This World s13e02 Episode Script
World War Three: Inside The War Room
The people of East Berlin broke through the walls of their prison For years, the most potent symbol of the division of Europe.
March 12th, 1999, as the day the people of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, we welcome them into the ranks of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The Russian military machine pouring across Russia's southern border into Georgia's rebellious enclave of South Ossetia.
Ukrainian government forces say many Russian troops have been deployed in the east of the country, allowing separatists to make further advances.
Ukraine is bleeding right now, Ukraine is weeping, and Europe is completely oblivious to this tragedy.
Vladimir Putin completed his lightning and largely bloodless annexation with the stroke of a pen.
I think that it's a very straightforward political comment, that basically sees Russia as a coming adversary of Nato, or an adversary that has returned from the cold.
As Nato allies, we have Article 5 duties to our collective defence.
in a newspaper interview that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are at risk, and Nato must be ready to repel Russian aggression.
I've come here first and foremost to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to the security of Estonia.
That is a commitment that is unbreakable.
It is unwavering.
It is eternal.
Estonia will never stand alone.
February 3rd, 2016 Good morning, everybody.
Good morning, Chairman.
So it's Estonia, as you may imagine.
This is where I think we are this morning.
The situation in the Baltic States has deteriorated.
There has been heavy rioting in the Estonian capital Tallinn overnight, after scuffles broke out at the site of the former Soviet war memorial.
They say it was a peaceful act of remembrance of Russians who died fighting the Nazis.
Eye witnesses describe them as being attacked by masked men with Estonian flags.
Six of the man charged with inciting violence are Russian citizens.
Russians make up almost a quarter of the population of Estonia, and many of them have rallied round to condemn what they see as discrimination and brutality by the Estonian police.
The Estonian interior minister today issued a statement openly accusing the Kremlin of orchestrating this violence.
President Putin has condemned Estonia's treatment of ethnic Russians as disgraceful and has demanded nervousness in Nato that Putin could look to exploit the ethnic Russian population to stir up more violence.
Protests about the six Russian men arrested in Tallinn have now spread to the neighbouring country of Latvia.
The province has a large population of ethnic Russians, and is one of the poorest areas of the European Union.
If you come from Latgale or if you are Russian, you are a nobody.
You are a second class citizen, you know? I've lived here for my whole life, but I don't have a right to vote.
I don't have a passport.
We have to change that.
Ro-ssi-ya! Ro-ssi-ya! Ro-ssi-ya! The city's mayor Dimitri Vorslav has appealed for calm and promised he will listen to calls for a referendum Such a referendum would be illegal and illegitimate.
We believe Mr Vorslav is in the pay of the Kremlin.
We will not accept interference in our state like this, and will take necessary steps to restore law and order in Daugavpils.
I've just heard that we're going to have our Kremlin representative to Nato and Brussels coming over on the video conference.
David.
'However you read it, it's clear that this situation 'is more serious than recent events in Estonia.
' What evidence have they brought to the council, informally or formally, on this? 'Well, they're talking a lot about what's going on at the border.
'They're saying now the militia has control of a sizeable stretch of it 'and that there are men and weapons pouring in unchecked from Russia.
' Have you been able to take any soundings of other Nato representatives? 'Yes, I think the Eastern states would be supportive if there was 'an indication of Article 5, I'm not sure about the Germans.
'I think if they were to push back, 'then a number of other countries would tuck in behind, Spain, Italy.
'I just can't read the French position at the moment.
' OK, David, thanks very much.
We will no doubt be calling on your wisdom and information - 'We'll talk again.
Thank you.
' - in due course.
Thank you.
The big question is, is this an Article 5 situation, and what should we do about it? General? Article 5 is about responding to an armed attack.
By the sounds of things, this is very firmly and armed attack.
This is going to be, as we saw with Crimea, undermining the integrity of the state from within, manipulation of minorities, propaganda, potential use of special forces, border incursions, so I think what Nato would be wanting to do here is to get certainty, clarity of the situation.
So surveillance, reinforce the Baltic air policing commitment, with additional aircraft.
I think Nato would almost certainly want to put a maritime presence into the Baltic, and I think, also, Nato would be looking to start to move elements of a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force into Latvia.
Kishwer? I think any assistance we can give them in terms of intel, but in terms of moving troops into the country, the Russians would interpret that as escalatory, but I also think it's extremely dangerous.
Miscalculation can happen.
The Russians might misunderstand that you're just moving them in as a show of solidarity.
They may not see it that way.
Let me press you on this, Kishwer.
We cannot be, surely, too sensitive about Putin's sensitivities.
So we're going to sleepwalk into, potentially, a war with Russia because we mustn't be too sensitive about their capabilities? - I'm wide awake, I don't know about you.
- That's extraordinary.
- I don't think this is sleepwalking.
- I think the first thing is to move some troops into the country, not necessarily engage.
But I think have a presence of a kind that acts as a warning to the Russians.
This is a test of solidarity of the alliance.
We have seen exactly what he did in the Ukraine in his hybrid form of warfare.
We have warned him quite openly not to do that with the Baltic states, and I believe we need to have some form of ground forces, Nato ground forces, not to do that straightaway I think would be a terrible mistake.
Chairman, if I may, cos I think we're getting way, way ahead of ourselves here.
Just reflect a moment on the position you put Putin in if you start upping the military ante.
The one thing that keeps you in power in Russia is a reputation for strength.
If he finds himself confronted by a Nato challenge of that sort and backs down, he then loses domestically, politically.
So warn them, signal all sorts of things, but moving troops seems to me to be a step too far.
We are not starting from cold.
We'll already have deployed troops there on exercise to warn the Russians post-Ukraine, they've come back out again.
If it was starting from cold, I agree This isn't Crimea, this is not Ukraine.
I would agree entirely if we were starting from cold, but we're not.
This is not Ukraine.
It's a Nato country-- Putin knows that.
I think it is not a good idea to start deploying troops as though this is going to get worse.
It's necessary to do whatever we can to deescalate this as a row.
I think that a strong statement is necessary.
At this stage in the crisis, the Russians have not admitted that they are doing anything or are directly involved.
I think that's potentially useful for us.
As soon as we turn this into a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia, we're on a very slippery slope.
There were extraordinary scenes here earlier as the mayor, having declared his intent to hold a referendum, was in effect barred from his own city hall.
The riot police were then overcome Riga says a warrant for Mr Vorslav's arrest was issued on Sunday following the announcement that they would hold a referendum on greater autonomy Pro-Russian groups have consolidated their control of government buildings in a number of towns and cities in Eastern Latvia.
A Latvian policeman has been killed and several others injured in violence around Daugavpils' town hall.
The Latvian army has now been sent to restore order Riga says the separatists are in control of some 20km of the border with Russia.
Speaking to journalists earlier today, Latvia's Interior Minister Erik Jurdz left no doubt as to who they believe is arming and aiding the separatists.
Our intelligence services have detected large numbers of Russians crossing the border illegally into Latvia with armaments.
The evidence for Russian involvement in this is minimal at the moment.
We have Latvian intelligence, who are neither very competent nor very impartial, telling us that there's infiltration taking place across the border.
The only thing we know is happening is a major breakdown of civil order in Latvia, and to start sending off troops and all of that in response to that is massively disproportionate.
If one looks at the continuum from Ukraine, Estonia, now Latvia-- it's reminiscent, isn't it, slightly of the late '30s? People like this, you have to be quick and confront them quickly, and I believe there is a case for that.
Let's have an attack on Russia which is not attributable to us, which would be a cyber attack.
This would be my method of sending a message to Russia which would be seriously financially damaging, for example.
GCHQ can do completely unattributable attacks to take things down, so, I mean, there are options that one can play with there.
We've spent the last 50 years telling Russia we're a defensive alliance, so now we're going to launch a massive attack on them.
Nobody's talked about attacking Russia, we're talking about putting forces into Latvia A cyber attack, a cyber attack.
OK, I'm expecting the National Security Advisor to come through to us, Laurel Feinstein.
Laurel, what's going on at your end on this? 'The President's pushing to deploy the Very High Readiness Task Force.
'He feels that even though there's not a lot of evidence 'of hardware going in, 'we need to be there to dissuade the Russians, 'we need to reinforce the borders, we need to contain this.
' How near to hot war does this take us? 'At the moment, we're talking about giving weapons and support 'to the Latvians.
Nato troops would be there 'in a purely defensive role, excluding the Latvians of course.
' OK, that's very helpful.
I guess we're going to have a few more conversations like this.
I would worry about the implications of encouraging Latvia to invoke Article 5 and then nothing following from that.
I wonder what the Russians would read into that.
I think they're just as likely to read into that - that Nato is divided and can't react.
- Exactly.
The foundation of Nato, Article 5, that strength of collective defence is something that is going to allow Nato to hold up that strong stop sign and that is the way to prevent war rather than weakness, which is the way to almost certainly stumble into war.
Right.
I don't think I can honestly say there is a consensus view on all these points around this table.
We're going to have to have a vote.
It is on whether or not we would support the American position to deploy the joint task force in a defensive role in Latvia.
