Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland
Nevertheless, Parliament does have to approve War
Courtesy of Commons Library
"The deployment of the Armed Forces is currently a prerogative power. Parliament has no legally established role and the Government is under no legal obligation with respect to its conduct.
In 2011 the Government acknowledged that a convention had emerged whereby the House of Commons would have the opportunity to debate the deployment of military forces, prior to doing so, except in the event of an emergency.
The defeat of the Government in a vote on military action in Syria in August 2013 was widely viewed as an assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty on such matters. Yet many have argued that the convention lacks clarity and remains open to interpretation and exploitation. Indeed, the recent limited airstrikes against the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capabilities have been undertaken without recourse to Parliament, with the Government justifying its actions on humanitarian grounds. The lack of Parliamentary consultation has reignited the debate about formally legislating for Parliament’s role in such matters.
Despite having committed to legislating on this issue in 2011, the Government dropped its proposals in April 2016."
Ukraine is the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia. An immensely rich prize for NATO to pluck. We will be able to put nuclear missiles within two or three hundred miles of Moscow. Russia scared the bejasus out of JFK when short range missiles were being placed in Cuba, thousands of miles beyond range of being able to whack Washington. Imagine the worries the Russian equivalent of The Pentagon have over the prospect of NATO putting missiles so close to their own capital.
But what for? At the moment it is Russia that is moving Nukes to Kaliningrad in order to get them closer to European Mainland. NATO is not (yet) doing the same.
NATO doesn't have massive Short Range Nuclear Missiles designed to wipe out Big Cities. The Tactical Nukes are just that - Tactical Nukes for Battlefield Use. Wiping out Moscow, St. Petersburg et al is the Job of the 'Big Sticks'. So Ukraine being in NATO or not (which isn't and wasn't really even on the Agenda) wouldn't make much of a difference military strategically for NATO.
On the other hand- if you read Putins essays regarding Ukraine the rational behind this 'Special Military Operation' gets a whole different perspective. You might want to have a brief look on what your 'Big Boss' himself writes as his stance re Ukraine. There is not much talk of NATO but lots of Talk about this all being Russia and having no right for existance as an own Country. So - No it is not self- defence against an aggressive NATO- it is simply good old medieval conquering of a sovereign foreign Country to include it into his own 'Reich'. The same way Old Adolph wanted to take all those neighbouring Countries 'Heim ins Reich'. There you will find your real similarities.
Its odd those Putinists who claim the West is weak and in terminal decline, then in the very next breath bleat about how aggressive and provocative it is.
They've been saying all along that Putin only respects strength, yet the moment countries on Russia's border do likewise they play their victimhood card.
They've been saying all along that Putin only respects strength, yet the moment countries on Russia's border do likewise they play their victimhood card.
Its odd those Putinists who claim the West is weak and in terminal decline, then in the very next breath bleat about how aggressive and provocative it is.
They've been saying all along that Putin only respects strength, yet the moment countries on Russia's border do likewise they play their victimhood card.
They've been saying all along that Putin only respects strength, yet the moment countries on Russia's border do likewise they play their victimhood card.
To any reasoned thinking person, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has backfired for the arch bully Putin in the most comprehensive manner.
It has been welcome news on the other hand for NATO, and of course Boris Johnson.
Only a couple of years ago, Trump was telling everyone including Putin that NATO was outdated and insignificant.
It may be outdated, but now certainly not insignificant.
Russian fighting forces on the other hand has been exported as having major structural weaknesses, which hopefully Putin will not live to correct.
So, if Russia were to attack Finland now, catching some UK forces in the process, does NATO wade in to help the UK?
Turkey says it cannot support Sweden and Finland's plans to join NATO
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has said it will not be possible for his country to support plans for Sweden and Finland to join NATO.Yesterday, Finland confirmed it will make a bid to join the military alliance, with Sweden expected to echo this decision in the coming days.
Mr Erdogan claimed the Nordic countries are "home to many terrorist organisations", without providing any further details.
Turkey has been a member of the North Atlantic Alliance since 1952, and has typically supported enlargement of the group.
Its opposition to Finland and Sweden's bids could pose an issue for them, as new members need unanimous agreement to join.
