According to a familiar adage, “means, motive, and opportunity” are necessary to prove one’s guilt in a criminal trial. By this logic, a crime would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had (1) the tools necessary to commit a crime (e.g., the weapon), (2) the actionable idea to commit the crime, and (3) an unencumbered chance at following through on intention.
On the balance of probabilities Russia is guilty.
I thought Salmon was a lawyer.
“means, motive, and opportunity” is mere Agatha Christie, and anyway you need to show not just that Russia had all three, but also that no one else did. We don't know for certain that it was Novichok yet, let alone who other than Russia has access to whatever it is. The list of countries who would like to inflict damage on at least one of us and Russia is a long one. We know nothing about opportunity because we don't know how the stuff was administered.
The test in a criminal trial is "beyond reasonable doubt;" balance of probs is the civil standard. All we can say atm is that Russia has a whole heap of questions to answer, and pretty much refuses to do so.
Salmond might use the Scottish verdict of "not proven" as his get out. That would still be an acquittal that Russia doesn't deserve.
Surely the amazing thing about the special election was that it seems a third party actually made a difference for once. Possibly (depending on if they would have bothered voting for the main two if the third had not stood, and who they would have gone for).
Third and fourth candidates made a difference in Florida 2000.
But it does seem rare.
Thie third party vote was very low, which makes me thing that most Libertarian voters who would have voted Rep or Dem actually did so.
Lamb is quite socially conservative, so there may well have been some "live and let live" votes for the Libertarian.
Gary Johnson got 3% as the Libertarian candidate in the 2016 Presidential election. Given Hillary won the popular vote by 2% he probably cost Trump a popular vote win
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Bizarelly so do I. Crimea was long Russian held. Just Khruschev decided to transfer it from the RSFSR to the USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) in the 1950s. Given both were under the control of the Soviet Union, it didn't really matter.
I do like how we all still pretend that its still occupied territory or the like. Crimea is now part of Russia, both in fact and in name and we should all just move on from *that* one.
I think that the claim was a fair one. The manner in which it was pursued wasn't.
Yes. I suppose I should have said that. What they did was wrong, but the end result probably isn't a disaster as the region probably would've voted that way in a free and fair election.
But as already noted, the 'proper' way of doing it then leads to a problem whereby other regions might choose to vote to leave, which Putin could never have.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
I think they would say: nothing to do with us. As plenty did in the ME.
Not sure what you mean. When have British troops been killed by a hostile force that hasn't resulted in no further action being taken?
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Bizarelly so do I. Crimea was long Russian held. Just Khruschev decided to transfer it from the RSFSR to the USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) in the 1950s. Given both were under the control of the Soviet Union, it didn't really matter.
I do like how we all still pretend that its still occupied territory or the like. Crimea is now part of Russia, both in fact and in name and we should all just move on from *that* one.
It really is just a procedural matter. Clearly Russia knew this, as they pretended they didn't have soldiers there in advance of the vote. You aren't, in the 21st century, supposed to just take back bits of countries that used to belong to you. Of course, Ukraine would likely have sought to prevent Crimea breaking away had they remained in control, in which case they would have become the bad guys in that situation if they had not let them leave if they wanted to, but 'it used to be part of Russia' is really not the crucial argument, since lots of places used to be part of somewhere else. Isn't there a German speaking town in northern italy or something? That Crimea really does, on the whole, want to be part of Russia is a stronger argument, certainly, but as you say not without issues for wannabe breakaway areas elsewhere. Internationally separatist movements seem to find it hard to make friends, because a lot of countries have their own troublesome areas. Scotland has it relatively easy since it has always been accepted they remain a distinct area and people within the larger british context.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
I think they would say: nothing to do with us. As plenty did in the ME.
Not sure what you mean. When have British troops been killed by a hostile force that hasn't resulted in no further action being taken?
The modern Russian army is not the mighty force it was under Stalin and Kruschev.
They are a badly led, badly trained and poorly equipped shower of shit but there's a lot of them they have almost unlimited cultural and political capacity to sustain casualties. The UK has almost zero. Can you imagine the Fireplace Salesman on Newsnight the first time a British Army company gets flanked and wiped out? No, me neither.
Surely the amazing thing about the special election was that it seems a third party actually made a difference for once. Possibly (depending on if they would have bothered voting for the main two if the third had not stood, and who they would have gone for).
Third and fourth candidates made a difference in Florida 2000.
But it does seem rare.
Thie third party vote was very low, which makes me thing that most Libertarian voters who would have voted Rep or Dem actually did so.
Lamb is quite socially conservative, so there may well have been some "live and let live" votes for the Libertarian.