So let's go clockwise.
You've got four on that side of the table.
This side of the table? Provided it is then put to parliament.
Five who are in favour of the proposition and one, two, three against.
I'm not sure what you're going to say.
No, I'm against here and now.
The transmission of our decision to support the American position would be made at the North Atlantic Council.
Nato's North Atlantic Council has voted to deploy the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force to Latvia.
Britain contributes over 1,000 personnel to the task force.
Over the next months, we're going to be deploying British service personnel to provide advice and a range of training, from tactical intelligence Meanwhile, Russia has announced what it calls "routine military exercises" close to the Latvian border.
Troops massing along that border, under the guise of military exercises.
What we need right now to deescalate the situation would be for Russia to move back those troops.
The Latvian Army began its ill-fated operation to retake Daugavpils International Airport just before dawn.
They met stiff resistance from the pro-Russian separatists, who a Latvian officer told me clearly included well-trained, professional soldiers.
in the last few minutes.
We're just hearing that four British soldiers have been captured by Pro-Russian militia in the town of Vandani.
We understand the four men were apparently helping the Latvian Army with mentoring and intelligence.
We were told we were going in to Latvia in a peacekeeping role, but when we got here, our orders were to fight alongside the Latvian army.
And we were doing that even though Nato has denied killing Russian people in Latvia.
I'm really sorry British soldiers are being ordered to do things that could hurt Russian people in Latvia.
I think it's wrong and I hope the British Government will stop that.
The choice confronting us today is whether we mount a rescue attempt of our four boys held prisoner by pro-Russian militia or we leave them where they are.
Have we spoken to the UN Secretary General? He's not going to be able to rescue them.
Have we spoken to him? Have we internationalised the situation? I can't think of anything worse than internationalising the situation.
I mean Nato requires in Article 5 that you internationalise by in conformance with the UN Charter.
Well, we are now operating under Article 5.
It seems to me extraordinary not to use the Good Offices of the UN Secretary General in a hostage situation.
I have never known a Good Office of the UN Secretary General ever work.
Actually, I'd quite like to have the general speak.
Can we do this thing? If we decided here round this table to send in an extraction force as opposed to Ban Ki Moon, as Kishwer is suggesting.
Erm Could we do it? I think we would clearly want to look at the situation, understand the position.
But the question you ask is "Could it be done?" Yes, it could be done.
Come on, then, what's the record of success, do you think? Would you like, would you like to give us odds? High.
I High-- certainly the ones I was involved in were all successful.
We've got a lot of assets there.
There will be a lot Because of the force that's gone in there, there will be a lot of intelligence assets working.
We'll have a very good picture of what's going on, and therefore I'm sure they can come up with a plan and action it, and if it is really only locals doing it, then it should absolutely succeed.
The Russians, I believe, are involved.
It would be very interesting to see if they would do anything in terms of trying to counter that sort of thing, which would expose their hand.
I agree.
I think the question for us is whether we take the Russians at face value that, "It's not them, guv", and therefore they of course will welcome our boys being brought out.
And do we tell them 30 seconds before we do it, that we're doing it, in order to avoid an escalation that we don't want, so we can contain this as a military action.
We should not share that information or that plan with the Russians, in my opinion, because they may tip people off on the ground.
If the Russians know this thing is happening and we don't tell them, but they can see that it's happening, will they just let it happen? My instinct is that they would let it happen, because they don't want They're under instructions to be invisible, so I'm entirely with Alan and the others-- we get our boys out.
Four British soldiers captured by separatists in Eastern Latvia have been rescued.
The MOD said the operation was a "complete success", and the four men are understood to be on their way Good afternoon.
A Russian fighter jet has crashed a few hundred yards from the Latvian border, just inside Russia.
President Putin called the incident "a grave provocation" and demanded an explanation from Nato.
A Nato spokesman insisted they had not shot down the jet, suggesting it may have in fact crashed due to pilot error The helicopter was shot down as it transported troops to a military base.
The Latvian Army has confirmed that 15 of its soldiers were killed.
Nato sources have told me that they believe the helicopter was shot down with a surface-to-air missile fired from inside Russia.
'They're adamant that it's an S400 missile 'that took out the helicopter, and it was fired from Russian soil.
'Does that tally with your intelligence?' Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
But what does the rest of the council think about this? 'Well, I think we can expect the Americans 'to take a very hard line of this.
'Poland of course and the other Balts are keen.
'Germany is getting wobblier.
'Now there's very grave concern here that if the airstrike is to happen, 'and it is to be effective, it would have to be very comprehensive 'and so we might easily find ourselves 'being tipped over into a hot war.
'What's the UK position?' Well, David, that is precisely what we've got to talk about here.
I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Thank you.
Well a simple question, but full of complicated ramifications.
Are we going to respond to the shooting down of the Latvian Nato helicopter by hitting this battery on Russian soil, yes or no? James? Yes.
Would you like to start the ball rolling on this? It's quite simple-- yes.
They have shot down a Nato helicopter.
I think that if we fail to respond, we will be allowing Russia to push forward in a way that leads to no end to aggression, and I think that's a bad thing.
First of all, I agree that we need to respond.
Second point, yes, a response is proportionate-- ie, we don't nuke Moscow.
But, thirdly, if such a thing exists, I would far rather find a target in Latvia than in Russia.
But if it's not possible, it's not possible.
You do something in Russia.
I think the S400 might well have moved by now, and I think, therefore, what we probably have to do-- and this is a bit soft for me cos I normally like hitting people who hit me-- is make absolutely clear to the Russians through back channels and any channel, through official channels, that we know that this was fired from an S400 site, that we are now giving rules of engagement that will allow immediate reengagement-- anything that is fired into the air over Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania with an immediate response, even though it is in Russian territory.
The S400 is part of an exceptionally sophisticated, integrated air defence system.
You are not in the business of just singling out a particular battery and deciding, "We're going to take that.
" Actually, in order to do that, you probably have to take down the whole integrated air defence system.
So this is a big operation.
Then, on top of that, what you're doing is attacking Russian sovereign territory, and the Russians could well say, "You're attacking the motherland.
"We will use whatever we want to respond", and they would quite easily, quite happily, use one of their Iskander missiles, one of their many Iskander missiles, based up there in Kaliningrad.
- Furthermore, if you then look - Iskander, what is that? Iskander is a nuclear It's a nuclear missile with a range of about 400km-- so Warsaw, Berlin, Stockholm are all within range.
He's absolutely right about the IADS.
To actually fly aircraft over Russia, you have to take out the IADS, but taking out the IADS system is a major act of war.
The remit of this committee is to take a decision today on whether or not we should retaliate by hitting the battery on Russian soil, yes or no? No, not on Russian soil.
There is no consensus for that around this table, therefore we can't recommend that this happens.
Agree.
What we can do is send them a very clear warning that the next time there's the slightest hint of this happening, they would get a missile down their throats and to make it plain to them that we know that it was they who were responsible.
The people of Daugavpils in Eastern Latvia woke up to a column of 300 Russian trucks this morning.
President Putin says the column is a humanitarian mission This is an invasion of Latvian soil by the Russian army, with the purpose of resupplying the Russian saboteurs already operating in Latgale.
And if they do not leave, then the Latvian Army will begin operations against them.
The fiercely pro-Moscow mayor of Daugavpils, Dimitri Vorslav, greeted the Russian soldiers on the convoy as heroes.
There's been no independent verification of the contents of the 300 trucks in the column, but Riga claims the vehicles have brought arms and ammunition We've got the President of Russia's National Security Advisor coming through.
Grigori Ivanovich, we have an elite front line unit, one of the divisions of the Guards Air Assault riding on the convoy with heavy equipment, which can only be regarded as military.
'Well, they are generators.
'They are food supplies and baby formula and medical supplies.
'It is a peaceful, humanitarian mission.
'In fact, we hope for a possible solution to this crisis.
'President Putin believes he can use his influence 'to achieve a ceasefire.
'He has sent a proposal to Riga 'and we believe this could be basis for talks.
' Well, we will take a look at this peace proposal.
The main components are as follows-- number one, all foreign powers should withdraw from Latvian territory.
Second, the United Nations will take control of humanitarian and peace-keeping operations in the Latgale region.
Three, all sides should respect the rights of Latgalian people to carry out free and fair referendum on greater autonomy from Riga.
Lastly, Nato should recommit to not stationing any permanent troops in Latvia or other former Soviet republics.
Tony, give us an expert's view of the worth of this proposal.
Snap Snap judgment.
Snap judgment, it seems to be the basis for a discussion.
Referendum on the autonomy is going to be the hard part, of course, because that's finally a judgment for the Latvian government.
Erm, but if that is the way of preventing a major war in Europe, it may be worth doing, and the fourth point, we're simply being asked to recommit to something that we've committed ourselves to already.
No, we're not.
This is absolute rubbish.
This actually is what Putin's overall aim has been.
The next step is, does he do the same with Poland? You know, does he I mean, this is part of Nato territory, I mean, it would be unbelievable for us to agree to those things, absolutely unbelievable, and completely let him feel he's done exactly what he wanted to do.
