sadoldgit

I don’t disagree that now is not the time to disarm the nukes but there is a wider discussion to be had about how nations defend themselves. These are ostensibly offensive weapons and hugely dangerous ones at that. There have been a number of near failures to the MAD policy over the last 70 years and once Putin is dealt with it is time the UN started to look at the alternatives to national security measures. There are safer alternatives that provide defensive security that do not threaten offensively. We are all wasting trillions of dollars on weapons systems that will not be used when the money could be used better elsewhere, still providing the security required. Even Putin agreed a few years ago that we needed to get rid of the nukes. It will happen eventually but sadly probably not in my lifetime. In the meantime the nuclear deterrent is working well in Putin’s favour as he has made threats to escape in that direction which in the West are rightly taking seriously. The problem is that he knows that we will not use them first and by threatening to do so himself he knows we are on the back foot. MAD only works when no one fires first. By making us believe that he might do, the system fails. All we can do is threaten to counter like with like as we do not want to escalate but once chemical weapons are used or tactical nukes on the battlefield, it is too late as the deterrent hasn’t deterred. Putin is using his desire for national security as his excuse to invade independent sovereign countries. If there was a better defensive system in place for all of us, there would be no need for him to seek buffer states as no one would be looking to site offensive nukes on his borders. Anyway, it makes no difference at the moment because the problem is that we are stuck with an outdated system and someone crazy enough to use it for his own advantage whilst butchering innocent people with conventional weapons. As for No Fly Zones, didn’t we bring one in over the Balkans for humanitarian reasons?

I didn’t say he had. While we are on the subject of nukes being a deterrent, how much of a deterrent were they when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? I’ll grant you this though, Putin’s nukes are certainly deterring us from giving more substantial help to Ukraine.

I have never suggested that NATO should ditch all of its nukes while Putin has his! Also it is not implausible to live in a world without nukes. We have moved on since the 1940’s and 1980’s and there are many papers written about national defence measures in a nuclear free world.

I am not talking about NATO countries. Why shouldn’t any country expect not to be attacked by a major power? Just because someone has a different view to you doesn’t mean they are a cock. There are many people who argue that MAD is well past it’s sell by date. Are they all cocks? We guaranteed Ukraine’s security when they have up their nukes. That ended well. If for you the world is black and white, good luck with that. If you think the world is a safer place for having nuclear weapons in it, good luck with that too. Here is another view from a cock that will probably upset you. https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jns.org%2Fopinion%2Fthe-death-of-mad-mutually-assured-destruction%2F&data=04|01||63357f53e95e4929ee1308da0ce60159|84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa|1|0|637836479240393858|Unknown|TWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D|3000&sdata=FOgUzh6zqjgLoc3S022l5SJgHQENeZvwk26L%2B4UyymU%3D&reserved=0

Because of what he has done so far in Syria etc etc etc. As for your second question, what do you mean? If NATO didn’t have nukes what difference would it make? It has nukes and it hasn’t stopped Russian aggression.

It depends who you are. If you are Putin the deterrent works very well as he just has to mention nukes and the West backs off. It certainly hasn’t stopped any Russian aggression in the areas he is interested in and has worked against us and those without nukes. It hasn’t really worked against him has it? This is a reasoned argument against MAD https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/nuclear-deterrence-myth-lethal-david-barash

I don’t know if he would have invaded Ukraine if they still had nukes but it didn’t stop the Argentinians from invading the Falklands. For a supposed deterrent nukes don’t deter very well as there have been countless armed conflicts involving nuclear powers since 1945. As for MAD, how does that work if you have someone who is prepared to launch first and isn’t fussed about the consequences of a second strike? I don’t know if that is the case with Putin but he seems to be sticking two fingers up to our nuclear threat by putting his own systems on alert when we have not threatened Russian territory. There are far more effective ways of waging war nowadays and the money on Trident would be far better spent on things we would actually use. Putin knows full well that we won’t launch first no matter what he does. If Putin launches first it really doesn’t matter about our ability to strike back because MAD would have failed and much of the West will be laid to waste. Another thing to remember about the MAD theory supposedly working is that there has been no direct armed conflict between any of the nuclear powers since the middle of the last century. Had there been we don’t know if nukes would have been used by either side or whether MAD would have led to use of conventional weapons only. Russia has already used chemical weapons, including here in the UK. Just one more indication that Putin has no respect or fear of what the West can or will do in response.

If winning is having your towns and cities reduced to rubble and your citizens butchered, then yes. As for the nukes, whenever I have said that our spend on Trident was/is a huge waste of money as we will never use them and our would be adversaries know that I get shouted down and told we need them because of MAD. Given that, then no one is going to use them and we only have to worry about using conventional force, yes (unless MAD is bollocks?). Our defence Secretary believes that we have kicked the Ruskies arse before and can do it again, so all’s fine eh?

I do get the bigger picture. I also think that you underplay Putin’s desire to make Russia a major power again and that this isn’t the end of his ambitions. The only thing he understands is brute force and at some point we will need to use it unless we are happy for him to carry on doing to others what he has done already elsewhere. I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me that, as long as this man remains in power, things will only continue to get worse. He has no regard for human life, not even those of his own countrymen, and that puts him squarely in the same territory as those of the last century who we need to fear the most.

