If Nato were purely a defensive organisation.....and I agree it should be purely a defensive organisation then why were missile systems put in Poland and Romania? Lockheed Martin put them in and admits that the system's launch tubes are capable for both interception and nuclear attack.

That was nuts.....Reducing the response time to basically nothing.

That is called escalation.....that isn't moving towards peace. Expanding Nato eastwards expressly without Russian involvement was also foolish. There should have been a commitment that Russia enter Nato....no such commitment was ever given.

This is Putin's war, however it is you pushing disinformation when you state that the west has played no role in creating the path to this.

We had thirty years to embrace Russia....the west literally created Putin out of ignorance and greed....which Yeltsin tried to warn about.....oh and by the way, Yeltsin promoted Putin...twice. He knew far more about what was possible than the people you believe are blameless.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Mar 2022 9.34am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Putting nuclear missiles anywhere is to deter. I am not a military strategist, but putting them as close as possible to potential aggressors own assets would appear to maximise that.

Negotiating peace with someone like Putin is probably impossible. Containment is more likely the target, with moves towards peace postponed until a more trustworthy partner is in the chair. Even then, with Russia, peace could only be negotiated from a position of strength.

We have tried to "embrace" Russia. We have included them in cultural and sporting activities, frequently overlooking their cheating. We have traded with them and shown them the benefits of openness. It doesn't work, was never going to work, and cannot work. Russia is not the west. It has its own history and culture. Russians think differently. I haven't had a lot to do with them, but I have been to Moscow and presented to businessmen there. It's different. "Embracing" them will not happen until their own people decide they want to be embraced. Finding ways of living alongside each other, until that happens, might.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I really don't understand any tendency to side with Putin. You may disagree with a lot of "our own" but still preferable to that guy, no matter how many silly baby essays and speeches he writes.
Our leaders may be absolute gobs***es but probably just about preferable to a dictator who has now well overreached his limits of power. That we need to sort out our own society and politics is pretty irrelevant when you are openly attacked. Time for that later.
There were loads of anti government people in previous conflicts. Nearly all knew where their bread was buttered ultimately - other than the odd deluded/radical fool.

Red and Blue Army!

Then the whole strategy of western defence in my lifetime has been "insane"! We have a nuclear deterrent. They are intended to deter, not to threaten. Maybe the difference is too subtle. We have committed to "no first use". Does that help understanding?

To negotiate peace with anyone demands certainty that the commitments made will be honoured. Trust alone is not enough, but there could not even be that basis on which to build anything else. Given everything that has happened since Putin became Russia's President, it is impossible to see how the west could negotiate a peace deal with him. Continuing containment is the only realistic, achievable outcome, followed by economic pressure encouraging the development of mutual reductions in military spending and the gradual lowering of tension.

The only reason we DON'T have nuclear war now is us following the policy we have. If Putin thought he could get away with it, he would. He cares nothing for the loss of life or environmental impacts.

That there will be occasions when the interests of enemies coincide has always been true. Russia, under Stalin, the USA under Roosevelt and the UK under Churchill united to defeat Hitler. Tackling Islamic extremism is no different. It suited Putin's interest to try to eliminate Al Qaeda. He didn't do it from any feelings of support for the USA!

Whilst Gorbachev came to see the benefits of social democracy, Russia as a whole didn't try to change, and that flirtation soon evaporated. It was a false dawn over a landscape which is always full of shadows.

If you study Putin's attitudes, via his speeches and statements over the years he has been in power (which I have been able to do this past week, being confined at home with Covid), you would understand he has never been open to the west and a reduction of tensions. His ambition to restore Russia's "greatness", which he thinks was destroyed with the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been hiding in plain sight. Any conciliatory noises he made were only to lull people into being willing sheep in his plans. He has always made me feel uncomfortable. Studying this, and listening to expert historians, has firmed up why that was. Those who don't see that, and continue to regard him as some kind of misunderstood figure who we have driven into doing the things he has done, are in denial of the reality.

For sure, he operates like a mob boss. Russia is effectively now a mafia state. It was bad enough when I visited, but is worse now.

That Putin is the embodiment of evil to a western mind is undoubtedly true. Not though in his, or in those in Russia who support him. As I said, they are different. We need to recognise the reality of the implications of that, rather than simply moralise about good and evil.

The response of the west has been impressive. Germany's sea change commitment to building up their military, very important. The leadership and steadfastness of the USA, reassuring (despite the constant sniping at their President). The contribution and effectiveness of US and UK intelligence, vital, and very concerning to Putin.

Now we need not to waver once the economic consequences kick in.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (19 Mar 2022 11.18am)

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think we are in a difficult position. If we don't make some effort to bolster the defences of NATO countries, then there is little to stop Putin marching in.

It risks escalation, but we cannot do what we did in '39 and just wait for the tanks to roll through Poland and have no answer until they are in France.

The lesson America learned from WW2 was, don't come to the party late. Britain learned not to try and appease megalomaniacs.

The problem now is that we have the atomic bomb. It might be better to deter Putin from a ground war which he cannot win, rather than allowing one to start with inaction. Putin could use nukes if he is losing, but hopefully someone in his military will stop him before that happened.

If Putin is determined to escalate, then nothing we do or don't do will alter that.

Nato has never had a 'no first use' policy and has argued against that using reasons that can be found in this link.

[Link]

The only countries that have a 'no first use' policy are China and India. Russia had one for about ten years in the eighties.

Russia's current policy on use of nuclear weapons was updated in 2014 and says they will be used in two situations:

: in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies.

: in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.

Truth matters.....myth is used to justify and control.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)