egg

To be clear, you're saying that Moldova or Finland should abandon Nato or EU membership if Putin demands it?

Putin’s demand is not to drop it, but amend its constitution to agree to never to seek membership. If they're out, they'll always be a sitting duck and the minute they ask to join, Putin will have another crack. Just tell the little prick that Nato decides who's in their club, not him.

He's essentially said that Nato don't want Ukraine as they don't want to protect it from Russia. That's not a willingness, and doesn't give any protection to Ukraine from Russia, protection which they bought when they surrendered their nuclear weapons. Nato should to stand up and admit Ukraine when this nonsense is over - they're no less deserving of a seat at the table than the Baltic states or Poland.

How about Nato or EU membership? If Ukraine concede that. Should Moldova or Finland be expected to do so if Putin insists?

1, 2 and 3. 2 assumes that we'll react if it escalates to a Nato country. We should, and that would be a short lived conventional war that he knows he won't win. That increases the risk to a nuclear war and i'm not convinced we'll risk that, or that you're right that he'll be talked down. Thus, I think he either tests the West or just sticks it out in Ukraine. I'm not sure what this fool will do. 4. The idiot has backed himself into a corner. There's no compromise here, and I can't see that he'll retreat for the reason you state.

There's no distinction between items leaving one Nato country in a plane and arriving in Ukraine, or a plane leaving a Nato country and arriving in Ukraine. Any argument to the contrary is bollox. One of our senior forces guys (or ex, I can't recall) said something about Ukraine pilots crossing the border and collecting them. Seems like a solution. At the end of the day though, Putin has said don't supply planes, we've shit ourselves and said "don't blame us, it was the Poles idea". Pathetic.

Poland needed US support on this. Rather than give that, the US didn't just say no, they've publicly said what Poland wanted and hung them out to dry. Sure, the US didn't have to agree, but the public message is a tacit apology to Russia.

Who's suggested supplying F16/F18? Poland offered Migs. The US appeared to be on board, then backtracked, then threw Poland under the bus. Presumably having shit themselves over Russian red lines re planes.

You've missed the point I was replying to namely that determining that supplying Ukraine with plans is a red line set arbitrarily by Russia. Its no different than supplying any other machine or weapon to take out Russian machines or men.

Indeed, their terms.

The last point goes to my initial point today, namely that the West are running scared of Putin. We haven't been to war with a nuclear power before, and we don't want to. Putin knows that and my concern is that our unwillingness to engage militarily in Ukraine because of the nuclear threat may be interpreted by Putin that we won't engage if an article 5 issue arises in a Nato country. I know we should, but the more he is allowed to get away with, the more emboldened he becomes imo. The line point is a tough one, and wholly subjective. Understandably people have a different view on this and quite right too, it's serious stuff. The problem here, is that the line seems to be a long way away than it should be owing to the nuclear threat. There has to come a point though. On the plane thing, Ukraine can fly the migs that were on offer from Poland. Seems odd that we supply weapons to hurt soldiers but not weaponised planes to hurt soldiers and/or destroy the weapons that will be used against Ukraine and its people. There's no distinction there and again it reeks of running scared.

Yemen - the Saudi's are leading that with UK and US weapons, to include aircraft. Why not supply Ukraine with Aircraft alongside the other weapons we've supplied to give them better defense?

We could do more without going toe to toe. We're supplying anti aircraft weapons and other arms, but not planes. What's the distinction? Does he have license in your eyes to do what he likes with Ukraine and its people without military opposition? If not, at what point do we intervene, whether by no fly zone or otherwise? Vacuum bombs haven't been enough. Ditto carpet bombs. Ditto attacks on hospitals. A nuke perhaps? The West have intervened for a hell of a lot less on conflict not on its doorstep, and where article 5 has not arisen.

Russia will come unstuck at some point, but that doesn't help Ukraine or its people.

"Influenced", how? Has it escaped you that Ukraine is being smashed to bits? Preferring to see stronger action than sanctions that haven't stopped Putin in his tracks does not make me a "pant pisser" - that's a stupid comment. Sure, the sanctions will be impacting on Russia and its people, I'm more concerned about seeing the stopping of the destruction or Ukraine than a bit of damage caused to Russian forces and its economy. What's the common opinion as you see it? Hope that the closing of McDonald's and Starbucks causes such pressure that Putin gives up?

Field

Double cynicism Weston...but cant disagree with that. We'll never know the extent of the Russian losses, but it'll be a fraction if that.

That was a nice idea while it lasted. Staggering that people still maintain that the West aren't running scared of Putin. The story of the plane swap and the migs going to Ukraine must have come from somewhere, and the overnight words from the US that there was never any discussion over the issue and that they don't know where Poland were coming from, somewhat throws Poland under the bus.

We, the western world, are reliant on Russian gas - 35% of Europe's gas comes from there. I'm all for standing up to the little twat, full on embargo on anything coming from Russia and I'd have Nato implement a no fly zone, and deal with with consequences as necessary. However, given the west's reliance on their oil and gas, plus the nuke threat, he's felt able to do what he wants. Today's decision will hit him hard though.

Are you sure that's correct? Sure we get plenty from the eu, and what's the source of that. Regardless, "We" being the Western world. The EU are dependent on Russia for gas.

Did you miss that we get shit loads of gas from them with no obvious alternative? We've taken a strong line on their oil, and let's see how that goes.

It's hardly hindsight when a "lunatic" points it out on advance. Our reliance on Russia for oil and gas, and on China for manufacturing and goodness knows what is, has been known for many years. As Trump said, that reliance leads to the extortion that we're seeing now with Russia. If we won't risk the gas tap being switched off over Ukraine (or a nuke) will we do that for Moldova, Finland or a Nato country. We've as good as told him that he's got us by bollocks. Which he has.

There's India, Brazil and others too. The world economic dynamics will change massively as a result of this. The irony is that those imposing the sanctions will suffer much of the brunt of them.

Agreed although I'm not sure re Bosnia. Nato stance on Ukraine will be the same for all other non Nato countries. Putin has been given the green light to do as he wishes with non Nato countries, with Moldova and Finland being obvious targets. I still think he may test the west with a Nato country - Nato's unwillingness to engage In a non Nato country could be seen as a sign of reluctance to engage at all.

Jeez, that's awful. 52 is no age. RIP.