This is his aim.
- We've got Washington coming through.
- Hi, everybody.
There's too many soldiers on the ground for this to be what they say it is, and the President feels we've reached the moment of truth in terms of force as a response to this.
We'd like to set a 72-hour deadline for the removal of all Russian personnel from Latvia.
Latvia needs to be restored to full territorial integrity.
Thank you very much for enlightening us on that.
We'll be talking to you again soon, Laurel.
All right, we'll talk to you soon.
Do we, as Laurel was suggesting, do what the Americans are demanding, which is for Nato to set an ultimatum for the withdrawal of these trucks and if the Russians fail to do it be prepared to resort to force? In other words, if I can put it in a crude tabloid-y way, are we ready to die for Daugavpils? I think we absolutely need to give an ultimatum and we need to ensure that Nato's got the right sort of forces in place to be able to take military action.
We also need to bear in mind, and I know this is a horrifying thought, but part of Russian doctrine is that if they do get involved in major fighting the use of tactical nuclear weapons, for example, is just a part of that, they don't see that as anything strange, and therefore I think we need to think very carefully of what is the readiness, and what level of readiness Nato has for its, er its nuclear forces.
General, say the ultimatum is 72 hours from midday today.
What can we do when the ultimatum expires if the Russians haven't withdrawn? Nato could take military action, erm, but it's going to need to be overwhelmingly strong in order to snuff out any potential, er, reaction quickly.
It's got to take account of the public-information perspective of being seen to support Latvians, erm, in dealing with supposedly humanitarians, but are they humanitarians? But if, as we think, they are members of the 76th Air Assault Division, well, there's only one way to do it, which is to be robust, to overmatch, and that means significant deployment of forces.
So you think the joint task force with the Latvian Army is up to attacking the Guards Air Assault the members of the Guards Air Assault Division, and actually overwhelming them? An operation like this is not the sort of thing that you put a potentially flaky multinational force in to do.
I would like to see a single unified force, possibly from the Americans, coming in to just put a fire blanket over this and snuff it out completely.
That's quite worrying, what you've just said to us, because it suggests that the joint task force, Nato, within 72 hours could not carry out this threat.
Latvia, if I remember correctly Latvia's got about roughly two million, just under two million people.
Right? So we're seriously talking here about unleashing World War Three for half a dozen boroughs of a metropolitan city.
I mean, it seems to me quite extraordinary that we're doing that at the time when we have a potential peace proposal on the table - It destroys Nato.
- We've been offered That peace proposal destroys the whole concept of Nato.
Absolutely, it destroys the whole concept of Nato.
Let me say to you that just over 100 years ago there was a view that an alliance, and alliances were more important than security of the citizens of this continent.
Let's not use alliances as straightjackets.
I do think that we need to preserve some multinationality.
Because I do not think that the optics of the Americans rescuing the Europeans and the Europeans not taking part is good at all.
I agree entirely with that.
We had conniptions about the first humanitarian Russian convoy into Ukraine.
We were wrong, it was a humanitarian convoy.
There was all sorts of elaborate talk of Russian plots and so on and it was a humanitarian convoy.
I do not want to go into World War Three while shooting down a humanitarian convoy.
That puts us in the wrong in every single way, in terms of UK popular opinion, in terms of world opinion.
- It would be a disaster.
- These trucks are completely irrelevant.
They've tabled a peace deal, OK? We need to respond to that formally, and our response to that should be completely to reject it, but we do need a deadline.
It should be a deadline linked to our own military plans, and the Russian spokesman said President Putin thought he could get a ceasefire.
That's what President Putin needs to help deliver.
I would like to put to the committee, the simple question around which you have to say yes or no is, subject to parliamentary approval, would you agree to the American proposal for a 72-hour ultimatum for the withdrawal of Russian forces, which, if they don't do that, would be met by the use of force by us.
Yes.
- I want a vote now, please.
- Yes.
Who is in favour? That's four five.
- No.
- Five.
- Wrong tactics.
- It would be madness.
- I'm a I'm a no.
- Wrong tactics.
- You're a no.
- We have five yeses, we have four noes.
- I think we've got it, then.
- The motion is supported.
In the past hour, MPs have voted in favour of the UK using military force, if required, to restore Latvia's territorial integrity and fulfil Britain's obligations under Article 5.
There's been a tense stand-off in the Baltic Sea today, with Nato's naval group pushing east and coming within two miles of the Russian Baltic Fleet.
Our defence correspondent, Jonathan Beale, sent this report from on board HMS Ocean.
It's the proof that Britain's stepping up the offensive.
Four Apache helicopters ready to launch from a warship.
President Putin says tactical nuclear weapons have now been deployed to Kaliningrad.
Announcing the move, he warned that Moscow was ready to repel any aggression against Russian soil and Russian peoples.
There's a lot of rhetoric coming out of Moscow from Putin himself about Russia's nuclear forces.
The question is, how should we respond to this kind of nuclear posturing? General.
Well, the answer to how do we respond to nuclear posturing is through deterrence, through raising the bar so high that Putin realises that it's simply not worth his while to try to cross that bar.
Erm, and that means conventional capability as well as nuclear capability, and deterrence is all about capability, it's about credibility and it's about communicating that capability.
Can we deploy another submarine, nuclear submarine? If In a kind of visible way which we could tell the Russians They would know if we deployed another submarine.
The other factor is that the Moscow criteria of destroying Moscow, all of their command, all of their, er, government and everything, is probably not quite met by one boat.
If we deployed a second boat, that has a message in itself.
Having one boat is capable of just firing one missile and using it in a sense tactically.
- I mean, dangerous stuff, but - Here's a rather elementary question.
Are the missiles targeted at Russia now? We have set an example in the world by not targeting our missiles and they are at prolonged notice for fire, but at the moment So they aren't targeted.
How long does it take to As we speak they're not targeted.
It can be done very quickly.
Kishwer.
The idea that we've given them this very, very tight deadline and asked them to come up with a humiliating climb-down on the back of this deadline, I really wonder whether now we're talking nuclear weapons.
I really wonder whether we know what we're doing.
I don't like it one bit.
I think somehow we've got to find some face-saving measure to extend the deadline.
The deadline was dumb not to say disastrous.
We now need to find a way of backing away from it, launch a peace proposal, whatever you publicly, and get some talks going.
I'm worried about that because I think the signal that that sends to Putin is that he has in effect unilateral nuclear deterrence.
You'd rather have a nuclear exchange? But the purpose of showing that we are ready for such an exchange is precisely to deter it, whereas if you make clear that what you're trying to do is to back away Ian, you are edging us further and further towards Armageddon.
Putin is edging us further and further towards Armageddon.
- We have choices.
We have choices.
- And so does he.
We need to exercise those choices, and the choices that you're recommending to us just are Armageddon.
I do believe that the 72-hour deadline must be kept and I think we can also say through back channels, "Look, this is all getting very dangerous now.
"We are actually correcting things in Latvia, "let's not let this become anything We're not attacking Russia" You know So, specifically and operationally, how do we respond? We bring our forces to, erm, 15-minute readiness to fire, which is what it was in the Cold War And do we tell him we're we're targeting him? And I think probably, and this is why I wanted a debate I think we should tell him.
I think we are agreed that there should be an intensive diplomatic effort to try and bring this thing down from the potential nuclear clouds but at the same time we should respond to his nuclear blackmail and signal some key things to him, such as the targeting, so that he knows that if he's going to do this, we're serious.
Nato's North Atlantic Council has been meeting in closed session for six hours, debating their next steps, now that the deadline for Russian withdrawal from Latvia has passed.
Speaking in Brussels, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said she believed a negotiated settlement was still possible and that she would push for the deadline to be extended.
- Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
- Good morning.
For rather obvious reasons Admiral West cannot be with us this morning.
The German Chancellor is not ready to start an offensive operation.
And our clear priority has to be in seeking a ceasefire and not to escalating this into a Third World War.
It's not just the Germans, Christopher.
I'm afraid I have no good news for you.
The Belgians, the Danes, the Spanish, the Greeks, the Italians, they're all pushing for an extension to the deadline and increased diplomatic pressure.
Let me tell you, if President Putin wanted to test Nato and see it fail, I think he's been doing a pretty good job.
The Joint Chiefs still feel that retaking Daugavpils and the surrounding area would be a relatively short campaign, but only if we move right away.
So right now we are talking about a coalition of the willing.
So we're looking at the fragmentation of Nato over this.
If we do this thing we'll be in the company not only of the United States but of France, the three Baltic states and Poland.
- Is this a workable coalition? - Very.
- Can this be done? - Very workable.
Very workable? I would be in favour of joining an American-led coalition of the willing.
I think that joining that coalition gives us rights of consultation and of diplomacy.
In other words, that this is not something where we are the passive recipients of orders from elsewhere.
We should take Chancellor Merkel's idea that the deadline can be extended.
She has already made it clear that she's unwilling for any military force to be used even inside Latvia, which is a fundamental mistake.
It may have been understandable in the context of Ukraine, it is not understandable in the context of a Nato member state.