Gary Johnson got 3% as the Libertarian candidate in the 2016 Presidential election. Given Hillary won the popular vote by 2% he probably cost Trump a popular vote win
Quite possibly. But compare the Special Election where the Libertarian candidate got just 0.6% and you can seen that a couple of percentage points have probably been swept off already.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
The British military have already done similar. In Afghanistan Estonian troops have fought and been prepared to die with our allies and we with them.
Absolutely. Estonia is a member of NATO and a member of the EU, for those organisations to mean anything at all they have to be prepared to defend a relatively small member if they were to come under direct attack.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
And I suppose you could never be accused of colouring your posts with personal bias? Oh please. In the unlikely and unhappy eventuality of Putin invading Estonia our response would be dictated by the Americans.
I’d imagine that the international response to Russia invading Estonia would be not too dissimilar to the international response when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990
I doubt that.
It'd be more like Sevastopol, Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
None of which were in NATO countries.
Edit: Moreover, personally I think that the Crimea annexation by Russia was justified.
Really. In spite of the treaties signed, the lack of civil disturbance, the black ops? You think this is a way to resolve issues of sovereignty in the 21st century?
It jolly well wasn't justified - but only really because of how Russia went about it.
The principle of self-determination is clearly part of international law, if not always applied (indeed, it can't be cleanly applied in all cases). But had a referendum been held without interference or intimidation, there's a good chance that Crimea would have voted to seceed from Ukraine and apply to join Russia anyway. Had that happened, we'd have had the same result though an acceptable process.
But my guess would be that Putin wants to show his force, just as he wants to show his intelligence / special ops capacity in Salisbury.
Besides, establishing the principle that regions can join Russia solely because they vote to do so also establishes the principle that the can leave on the same basis - which isn't one he can accept.
when there was an actual referendum, carried out according to international norms, Crimea voted to stay part of Ukraine, even Sevastopol. Whatever might or might not have happened if a referendum had been held is entirely irrelevant. Ignoring the obvious use of Russian arms and troops in Ukraine since 2014 has allowed the west to kid itself it was an isolated case and somehow Ukraine deserved it because it 'provoked' Russia. Ukraine was a key test for NATO and the EU and Putin studied the outcome closely and knows we won't do anything about pretty much anything he does, which is why his minions are so childish in public statements - they are literally laughing at the west's norms.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
I think they would say: nothing to do with us. As plenty did in the ME.
Not sure what you mean. When have British troops been killed by a hostile force that hasn't resulted in no further action being taken?
Afghan, Iraq.
You mean those two wars we were in???
Not sure I get your point. There was public support for military endeavours, even though not British service personnel were killed in the run up to either.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Actually we already have a NATO plan in place for the escalation of forces in response to an attack on the Baltics. We have had it since Estonia joined NATO.
Sovereignty-reclaimer in happy to give up sovereignty over waging war to supranational body shocker.
Topping, if after all this time you cannot see the difference between the two organisations then you really are beyond help. Even spelling it out in words of one syllable clearly won't help you.
Surely the amazing thing about the special election was that it seems a third party actually made a difference for once. Possibly (depending on if they would have bothered voting for the main two if the third had not stood, and who they would have gone for).
Third and fourth candidates made a difference in Florida 2000.
But it does seem rare.
Thie third party vote was very low, which makes me thing that most Libertarian voters who would have voted Rep or Dem actually did so.
Lamb is quite socially conservative, so there may well have been some "live and let live" votes for the Libertarian.
Gary Johnson got 3% as the Libertarian candidate in the 2016 Presidential election. Given Hillary won the popular vote by 2% he probably cost Trump a popular vote win
Quite possibly. But compare the Special Election where the Libertarian candidate got just 0.6% and you can seen that a couple of percentage points have probably been swept off already.
Johnson got 2% in Pennsylvania in 2016 compared to say 9% in New Mexico
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
And how exactly do you do that if they are already in the front line being attacked?
It makes clear that the recommended way forward is to scrap the County Council, as it is so bad it should not be given another chance, and instead try for a clean beginning with two new unitary authorities - West and North.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
Actually we already have a NATO plan in place for the escalation of forces in response to an attack on the Baltics. We have had it since Estonia joined NATO.
Sovereignty-reclaimer in happy to give up sovereignty over waging war to supranational body shocker.
Topping, if after all this time you cannot see the difference between the two organisations then you really are beyond help. Even spelling it out in words of one syllable clearly won't help you.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
One of the features of NATO is you just have to give a year's notice to the Septics and hey presto! you're not a member any longer.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
As many as their NATO allies wish to place at their disposal.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
I think they would say: nothing to do with us. As plenty did in the ME.
