Salisbury Fox

Technically it doesn’t, but it also doesn’t say you can’t either as it has to be a reasonable use of force in the circumstances. He therefore has to justify his use of force which some seem too eager to condemn or defend him based upon watching a short clip and applying their own biases.

For now.

It seems they are restricted to using them near the Kharkiv region.

You can only negotiate if both sides do so in good faith, but Russia continues to show no signs of doing so: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-26-2024 You are right that that Taiwan is a priority for the US, however the outcome in Ukraine is extremely relevant to deterring action there.

He doesn’t need a cult of personality. You can’t have missed the large numbers who have had mysterious accidents from tall buildings.

According to Lavrov Ukraine is already using western weapons to strike inside Ukraine. Another red line crossed then

Build it and they will come

Perhaps Israel is finally getting Iran back for the Argentina embassy attack in 1992. I do generally agree though that this sort of action should be avoided but I won’t be shedding any tears for those involved in terror attacks.

It wouldn’t, most European armed forces have based their capabilities upon heavy US support. For example our own air defence capability has been reduced on the basis that we would have air superiority provided predominantly by the US. It would take many years to grow these capabilities.

I hope so, but pressures in the Pacific may see the US pivot naturally meaning Europe needs to build a credible defence for themselves.

Apologies, I wasn’t going to respond again but any failure to respond to an attack on a NATO member, even a small one like Estonia, would result in the end of the organisation. I do share your the scepticism about a Trump administration wanting to though.

So we shouldn’t poke the bear for risk of them going nuclear in Ukraine, but there’s no concern over Russia having any further territorial ambitions as we have nukes. I think you are underestimating the mindset and the hybrid nature of warfare being employed, but I will leave it there as I can see we are going to disagree.

Our Army like most other European armies have been underfunded true, however I don’t see why you feel Estonia pointing out the need to prepare for war is anymore unnecessary than the numerous others who are saying the same thing across the whole continent. The fact that we have a lack of Artillery shells for Ukraine alone should reinforce the urgency.

Estonia are in effect only saying what our own Chief of the General Staff is saying with regards to preparing for war.

No one is threatening the Russian state, that’s just propaganda used as justification for their nonsense. The west has been carefully escalating its response and with each escalation it has shown that the nuclear threats are empty. Of course there is a need for a continuation of measured action but it would be monumentally naive to believe that Russia will behave without understanding that there would be very severe consequences if it doesn’t. The Muscovite mindset is well evidenced in Putin’s own essay after all. I’m sure that those closer to the borders of Russia, or with experience of Soviet occupation would not agree that preparing for war with a state that continues to remark of the need to extend their sphere of influence is just being redundantly jingoistic.

If you want peace, prepare for war. Like it or not the US is becoming a more unpredictable ally and so Europe needs to be able to demonstrate that they have the nerve for a fight. Estonia just recognises the threat more than most. Putin is quite capable of destabilising countries without invading anyway, look at his use of the little green men and his meddling with Moldova via Transnistria which is ongoing.