Mr Erdogan said: "We are following the developments regarding Sweden and Finland, but we don't hold positive views.
"As Turkey, we don't want to repeat similar mistakes. Furthermore, Scandinavian countries are guesthouses for terrorist organisations.
"They are even members of the parliament in some countries. It is not possible for us to be in favour."
Earlier, NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg said the Finns would be "warmly welcomed" and promised a "smooth and swift" accession process.
If he hadn't reminded me again I would really have forgotten about all those nasty Bomb attacks by Rogue Finns you read about in the Newsapers all the time...
Btw. What is the process to throw a Country out of NATO?
Georgia, twice - South Ossetia and Abkhazia (both ongoing)
Moldova (Transnystria)
Chechnya (twice)
Ingushettia
... and that is before one gets to the 'interventions 'in the various Stans, and the internal repression, and the external actions (novichok, pollonium, etc), not to mention some poor behavior in the Balkans, and not forgetting Syria, Mali, CAR, Libya ..... oh and Belarus a few times
My Greek colleagues would now and again ask me that when working in NATO back in the day.
I will offer the following speculation: the US and the UK (among others) provided a greenback incentive for that "yes" vote behind the scenes ...
Mr Erdogan, you are for sure consistent: you do you! But first tell me: How is Turkey North or Atlantic, again?
He said he also did not want to repeat Turkey’s past “mistake” from when it agreed to readmit Greece into NATO’s military wing in 1980. He claimed the action had allowed Greece “to take an attitude against Turkey by taking NATO behind it.”
Mr Erdogan, you are for sure consistent: you do you! But first tell me: How is Turkey North or Atlantic, again?
This was anticipated at some level and by given countries. Turkey probably would love to use this opportunity to get some concessions and/or support to its goals eg EU membership or other hot potatoes.
In essence nothing new in the political world. Most probably it'll all of the sudden turn out to be a great idea to mr. Erdogan.
In essence nothing new in the political world. Most probably it'll all of the sudden turn out to be a great idea to mr. Erdogan.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,937 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
In the meantime Macron is asking Zelensky to hand over parts of his country to appease Putin and help him save face.. UNBELIEVABLE, France denies it, but I wouldn't put it passed Macron.
https://www.politico.eu/article/zele...source=Twitter
https://www.politico.eu/article/zele...source=Twitter
French President Emmanuel Macron asked Ukraine to make concessions on its sovereignty to help Russian leader Vladimir Putin save face, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.
In an interview with Italian TV channel RAI’s Porta a Porta talk show broadcast Thursday evening, Zelenskyy was asked about Macron’s comments on Monday, in which he warned Europe must avoid humiliating Putin.
“We want the Russian army to leave our land — we aren’t on Russian soil,” Zelenskyy replied. “We won’t help Putin save face by paying with our territory. That would be unjust.” Zelenskyy added that Ukraine would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
In an interview with Italian TV channel RAI’s Porta a Porta talk show broadcast Thursday evening, Zelenskyy was asked about Macron’s comments on Monday, in which he warned Europe must avoid humiliating Putin.
“We want the Russian army to leave our land — we aren’t on Russian soil,” Zelenskyy replied. “We won’t help Putin save face by paying with our territory. That would be unjust.” Zelenskyy added that Ukraine would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
True but Britain would have been attacked by Russia inasmuch as its citizens were. A fine line surely
This was anticipated at some level and by given countries. Turkey probably would love to use this opportunity to get some concessions and/or support to its goals eg EU membership or other hot potatoes.
In essence nothing new in the political world. Most probably it'll all of the sudden turn out to be a great idea to mr. Erdogan.
In essence nothing new in the political world. Most probably it'll all of the sudden turn out to be a great idea to mr. Erdogan.
Perhaps he is worried about the extended warranty on his S-400's being being declared null and void - or his chums flicking a remote "kill switch" leaving him with a pile of expensive, but worthless tat
<TIC mode Off>
Originally Posted by macmp419
Perhaps he is worried about the extended warranty on his S-400's being being declared null and void - or his chums flicking a remote "kill switch" leaving him with a pile of expensive, but worthless tat
But the USA might. Norway might. Denmark might. Latvia might. France might. Poland might ...........