Not sure what you mean. When have British troops been killed by a hostile force that hasn't resulted in no further action being taken?
Afghan, Iraq.
You mean those two wars we were in???
Not sure I get your point. There was public support for military endeavours, even though not British service personnel were killed in the run up to either.
My point is that the British public lost appetite for our two most recent wars and that is why we are no longer there. Clue: we didn't withdraw from Afghan or Iraq because we won.
The modern Russian army is not the mighty force it was under Stalin and Kruschev.
They are a badly led, badly trained and poorly equipped shower of shit but there's a lot of them they have almost unlimited cultural and political capacity to sustain casualties. The UK has almost zero. Can you imagine the Fireplace Salesman on Newsnight the first time a British Army company gets flanked and wiped out? No, me neither.
I think you underestimate peoples' resilience in this country.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
The forces there are a trip wire only - I don't see how an invasion could be seriously contested in short run.
The modern Russian army is not the mighty force it was under Stalin and Kruschev.
But still more than capable of running over the Baltic States before we could meaningfully reinforce.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has theRussia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
Would Russian forces very carefully not touch any NATO troops on the ground, other than Estonia's?
Because the British people would get behind a war if British troops had been killed pretty easily.
I think they would say: nothing to do with us. As plenty did in the ME.
Not sure what you mean. When have British troops been killed by a hostile force that hasn't resulted in no further action being taken?
Afghan, Iraq.
You mean those two wars we were in???
Not sure I get your point. There was public support for military endeavours, even though not British service personnel were killed in the run up to either.
My point is that the British public lost appetite for our two most recent wars and that is why we are no longer there. Clue: we didn't withdraw from Afghan or Iraq because we won.
Iraq now has a Democratic government and in Afghanistan Bin Laden is no more though we still have special forces in the latter
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
The Germans and Poles have plenty which would be quickly sent to the Baltic States
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
Clearly it didn't if people are talking about Russia invading Estonia.
Personally I don't think the Russians are anywhere near dumb enough to actually do that so this is all hypothetical but clearly Western planners think there is at least some risk which is why they have been putting troops into there.
It makes clear that the recommended way forward is to scrap the County Council, as it is so bad it should not be given another chance, and instead try for a clean beginning with two new unitary authorities - West and North.
Just glancing at the executive summary, its very strong language for a government report.
The British military have already done similar. In Afghanistan Estonian troops have fought and been prepared to die with our allies and we with them.
Pompous old fart who has never been near the military over-keen to send poor gullible teenage conscripts to their deaths - what a shocker. See the debate on here about pensioners' attitude to National Service a few weeks back.
Why don't you bring your ARSE back and stick to making embarrassingly inaccurate election predictions and unfunny puerile jokes.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
As many as their NATO allies wish to place at their disposal.
Fuck me, Jack, do you think we're playing Risk here?
Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material. The response of the government and health agencies has been woeful. Telling people to 'wash their clothes' is a comic response in the face of the toxicity of the materials. Boris was so poor on the radio this morning, he should be removed for his inadequacies and replaced with a serious foreign secretary.
Well well, look who has re-appeared. The full suite of Russki bots are working here now....
The British military have already done similar. In Afghanistan Estonian troops have fought and been prepared to die with our allies and we with them.
Pompous old fart who has never been near the military over-keen to send poor gullible teenage conscripts to their deaths - what a shocker. See the debate on here about pensioners' attitude to National Service a few weeks back.
Why don't you bring your ARSE back and stick to making embarrassingly inaccurate election predictions and unfunny puerile jokes.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
Clearly it didn't if people are talking about Russia invading Estonia.
Personally I don't think the Russians are anywhere near dumb enough to actually do that so this is all hypothetical but clearly Western planners think there is at least some risk which is why they have been putting troops into there.
I'm a little confused at the overall message here. There's no need for NATO as it won't do anything even if the Russians did invade it. So why don't they just do it then, since people believe we and others won't react to it?
Cyclefree - but again it isn't enough to say that the openness of the modern world creates too many losers. The openness has been pursued as an article of faith by liberals who didn't appear to understand that it meant being open to a world which isn't very liberal and where the rule of law is often not well established. Trump the politician may be a response to globalisation but Trump the man is actually a product of it. He borrows money, runs businesses has clients and markets himself all over the world. In many ways he is the archetypal modern international businessman who liberals have been happy to swoon over. But very few liberal politicians seem prepared to acknowledge it.
I believe in liberalism. I don’t think it necessarily follows from that that we should have the sort of globalisation which has been followed in recent years. And I agree with you that too many liberals have been utterly deluded and naive about some of the consequences of this globalisation and about some of the states and individuals they have opened up to.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
The Germans and Poles have plenty which would be quickly sent to the Baltic States
If the German and Poles have "plenty" how many does that make the Russians have?