There is only one Western politician whom Putin listens to.
That's true.
Give Merkel the right brief, she has a tremendous incentive to try and sort out a diplomatic deal.
But she has no leverage, because she's rejected the leverage.
No, no, no, but she does this on behalf of the West.
The point is, back to the two tracks, yes, we go with the coalition of the willing but the condition is that there is time - She had leverage in Ukraine.
- If I may, if I may.
There is time for Merkel actually to try and sort out another way out.
Putin is a good Leninist, or at least he was before he became an even better capitalist.
Erm, he knows that if you thrust in the bayonet and you meet nothing but mush you keep pushing, and what I think he would take from a discussion like this is that there's still plenty of mush in the West.
We can demonstrate that that ultimatum meant something by now starting to ramp up militarily.
It doesn't mean we have to actually get out our guns and point them and start shooting.
We can build up, as we are doing all these other things that we've talked about at the moment.
The longer you leave it, the more difficult this nut is going to be to crack.
We've got enough in Latvia from potentially Americans, British, French, other Baltic states, ie, members of the coalition of the willing.
Which And if you've got that, actually, you could probably do something like this pretty quickly.
We'll have a vote now.
Who agrees with the proposition that we join the American-led coalition? Well, this is plus all the diplomacy before it actually - I have already set out the package.
- OK, on those terms, yes What's the point of diplomacy if you'd already agreed a position in advance? It's what is known in the trade as a twin-track position.
This is not twin-track, it's pre-emption.
By a majority of one, two, three, four, five By a majority of seven to one, we are agreed to join the American-led coalition, and your objection will be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
British and American soldiers launched an offensive overnight to retake the city of Daugavpils.
Several thousand troops are believed to have been involved in the operation, which began in the early hours of the morning.
Just after midnight, the US began a massive helicopter deployment in these fields behind me.
Several thousand Marines then advanced on Daugavpils Coalition forces are in control of central Daugavpils.
Pro-Russian separatists are believed to have taken heavy casualties.
On the road to Vandani this morning I saw the bodies of two British infantrymen lying where they fell when their patrol was ambushed last night.
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that four soldiers were killed and another two injured in the attack We're getting reports of a possible nuclear explosion in the Baltic Sea.
Eyewitnesses described a blinding white light.
The Iskander nuclear warhead appears to have been detonated nearly a kilometre in the air above HMS Ocean and USS America.
Both ships would have been devastated immediately by the fireball from the blast.
Over 800 Royal Marines and nearly 400 crew are believed to have been killed.
This was an unintended strike.
The commander exceeded his authority and will be dealt with.
President Putin would like to convey to the UK that Russia does not want a nuclear war.
All tactical and strategic weapons have been taken off the highest state of readiness.
He deeply regrets the loss of life on boats of the naval group.
Grigori, thank you for passing us that message, thank you for your condolences.
This is something we will need to discuss.
Clearly this is a very grave situation.
There's been significant, massive loss of American and British lives.
And the world teeters on the edge of nuclear war here.
The question here is whether we take this apology seriously.
I think the message is, "Please don't retaliate.
" Erm So I think that they are trying to stop us doing that.
I think my Do you think it's a mistake? I'm not sure I'm really interested in that.
I don't rule it out, but I do think the fact that they're making they've decided to play it like this, which is in itself pretty humiliating, erm, tells me something about their desire not to see, you know, the world go up.
Taking them to a lower stage of readiness.
Yes.
I think we need some verification of that.
Erm I would be inclined to say that we should continue our operations on the ground, and I think that that's the important thing to do, and I think I'm rather attracted by the idea that for the moment we actually keep our political and diplomatic powder dry and get on with our operation.
Our objective is to get the Russians out of Latvia.
You're going to have the Sun and the Daily Mail saying, "We have let him get away with the murder of "1,200 British servicemen, why aren't we doing something about it?" And what are we going to say? So how do you deal with that? This is why the threat, a public threat of a retaliation if anything else happens, it's one of the reasons why it's important.
There's going to be a lot of people out there thinking the world could end tonight or tomorrow.
No, I think that's dangerous.
That we say to them that we've notched up our alerts and that if anything more happens we will engage in a retalia retaliatory strike.
They've said they made a mistake.
It's the miscalculation we've been talking about for weeks in this room.
I certainly don't think we need to be saying now that "If you ever do this again we're standing by right ready to respond.
" Well, how many more rogue commanders has he got? Hold on.
Kishwer, hold on.
- Laurel, hi, how are you? - Yeah, hi.
I need to tell you that after much thought the President has come down on the side of a like-for-like, er, limited nuclear strike on a purely military target.
And we're wondering what you feel about that.
I need to go back to the group and discuss this.
OK.
- Thank you very much.
- Thank you.
I think we should do everything we can to discourage - the Americans from a like-to-like - Yes.
Is that the view of all? This gives us the opportunity to say to the Russians, "If you mean this, march out of Latvia now.
"Drop your flags and you raise the white flag and get out of Latvia.
" Well, I think we shouldn't go that far That doesn't give them a chance to climb down.
Well, verify nuclear weapons, UN inspectors to look at all your nuclear weapons sites, and meanwhile we want an unconditional guarantee that you will not threaten your neighbours' territorial integrity.
I think we have to threaten a retaliation if this happens again.
If we approach this as a situation in which President Putin has to be humiliated and people have to start waving white flags, I think we will not get out we will just end up killing ourselves and killing each other.
- We have to give them a way out.
- Pauline, you agree with this? Are you in the like-for-like camp? I'm very uneasy about it, I must admit.
However, I think that, erm, our threat to take action, you know, does have to have some credibility about it, so we do need to be prepared to strike.
But I must say, I would in this instance argue with the Americans a bit first.
Well, I think it would be grossly impertinent of us, they having lost a ship themselves, to tell the Americans not to do what they appear to be Well, we, too, have lost a ship.
We have lost a ship but we can make our decision but I think the United States is entitled to make their decision.
But I would agree with what the General says, that the proof of what the Russians are saying is to be seen in whether they now withdraw from Latvia.
If they do not it's clearly more Maskirovka, and then I think all bets are off and I think we really should be ready for an imminent nuclear strike.
I thought, a couple of sessions ago, when we agreed that we would when the rest of you agreed to support the Americans, I thought the tone of the meeting was that we have to be equal partners.
We have to actually be there being listened to rather than just being their poodles.
Yet now we're being told that we're being impertinent.
I think the British public would be quite shocked at the idea that we might be impertinent in asking the Americans to hold back.
I don't think we should get personal with We must recognise that the Americans may choose to take their own decision.
Precisely.
Well, I think it is perfectly possible for the Russians to continue to fight in Latvia while sincerely regretting the fact that a nuclear weapon has been launched.
Possibly, but they have to do something to make amends.
Yes.
I mean, for Putin actually to apologise, that's not something that he needs to do if he's using a nuclear weapon deliberately, and therefore I think it would be a big mistake for the Americans to launch a like-for-like strike, because actually that would then tend to feed the logic of escalation again.
It wipes out It wipes out the fact that he's gone beyond the rules, if you see what I mean, if we do retaliate straightaway, I think.
It doesn't matter if Putin is lying.
It doesn't matter at all.
No, I'm not interested in that.
What matters is how we proceed from this situation in the way that best protects the British people and British interests.
In a sense I'm with Tony here, that it's what we can now to avoid the worst possible case of mutually assured destruction, but on the other hand to demonstrate strength, which is why I come back to unconditional surrender in Latvia.
You can't have that.
Why? Unconditional surrender is is We can't use that kind of phraseology, - the entire room is against that.
- All right Whatever.
Let's get the Russians to march out of Latvia and be under no illusions that the threat of We will press the button if there's any sort of hint of a repeat.
Right.
So I would now conclude that the sense of this meeting is that we are not with the Americans on like-for-like response, that we continue with our ground offensive in Latvia to get Russian troops out, that we say to the Russians, "Be in no doubt at all, if this happens again we will retaliate massively.
" The Americans have decided not to take our advice and have used a tactical nuclear weapon to take out a target in Russia.
Russian nuclear ICBMs are being readied for launch.
If they launch, we will have just a few minutes to make a decision.
Assuming that one or more of these missiles is targeted at London.
And that decision will be, do we fire back? Or, more precisely, what are the instructions that we give to our Trident commanders? General.
Well, the military advice can only be that er to ready the Tridents, to to reduce the notice to move, and to implement targeting procedures should the order, should the political order be to fire.
I think we should publicly reiterate that our weapons are ready - for use and that they are targeted.
- Yeah.
I'm going to go round the room one by one on this, that if we get confirmation that they are launched and are targeted at London, do we say fire or do we say don't fire? I say don't fire.
I would say fire.
Well, the targeting that the UK chooses is military installations, it does not choose populations.
I say fire.
No.
No, absolutely not.
The whole point of having continuous at-sea deterrence is that we're not vulnerable.
We've got a guaranteed second-strike capability.
But if first strike is heading towards centres of population in the UK And a decision to fire missiles from Trident submarines in the Atlantic, whether it's before or after, is not going to save those population centres.
