Those comments about 'consequences' for countries who intervene little more than verbal bullying. So even if, he was to be hinting at a nuclear response to the UK for example, whatever he sent would be met in kind due to MAD. With two Trident submarines permanently at sea, that's 80 warheads on their way to Russia. Maybe 120 if three subs were at sea. They may be able to turn the UK into a radioactive theme park but 80x 100kt warheads would render Russia utterly finished as a functional country. Around half of the population would be gone after a few weeks and the rest suffering the after effects. There would be no coming back from that kind of devastation. And that's just if the UK fired back. Putin knows this. Would he want that as his legacy? The man who destroyed Russia?
It's a chilling topic but I genuinely believe MAD will prevent any nuclear escalation.
I agree.
But more fundamental than that, I would not give any weight to anything that man says. He is a liar pure and simple who said he had no designs to invade Ukraine and was willing to maintain negotiations. Anything the has to say now must be dismissed out of hand. He might even try to play the nuclear card as this current adventure begins to bog down, even as a fit of pique. These are not “consequences” to countries that resist him, as the word “consequence” in this case suggests an outcome in some way related to the action of allied countries coming to Ukraine’s aid. I hardly think that is relevant here when dealing with an unhinged individual.
Incidentally Hitler and Saddam both had extremely potent chemical arsenals. They didn’t use then. We should not let the bluster of Rantin’ Putin affect our resolve in an unfolding humanitarian crisis. So with that out of the way:
So is the answer to a bully, to appease him? No. This should be a call for military action by the U.K. and it’s allies.
If you mean the U.K. and it’s allies (who happen to be NATO members), yes, I agree with what you suggest. But first the allied Air forces should impose a no fly zone over Ukraine, to keep the Russian Air Force out of it.
Agree. It is 100% clear who is the warmonger here. It’s Russia under Vladimir Putin.
Whilst I agree, I don’t think this will be enough, and the effects will not be quick enough to prevent a substantial loss of life.
If Putin's reason is that he fears NATO, then it’s clear that NATO members should take military action against Russia.
But if NATO members don’t take any military action, it almost certainly will become a long drawn out war. I don’t think if NATO members do take military action against Russia, we will see a nuclear conflict. Putin knows it’s game over if that happens.
I don’t think Russia will fire off any nuclear missiles. But European nations WILL be affected. The cost of fossil fuels will rise further. And hence the cost of food and other consumables will also rise. As well as other products.
If the world does not stand up and tell Putin where to shove it, and back that up with military force, Putin or any other leader of a country that is not democratic will take this as a green light that they should be able to get away with furthering their own ideas on invading other countries.
I agree.
There have been various proxy wars around the world and since the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, MAD has worked, in that no one has dared to fire off a nuclear missile or drop a nuclear bomb in anger against another country. And I see no reason for that to change.
Putin obviously wants a legacy. But he wants to live and see his legacy. A nuclear war would literally kill that stone dead.
I agree with everything you say here, enough is enough. I think the public anger makes humanitarian action increasingly inevitable. I also suspect we will start to see in other countries, including the UK, street attacks on people and businesses of Russian background.
The UN should enforce a no-fly zone - it is a pragmatic response to an immediate humanitarian crisis. Our fighter planes are so far superior to their Russian counterparts (as seen in other theatres) that our own air-to-air losses would be minimal. We would of course have to soften up their surface-to-air sites, and Putin won't like that up him, not one little bit. It would show we are serious without actually putting frontline troops on Ukrainian soil.
Does anyone else think that Putin is waging a psychological war against us aided and abbetted by scaremongering media?
Yes. Although it seems to have backfired and resulted in him falling victim of his own propaganda and hubris.
Step back form the OMG moment & look at it logically - what does Putin have to gain via war with the West? What does he have to lose? The furthest he can go is cause trouble and try and create division in the western response to his invasion. The way NATO is formed (search NATO article 5) means he cant risk an attack on any NATO member. After that look again at the risks and what is at stake. Would a rational person take that risk?
Do I think the 3rd Guards Shock Army is going to burst through the Fulda gap and drive on Paris - no
Do I think Putin is going to launch an all out pre-emptive nuclear strike on the UK - No
Do I think Russia would attack NATO - No, it is to risky for everyone.
Do I think Putin will authorise cyber attacks designed to damage UK/Western infrastructure - Yes ( and soon)
Do I think Putin will retaliate against sanctions with economic "warfare" of his own - Yes
Ukraine isn't a NATO member and so isn't covered by the protection NATO brings. That's why they are keen to join.
EDIT - it is easy to say don't worry but we all do. I just try to focus on the logic, break it down into steps and work it out from there. There will also be a lot of disinformation floating around, especially on social media. Try to rely on sensible news outlets ( yes the evil BBC!) and look for validation/corroboration of any story before reacting to it.
My own anxiety about this war is the humanitarian crisis and that this is happening on the doorstep of the EU and our armed forces are not doing anything about it. NATO was set up in the day to counter the Kremlin's expansion plans. I mean seriously, they had just one lousy job, and seem to have blown it.
I have ben staunchly angry with all the wars of the Blair/Cameron/Brown era, this is the only military excursion I think that we need to join.
Are you suggesting that the proposed seizure of a football club as an asset owned by an oligarch would prevent the club from continuing to play? I doubt it. In any case, the important decisions being made on this issue should hopefully be made by those who aren't pro-russian by virtue of their favourite sports team.
Perhaps there exists a shadow "football manager of last resort" that can be brought in to run seized soccer clubs?