Do any kremlinologists want to speculate what Putin's next move will be? Obviously quite a few FCO geeks are going to get turfed out of their Smolenskaya Embankment redoubt and fucked off back to the UK but what else?
I reckon he will be all sweetness and light until the World Cup is over. However many moves ahead he is playing, he still won't want to sacrifice his Queen.
It makes clear that the recommended way forward is to scrap the County Council, as it is so bad it should not be given another chance, and instead try for a clean beginning with two new unitary authorities - West and North.
Just glancing at the executive summary, its very strong language for a government report.
That’s clearly an almighty f-up. Hope there’s a way of making sure that the councillors and the senior executives are disbarred from being involved in any new structure.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
Malignant brain tumours?
Main Battle Tank.
We've not had a decent tank battle since the Battle of 73 Easting, I like tank battles.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
Clearly it didn't if people are talking about Russia invading Estonia.
Personally I don't think the Russians are anywhere near dumb enough to actually do that so this is all hypothetical but clearly Western planners think there is at least some risk which is why they have been putting troops into there.
I'm a little confused at the overall message here. There's no need for NATO as it won't do anything even if the Russians did invade it. So why don't they just do it then, since people believe we and others won't react to it?
Some people just like to sneer ineffectually. Whatever we do, or don't do, it's always the wrong thing.
The British military have already done similar. In Afghanistan Estonian troops have fought and been prepared to die with our allies and we with them.
Pompous old fart who has never been near the military over-keen to send poor gullible teenage conscripts to their deaths - what a shocker. See the debate on here about pensioners' attitude to National Service a few weeks back.
Why don't you bring your ARSE back and stick to making embarrassingly inaccurate election predictions and unfunny puerile jokes.
Thank you for that contribution.
Perhaps you might consider engaging in the debate or simply advise at what stage of the Russian state aggression you would like to run up the white flag?
Mr. Valiant, ah, I'd not heard of the terms becoming longer. The institutional tinkering I read of some years ago was of possibly inviting Prince Michael of Kent to become Czar, so Putin could be PM forever.
A win next week will see Putin as President till 2024. He'll be (checks) 71. Maybe he will just retire (though I doubt it). The change to six year terms was done in 2011 I recall, just before Medvedev handed over.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
Clearly it didn't if people are talking about Russia invading Estonia.
Personally I don't think the Russians are anywhere near dumb enough to actually do that so this is all hypothetical but clearly Western planners think there is at least some risk which is why they have been putting troops into there.
I'm a little confused at the overall message here. There's no need for NATO as it won't do anything even if the Russians did invade it. So why don't they just do it then, since people believe we and others won't react to it?
Yep that seems to sum up the attitude of Dura Ace and a few others this morning.
Touch of the Milibands, very good. It is completely unfair, but I totally accept what that means, and that sometimes the way people look or sound really undermines what may or may not be someone perfectly well prepared and suited to a role.
Edit: I have been told by some acquaintances I look a bit like a less handsome Ed Miliband, for what it is worth.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
As many as their NATO allies wish to place at their disposal.
Fuck me, Jack, do you think we're playing Risk here?
The risk is we continue to appease Russia, a situation that is not sustainable.
Mr. Hemmelig, if we're going to denounce every poster who inaccurately predicted the last election (or two) there'll be almost no-one here.
Over many years Mr. W has provided useful insights and interesting commentary on politics. Just because mocking the elderly is fashionable in some quarters doesn't mean it's right.
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
As many as their NATO allies wish to place at their disposal.
Fuck me, Jack, do you think we're playing Risk here?
The risk is we continue to appease Russia, a situation that is not sustainable.
May should go after their financial assets publicly.
Privately, perhaps MI6 and GCHQ might want to do a bit of penetration testing on key Russian cyber infrastructure, to generate a few embarrassments for Putin too.
So on the one hand we are talking about lining up tanks on the Eastern Front, and on the other we are still getting set for a kickabout in Moscow. But some of the hangers on won't be going - so there!
Mr. Valiant, ah, I'd not heard of the terms becoming longer. The institutional tinkering I read of some years ago was of possibly inviting Prince Michael of Kent to become Czar, so Putin could be PM forever.
A win next week will see Putin as President till 2024. He'll be (checks) 71. Maybe he will just retire (though I doubt it). The change to six year terms was done in 2011 I recall, just before Medvedev handed over.
His plan was probably to install a puppet as Russian President and become the President of the Eurasian Union, run from the Kremlin.
