We have at least one Vanguard class out on patrol at any point in time, and we also operate in concert with the French. They'll hang out in areas of risk (no point chilling on the North American seaboard after all), which since the Cold War has meant the Barents Sea and the Pacific. The Med isn't an option as it is too shallow, with a very restricted entry point which is bad news for a submarine that never wants to be found. The Atlantic offers little in the way of target choice, and the only other real option is the Indian Ocean, but the threat level from there is low.
I don't think there is any real chance of a shooting war between Russia and NATO at the moment, but it is important to keep it that way. And the way to do that is not appeasement. NATO needs to make it clear that there are red lines that Russia cannot cross. Those lines are the borders of the NATO members, specifically including the Baltic states. This could be "Clarified" by announcing deployments of vaible troops and aircraft from NATO members to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. If those troops came from a variety of NATO members that would be good. Soem may argue that we shouldn't "provoke" Putin" by raising his fear of "Encirclement". But lets face it, if he hadn't semt troops into the Ukraine then this wouldn't have happened. So he needs to understand that if he does bad things, then stuff that he doesn't want to happen, will happen. Again, there will not be a shooting war. But they way you ensure that is to make it clear that Russia would lose any such war. "To secure peace, prepare for war" or similar.
Ukraine rebel commander acknowledges fighters had BUK missile http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/uk-ukraine-crisis-commander-exclusive-idUKKBN0FS1W620140723 Not really anything we didn't know already, what i found most interesting though is what the commander says about the reasons they had and used it. Ukrainian prime minister Arseny Yatseniuk resigns. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/ukrainian-prime-minister-arseny-yatseniuk-resigns
Tricky. Playing a game of chicken doesn't work when both parties know that the other isn't prepared to call their bluff. You only have a credible threat if you are prepared to actually go to war --and the West has spent its wad on Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia meanwhile has a bunch of pro-Russian fanatics ready to wage guerrilla war for it. Economic sanctions work a lot better. Russian oligarchs have an insane amount of capital tucked into the City of London. The UK government could just asset-freeze it all and really make them hurt --and they in turn would make Putin hurt. But one easy guess why that never is going to happen... The UK government may condemn the Russians, but it loves their business.
Not changing the situation much. When a prime minister resigns, he is still the acting prime minister until a new government is selected from either current parliament, or from a new elections. The elections were scheduled later this year, so it only moves everything to maybe August/September. 1-3 months sooner than originally planed.
That's good to know, i was thinking that the last thing we needed was a headless Ukrainian government.
What I'm looking for is not aggressive sabre-rattling, but a some solid unambiguous deterrence. It needs to be very clear that NATO members will honor Article 5 in regard to the Baltic states and to clarify this by stationing a viable amount of troops from various Nato countries in the Baltics (who certainly won't object). That shouldn't just be the US or the US and Britain but I'd like to see some others to clarify that there isn't a split to be exploited. Perhaps the Dutch might rotate in some planes for training and so on. Anti-missile defenses would also be good. There is a perception in Russia that the west is "soft" and easily divided. This would be the best way of clarify that, because if there is any perception that Article 5 is negotiable then NATO is pointless. Definitely, and it seems to be heading that way. Both the Prime minister and the chancellor have stated that the city will have to take the hit on this one. Actually the problem is more like to be Cyprus vetoing them. Meantime the French are trying to explain that an amphibious assault ship isn't really relevant...
Playing devil advocate. If we (NATO) did as you outline and if Russia does indeed feels threatened by the expansion of NATO, wouldn't stationing large amounts of troops in NATO countries just reinforce or justify Russia's concerns, wouldn't they say to themselves we told you so ?
Well as it stands the US did express regret, and paid compensation. Do you think Russia will do the same?
not the same as saying ` sorry for murdering your families` is it. MP`s `express regret` all the damn time about illegal activities - doesn't mean they are actually sorry for profiting does it.
Worrying. Much as we'd like to think that Russia might rethink it's policy in the light on MH17, it seems that they are determined to prevent the Ukrainian government regaining control of their nation. This fighting would not have happened without russian interference, firtsly in the form of rabid propaganda in the media and then in the form of weapons, money and training.
"I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." --Vice President George H.W. Bush during his presidential campaign, when he was asked whether the US was going to apologise for downing Iran flight 655. Keep in mind that the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time (where it most definitely shouldn't have been), shooting at a target that was ascending on a trajectory away from them and therefore could not constitute a direct threat. The captain of the Vincennes, Cpt. Rogers, had a reputation for having caused several incidents already that contravened rules of engagement, but nevertheless got a medal for that distinguished tour of duty. Only three years later the US agreed to pay compensation to the Iranian families, which it actually did eight years later. It still has not apologised to this day. I'm sorry, but I never think it's an adequate defence to say that we're not quite as bad as the bad guys. We're supposed to be the good guys, not the not-quite-as-bad-as-the-thoroughly-evil guys.
I'm no sure why I'm supposed to be defendign them. But what happened then doesn't make the West any less right over this issue. Plus you might have forgotten another cilivian airliner shot down just five years before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 again look at the response to that one. But what's the point of all this history? That there shouldn't be sanctions on Russia? That we shouldn't ask them to stop supplying AA missiles? That the Dutch shouldn't be as angry? Or just a wooly "everyone is as bad as everyone else" view supporting a policy of mild dissapproval and miminal action. I notice that most of your posts on Russia are to say "UK/USA just as bad". Is that that all you have to say?
Well we had a policy of not stationing troops in the former Warsaw Pact countries that joined NATO. That doesn't seem to have prevented Russian agression. Lets try something else?
I don't think that something else should be to ramp up the threat that Russia maybe feeling though, well unless our aim is to provoke or inflame the situation more.
Because you are. You are not saying: "The US was in the wrong then, but that does not exonerate Russia from being in the wrong now" (which would be a valid point); you are saying: "Oh, but that was different. They expressed regret..." No, I haven't (I'm an old guy; I lived through those periods). But that is just score taking again: USA did 1 Bad Thing, Russia did 2 Bad Things. Not a valid argument. What I am saying is this: if we truly want to make a stand against bad regimes, we should first act from moral authority. Forget NATO troops on the ground, forget sanctions. If we act as hypocritically as the next regime, then all our condemnations and judgements mean nothing. Troops on the borders are ineffectual if we sell them military hardware and chemicals for making WMD at the same time (as our soldiers found in Iraq, when they were being blown up and shot at with the very weapons we sold evil Saddam in the previous decade). Economic sanctions are ineffectual when we continue to do business with them, thus lining their war chest. And above all, international condemnation is ineffectual when we are perceived to commit the same crimes and misdemeanours as the regimes we criticise. We won't get other countries behind us, and we certainly don't win the hearts and minds of the people living under those regimes. Why should they side with us when we are seen to be hardly any better?
