It is a poor time for these Russian threats, temperatures in that part of Ukraine are forecast to be down to -15C next week and with lots of snow.

just send the Canadian above -20 they go naked

It's what they want so their tanks and armour can move safely without getting bogged down

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/neighbours...3z3DtB126Q1OXw
Canadian winter fun .and she is a girl

Cold War 2 ?

Where does the UK stand here, post Brexit, with NATO and the EU?

''The UK can best tackle the challenges of a more dangerous world in alliance with the Europeans and working closely with the EU as well as NATO. Going it alone in a world of big power blocs and rising geo-political rivalries risks a dispersal of resources and energy for little strategic gain. After the years of throwing off its EU shackles and minimising its involvement, there will come a time of reconstruction and a more sober minded appraisal of the UK’s interests and priorities. Public opinion does not stay the same, governments change and political debates can be led for good, as well as bad. The time is not far off when the UK will have mature discussions about Europe. It will not rejoin the EU after all that has happened but it can still have a close relationship with it. After all, we are talking about European Strategic Autonomy and European security and defence rather than just the EU here. So these are issues for all the Europeans working together. The mistake is to think that the objective can be achieved without putting the EU at the centre – and working only around it.



Jamie Shea is a former NATO official and now visiting professor at the University of Exeter as well as President of the Centre for War Studies at the University of Southern Denmark. He is a frequent speaker and panellist on NATO and European security issues. ''

I don´t think that the majority of people who voted to leave are capable of mature discussion over an entity they never understood

Russia is not happy with the UK selling arms to Ukraine and this is part of the problem we are seeing.
"The West" (American lead NATO) is gaining influence in Ukraine, that part is without a doubt. I wonder how the US would react if America were surrounded by semi hostile countries and Germany started to supply Arms to Mexico.
The root of the entire problem, in my humble opinion, is that a lot of these former Soviet countries are starting to think that it´s payback time for all they had to endure under Soviet rule. And that thought is scary for the Kremlin.

__________________
Back in Bavaria, god´s own belly button.

From offcial EU document:

UK's February 2020 negotiation guidelines omitted foreign, security and defence policy cooperation, stating that such
areas did 'not require an institutionalised relationship'.

Arguably, this contributed to a difficult start in the relationship.
Theresa May's Conservative government (2016-2019) viewed the notion of a security and defence partnership more favourably than Boris Johnson's (in office since July 2019, also Conservative), and in 2018 had proposed 'an ambitious partnership covering thebreadth of security interests including
foreign policy, defence, development'. For the moment, discussions on such aspects of the future relationship appear to be 'absent in Westminster and Whitehall'. The initial assumption, according to the Centre for European Reform, 'was that it would be easier to reach agreement on foreign and
defence policy co-operation than on other issues'.

Similarly, Jim Cloos, former Deputy Director General in the General Secretariat of the Council of the EU, argued that foreign policy and security seemed to be candidates for an immediate agreement because of the close relationship and the UK's important role. British opposition to formalising cooperation could be explained by the perception that the EU institutional frameworks for external security cooperation offer 'few incentives for the UK', compared to other, more flexible formats (ad hoc coalitions). The EU's proposals for possible foreign and security policy cooperation with the UK include several areas such as coordination in multilateral organisations, sanctions, crisis management, capability development, intelligence, and development. To this end, the Deputy Secretary General of the European External Action Service (EEAS), Charles Fries, argued before the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and
Defence (SEDE) in May 2021 that, 'there is huge potential todevelop a relationship with the UK once London is ready to engage in a discussionon security and defence with us.'' (Official EU document on Brexit implications to European security).''
From https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDa...)696176_EN.pdf

This has not happened yet- and so the relationship with the EU on security matters remains vague and 'up in the air'. Which means that engaging in probably the most dangerous war ever, with a psychopath with his finger on the nuclear button- is not advisable. Putin knows this, tragically.

MAD got us through the first Cold War. However many of us have been saying for decades, that MAD only works until a psychopath or two get involved- and then it becomes VERY dangerous.

Actually America did find a semi hostile country on its door step in the shape of Fidel Castro's, Cuba following the Cuban Revolution where the Soviet Union started providing arms to the Cuban regime that declared itself Communist & started siting intermediate range ballistic missiles on Cuba, that gave rise to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

True, but I wonder if Khrushchev would have deployed the missiles if the American hadn´t installed such systems in Turkey and Italy with threats of installing rockets in Germany. And would Cuba have asked for Soviet assistance had the bay of Pigs invasion not happened.
I really love speculating what if´s. So I ask myself if the Americans should not be carping too much about Russia invading the Krim when they do the same sheit all over the world.

You are incredible, seriously. Now it's Russia that feels threatened? When they are about to invade Ukraine and make open threats to NATO members countries?

Sounds like an alternate history posts to me and you keep delivering. Sorry, there is no other way to put it. I usually like your posts but on this theme you seem to ignore the reality and keep talking about some vindictive attitudes from the USSR ex-satellites which is frankly ridiculous. Who is the aggressor here? Can you not see it?

US State Dept begins evacuation of nonessential staff from Ukraine.

If they are starting to pull the families out, some parts of the US gov. must feel Kyiv could soon be a war zone...and US are planning for a massive Russian invasion.

Any thoughts on how destabilising that could be for Western Europe?

I also have seen the reports about the evaluation of the embassy staff and families. Very concerned … Energy crisis could be one of the consequences of the escalation.

Putin/Russia is entitled to sell gas at whatever price they see fit.

If the West is willing to give up their moral principles for cheap gas, that says more about the West and their entitlement than about anyone else...

If NATO were to blink I find myself fully able to imagine Russia suddenly removing the troops with a "Who ME invade Ukraine? Told you it was just a war game we were playing....
Silly Nato, taking it seriously!"

But in truth I can see it, take a step back, draw a deep breath and look at the history.
The Polish-Soviet wars of the twenties for instance, they have not been forgotten in Warschau.
Prager Frühling.
Hungarian uprising.
Soviet invasion of Estland, Litauen, Latvia.
All former members of the Warschaupakt with an deep mistrust of a bellicose Russia, now under the Nato umbrella.
Of course Russia sees expansion as Nato aggression, what do you think is going on here?

__________________
Back in Bavaria, god´s own belly button.

When was the last time the West didn't give up their moral principles for cheap gas?

As for the evacuations - that's how Hollywood-movies about WW3 usually start.

Speaking of which, are we going to see a nefarious German-Russian alliance this time around?

As much as I despise the despotic Putin and what he's turning Russia into, I've always wondered, what would have been Washington's response if the Russians or the Chinese open military bases in and sign military agreements of mutual defense with, say Mexico or Cuba?

Probably the biggest strategic mistake Ukraine has ever done was to trust the West that it will protect it against giving up it's nuclear weapons. Ukraine held roughly 1/3 of the USSR Nuclear arsenal and the deal in 1994 was, give it up, we will guarantee your safety.

I don’t see any reason for Russia to start a war, not one. They have only everything to lose. This is crazy.

I also think it's not a matter of all-out-war, Moscow most probably doesn't plan seeing Russian tanks in Kiev. Indeed, Russia has much more to lose than gain in such a scenario.

BUT, a limited and controlled conflict in Donbas, which will not threaten the overall sovereignty of Ukraine, will allow the West to save face and "negotiate" with Putin and will allow Putin to further weaken Ukraine in order to be better able to control its internal politics. Ukraine is seen in Moscow as a "safety belt" and a strong Kiev, which is potentially a NATO member is a no-go for them.