I am disappointed that Mrs May has not taken more financial measures against Russia.
There has been too much dirty Russian (and Chinese and other emerging markets) money flowing into the UK and it is creating a risk for us - political but financial also. Private banking and wealth management for ultra high net worth individuals is beginning to give off the sort of whiff which was seen in other financial sectors before the financial crash. Lots of entities have been rushing to embrace this wealth and, as always happens, some of the checks and balances, some of the “Is this really wise?” questions get ignored or assumed away.
Even if it costs us, I think we need to clamp down very much harder on the ability of Russia and some others to access our financial expertise. This was the perfect opportunity to do so. It should not be lost.
If we don’t I fear that there may be more reputation-harming scandals in the making.
So on the one hand we are talking about lining up tanks on the Eastern Front, and on the other we are still getting set for a kickabout in Moscow. But some of the hangers on won't be going - so there!
That kickabout - might it be a bit of a no-man's land break for the troops on both sides?
May should go after their financial assets publicly.
Privately, perhaps MI6 and GCHQ might want to do a bit of penetration testing on key Russian cyber infrastructure, to generate a few embarrassments for Putin too.
I posted some initials actions required on the previous thread :
1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the embassy to be engaged in verifiable humanitarian activities.
2 Advise the FA to withdraw from the World Cup. Place a case to FIFA that we cannot compete in a tournament hosted by a state attacking us. Albeit 3 months away propose Germany host the tournament and Italy replace Russia.
3. Formally declare the Russian Federation government a rogue state and criminal enterprise.
4. Place all evidence from all sources of world wide Russian criminal activities in the public domain.
5. All filmed intercepts of Russian military incursions into UK airspace to be placed in the public domain
6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.
7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.
8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.
9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.
10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
So we would just abandon the troops we already have there? Apart from being military suicide for NATO that would also be political suicide for any PM who acted in that way.
No, we'd bring them back.
via Dunkirk maybe?
The Warsaw Pact committed suicide in the early 1990s. NATO's purpose evaporated with it. (edited for typo)
Clearly it didn't if people are talking about Russia invading Estonia.
Personally I don't think the Russians are anywhere near dumb enough to actually do that so this is all hypothetical but clearly Western planners think there is at least some risk which is why they have been putting troops into there.
I'm a little confused at the overall message here. There's no need for NATO as it won't do anything even if the Russians did invade it. So why don't they just do it then, since people believe we and others won't react to it?
Mr. Hemmelig, if we're going to denounce every poster who inaccurately predicted the last election (or two) there'll be almost no-one here.
Speak for yourself - I am never more than a few percent out in my predictions and defy anyone to prove otherwise! *cough*if you ignore 2010, 2015 and 2017*cough*
Um no. Unless May was planning on leaving NATO and abandoning the 800 British troops deployed to Estonia already, then there would certainly be a response.
Dura Ace can always be relied upon to b[out personal bias ahead of any real knowledge he might have.
Post Basra the prime (and possibly sole) directive for deployed British forces is what is coyly described as 'force protection'. If you think 800 British troops (of which probably only 150 won't be blanket stackers, dental hygienists, etc.) are a) going to halt Ivan or b) even try then you are simply wrong.
Article V or not, NATO is not going to start a war with Russia over Estonia. They are just not.
It would not just be British troops but French, German, Italian, Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Latvian, Danish, American and Canadian troops too.
The core principle of NATO is that an attack on a NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries which is why Putin is unlikely to try it
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is going to go to war over Eastern Europe. And despite the wild enthusiasms of the armchair Brexiters (not saying you) to submit arguably the most important sovereign issue of all (that of going to war) to an international body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
The Germans and Poles have plenty which would be quickly sent to the Baltic States
If the German and Poles have "plenty" how many does that make the Russians have?
The modern Russian army is not the mighty force it was under Stalin and Kruschev.
They are a badly led, badly trained and poorly equipped shower of shit but there's a lot of them they have almost unlimited cultural and political capacity to sustain casualties. The UK has almost zero. Can you imagine the Fireplace Salesman on Newsnight the first time a British Army company gets flanked and wiped out? No, me neither.
I think you underestimate peoples' resilience in this country.
Not seeing much evidence of it, at the moment. In my view, Dura is spot on in his analysis. There is no interest in going to an actual war against anyone. We couldn't even agree to do anything to clear up the disaster in Libya, and our intervention in Syria has been half hearted to say the least. The prevailing attitude is 'do anything we can to make the problem go away', which will work until the problem becomes so big, we have no choice but to do something about it. This was pretty much how we ended up in wars in the past, and will be the case yet again. History will just repeat itself.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
NATO is strong in the air and has well equipped infrantry.
