Wasn't a great fan of Portillo as a Minister but his interview here is interesting as it gives some historical context to the current issues. If you are short of time, then from 1:30 is where the interesting content starts (to me anyway)

Which video are you reffering to here? I do remember him once saying on an episode of This Week why he thought that us having nukes was a bad idea/use of resouces for defence, because he thought no-one these days would have the gumption to ever really use them.

Rather short on facts there, sir. That Obama assured Putin he wanted to be far more 'hands off' and chummy with Russia on entering office signalled to Putin he could get away with far more than before, which is why the invasion of Georgia (and then the Crimea) happened on Obama's watch, and not Bush's (or Trump's).

Have you looked at the history of Crimea as a background to the annexation?

While Wikipedia is not a source it's a starting point:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_...#:

I do know something of its history, hence why neither side was blameless. It still didn't justify what the Russians did by annexing it, or, for that matter, as they've also done with parts of Georgia, the Ukraine and the Baltic states, use their security/intelligence services to subvert the local administration and to stir up trouble through / give financial assistance to 'Russian speakers' and 'ethinc Russians' who are no better than terrorists.

To me, that sounds like those supporting NI terrorists (incl. naive American politicians in the 1980s and 90s) with resources and undermining the authorities.

As in NI there's a genuine ethnic issue caused, in part, by historic 'settler' type people movements. Once the pro-Russia President was defenestrated the Russians in Crimea became restive. I don't think a great deal of stirring was needed.

Weak Western leadership enabled and emboldened him. Strong leadership kept him (relatively) reined in. I somehow doubt he'd now believe any 'strong words' from Biden though, as the proverbial cat is out of the bag on his leadership abilities and state of mind, as well as his subordinates.

I take it the cat in the bag is Biden's supposed dementia?

Clearly he has some history of cerebral incidents in the past but it's a big leap from there to him being incapable. He looks bright and attentive when speaking and certainly makes more sense that Trump, I mean linguistically not politically.

That is obviously such a ridiculous idea that it is hardly seems worth commenting on it, but I assume you're prepared to accept the likelihood of nuclear war ?

Exactly. And when it is clear that we would be facing a paranoid individual with few worries about the consequence of any of his actions, it makes better sense to try to contain any conflict that has started.

By what method, exactly? That's the $1M question.

By not joining in directly. Providing Ukraine with equipment and training if necessary, I think they have plenty enough enthusiasm which our troops may not.

Whatever the politics Peter Hitchens in the MOS gives a broad view of the historic relations between Russia and the Ukraine He also has views on NATO and the part they possibly play in this sorry war. It is worth a read if you care to go looking.

"... why bother, other than just to have a go at someone you dis[a]gree with on a general ideological level out of pettiness?"

It is not a question of pettiness. It is a question of how you deal with contentious issues - in this topic and in many others over the years. Your rambling posts do your case no good - people simply aren't going to read them. I have every sympathy with the need sometimes to deal with complexities, but you serve up a lack of relevance, coherence and clarity in your posts (and you have a long history of doing so).

Just look at the (mercifully brief) post you have just made. It fails to answer the point in my comment, which was that you suggested the West should have been prepared to destroy Moscow in order to prevent the invasion of Ukraine and I pointed out that this would risk starting a nuclear war, which presumably you are prepared to accept.

Oh dear. So you want a very complex issue boiled down into two sentences. Again, I direct you to Twitter. You can have a great time having a go at all and sundry in 288 characters per tweet. If you want to discuss issues seriously, then be prepared for more lengthy discussions. This ain't a school yard spat over football teams.

Amazing how what you said in that last comment stood between early 2017 and early 2020 but prevented the Russians from invading. I wonder why that was? The only way a bully stops bullying is when you threaten them (and mean it) with something that seriously adversely affects them (or worse). It does NOT mean you accept that you will be then engaged in a fight to the death. A different course of action would be needed if Putin was actually insane.

Putin may have delusions of grandure but he's not stupid - he's a ruthless, calculating (and evil) man who wants history to remember him in Russia favourably. He only acts like this because WE let him. For all their flaws, Trump and GW Bush didn't, at least militarily.

