people and the West that the Russian government has made a decision to take over Ukraine. If Ukraine doesn’t surrender then everything that has happened is the past few weeks will get even worse. I mentioned that things would get a lot worse in the short term. It is up to the Ukrainian people whether they continue to resist. He is trying to tell them - resistance is futile. Hitler tried that in WW2. It didn’t work. They key issue at the moment is the resolve of the Ukrainian people. The liar Putin has made a big mistake if he has underestimated them. People who think they have nothing to lose by fighting are the worst enemy. The Russian soldiers are about to discover this.

Regarding nuclear weapons. I believe that there are still intelligent people in the Kremlin who will not want escalation. We hear that the high ranking US military are constantly communicating with their Russian counterparts. The liar Putin is playing poker. How many people will die before he blinks?

Although my first degree was in history I am not a military historian and your knowledge here is certainly greater than mine.
My concern though is that if you examine the great conflicts in Europe since the 30 years war of 1618-1648 right through to the great war of 1914-1945 with a 20 year hiatus the terrifying fact is that ultimately there is always miscalculation as a, perhaps the, primary cause.
When two Papal representatives were hurled from a Prague window nobody saw that continental Europe was about to be torn to shreds.
Here's my view. Hungary in 1956, Cuba in 1962, CzechoSlovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980 and Ukraine today. Sooner or later someone will miscalculate. I don't think it probable but I do think it possible, that Putin may believe that the Baltic States would be sacrificed by the USA.
If he does then there is no good outcome.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 10th, 2022, 10:36 am

pembsexile wrote: March 10th, 2022, 9:47 am

With regards to your last paragraph, here is my opinion on New York and Tallinn. Putin is playing a poker game at the moment. He is testing our resolve. We have been weak in Syria, Afghanistan and Chechyna (in his eyes). As I have mentioned before, he believes in a greater Russia. That is, any Slav land bordering Russia that has a significant Russian population. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine etc. This will have been discussed and will have all been factored in by the Russian leaders before this conflict started.

What the liar Putin is doing now that the war has at started is continually upping the ante. He is saying to the Ukrainians and the West, that if you resist or get involved, we will put our Nuclear forces on alert. Every time we do something he responds. We have seen him in the past week or so:
Threaten Finland and Sweden if they apply to join NATO.
Threaten to use thermobaric bombs.
Get his military chemical weapons ready.
Bomb defenceless civilians
Bomb maternity hospitals

I believe that he is a war criminal and he should be prosecuted. It will never happen though.

If you take away the appalling atrocities that people in Ukraine are suffering, what is it that the liar Putin is trying to achieve? It is nothing less than this:
He is telling the Ukrainian people and the West that the Russian government has made a decision to take over Ukraine. If Ukraine doesn’t surrender then everything that has happened is the past few weeks will get even worse. I mentioned that things would get a lot worse in the short term. It is up to the Ukrainian people whether they continue to resist. He is trying to tell them - resistance is futile. Hitler tried that in WW2. It didn’t work. They key issue at the moment is the resolve of the Ukrainian people. The liar Putin has made a big mistake if he has underestimated them. People who think they have nothing to lose by fighting are the worst enemy. The Russian soldiers are about to discover this.

Regarding nuclear weapons. I believe that there are still intelligent people in the Kremlin who will not want escalation. We hear that the high ranking US military are constantly communicating with their Russian counterparts. The liar Putin is playing poker. How many people will die before he blinks?

Although my first degree was in history I am not a military historian and your knowledge here is certainly greater than mine.
My concern though is that if you examine the great conflicts in Europe since the 30 years war of 1618-1648 right through to the great war of 1914-1945 with a 20 year hiatus the terrifying fact is that ultimately there is always miscalculation as a, perhaps the, primary cause.
When two Papal representatives were hurled from a Prague window nobody saw that continental Europe was about to be torn to shreds.
Here's my view. Hungary in 1956, Cuba in 1962, CzechoSlovakia in 1968, Poland in 1980 and Ukraine today. Sooner or later someone will miscalculate. I don't think it probable but I do think it possible, that Putin may believe that the Baltic States would be sacrificed by the USA.
If he does then there is no good outcome.

Yes, and that is why the countries that feel most threatened by Russia (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Finland ) are making the most noises right now. As we speak the US Vice President is on her way to Poland to resolve the Polish Mig 29 issue.