It isn’t necessarily strong enough in armour, anti-tank guns and artillery in the Baltic states to resist a Russian coup de main, provided they can reach Tallinn inside 72 hours.
The British military have already done similar. In Afghanistan Estonian troops have fought and been prepared to die with our allies and we with them.
Pompous old fart who has never been near the military over-keen to send poor gullible teenage conscripts to their deaths - what a shocker. See the debate on here about pensioners' attitude to National Service a few weeks back.
Why don't you bring your ARSE back and stick to making embarrassingly inaccurate election predictions and unfunny puerile jokes.
Putin also knows what everyone else knows and that is that an incursion is going to get a whole bunch of sanctions, economic and otherwise, and not much else.
Really, no one is gal body, it still ain't gonna happen.
In the event of a full-scale invasion of a NATO country it almost certainly would with NATO forces being sent an masse to reinforce NATO forces already in Estonia as soon as the first Russian tank crossed the border
I doubt it. Where would it all come from and when, even if there was the will to do it?
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
Poland, the Czechs, the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Turks, most of Western European NATO forces and US forces garrisoned in Europe before further US and Canadian reinforcements arrive
haha hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
As many as their NATO allies wish to place at their disposal.
Fuck me, Jack, do you think we're playing Risk here?
The risk is we continue to appease Russia, a situation that is not sustainable.
Well let's think. We have responded with expulsions to a perceived act of aggression by a foreign power. Not to get all Seamus Milne about it, but we don't actually know if it was state-sponsored, but fine, let's say it was. So we retaliated. Plus we seem to have built a global consensus around our actions so I would say so far so good, so far so non-appeasing.
We are then talking about Estonia. Now, I don't think the Russians are going to march in tomorrow morning; if they were serious about annexation (and I have no idea if they are), they would fund a political party in the country, gain support for it domestically and then at some point thereafter announce that they had been asked to help on account of the discrimination that party and its supporters were facing - a multi-year strategy).
But even if they just marched in, I do not believe there would be a credible military response. They are in that sense reaping the rewards of the West's gallivanting in the ME.
Russia does what it does because it can; it is called realpolitik, a concept which many of our PB warriors seem to be missing.
Suppose Putin/Russia does go for Estonia. I view it as:
1. NATO/EU do nothing.
In which case, Putin wins big time, and I cannot help but see anything except the end of NATO (Failure to guarantee a member state) and probably the EU. Latvia and Lithuania would leave the EU and NATO straight away in protest. Finland would probably leave the EU too.
2. NATO fights.
In which case, I struggle to see it not ending in nuclear war. NATO might force them out of Estonia but Putin would probably never accept the humiliating climb down of being forced to retreat. So he lobs one (and probably only one) at some target in the west to save face.
NATO will have to lob one back. And then Putin, to keep saving face, is forced to do this:
May should go after their financial assets publicly.
Privately, perhaps MI6 and GCHQ might want to do a bit of penetration testing on key Russian cyber infrastructure, to generate a few embarrassments for Putin too.
I posted some initials actions required on the previous thread :
1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the embassy to be engaged in verifiable humanitarian activities.
2 Advise the FA to withdraw from the World Cup. Place a case to FIFA that we cannot compete in a tournament hosted by a state attacking us. Albeit 3 months away propose Germany host the tournament and Italy replace Russia.
3. Formally declare the Russian Federation government a rogue state and criminal enterprise.
4. Place all evidence from all sources of world wide Russian criminal activities in the public domain.
5. All filmed intercepts of Russian military incursions into UK airspace to be placed in the public domain
6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.
7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.
8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.
9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.
10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!
I wouldn’t have a problem with any of that. (3) is possibly the biggest step.
I expect modest increases in defence spending next year for the 2019 round of spending reviews, and Hammond may hat-tip this in the Autumn.
Williamson may be a cross between Alan Partridge, Frank Spencer and Francis Underwood but he does at least have a bit of charisma. Not many you can say that about in the Cabinet apart from Boris and maybe Mourdaunt
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
NATO is strong in the air and has well equipped infrantry.
It isn’t necessarily strong enough in armour, anti-tank guns and artillery in the Baltic states to resist a Russian coup de main, provided they can reach Tallinn inside 72 hours.
I suspect that Nato would not try and retake ground in the event of an invasion but would attack a wide range of targets behind the front line in an effort to pressure Russia into a withdrawal.
It makes clear that the recommended way forward is to scrap the County Council, as it is so bad it should not be given another chance, and instead try for a clean beginning with two new unitary authorities - West and North.
Just glancing at the executive summary, its very strong language for a government report.
