Ukraine

I've often wondered that myself.

Before the war, when NATO was flexing it's muscles in the black sea in response to Russian hostility, it did cross my mind that while NATO was sailing warships close to Russia just because it could, I didn't sea Russian warships sailing past out coast just to show off.

As for the idea of leaving NATO, a big part of me thinks that's a terrible idea because sadly, Britain is not formidable. But there's another part of me that remembers the USA saying nowt to do with me mate when we had to defend and recapture the Falklands.

 

Countries ask to join NATO because they don't want to end up in the position Ukraine is now.
The only thing which I tend to think is a bit iffy about NATO is,should we be actually helping Ukraine who is not a member.

Both Russia and NATO do a certain amount of sabre rattling and have done ever since WW 2.

I've not noticed NATO invading any countries and forcing them to join, I think that is the difference.

 

The invasion of the Falklands seems slightly different to me, I dont think any NATO country got directly involved apart from France, who sold the Argies the Exercet missiles and the US who sold them the General Belgrano.

But that was just how things worked out, Argentina was not considered a hostile country.

We did get help from other countries, if I remember correctly, regarding arms, mostly missiles and I even read some time ago that Reagan offered Maggie the use of an aircraft carrier should one of ours get sunk.

 

Well we will not need to worry about the cost of living and keeping warm
When Putin sends us a big bucket of Sunshine :-)

 

I seem to recall that was the official line, but there was unofficial assistance with intelligence etc, if I remember correctly.

 

When a Vulcan bomber was desperately low on fuel, to the extent that the crew were making plans to ditch, our best friends across the pond wouldn't even let them use their air bases.

I seem to recall hearing or reading the Peru was the only country in the region that offered any kind of assistance, I think they granted permission for some of our aircraft to land there.

 

I think Ascension island is partly a British base and partly American.
I cant think where the American bases would be between there and Argentina/ Falklands, apart from any that might be on another countries soil in S America, which would cause a massive diplomatic row.

I think the country on our side down there was Chile.

 

Here is another Putin body double. Never looks up - hardly speaks.

 

Interesting article in Saturday Telegraph
Jenny namaste

 

That's unfair.

France is not the only country to publicly say they won't retaliate with nukes. In fact this is the official NATO stance. And it's a very prudent stance. The last thing we need is for Putin to have an excuse to say that NATO is making nuclear threats.

The French also don't deserve their reputation for being quick to surrender. They've been active all over the world over centuries, and they are a very credible military force. In both world wars they were quickly overwhelmed by a vastly superior force. Some claim that they received little help from allies but we have to remember that neither war was an easy fight. In WW2 for example Hitler could have easily won, had he not made the mistake of spreading his front lines too thin by heading into Russia at the same time as trying to hold western Europe, including France.

If there was one NATO member I'd have my doubts about, it would be the US. Sure they have the biggest military in the alliance, but they've never achieved anything on their own, always calling on their allies, perhaps mostly us Brits, to sort out all the more technical aspects of war after they've blindly bombed the hell out of things. Remember also that they took the 'nowt to do with me mate' stance in WW2 til near the end, when they were forced to step up after the Japanese bombed pearl harbour. They were also nowhere to be seen when Britain had to go it alone to the other side of the world when Argentine forces invaded and temporarily captured the Falkland Islands.

 

I think the point is/was, if you have a nuclear deterrent the last thing you say is we will not use it.
At that point it is no longer a "deterrent".
Just a lot of very expensive scrap metal.

 

I don't think anyone is saying they will not use. Only that they won't use it in response to a very specific threat.