Miscalculation is sometimes what happens when you play poker. He has not miscalculated yet. All his actions to date are scripted and planned. At the moment we have no other option than to face him. My worry is that Biden is not a Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan or an Eisenhower. They (the Kremlin) will have factored in his response. He is doing OK imo at the moment.

It is not a case that the Baltic states could be sacrificed. They are an intrinsic part of NATO. If we (or the USA) were to consider them sacrificial then NATO would be dead in the water. It will never happen because it will not be allowed to happen. That is not to say of course that Putin hasn’t put this factor into his game to test us. We will see.

I will keep on saying this. Putin cares about no-one, other than those who believe with him in a greater Russia. He doesn’t care about those in Russia that disagree with him. He cares about his greater Russia and his place in history. Stuff everything else. He is a narcissistic megalomaniac. He must be challenged.

Interesting.

For me there has already been the first miscalculation. Albeit one which has taken 60 years to recognize. We always believed nuclear weapons meant mutually assured destruction and consequently nuclear war was impossible. It seems to me that neither side ever calculated a leader who in terms said, I have a nuclear arsenal, I will build an empire, and anyone trying to stop me needs to know I will use them.
If Putin is a narcissistic megalomaniac and does march into the Baltic states, notwithstanding NATO I am not sure that the West will not huff and puff but do nothing. Let's just hope we don't get to find out for sure.

The MAD that you refer to relates to a problem between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It did not apply anywhere else.

There have been numerous conflicts since the inception of NATO. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Angola and the Arabs/Israelis to name a few. Most of them have involved proxy wars.

Apart from the Cuban missile crisis this is the first time that the major superpowers could face off. Even then when the missiles were in Cuba the Soviets didn’t directly and verbally threaten the US. Both leaders eventually backed down. Putin is not of that ilk. Not yet. Not until he is pressurised from within and without. TINA. The best way to play poker is with a strong hand which is what we have. If we are strong in the Ukraine crisis then the Baltic states will have less to worry about. I’ll bet Taiwan are watching with keen interest as to what our response is.

Lost in Willesden wrote: February 26th, 2022, 9:11 pm No rexpert, but some informed: C4 Documentary on Putin. Links for me don't work. Allayed with the lunatics KGB/USSR rules. He wants to recreate a Greater Russia, ala Catherine the Great. (ala Hitler). That includes the Crimea, some of Georgia, already invadwds. And South East Ukraine. Which is their econmic heartbeat.

Trump/Putin/ Boris if they were football cards .....

Wow a Baby's hospital and maternity ward. At what point, is this Crime wars Tribunal.?

The Gove that has no balls, targets Abramovich to obfuscate it's own lack of bollocks. The only one with bollax this week was the Guardsman who deserted, to fight the ****. First one. Good man. If ...I was younger.

Link probably won't work. But yes Biden we have to go to war with this lunatic. Because he has declared war on us.

The young woman who held up a sign on Russian TV this evening telling the people they are being lied to, is the true spirit of Russia. Never forget this is Putin and his cronies war, not Russia's war.

God bless her.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: March 14th, 2022, 11:02 pm The young woman who held up a sign on Russian TV this evening telling the people they are being lied to, is the true spirit of Russia. Never forget this is Putin and his cronies war, not Russia's war.

God bless her.

100% agree Brendan. It is not the Russian peoples fault. It is the people like this woman that may be the key to ending this conflict.

Abrovich runs from Isreal via Istanbul to Moscow. So, how can Chelsea be sold?

BBC news headline - Putin hails war in Ukraine with concert and heroism lessons to celebrate annexation of Crimea.

In the truest meaning of the phrase - Johnson’s 18th century statement is so correct - Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. By f**k, that applies to the liar Putin.

pembsexile wrote: March 18th, 2022, 10:12 pm BBC news headline - Putin hails war in Ukraine with concert and heroism lessons to celebrate annexation of Crimea.

In the truest meaning of the phrase - Johnson’s 18th century statement is so correct - Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. By f**k, that applies to the liar Putin.

The paradox has occurred to me that contrary to Putin's ridiculous allegation that he is denazifying Ukraine he is in fact overseeing a brainwashing properganda war, reminiscent of the Nazi's Joseph Goebbels.