That’s clearly an almighty f-up. Hope there’s a way of making sure that the councillors and the senior executives are disbarred from being involved in any new structure.
I agree. My preference would be two new unitaries and a new city region centred around Milton Keynes encompassing West Northamptonshire, Bedford and central Beds, and Northern Bucks. However the Ministry this week also announced it was minded to approve a single Buckshireshire unitary authority so that would make the MK city region more difficult.
So on the one hand we are talking about lining up tanks on the Eastern Front, and on the other we are still getting set for a kickabout in Moscow. But some of the hangers on won't be going - so there!
I am disappointed that Mrs May has not taken more financial measures against Russia.
There has been too much dirty Russian (and Chinese and other emerging markets) money flowing into the UK and it is creating a risk for us - political but financial also. Private banking and wealth management for ultra high net worth individuals is beginning to give off the sort of whiff which was seen in other financial sectors before the financial crash. Lots of entities have been rushing to embrace this wealth and, as always happens, some of the checks and balances, some of the “Is this really wise?” questions get ignored or assumed away.
Even if it costs us, I think we need to clamp down very much harder on the ability of Russia and some others to access our financial expertise. This was the perfect opportunity to do so. It should not be lost.
If we don’t I fear that there may be more reputation-harming scandals in the making.
A lot of the money in London stinks to high heaven.
Suppose Putin/Russia does go for Estonia. I view it as:
1. NATO/EU do nothing.
In which case, Putin wins big time, and I cannot help but see anything except the end of NATO (Failure to guarantee a member state) and probably the EU. Latvia and Lithuania would leave the EU and NATO straight away in protest. Finland would probably leave the EU too.
2. NATO fights.
In which case, I struggle to see it not ending in nuclear war. NATO might force them out of Estonia but Putin would probably never accept the humiliating climb down of being forced to retreat. So he lobs one (and probably only one) at some target in the west to save face.
NATO will have to lob one back. And then Putin, to keep saving face, is forced to do this:
So probably why he won't do anything - the risk of (2) is still too great for him.
Or we have the scenario that existed and people were preparing for 30 years ago: accelerated land grab, then standstill (either with our without battlefield nukes having been deployed), then negotiate.
Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
Indeed. The issue is that no British person wants to spend blood and treasure defending Estonia. It would be up to other Eastern European nations to defend them.
We really might as well disband NATO if that is the case, and probably the EU too if only Eastern Europeans would be expected to react.
Would you wade through snow, blood and shit to fight and kill a Tatar conscript armed with an entrenching tool for the glory of Estonia? I've done a great deal for Q&C but I wouldn't do that.
NATO comfortably has the resources to repel a Russian attack on any of the Baltic States (and to occupy Kaliningrad at the same time). So, yes, I would expect any Russian attack to be resisted. However, I think it's more likely that Russia would foment internal unrest, than mount an invasion.
NATO is strong in the air and has well equipped infrantry.
It isn’t necessarily strong enough in armour, anti-tank guns and artillery in the Baltic states to resist a Russian coup de main, provided they can reach Tallinn inside 72 hours.
I suspect that Nato would not try and retake ground in the event of an invasion but would attack a wide range of targets behind the front line in an effort to pressure Russia into a withdrawal.
Unlikely. No one is pressuring Russia into anything. Militarily.
Well let's think. We have responded with expulsions to a perceived act of aggression by a foreign power. Not to get all Seamus Milne about it, but we don't actually know if it was state-sponsored, but fine, let's say it was. So we retaliated. Plus we seem to have built a global consensus around our actions so I would say so far so good, so far so non-appeasing.
We are then talking about Estonia. Now, I don't think the Russians are going to march in tomorrow morning; if they were serious about annexation (and I have no idea if they are), they would fund a political party in the country, gain support for it domestically and then at some point thereafter announce that they had been asked to help on account of the discrimination that party and its supporters were facing - a multi-year strategy).
But even if they just marched in, I do not believe there would be a credible military response. They are in that sense reaping the rewards of the West's gallivanting in the ME.
Russia does what it does because it can; it is called realpolitik, a concept which many of our PB warriors seem to be missing.
Comments
Given Hillary won the popular vote by 2% he probably cost Trump a popular vote win
But as already noted, the 'proper' way of doing it then leads to a problem whereby other regions might choose to vote to leave, which Putin could never have.
But I applaud your championing of the resignation of our sovereignty to NATO.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/974255640255352832
Not sure I get your point. There was public support for military endeavours, even though not British service personnel were killed in the run up to either.
hahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
How many MBTs do the Latvians have?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/690571/Best_Value_Inspection_NCC.pdf
It makes clear that the recommended way forward is to scrap the County Council, as it is so bad it should not be given another chance, and instead try for a clean beginning with two new unitary authorities - West and North.
