Spot on, although the EU had just as great a hand in pushing the eastward expansion as NATO. To Russia the EU looks like Germany by other means, a view not entirely divorced from reality.
I think a major part of the problem is the lack of historical knowledge and perspective applied when formulating western foreign policy, a post Cold War hubris peculiar to the modern 'West'. The likes of Kissinger then, or China now make no such school boy errors.
The non-alignment of Ukraine with Europe (EU/NATO) is a vital interest of Russia, a truism that holds whether the country is led by Putin or Mary Poppins.
Russia has learned the hard way that politics is an actor that can change it's clothes with incredible speed, peace or war, aggression or non-aggression are postures of convenience and the Russian people paid a catastrophic price for such naivety in the past. The idea they could accept Ukraine being part of a potentially hostile alliance is utter foolishness.
Following Tony's point NATO had planned to go nuclear from the start had Russia invaded Western Europe during the Cold War. They will have known that, so despite their clear conventional superiority nuclear deterrence actually prevented direct conflict long enough for the USSR to collapse.
As Russia is now rearming at an astonishing rate it is certainly useful to maintain the security architecture that served us well in the past, including Trident.
But, but... The EU is wonderful... We couldn't possibly make a better and more transparent trade deal as a sovereign country... The UK is useless, etc, etc.
The European Union is a sovereignty swallowing, democracy destroying corporate project run by, with and for big capital and the European elites who serve them.
It's no coincidence that Morgan Stanley is the biggest contributor to Cameron's campaign to stay in the EU (followed by JP Morgan), you can bet your last penny they know exactly what is in the TTIP as they are probably 'helping' to draft it.
I've been hospitalised with diarrhea before (don't ask) and you couldn't be more right. Immodium works if you've got a small stomach upset, but it's not a cure-all. It's also worth pointing out that if your body needs to eject whatever it is that badly, and you've completely bunged up the anoos, then it's just gonna come right out the other end.
It doesn't sound like it was free? Just that you're paying for it with your time, instead of both your time and your labour.
Thanks for the recommendation, I've just finished watching it. Very interesting! I do enjoy a bit of war-gaming.
Now I see why my question didn't make a whole lot of sense. I was trying to drive at 'if we didn't have Trident, we wouldn't be a target' but we were a target for our conventional military actions, so my point was moot.
I see your point - the Russians seemed very contrite, so maybe they wouldn't have fired the ICBM's if the Americans hadn't hit back, and then Trident would have worked as a deterrent (sort of, although not really, because basically an entire land war was already in progress before it got to that stage).
I don't know if it changed my mind. The revelation that most wouldn't authorise a retaliatory attack on population centres rather removed Trident's 'second strike' capability as a reason for supporting it, and the film rather adequately demonstrated that Britain's nuclear status, combined with its very small amount of firepower and total lack of influence on Washington, makes us a target but without much corresponding influence.
The other, rather more urgent feeling I had watching it was just how dumb it was for George W Bush to push for admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and how imperative it is that we stop any further NATO expansion, forever.
Good programme though!