My answer to that question is no.
No.
Right.
James.
My answer to "do we retaliate" is yes.
Given the whole concept of deterrence, nuclear deterrence, is founded on the fear of retaliation, I think we certainly have to give all the signals that we would retaliate.
- You're dodging the question, actually.
- I am.
I am.
- Can you give - Because it's too horrible to contemplate.
- Is it too difficult - And for weeks I've tried to say - this is where we would end up, so I am - I need your answer.
- I think deterrence - I need to I need to press you.
OK, deterrence is based on a realistic pledge to retaliate.
And so you would retaliate? I leave it at that.
On the assumption that that deterrence has failed, on the assumption that millions of Brits are about to die, the choice that faces the British government is, do we pointlessly kill millions of Russians, our weapons having failed, or not? And the answer In my mind, that's a no-brainer-- you don't.
Pauline has confirmed that our missiles are not aimed at population centres.
They're aimed at military targets.
I'm happy to take out a few tens of thousands of Russians but if we're talking about a massive Trident response, for no reason, given that we've failed to deter, then you don't do it.
I'm not sure I can decide to use it without knowing that - It's actually landed - It's actually landed.
Can we have a yes or a no? Not until it landed.
Who is in favour of giving instructions to our Trident commanders to fire, if launch is confirmed? Who would vote yes to instruct the Trident to fire? Three in favour.
Who is in favour of not instructing the commanders to fire? Then the noes have it.
March 12th, 1999, as the day the people of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, we welcome them into the ranks of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
The Russian military machine pouring across Russia's southern border into Georgia's rebellious enclave of South Ossetia.
Ukrainian government forces say many Russian troops have been deployed in the east of the country, allowing separatists to make further advances.
Ukraine is bleeding right now, Ukraine is weeping, and Europe is completely oblivious to this tragedy.
Vladimir Putin completed his lightning and largely bloodless annexation with the stroke of a pen.
I think that it's a very straightforward political comment, that basically sees Russia as a coming adversary of Nato, or an adversary that has returned from the cold.
As Nato allies, we have Article 5 duties to our collective defence.
in a newspaper interview that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are at risk, and Nato must be ready to repel Russian aggression.
I've come here first and foremost to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to the security of Estonia.
That is a commitment that is unbreakable.
It is unwavering.
It is eternal.
Estonia will never stand alone.
February 3rd, 2016 Good morning, everybody.
Good morning, Chairman.
So it's Estonia, as you may imagine.
This is where I think we are this morning.
The situation in the Baltic States has deteriorated.
There has been heavy rioting in the Estonian capital Tallinn overnight, after scuffles broke out at the site of the former Soviet war memorial.
They say it was a peaceful act of remembrance of Russians who died fighting the Nazis.
Eye witnesses describe them as being attacked by masked men with Estonian flags.
Six of the man charged with inciting violence are Russian citizens.
Russians make up almost a quarter of the population of Estonia, and many of them have rallied round to condemn what they see as discrimination and brutality by the Estonian police.
The Estonian interior minister today issued a statement openly accusing the Kremlin of orchestrating this violence.
President Putin has condemned Estonia's treatment of ethnic Russians as disgraceful and has demanded nervousness in Nato that Putin could look to exploit the ethnic Russian population to stir up more violence.
Protests about the six Russian men arrested in Tallinn have now spread to the neighbouring country of Latvia.
The province has a large population of ethnic Russians, and is one of the poorest areas of the European Union.
If you come from Latgale or if you are Russian, you are a nobody.
You are a second class citizen, you know? I've lived here for my whole life, but I don't have a right to vote.
I don't have a passport.
We have to change that.
Ro-ssi-ya! Ro-ssi-ya! Ro-ssi-ya! The city's mayor Dimitri Vorslav has appealed for calm and promised he will listen to calls for a referendum Such a referendum would be illegal and illegitimate.
We believe Mr Vorslav is in the pay of the Kremlin.
We will not accept interference in our state like this, and will take necessary steps to restore law and order in Daugavpils.
I've just heard that we're going to have our Kremlin representative to Nato and Brussels coming over on the video conference.
David.
'However you read it, it's clear that this situation 'is more serious than recent events in Estonia.
' What evidence have they brought to the council, informally or formally, on this? 'Well, they're talking a lot about what's going on at the border.
'They're saying now the militia has control of a sizeable stretch of it 'and that there are men and weapons pouring in unchecked from Russia.
' Have you been able to take any soundings of other Nato representatives? 'Yes, I think the Eastern states would be supportive if there was 'an indication of Article 5, I'm not sure about the Germans.
'I think if they were to push back, 'then a number of other countries would tuck in behind, Spain, Italy.
'I just can't read the French position at the moment.
' OK, David, thanks very much.
We will no doubt be calling on your wisdom and information - 'We'll talk again.
Thank you.
' - in due course.
Thank you.
The big question is, is this an Article 5 situation, and what should we do about it? General? Article 5 is about responding to an armed attack.
By the sounds of things, this is very firmly and armed attack.
This is going to be, as we saw with Crimea, undermining the integrity of the state from within, manipulation of minorities, propaganda, potential use of special forces, border incursions, so I think what Nato would be wanting to do here is to get certainty, clarity of the situation.
So surveillance, reinforce the Baltic air policing commitment, with additional aircraft.
I think Nato would almost certainly want to put a maritime presence into the Baltic, and I think, also, Nato would be looking to start to move elements of a Very High Readiness Joint Task Force into Latvia.
Kishwer? I think any assistance we can give them in terms of intel, but in terms of moving troops into the country, the Russians would interpret that as escalatory, but I also think it's extremely dangerous.
Miscalculation can happen.
The Russians might misunderstand that you're just moving them in as a show of solidarity.
They may not see it that way.
Let me press you on this, Kishwer.
We cannot be, surely, too sensitive about Putin's sensitivities.
So we're going to sleepwalk into, potentially, a war with Russia because we mustn't be too sensitive about their capabilities? - I'm wide awake, I don't know about you.
- That's extraordinary.
- I don't think this is sleepwalking.
- I think the first thing is to move some troops into the country, not necessarily engage.
But I think have a presence of a kind that acts as a warning to the Russians.
This is a test of solidarity of the alliance.
We have seen exactly what he did in the Ukraine in his hybrid form of warfare.
We have warned him quite openly not to do that with the Baltic states, and I believe we need to have some form of ground forces, Nato ground forces, not to do that straightaway I think would be a terrible mistake.
Chairman, if I may, cos I think we're getting way, way ahead of ourselves here.
Just reflect a moment on the position you put Putin in if you start upping the military ante.
The one thing that keeps you in power in Russia is a reputation for strength.
If he finds himself confronted by a Nato challenge of that sort and backs down, he then loses domestically, politically.
So warn them, signal all sorts of things, but moving troops seems to me to be a step too far.
We are not starting from cold.
We'll already have deployed troops there on exercise to warn the Russians post-Ukraine, they've come back out again.
If it was starting from cold, I agree This isn't Crimea, this is not Ukraine.
I would agree entirely if we were starting from cold, but we're not.
This is not Ukraine.
It's a Nato country-- Putin knows that.
I think it is not a good idea to start deploying troops as though this is going to get worse.
It's necessary to do whatever we can to deescalate this as a row.
I think that a strong statement is necessary.
At this stage in the crisis, the Russians have not admitted that they are doing anything or are directly involved.
I think that's potentially useful for us.
As soon as we turn this into a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia, we're on a very slippery slope.
There were extraordinary scenes here earlier as the mayor, having declared his intent to hold a referendum, was in effect barred from his own city hall.
The riot police were then overcome Riga says a warrant for Mr Vorslav's arrest was issued on Sunday following the announcement that they would hold a referendum on greater autonomy Pro-Russian groups have consolidated their control of government buildings in a number of towns and cities in Eastern Latvia.
A Latvian policeman has been killed and several others injured in violence around Daugavpils' town hall.
The Latvian army has now been sent to restore order Riga says the separatists are in control of some 20km of the border with Russia.
Speaking to journalists earlier today, Latvia's Interior Minister Erik Jurdz left no doubt as to who they believe is arming and aiding the separatists.
Our intelligence services have detected large numbers of Russians crossing the border illegally into Latvia with armaments.
The evidence for Russian involvement in this is minimal at the moment.
We have Latvian intelligence, who are neither very competent nor very impartial, telling us that there's infiltration taking place across the border.
The only thing we know is happening is a major breakdown of civil order in Latvia, and to start sending off troops and all of that in response to that is massively disproportionate.
If one looks at the continuum from Ukraine, Estonia, now Latvia-- it's reminiscent, isn't it, slightly of the late '30s? People like this, you have to be quick and confront them quickly, and I believe there is a case for that.
Let's have an attack on Russia which is not attributable to us, which would be a cyber attack.
This would be my method of sending a message to Russia which would be seriously financially damaging, for example.
GCHQ can do completely unattributable attacks to take things down, so, I mean, there are options that one can play with there.