Don't tell Jezzah.
Some posters seem a bit confused. Are webeing condemned for being insufficiently bellicose, or insufficiently pacifistic?
Personally I don't think the Russians are anywhere near dumb enough to actually do that so this is all hypothetical but clearly Western planners think there is at least some risk which is why they have been putting troops into there.
Why don't you bring your ARSE back and stick to making embarrassingly inaccurate election predictions and unfunny puerile jokes.
I gather the snow is melting in Moscow?
I don't see why everyone else should have all the fun.
We've not had a decent tank battle since the Battle of 73 Easting, I like tank battles.
Perhaps you might consider engaging in the debate or simply advise at what stage of the Russian state aggression you would like to run up the white flag?
Edit: I have been told by some acquaintances I look a bit like a less handsome Ed Miliband, for what it is worth.
Over many years Mr. W has provided useful insights and interesting commentary on politics. Just because mocking the elderly is fashionable in some quarters doesn't mean it's right.
Privately, perhaps MI6 and GCHQ might want to do a bit of penetration testing on key Russian cyber infrastructure, to generate a few embarrassments for Putin too.
There has been too much dirty Russian (and Chinese and other emerging markets) money flowing into the UK and it is creating a risk for us - political but financial also. Private banking and wealth management for ultra high net worth individuals is beginning to give off the sort of whiff which was seen in other financial sectors before the financial crash. Lots of entities have been rushing to embrace this wealth and, as always happens, some of the checks and balances, some of the “Is this really wise?” questions get ignored or assumed away.
Even if it costs us, I think we need to clamp down very much harder on the ability of Russia and some others to access our financial expertise. This was the perfect opportunity to do so. It should not be lost.
If we don’t I fear that there may be more reputation-harming scandals in the making.
Williamson...just no. May's grateful to him for his work as a whip, if I understand Shipman correctly.
1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the embassy to be engaged in verifiable humanitarian activities.
2 Advise the FA to withdraw from the World Cup. Place a case to FIFA that we cannot compete in a tournament hosted by a state attacking us. Albeit 3 months away propose Germany host the tournament and Italy replace Russia.
3. Formally declare the Russian Federation government a rogue state and criminal enterprise.
4. Place all evidence from all sources of world wide Russian criminal activities in the public domain.
5. All filmed intercepts of Russian military incursions into UK airspace to be placed in the public domain
6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.
7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.
8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.
9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.
10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!
In my view, Dura is spot on in his analysis.
There is no interest in going to an actual war against anyone. We couldn't even agree to do anything to clear up the disaster in Libya, and our intervention in Syria has been half hearted to say the least.
The prevailing attitude is 'do anything we can to make the problem go away', which will work until the problem becomes so big, we have no choice but to do something about it. This was pretty much how we ended up in wars in the past, and will be the case yet again. History will just repeat itself.
It isn’t necessarily strong enough in armour, anti-tank guns and artillery in the Baltic states to resist a Russian coup de main, provided they can reach Tallinn inside 72 hours.
Was this drafted by Google Translate?
We are then talking about Estonia. Now, I don't think the Russians are going to march in tomorrow morning; if they were serious about annexation (and I have no idea if they are), they would fund a political party in the country, gain support for it domestically and then at some point thereafter announce that they had been asked to help on account of the discrimination that party and its supporters were facing - a multi-year strategy).
But even if they just marched in, I do not believe there would be a credible military response. They are in that sense reaping the rewards of the West's gallivanting in the ME.
Russia does what it does because it can; it is called realpolitik, a concept which many of our PB warriors seem to be missing.
1. NATO/EU do nothing.
In which case, Putin wins big time, and I cannot help but see anything except the end of NATO (Failure to guarantee a member state) and probably the EU. Latvia and Lithuania would leave the EU and NATO straight away in protest. Finland would probably leave the EU too.
2. NATO fights.
In which case, I struggle to see it not ending in nuclear war. NATO might force them out of Estonia but Putin would probably never accept the humiliating climb down of being forced to retreat. So he lobs one (and probably only one) at some target in the west to save face.
NATO will have to lob one back. And then Putin, to keep saving face, is forced to do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RRGvAB4HF8
So probably why he won't do anything - the risk of (2) is still too great for him.
I expect modest increases in defence spending next year for the 2019 round of spending reviews, and Hammond may hat-tip this in the Autumn.
Some say sport is a life or death issue.
It's not.
It's more important than that.
(Yay! The Force is with us. Spin on that, Putin!)