So while our government is debating on what constitutes a party, how many parties may have been held a couple of years ago, there's a terrible threat to world peace going on at the edge of Europe. Anybody else noticed?
Earlier today, Ben Wallace Minister for Defence, drew parallels with the 1930s policy of appeasement by saying there was “a whiff of Munich in the air from some in the West”.
Wallace needs to draw in his neck and stop playing the Brexit card and instead begin to act like an adult.
Biden has said that the USA will stop the new Russia/Germany pipeline and seek alternatives for those European countries who are so dependent on Russian gas.
That is the sort of language those countries need to hear, not some ridiculous idiot chuntering on about Munich and past history.
If we are to face Russia, we need to show a tight United front, this is not the time for the politics of division, which it would appear is all this populist government seems to understand.
Whitewavemark2 I suggest that Mr.Putin needs to draw his neck in he is the person that has amassed over 100,000 of his troops along with tons of weaponry on the borders of Ukraine, he is the one that invaded/annexed Crimea.
Having watched an in-depth analysis of the situation on the BBC news channel this morning NATO is doing all it can to diffuse the situation however, it it will not stand by and watch the march of Russian boots through Europe, rightly so.
GrannyGravy13
Whitewavemark2 I suggest that Mr.Putin needs to draw his neck in he is the person that has amassed over 100,000 of his troops along with tons of weaponry on the borders of Ukraine, he is the one that invaded/annexed Crimea.
Having watched an in-depth analysis of the situation on the BBC news channel this morning NATO is doing all it can to diffuse the situation however, it it will not stand by and watch the march of Russian boots through Europe, rightly so.
Of course he does, but unless Putin is encouraged to withdraw by a tight United front he will always take his chances.
Of course NATO is taking its part, but it also needs its members to be all singing from the same hymn sheet. NATO will do exactly what it’s political masters want it to do, it is not an independent entity.
Wallace is being ridiculous and playing to the gallery. I am not interested in this silly man’s agenda but I am interested in securing peace in Europe, which in my opinion is and always has been by a United group of countries.
I am sorry Whitewavemark2 but I disagree regarding Mr.Wallace, strong rhetoric is what is needed by all NATO members and that is what is happening.
Strong rhetoric yes.
Divisive language - no
If Wallace is so keen on strength why on earth has the decision been made by the U.K. to supply arms etc to Ukraine, but now withdraw those military trainers. Without the training the arms will be worse than useless to the Ukraine military.
Indeed WWmk2. It is no good wanting to re-fight the last war. We live in a totally different world now, with totally different military reality.
A nuclear one, and one in which some believe limited and winnable nuclear solutions are possible.
Whitewavemark2
Strong rhetoric yes.
Divisive language - no
I assume you feel the same about the divisive and extremely strong language of POTUS and his Senators/spokespersons?
GrannyGravy13
Whitewavemark2
Strong rhetoric yes.
Divisive language - noI assume you feel the same about the divisive and extremely strong language of POTUS and his Senators/spokespersons?
Can you expand please? Difficult to know exactly what you are talking about.
Whitewavemark2
If Wallace is so keen on strength why on earth has the decision been made by the U.K. to supply arms etc to Ukraine, but now withdraw those military trainers. Without the training the arms will be worse than useless to the Ukraine military.
There are still some U.K. troops in Ukraine and along the Polish border, troops are moved/redeployed constantly as and when their services are required.
Kali2
Indeed WWmk2. It is no good wanting to re-fight the last war. We live in a totally different world now, with totally different military reality.
A nuclear one, and one in which some believe limited and winnable nuclear solutions are possible.
Perhaps you could message Mr.Putin Kali2 he is the aggressor, NATO and it’s partners are trying to keep the peace.
GrannyGravy13
Whitewavemark2
If Wallace is so keen on strength why on earth has the decision been made by the U.K. to supply arms etc to Ukraine, but now withdraw those military trainers. Without the training the arms will be worse than useless to the Ukraine military.
There are still some U.K. troops in Ukraine and along the Polish border, troops are moved/redeployed constantly as and when their services are required.
The Ukraine ambassador has just pleaded on the R4 for the U.K. to stop withdrawing the trainers, because without their help they can’t use the weapons.
GrannyGravy13
Kali2
Indeed WWmk2. It is no good wanting to re-fight the last war. We live in a totally different world now, with totally different military reality.
A nuclear one, and one in which some believe limited and winnable nuclear solutions are possible.Perhaps you could message Mr.Putin Kali2 he is the aggressor, NATO and it’s partners are trying to keep the peace.
THAT is not the point. He is the aggressor, although he is responding to provocation by NATO.
The fact is, even if he is absolutely and totally wrong- this is the reality. June 2020:
MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday endorsed Russia’s nuclear deterrent policy, which allows him to use atomic weapons in response to a conventional strike targeting the nation’s critical government and military infrastructure.
By including a non-nuclear attack as a possible trigger for Russian nuclear retaliation, the document appears to send a warning signal to the U.S. The new expanded wording reflects Russian concerns about the development of prospective weapons that could give Washington the capability to knock out key military assets and government facilities without resorting to atomic weapons.
In line with Russian military doctrine, the new document reaffirms that the country could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or an aggression involving conventional weapons that “threatens the very existence of the state.”
Whitewavemark2
GrannyGravy13
Whitewavemark2
If Wallace is so keen on strength why on earth has the decision been made by the U.K. to supply arms etc to Ukraine, but now withdraw those military trainers. Without the training the arms will be worse than useless to the Ukraine military.