We've spent the last 50 years telling Russia we're a defensive alliance, so now we're going to launch a massive attack on them.
Nobody's talked about attacking Russia, we're talking about putting forces into Latvia A cyber attack, a cyber attack.
OK, I'm expecting the National Security Advisor to come through to us, Laurel Feinstein.
Laurel, what's going on at your end on this? 'The President's pushing to deploy the Very High Readiness Task Force.
'He feels that even though there's not a lot of evidence 'of hardware going in, 'we need to be there to dissuade the Russians, 'we need to reinforce the borders, we need to contain this.
' How near to hot war does this take us? 'At the moment, we're talking about giving weapons and support 'to the Latvians.
Nato troops would be there 'in a purely defensive role, excluding the Latvians of course.
' OK, that's very helpful.
I guess we're going to have a few more conversations like this.
I would worry about the implications of encouraging Latvia to invoke Article 5 and then nothing following from that.
I wonder what the Russians would read into that.
I think they're just as likely to read into that - that Nato is divided and can't react.
- Exactly.
The foundation of Nato, Article 5, that strength of collective defence is something that is going to allow Nato to hold up that strong stop sign and that is the way to prevent war rather than weakness, which is the way to almost certainly stumble into war.
Right.
I don't think I can honestly say there is a consensus view on all these points around this table.
We're going to have to have a vote.
It is on whether or not we would support the American position to deploy the joint task force in a defensive role in Latvia.
So let's go clockwise.
You've got four on that side of the table.
This side of the table? Provided it is then put to parliament.
Five who are in favour of the proposition and one, two, three against.
I'm not sure what you're going to say.
No, I'm against here and now.
The transmission of our decision to support the American position would be made at the North Atlantic Council.
Nato's North Atlantic Council has voted to deploy the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force to Latvia.
Britain contributes over 1,000 personnel to the task force.
Over the next months, we're going to be deploying British service personnel to provide advice and a range of training, from tactical intelligence Meanwhile, Russia has announced what it calls "routine military exercises" close to the Latvian border.
Troops massing along that border, under the guise of military exercises.
What we need right now to deescalate the situation would be for Russia to move back those troops.
The Latvian Army began its ill-fated operation to retake Daugavpils International Airport just before dawn.
They met stiff resistance from the pro-Russian separatists, who a Latvian officer told me clearly included well-trained, professional soldiers.
in the last few minutes.
We're just hearing that four British soldiers have been captured by Pro-Russian militia in the town of Vandani.
We understand the four men were apparently helping the Latvian Army with mentoring and intelligence.
We were told we were going in to Latvia in a peacekeeping role, but when we got here, our orders were to fight alongside the Latvian army.
And we were doing that even though Nato has denied killing Russian people in Latvia.
I'm really sorry British soldiers are being ordered to do things that could hurt Russian people in Latvia.
I think it's wrong and I hope the British Government will stop that.
The choice confronting us today is whether we mount a rescue attempt of our four boys held prisoner by pro-Russian militia or we leave them where they are.
Have we spoken to the UN Secretary General? He's not going to be able to rescue them.
Have we spoken to him? Have we internationalised the situation? I can't think of anything worse than internationalising the situation.
I mean Nato requires in Article 5 that you internationalise by in conformance with the UN Charter.
Well, we are now operating under Article 5.
It seems to me extraordinary not to use the Good Offices of the UN Secretary General in a hostage situation.
I have never known a Good Office of the UN Secretary General ever work.
Actually, I'd quite like to have the general speak.
Can we do this thing? If we decided here round this table to send in an extraction force as opposed to Ban Ki Moon, as Kishwer is suggesting.
Erm Could we do it? I think we would clearly want to look at the situation, understand the position.
But the question you ask is "Could it be done?" Yes, it could be done.
Come on, then, what's the record of success, do you think? Would you like, would you like to give us odds? High.
I High-- certainly the ones I was involved in were all successful.
We've got a lot of assets there.
There will be a lot Because of the force that's gone in there, there will be a lot of intelligence assets working.
We'll have a very good picture of what's going on, and therefore I'm sure they can come up with a plan and action it, and if it is really only locals doing it, then it should absolutely succeed.
The Russians, I believe, are involved.
It would be very interesting to see if they would do anything in terms of trying to counter that sort of thing, which would expose their hand.
I agree.
I think the question for us is whether we take the Russians at face value that, "It's not them, guv", and therefore they of course will welcome our boys being brought out.
And do we tell them 30 seconds before we do it, that we're doing it, in order to avoid an escalation that we don't want, so we can contain this as a military action.
We should not share that information or that plan with the Russians, in my opinion, because they may tip people off on the ground.
If the Russians know this thing is happening and we don't tell them, but they can see that it's happening, will they just let it happen? My instinct is that they would let it happen, because they don't want They're under instructions to be invisible, so I'm entirely with Alan and the others-- we get our boys out.
Four British soldiers captured by separatists in Eastern Latvia have been rescued.
The MOD said the operation was a "complete success", and the four men are understood to be on their way Good afternoon.
A Russian fighter jet has crashed a few hundred yards from the Latvian border, just inside Russia.
President Putin called the incident "a grave provocation" and demanded an explanation from Nato.
A Nato spokesman insisted they had not shot down the jet, suggesting it may have in fact crashed due to pilot error The helicopter was shot down as it transported troops to a military base.
The Latvian Army has confirmed that 15 of its soldiers were killed.
Nato sources have told me that they believe the helicopter was shot down with a surface-to-air missile fired from inside Russia.
'They're adamant that it's an S400 missile 'that took out the helicopter, and it was fired from Russian soil.
'Does that tally with your intelligence?' Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
But what does the rest of the council think about this? 'Well, I think we can expect the Americans 'to take a very hard line of this.
'Poland of course and the other Balts are keen.
'Germany is getting wobblier.
'Now there's very grave concern here that if the airstrike is to happen, 'and it is to be effective, it would have to be very comprehensive 'and so we might easily find ourselves 'being tipped over into a hot war.
'What's the UK position?' Well, David, that is precisely what we've got to talk about here.
I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Thank you.
Well a simple question, but full of complicated ramifications.
Are we going to respond to the shooting down of the Latvian Nato helicopter by hitting this battery on Russian soil, yes or no? James? Yes.
Would you like to start the ball rolling on this? It's quite simple-- yes.
They have shot down a Nato helicopter.
I think that if we fail to respond, we will be allowing Russia to push forward in a way that leads to no end to aggression, and I think that's a bad thing.
First of all, I agree that we need to respond.
Second point, yes, a response is proportionate-- ie, we don't nuke Moscow.
But, thirdly, if such a thing exists, I would far rather find a target in Latvia than in Russia.
But if it's not possible, it's not possible.
You do something in Russia.
I think the S400 might well have moved by now, and I think, therefore, what we probably have to do-- and this is a bit soft for me cos I normally like hitting people who hit me-- is make absolutely clear to the Russians through back channels and any channel, through official channels, that we know that this was fired from an S400 site, that we are now giving rules of engagement that will allow immediate reengagement-- anything that is fired into the air over Latvia or Estonia or Lithuania with an immediate response, even though it is in Russian territory.
The S400 is part of an exceptionally sophisticated, integrated air defence system.
You are not in the business of just singling out a particular battery and deciding, "We're going to take that.
" Actually, in order to do that, you probably have to take down the whole integrated air defence system.
So this is a big operation.
Then, on top of that, what you're doing is attacking Russian sovereign territory, and the Russians could well say, "You're attacking the motherland.
"We will use whatever we want to respond", and they would quite easily, quite happily, use one of their Iskander missiles, one of their many Iskander missiles, based up there in Kaliningrad.
- Furthermore, if you then look - Iskander, what is that? Iskander is a nuclear It's a nuclear missile with a range of about 400km-- so Warsaw, Berlin, Stockholm are all within range.
He's absolutely right about the IADS.
To actually fly aircraft over Russia, you have to take out the IADS, but taking out the IADS system is a major act of war.
The remit of this committee is to take a decision today on whether or not we should retaliate by hitting the battery on Russian soil, yes or no? No, not on Russian soil.
There is no consensus for that around this table, therefore we can't recommend that this happens.
Agree.
What we can do is send them a very clear warning that the next time there's the slightest hint of this happening, they would get a missile down their throats and to make it plain to them that we know that it was they who were responsible.
The people of Daugavpils in Eastern Latvia woke up to a column of 300 Russian trucks this morning.
President Putin says the column is a humanitarian mission This is an invasion of Latvian soil by the Russian army, with the purpose of resupplying the Russian saboteurs already operating in Latgale.
And if they do not leave, then the Latvian Army will begin operations against them.
The fiercely pro-Moscow mayor of Daugavpils, Dimitri Vorslav, greeted the Russian soldiers on the convoy as heroes.
There's been no independent verification of the contents of the 300 trucks in the column, but Riga claims the vehicles have brought arms and ammunition We've got the President of Russia's National Security Advisor coming through.
Grigori Ivanovich, we have an elite front line unit, one of the divisions of the Guards Air Assault riding on the convoy with heavy equipment, which can only be regarded as military.