We now have to deal with the mistakes the West has generally made in their dealing with Putin (and Xi) be being weak, and that includes being dependent on the former's oil & gas and the latter for manufactureed goods [especially high tech stuff] even during those other presidencies where they DID stand up to them militarily.

"Oh dear. So you want a very complex issue boiled down into two sentences."

I want you to answer the point. Either you stand by what you said about the West being prepared to destroy Moscow and accept that this might mean a nuclear war, or you don't. Why is that complicated?

If you have them, then you must be prepared to show enemies you'd use them. That doesn't mean they need a demonstration of them, more a big show of strength as Bush did to deter Putin. He backed down as a result, just as Khrushchev did when President Kennedy (a Democrat) threatened the same during the Cuban missle crisis.

"The only way a bully stops bullying is when you threaten them (and mean it) with something that seriously adversely affects them (or worse). It does NOT mean you accept that you will be then engaged in a fight to the death." What do you mean? You are fudging the issue.

Either a country is prepared to carry out a threat or not. Of course that may mean it is then "engaged in a fight to the death". Do you really not see the lack of logic in what you wrote?

See my first comment above.

And do give over with the Twitter stuff - it's another of your ploys to create a distraction.

Really? As opposed to you not actually discussing anything and 'playing the man, not the ball' all the time when someone has a different viewpoint? You complain when I go into great depth on an issue then say I'm not saying anything.

Rather than trying to argue on essentially nothing burgers all the time, how about actually talking issues, sensibly and rationally? I have yet to read anything from you and a few others that even come close to concrete, workable poilcy solutions other than letting in millions of (extra) refugees without a care to the consequences.

Do you seriously think that Putin will just pull his troops out or not push on over the next few years to neighbouring countries? At some point, you have to physically stand up to the bully, and its far better for that not to be on your doorstep and with friends to help you, rather than with none left because they've already been beaten to a pulp.

Yes, there are a very complex set of issues in play here, but either doing nothing (or barely anything other than allowing in loads of refugees permanently) or going the full neocon nuke first, talk later route is not an option.

A middle ground is needed, which needs proper in-depth discussion.

You need to check your facts a bit better before posting. Putin annexed the South Ossetia part of Georgia after a short military action which kicked off in August 2008. Guess who was US president then.

I believe the US military's actions back then stopped Russia from essentially doing the same to the rest of Georgia as they are now trying to do in the Ukraine. Yes, they were caught on the hop, but it didn't escalate.

"'Either you stand by what you said about the West being prepared to destroy Moscow and accept that this might mean a nuclear war, or you don't. Why is that complicated?'

If you have them, then you must be prepared to show enemies you'd use them. That doesn't mean they need a demonstration of them, more a big show of strength as Bush did to deter Putin."

So you're now saying you wouldn't be prepared to destroy Moscow.

Oh for Pete's sake. If you don't understand the difference, then I can't help you on this one.

-------

"... you not actually discussing anything and 'playing the man, not the ball' all the time when someone has a different viewpoint?"

When did I "play the man, not the ball"? I have argued over facts, logic and relevant and cogent argument, which you seem to have a problem with. That is not "playing the man". You seem to want to turn this into a personal issue, which is again an attempt to divert the discussion and to devalue my point, like the Twitter comment.

You played the man because you don't put up any arguments as to what you'd do instead, but all you (and others) do is personally attack me for just having different views to whatever yours is, presumably because I'm conservative and you're not.

--------

"... how about actually talking issues, sensibly and rationally? I have yet to read anything from you and a few others that even come close to concrete, workable poilcy solutions other than letting in millions of (extra) refugees without a care to the consequences" etc, etc.

I picked up what I thought was an important point from something you wrote and put the spotlight on it - a pretty important issue. Now you are cornered, you want to shift your ground and talk about something else.

Nope. I just want to discuss how to resolve the war in the Ukraine so that that sort of thing doesn't happen again, or at least for a very long time. That must include what mistakes have been made up until now and the reasons why, because without learning lessons from those mistakes, we're doomed to keep making them.