I’m not sure if the conflict is nothing to do with us? We have a proud history of standing up for other countries subjected to attack from superior forces, Belgium and Poland in recent times. Ukraine have asked from help from the West and, as signatories of the Budapest Memorandum, ourselves and the US promised to stand by Ukraine if their security was threatened once they gave up their nukes. I completely understand the reluctance to implement a NFZ for all the reasons given and the reluctance to put boots on the ground in Ukraine territory but where does this end? The signal we are giving Putin is that he can effectively do what he likes as long as he doesn’t involve a NATO member and get away with it. This has been going on for years as we know. He has seen since his involvement in the Syrian conflict that we have no appetite to get involved with him directly. His recent nuclear threat isn’t the first and it is working for him. At some point we (the West) need to front up this threat otherwise there will be more Russian aggression against sovereign countries. If history has taught us one thing it is that appeasement does not work. We were quick to get involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given that Putin presents a bigger threat to world peace than either of those adversaries, we are going to need more than economic sanctions to put an end to this tyranny.

It’s hardly expansionism if they are defending a soveriegn country being razed by Russian expansionism. It really doesn’t matter what Putin says. It is all about what he is doing. Surely it is time he is stopped? This has been going on for years and is not a game. Innocent people are being butchered daily by a regime that is out of control and is threatening to use nuclear weapons. At what point would you be happy to say enough is enough and we need to do more to stop it?

So why are the Ukrainians so keen on it?

Lesia Vasylenko spoke very well on QT last Thursday and was very gracious about the sport her country is getting, but you can sense the frustration that that the rest of the world is just standing back and letting this happen. Sanctions are all well and good but are doing nothing to stop the butchery. I completely understand the worry about starting a major war but at what point are we actually going to say enough is enough? Putin ant stupid enough to go to war with NATO but he also knows that we are not going to use nukes and are going to sit back unless he attacks a NATO country, allowing him to do what he likes elsewhere. Perhaps it is time to call his bluff and bring in a NFZ over Ukrainian skies now. He has no right there anyway and we have enforced these before elsewhere on humanitarian grounds. It is sickening to stand by and watch this happen. How would we feel if our homes were being reduced to rubble and no one came to help us?

As Max Hastings said on QT last night, it is a similar situation that we found ourselves in during WW2. Churchill knew we couldn’t fight two wars at once so sided with Stalin against Hitler. It is a no brainer to deal with the Russian invasion first with all the resources they have available and worry about the rest later.

On the balance of probability, what would you say, given that you usually don’t sit on the fence?

I didn’t say that did I? I blame everyone involved in it but Johnson seems to be trying to take credit for something that he made worse therefore, yes, he needs to take some of the blame don’t you think? And do you honestly believe that she is a spy?

Appalling that he is trying to make political capital out of this, especially as he actually made matters worse for her as Foreign Secretary. I hope the family go after compensation. That is the least they deserve after being caught in the middle of an international problem over an unpaid debt.

Wonderful news! Does that mean we finally coughed up the £400m we owed Iran?

You sound like Vlad. You really believe that Ukrainians are Nazis? As you rightly point out, there are far right factions in many countries, including this one, but, frankly, to repeat Putin’s bullshit claims and his pathetic excuse for his invasion on a sovereign country is bizarre.

As within the EU, it was probably expected that closer economic ties would lead to a better relationship between Russia and the West, after all, it has worked for Germany and France. Unfortunately Putin has changed from someone we can do business with into a crazed, paranoid psychopath who seems to have come to believe that doing the best for his country is isolating them from the very markets that could help Russia flourish. Seeking advice from Trump is akin to asking Boris Johnson how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and no matter what happens, the orange one will always frame it in his favour. Anyone who refers to himself as a “stable genius” is clearly anything but. His domestic policies were always about what was best for Trump, as were his foreign policies. Putin wanted Trump in the White House for a reason.

Seems crazy to be able to replace virtually half of your team. Nothing wrong with 3 subs plus the concussion sub system and as said, will only benefit those with deep pockets and squads full of quality. The only time I can see it if being a benefit to us is when we get a load of injuries in a match, but how often does that happen? If we want to make the game fairer for all we should look at ways of spreading the talent more equally. This will only encourage those who can afford it to spend more on players wages to keep bench warmers happy. Surely we all want to see the best players out on the pitch for most of the games? I can imagine it will put back the development of many young players too as clubs will look to beef up their benches rather than take a chance on youth as much.

Interesting Panorama earlier tonight looked at where Abramovitch got his wealth from and how he ended up looking after finances for Yeltsin then Putin. It will come as no surprise that his fortune came about as a result of high level corruption.

Shocking performance all round. It reminded me of that cup exit to Brentford the season before last. Watford are a poor side but made us look like the relegation fodder today and Roy must be wondering how he didn’t come away with a 4 or 5-1 victory. Perhaps we are trying to lure City into a false sense of security? 🙄

Apparently there has been a Russian military strike at a Ukrainian military base near the Polish border. Putin thumbing his nose at NATO?

The long ball worked for them because there were very few players in the box and the ball in was perfect and found a player who puts those away. Lumping it into a crowded area works occasionally as does trying to thread balls through a packed defence but it isn’t the same as their first goal. They were much stronger in the air at the back. As for KWP. He has scored and provided assists from left back and I really don’t see the problem playing him there. For me he is excellent and a real threat on either flank.