The problem with ethics is that they are defined by people and people have bias. The less people involved the less reliable.
Blair convinced himself he was doing the right thing. Most disagree. But in future his choice might have an unexpectedly positive outcome. He might have been party to a bigger picture that most are unaware of.
What I'm suggesting is that morality and ethics are a human indulgence which we consider worthy but in truth exist in a much harsher reality where the complexity of human behavior and apparently random events render any attempt to control the future almost useless. Even if we believe we can positively influence the future with ethical decisions, at which point do we pick in the future to evaluate the success of our decisions? There is a certain futility in all this since our futures either as individuals or as a species has a predictable end. Non existence. Because of that, the best we can do is make decisions that produce a positive short term advantage or set of circumstances. Again that comes down to a judgment call.
In that light, ethics appear to be little more than an attempt to make our lives a little more pleasant and protect us from life's harsh realities in the short term but do not necessarily produce an outcome that benefits humanity in any other sense in the bigger picture.

In terms of threat to the UK, as a UK citizen. From the perspective of the UK, new Russia is more problematic than the Soviet Union had become.

Problem is, that the gulags, the murder and the prison haven't gone away have they. Poverty is still a major problem in Russia.

Its nice that people aren't having to eat their kids, its a shame that in order to survive they're pushing them into prostitution.

It is simply ludicrous to liken the capability for murder of communist Russia with the current regime. Is it some sort of anarchist philosophical view?

They defined by discourse and interrogation. Obviously ethics have a bias, that's well established, but then we also have the capacity to challenge established ethics and change them, and have systems within our legal system and government codes to allow this (and protect these right to appeal, to take legal action and to protest). For example, in the criminal justice system, it is a legal defence that if you can demonstrate to the court, that you committed a crime to prevent a greater crime taking place, you will be acquitted.

How do we make decisions, if we do not weight the ethical considerations of our actions - Surely that would be to respond impulsively?

Is it really a judgement call that causes people to not act immorally, or unethically? Or is it because we have created codes of ethics and morals within society that we learn and grow with, as well as systems of ethics with which to 'punish' transgressors, as well as determine the ethical limits of those punishments etc.

I wouldn't say its a perfect system, but the UK legal systems probably one of the best adversarial criminal justice systems.

Blair convinced himself he was doing the right thing? No I don't think he did, I think he knew exactly what he was doing, and why, and didn't care what others said or wanted, and he did so for entirely selfish reasons.

If he thought he was doing the right thing, he'd have prepared for the aftermath.

It would be interesting to actually know how much of it was a self deluded justification or a willful misuse of authority. Did he and Bush just have information or follow a strategy that they believed in for the benefit of Western interests or was it pure callous self interest or personal ambition?
Maybe a bit of both.

I think they'd made a decision that they were going to invade Iraq. The US and UK, it was a fantastic opportunity to pump state money into private companies in the rebuilding, as well as securing oil reserves in a fully dependent ally (as well as a new client state). That's not to mention the wealth stimulation of military contractor firms on top of that (including the Private Security sector which has massively swelled).

I think Blair to an extent saw it as his 'legacy' toppling the Iraq regime, but he knew what he was doing, plenty of people were telling him otherwise, and he leveraged and manipulated dissenters out of the way to clear the decks.

It didn't really work out the way they wanted - I think they expected it would be a walk over, and they'd be welcomed like the Allied Forces across Europe were.