You appear to want to play politics and bicker. I suspect you and yours do that precisely because it its designed to put those on the other side of the political fence off from engaging in discussion - it's a very old left-wing tactic, one that some have employed (including on this website) a number of times.

How about putting forward what YOU would do? I'm more than happy to hear that and discuss the issues on their merits. The question is are you?

<< you don't put up any arguments as to what you'd do instead, but all you (and others) do is personally attack me for just having different views to whatever yours is, presumably because I'm conservative and you're not. >>

(to borrow a phrase) for Pete's sake, here we go talking about political sides again, as if that were the only significant factor in debating international issues. I suggest this particular one is rather bigger than that - it's more to do with realism, and just what might pragmatically work towards the least harmful outcome. I don't think starting serious sabre-rattling would have any beneficial effect on this Russian president.

OK - what would then?

"If you don't understand the difference, then I can't help you on this one."

You are trying to be patronising; this is not about my failing to understand anything. Either a country is prepared to back up threats or not. You have now retreated from saying the West needed to threaten to destroy Moscow and to be prepared to do it, to saying we just needed to make a "big show of strength". Why not say that at the outset? It now looks as if you posted something whose implications you didn't understand - which is why I picked you up on it. (As it happens, I think your revised view is probably correct.)

"You played the man because you don't put up any arguments as to what you'd do instead..." That is not an example of "playing the man".

"... all you (and others) do is personally attack me for just having different views to whatever yours is, presumably because I'm conservative and you're not."

Where are the personal attacks? You, personally, are not being attacked. Your comments and ideas are being attacked because they don't hold up. That is not personal.

"You appear to want to play politics and bicker. I suspect you and yours do that precisely because it its designed to put those on the other side of the political fence off from engaging in discussion - it's a very old left-wing tactic, one that some have employed (including on this website) a number of times."

Nope. I'm not really interested in politics. I'm not by any definition a left-winger. I am however very interested in facts, ideas and opinions and well-constructed argument. I note that, once again, you are trying to steer this discussion into irrelevant areas.

((facepalm)) Wow. Just wow.

If you're interested in FACTS, please present some and actually put forward what you'd do in all this, rather than just rubbishing other people's ideas without anything to back it other than personal attacks - which, despite you denying doing, you've just done several times replying to me on this thread.

And, as per my reply to Andrew-T above, let's hear what you'd do in all thise to properly resolve it. I've said what I'd do (despite you preending I haven't and simultaneously saying I go into too much detail [it can't be both]) - how about you, rather than keep answering a question with a question or moaning.

"((facepalm)) Wow. Just wow."

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Not much, possibly.

I'm still waiting for you to show what personal attacks have been made on you; you keep repeating the claim, but without justifying it.

"I've said what I'd do (despite you preending I haven't and simultaneously saying I go into too much detail [it can't be both])..."

That is simply untrue. I have not "pretended" you haven't said what you would do (though I have exposed your inconsistent thinking about it). I have not said you go into too much detail. I have said many of your posts (including some, though I'm glad to say not all) are rambling, and unnecessarily verbose.

At this point I really wonder whether you understand what you write and what you read - at least, that is the kindest way of putting it.

So why are you here then, just to engage in petty personal and political points scoring? It's not as though you make much of a contribution to the motoring side of the forum, which, after all, is the main point of being here.

I asked you (and others) to put forward bona fide policies that might go some way to resolving this conflict, and yet all you do is just continually criticise what people who've done that and not say what you'd do instead.

Carping from the sidelines is easy. Saying what you'd do is hard. If you hadn't been so rude, people might've engaged positively with you in discussing the issues, but I just can't see anyone bothering now, because you don't appear to want to do this.

Good day.

Never mind, the genius ex-president has the answer:

"Meanwhile, the ex-president has floated the idea that US should the cover fighter planes with the Chinese flag and “bomb the s*** out of Russia”. During a speech to elite GOP donors on Saturday, Mr Trump said the country could “put the Chinese flag” on F-22s before attacking the country.

“And then we say, China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it and they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch,” the former president said musing the audience, according to The Washington Post."

I think one deserves a face palm!

Never mind, the genius ex-president has the answer:

I think Trump should challenge Vlad to a judo match ....