There are still some U.K. troops in Ukraine and along the Polish border, troops are moved/redeployed constantly as and when their services are required.
The Ukraine ambassador has just pleaded on the R4 for the U.K. to stop withdrawing the trainers, because without their help they can’t use the weapons.
There is a Minister on Sophie Raworths programme at the moment who has confirmed that their are still troops in Ukraine at this minute training the Ukrainian Army.
The minute Russia invades these troops will be withdrawn as no way will the U.K. troops fight on the ground with the Russians.
Kali2 why are you constantly referring to a nuclear war breaking out?
Because it is a real risk if things escalate. Quite terrifyingly simple
''In addition, ethical deterrence is an oxymoron. Theologians know that a nuclear war could never meet so-called ‘just war’ criteria. In 1966, the Second Vatican Council concluded: ‘Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their populations is a crime against God and man itself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.’ And in a pastoral letter in 1983, the US Catholic bishops added: ‘This condemnation, in our judgment, applies even to the retaliatory use of weapons striking enemy cities after our own have already been struck.’ They continued that, if something is immoral to do, then it is also immoral to threaten. In a message to the 2014 Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, Pope Francis declared that: ‘Nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction cannot be the basis of an ethics of fraternity and peaceful coexistence among peoples and states.’
The United Methodist Council of Bishops go further than their Catholic counterparts, concluding in 1986 that: ‘Deterrence must no longer receive the churches’ blessing, even as a temporary warrant for the maintenance of nuclear weapons.’ In The Just War (1968), the Protestant ethicist Paul Ramsey asked his readers to imagine that traffic accidents in a particular city had suddenly been reduced to zero, after which it was found that everyone had been required to strap a newborn infant to the bumper of every car.
Perhaps the most frightening thing about nuclear deterrence is its many paths to failure. Contrary to what is widely assumed, the least likely is a ‘bolt out of the blue’ (BOOB) attack. Meanwhile, there are substantial risks associated with escalated conventional war, accidental or unauthorised use, irrational use (although it can be argued that any use of nuclear weapons would be irrational) or false alarms, which have happened with frightening regularity, and could lead to ‘retaliation’ against an attack that hadn’t happened. There have also been numerous ‘broken arrow’ accidents – accidental launching, firing, theft or loss of a nuclear weapon – as well as circumstances in which such events as a flock of geese, a ruptured gas pipeline or faulty computer codes have been interpreted as a hostile missile launch.
The above describes only some of the inadequacies and outright dangers posed by deterrence, the doctrinal fulcrum that manipulates nuclear hardware, software, deployments, accumulation and escalation. Undoing the ideology – verging on theology – of deterrence won’t be easy, but neither is living under the threat of worldwide annihilation. As the poet T S Eliot once wrote, unless you are in over your head, how do you know how tall you are? And when it comes to nuclear deterrence, we’re all in over our heads.
This essay was originally published in Aeon
In line with Russian military doctrine, the new document reaffirms that the country could use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or an aggression involving conventional weapons that threatens the very existence of the state
No-one, as far as I have seen, is proposing to threaten the very existence of the state of Russia.
It is Russia which is menacing a neutral state.
The Tories government ridiculous behaviour is very well summed up in the Observer today by Simon Tinsdall.
Both the German and French heads of state have had meetings with Putin, trying to argue the case for not invading Ukraine.
Where has Johnson been? Absolutely nowhere. Truss had a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and made an absolute idiot if herself, and then Wallace has the nerve to accuse other states of appeasement!!
Realistically there is absolutely nothing the West can do to stop Russia invading and annexing Ukraine, ditto China doing the same to Taiwan, or North Korea attacking the South, anymore than we could prevent Tibet being invaded by China, or China breaking its agreement over Hong Kong, which I'm amazed lasted as long as it did! We do know that Putin has said that the break up of the USSR was an absolute disaster and that he would work tirelessly to reinstate the Warsaw Pact in his lifetime. This begs the question, what if Russia turns its attention to Poland and the Baltic States? These countries are of course members of NATO and presumably would have to be defended. Nuclear war is not in anyone's interest and completely self defeating, so I can't see any expansionist government resorting to that as inheriting a poisonous, derelict landscape would seem pretty futile, but on the other hand one thing can lead to another,so you can never be quite sure. Not good, any of it.
Invasion is not inevitable, despite what the USA would have us believe. Europe continues with its diplomatic efforts and whilst the U.K. and USA snipe on the sidelines, there is no doubt that the best path to peace has been outlined by the French President.
There is very little that the U.K. can do unilaterally, it’s run down military is testament to that. The U.K. is reliant on other countries to do the heavy lifting in the military department.
However what the U.K. could do is to stop the money laundering by Russian oligarchs in the U.K. but the Tory party is very dependent on this “red gold”
Putin is an ambitious bully who has triggered the crises. Macron who represents France and Europe is trying to resolve it through diplomatic means.
Hard line and ill judged rhetoric from the U.K. and USA may cause macron to fail.
No one has said that it invasion is inevitable, what has been said is that IF Russia decides to annex Ukraine, realistically the West is powerless to stop them. IF Russia then turns its attention elsewhere, this time to a NATO country, what then? Macron got absolutely no where with Putin, the meeting was a farce, nice try, but realistically futile. Russia holds all the cards here and as for sanctions, I don't think Putin cares, after all when people in Russia stuffer sanctions are a useful tool to stir up public hatred against the West
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