'Well, they are generators.
'They are food supplies and baby formula and medical supplies.
'It is a peaceful, humanitarian mission.
'In fact, we hope for a possible solution to this crisis.
'President Putin believes he can use his influence 'to achieve a ceasefire.
'He has sent a proposal to Riga 'and we believe this could be basis for talks.
' Well, we will take a look at this peace proposal.
The main components are as follows-- number one, all foreign powers should withdraw from Latvian territory.
Second, the United Nations will take control of humanitarian and peace-keeping operations in the Latgale region.
Three, all sides should respect the rights of Latgalian people to carry out free and fair referendum on greater autonomy from Riga.
Lastly, Nato should recommit to not stationing any permanent troops in Latvia or other former Soviet republics.
Tony, give us an expert's view of the worth of this proposal.
Snap Snap judgment.
Snap judgment, it seems to be the basis for a discussion.
Referendum on the autonomy is going to be the hard part, of course, because that's finally a judgment for the Latvian government.
Erm, but if that is the way of preventing a major war in Europe, it may be worth doing, and the fourth point, we're simply being asked to recommit to something that we've committed ourselves to already.
No, we're not.
This is absolute rubbish.
This actually is what Putin's overall aim has been.
The next step is, does he do the same with Poland? You know, does he I mean, this is part of Nato territory, I mean, it would be unbelievable for us to agree to those things, absolutely unbelievable, and completely let him feel he's done exactly what he wanted to do.
This is his aim.
- We've got Washington coming through.
- Hi, everybody.
There's too many soldiers on the ground for this to be what they say it is, and the President feels we've reached the moment of truth in terms of force as a response to this.
We'd like to set a 72-hour deadline for the removal of all Russian personnel from Latvia.
Latvia needs to be restored to full territorial integrity.
Thank you very much for enlightening us on that.
We'll be talking to you again soon, Laurel.
All right, we'll talk to you soon.
Do we, as Laurel was suggesting, do what the Americans are demanding, which is for Nato to set an ultimatum for the withdrawal of these trucks and if the Russians fail to do it be prepared to resort to force? In other words, if I can put it in a crude tabloid-y way, are we ready to die for Daugavpils? I think we absolutely need to give an ultimatum and we need to ensure that Nato's got the right sort of forces in place to be able to take military action.
We also need to bear in mind, and I know this is a horrifying thought, but part of Russian doctrine is that if they do get involved in major fighting the use of tactical nuclear weapons, for example, is just a part of that, they don't see that as anything strange, and therefore I think we need to think very carefully of what is the readiness, and what level of readiness Nato has for its, er its nuclear forces.
General, say the ultimatum is 72 hours from midday today.
What can we do when the ultimatum expires if the Russians haven't withdrawn? Nato could take military action, erm, but it's going to need to be overwhelmingly strong in order to snuff out any potential, er, reaction quickly.
It's got to take account of the public-information perspective of being seen to support Latvians, erm, in dealing with supposedly humanitarians, but are they humanitarians? But if, as we think, they are members of the 76th Air Assault Division, well, there's only one way to do it, which is to be robust, to overmatch, and that means significant deployment of forces.
So you think the joint task force with the Latvian Army is up to attacking the Guards Air Assault the members of the Guards Air Assault Division, and actually overwhelming them? An operation like this is not the sort of thing that you put a potentially flaky multinational force in to do.
I would like to see a single unified force, possibly from the Americans, coming in to just put a fire blanket over this and snuff it out completely.
That's quite worrying, what you've just said to us, because it suggests that the joint task force, Nato, within 72 hours could not carry out this threat.
Latvia, if I remember correctly Latvia's got about roughly two million, just under two million people.
Right? So we're seriously talking here about unleashing World War Three for half a dozen boroughs of a metropolitan city.
I mean, it seems to me quite extraordinary that we're doing that at the time when we have a potential peace proposal on the table - It destroys Nato.
- We've been offered That peace proposal destroys the whole concept of Nato.
Absolutely, it destroys the whole concept of Nato.
Let me say to you that just over 100 years ago there was a view that an alliance, and alliances were more important than security of the citizens of this continent.
Let's not use alliances as straightjackets.
I do think that we need to preserve some multinationality.
Because I do not think that the optics of the Americans rescuing the Europeans and the Europeans not taking part is good at all.
I agree entirely with that.
We had conniptions about the first humanitarian Russian convoy into Ukraine.
We were wrong, it was a humanitarian convoy.
There was all sorts of elaborate talk of Russian plots and so on and it was a humanitarian convoy.
I do not want to go into World War Three while shooting down a humanitarian convoy.
That puts us in the wrong in every single way, in terms of UK popular opinion, in terms of world opinion.
- It would be a disaster.
- These trucks are completely irrelevant.
They've tabled a peace deal, OK? We need to respond to that formally, and our response to that should be completely to reject it, but we do need a deadline.
It should be a deadline linked to our own military plans, and the Russian spokesman said President Putin thought he could get a ceasefire.
That's what President Putin needs to help deliver.
I would like to put to the committee, the simple question around which you have to say yes or no is, subject to parliamentary approval, would you agree to the American proposal for a 72-hour ultimatum for the withdrawal of Russian forces, which, if they don't do that, would be met by the use of force by us.
Yes.
- I want a vote now, please.
- Yes.
Who is in favour? That's four five.
- No.
- Five.
- Wrong tactics.
- It would be madness.
- I'm a I'm a no.
- Wrong tactics.
- You're a no.
- We have five yeses, we have four noes.
- I think we've got it, then.
- The motion is supported.
In the past hour, MPs have voted in favour of the UK using military force, if required, to restore Latvia's territorial integrity and fulfil Britain's obligations under Article 5.
There's been a tense stand-off in the Baltic Sea today, with Nato's naval group pushing east and coming within two miles of the Russian Baltic Fleet.
Our defence correspondent, Jonathan Beale, sent this report from on board HMS Ocean.
It's the proof that Britain's stepping up the offensive.
Four Apache helicopters ready to launch from a warship.
President Putin says tactical nuclear weapons have now been deployed to Kaliningrad.
Announcing the move, he warned that Moscow was ready to repel any aggression against Russian soil and Russian peoples.
There's a lot of rhetoric coming out of Moscow from Putin himself about Russia's nuclear forces.
The question is, how should we respond to this kind of nuclear posturing? General.
Well, the answer to how do we respond to nuclear posturing is through deterrence, through raising the bar so high that Putin realises that it's simply not worth his while to try to cross that bar.
Erm, and that means conventional capability as well as nuclear capability, and deterrence is all about capability, it's about credibility and it's about communicating that capability.
Can we deploy another submarine, nuclear submarine? If In a kind of visible way which we could tell the Russians They would know if we deployed another submarine.
The other factor is that the Moscow criteria of destroying Moscow, all of their command, all of their, er, government and everything, is probably not quite met by one boat.
If we deployed a second boat, that has a message in itself.
Having one boat is capable of just firing one missile and using it in a sense tactically.
- I mean, dangerous stuff, but - Here's a rather elementary question.
Are the missiles targeted at Russia now? We have set an example in the world by not targeting our missiles and they are at prolonged notice for fire, but at the moment So they aren't targeted.
How long does it take to As we speak they're not targeted.
It can be done very quickly.
Kishwer.
The idea that we've given them this very, very tight deadline and asked them to come up with a humiliating climb-down on the back of this deadline, I really wonder whether now we're talking nuclear weapons.
I really wonder whether we know what we're doing.
I don't like it one bit.
I think somehow we've got to find some face-saving measure to extend the deadline.
The deadline was dumb not to say disastrous.
We now need to find a way of backing away from it, launch a peace proposal, whatever you publicly, and get some talks going.
I'm worried about that because I think the signal that that sends to Putin is that he has in effect unilateral nuclear deterrence.
You'd rather have a nuclear exchange? But the purpose of showing that we are ready for such an exchange is precisely to deter it, whereas if you make clear that what you're trying to do is to back away Ian, you are edging us further and further towards Armageddon.
Putin is edging us further and further towards Armageddon.
- We have choices.
We have choices.
- And so does he.
We need to exercise those choices, and the choices that you're recommending to us just are Armageddon.
I do believe that the 72-hour deadline must be kept and I think we can also say through back channels, "Look, this is all getting very dangerous now.
"We are actually correcting things in Latvia, "let's not let this become anything We're not attacking Russia" You know So, specifically and operationally, how do we respond? We bring our forces to, erm, 15-minute readiness to fire, which is what it was in the Cold War And do we tell him we're we're targeting him? And I think probably, and this is why I wanted a debate I think we should tell him.
I think we are agreed that there should be an intensive diplomatic effort to try and bring this thing down from the potential nuclear clouds but at the same time we should respond to his nuclear blackmail and signal some key things to him, such as the targeting, so that he knows that if he's going to do this, we're serious.
Nato's North Atlantic Council has been meeting in closed session for six hours, debating their next steps, now that the deadline for Russian withdrawal from Latvia has passed.
Speaking in Brussels, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said she believed a negotiated settlement was still possible and that she would push for the deadline to be extended.
- Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
- Good morning.
For rather obvious reasons Admiral West cannot be with us this morning.
The German Chancellor is not ready to start an offensive operation.
And our clear priority has to be in seeking a ceasefire and not to escalating this into a Third World War.
It's not just the Germans, Christopher.
I'm afraid I have no good news for you.
The Belgians, the Danes, the Spanish, the Greeks, the Italians, they're all pushing for an extension to the deadline and increased diplomatic pressure.
Let me tell you, if President Putin wanted to test Nato and see it fail, I think he's been doing a pretty good job.
The Joint Chiefs still feel that retaking Daugavpils and the surrounding area would be a relatively short campaign, but only if we move right away.
So right now we are talking about a coalition of the willing.
So we're looking at the fragmentation of Nato over this.
If we do this thing we'll be in the company not only of the United States but of France, the three Baltic states and Poland.
- Is this a workable coalition? - Very.
- Can this be done? - Very workable.
Very workable? I would be in favour of joining an American-led coalition of the willing.
I think that joining that coalition gives us rights of consultation and of diplomacy.
In other words, that this is not something where we are the passive recipients of orders from elsewhere.
We should take Chancellor Merkel's idea that the deadline can be extended.
She has already made it clear that she's unwilling for any military force to be used even inside Latvia, which is a fundamental mistake.
It may have been understandable in the context of Ukraine, it is not understandable in the context of a Nato member state.
There is only one Western politician whom Putin listens to.
That's true.
Give Merkel the right brief, she has a tremendous incentive to try and sort out a diplomatic deal.
But she has no leverage, because she's rejected the leverage.
No, no, no, but she does this on behalf of the West.
The point is, back to the two tracks, yes, we go with the coalition of the willing but the condition is that there is time - She had leverage in Ukraine.
- If I may, if I may.
There is time for Merkel actually to try and sort out another way out.
Putin is a good Leninist, or at least he was before he became an even better capitalist.
Erm, he knows that if you thrust in the bayonet and you meet nothing but mush you keep pushing, and what I think he would take from a discussion like this is that there's still plenty of mush in the West.
We can demonstrate that that ultimatum meant something by now starting to ramp up militarily.
It doesn't mean we have to actually get out our guns and point them and start shooting.
We can build up, as we are doing all these other things that we've talked about at the moment.
The longer you leave it, the more difficult this nut is going to be to crack.
We've got enough in Latvia from potentially Americans, British, French, other Baltic states, ie, members of the coalition of the willing.
Which And if you've got that, actually, you could probably do something like this pretty quickly.
We'll have a vote now.
Who agrees with the proposition that we join the American-led coalition? Well, this is plus all the diplomacy before it actually - I have already set out the package.
- OK, on those terms, yes What's the point of diplomacy if you'd already agreed a position in advance? It's what is known in the trade as a twin-track position.
This is not twin-track, it's pre-emption.
By a majority of one, two, three, four, five By a majority of seven to one, we are agreed to join the American-led coalition, and your objection will be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
British and American soldiers launched an offensive overnight to retake the city of Daugavpils.
Several thousand troops are believed to have been involved in the operation, which began in the early hours of the morning.
Just after midnight, the US began a massive helicopter deployment in these fields behind me.
Several thousand Marines then advanced on Daugavpils Coalition forces are in control of central Daugavpils.
Pro-Russian separatists are believed to have taken heavy casualties.
On the road to Vandani this morning I saw the bodies of two British infantrymen lying where they fell when their patrol was ambushed last night.
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that four soldiers were killed and another two injured in the attack We're getting reports of a possible nuclear explosion in the Baltic Sea.
Eyewitnesses described a blinding white light.
The Iskander nuclear warhead appears to have been detonated nearly a kilometre in the air above HMS Ocean and USS America.
Both ships would have been devastated immediately by the fireball from the blast.
Over 800 Royal Marines and nearly 400 crew are believed to have been killed.
This was an unintended strike.
The commander exceeded his authority and will be dealt with.
President Putin would like to convey to the UK that Russia does not want a nuclear war.
All tactical and strategic weapons have been taken off the highest state of readiness.
He deeply regrets the loss of life on boats of the naval group.
Grigori, thank you for passing us that message, thank you for your condolences.
This is something we will need to discuss.
Clearly this is a very grave situation.
There's been significant, massive loss of American and British lives.
And the world teeters on the edge of nuclear war here.
The question here is whether we take this apology seriously.
I think the message is, "Please don't retaliate.
" Erm So I think that they are trying to stop us doing that.
I think my Do you think it's a mistake? I'm not sure I'm really interested in that.
I don't rule it out, but I do think the fact that they're making they've decided to play it like this, which is in itself pretty humiliating, erm, tells me something about their desire not to see, you know, the world go up.
Taking them to a lower stage of readiness.
Yes.
I think we need some verification of that.
Erm I would be inclined to say that we should continue our operations on the ground, and I think that that's the important thing to do, and I think I'm rather attracted by the idea that for the moment we actually keep our political and diplomatic powder dry and get on with our operation.
Our objective is to get the Russians out of Latvia.
You're going to have the Sun and the Daily Mail saying, "We have let him get away with the murder of "1,200 British servicemen, why aren't we doing something about it?" And what are we going to say? So how do you deal with that? This is why the threat, a public threat of a retaliation if anything else happens, it's one of the reasons why it's important.
There's going to be a lot of people out there thinking the world could end tonight or tomorrow.
No, I think that's dangerous.
That we say to them that we've notched up our alerts and that if anything more happens we will engage in a retalia retaliatory strike.
They've said they made a mistake.
It's the miscalculation we've been talking about for weeks in this room.
I certainly don't think we need to be saying now that "If you ever do this again we're standing by right ready to respond.
" Well, how many more rogue commanders has he got? Hold on.
Kishwer, hold on.
- Laurel, hi, how are you? - Yeah, hi.
I need to tell you that after much thought the President has come down on the side of a like-for-like, er, limited nuclear strike on a purely military target.
And we're wondering what you feel about that.
I need to go back to the group and discuss this.
OK.
- Thank you very much.
- Thank you.
I think we should do everything we can to discourage - the Americans from a like-to-like - Yes.
Is that the view of all? This gives us the opportunity to say to the Russians, "If you mean this, march out of Latvia now.
"Drop your flags and you raise the white flag and get out of Latvia.
" Well, I think we shouldn't go that far That doesn't give them a chance to climb down.
Well, verify nuclear weapons, UN inspectors to look at all your nuclear weapons sites, and meanwhile we want an unconditional guarantee that you will not threaten your neighbours' territorial integrity.
I think we have to threaten a retaliation if this happens again.
If we approach this as a situation in which President Putin has to be humiliated and people have to start waving white flags, I think we will not get out we will just end up killing ourselves and killing each other.
- We have to give them a way out.
- Pauline, you agree with this? Are you in the like-for-like camp? I'm very uneasy about it, I must admit.
However, I think that, erm, our threat to take action, you know, does have to have some credibility about it, so we do need to be prepared to strike.
But I must say, I would in this instance argue with the Americans a bit first.
Well, I think it would be grossly impertinent of us, they having lost a ship themselves, to tell the Americans not to do what they appear to be Well, we, too, have lost a ship.
We have lost a ship but we can make our decision but I think the United States is entitled to make their decision.
But I would agree with what the General says, that the proof of what the Russians are saying is to be seen in whether they now withdraw from Latvia.
If they do not it's clearly more Maskirovka, and then I think all bets are off and I think we really should be ready for an imminent nuclear strike.
I thought, a couple of sessions ago, when we agreed that we would when the rest of you agreed to support the Americans, I thought the tone of the meeting was that we have to be equal partners.
We have to actually be there being listened to rather than just being their poodles.
Yet now we're being told that we're being impertinent.
I think the British public would be quite shocked at the idea that we might be impertinent in asking the Americans to hold back.
I don't think we should get personal with We must recognise that the Americans may choose to take their own decision.
Precisely.
Well, I think it is perfectly possible for the Russians to continue to fight in Latvia while sincerely regretting the fact that a nuclear weapon has been launched.
Possibly, but they have to do something to make amends.
Yes.
I mean, for Putin actually to apologise, that's not something that he needs to do if he's using a nuclear weapon deliberately, and therefore I think it would be a big mistake for the Americans to launch a like-for-like strike, because actually that would then tend to feed the logic of escalation again.
It wipes out It wipes out the fact that he's gone beyond the rules, if you see what I mean, if we do retaliate straightaway, I think.
It doesn't matter if Putin is lying.
It doesn't matter at all.
No, I'm not interested in that.
What matters is how we proceed from this situation in the way that best protects the British people and British interests.
In a sense I'm with Tony here, that it's what we can now to avoid the worst possible case of mutually assured destruction, but on the other hand to demonstrate strength, which is why I come back to unconditional surrender in Latvia.
You can't have that.
Why? Unconditional surrender is is We can't use that kind of phraseology, - the entire room is against that.
- All right Whatever.
Let's get the Russians to march out of Latvia and be under no illusions that the threat of We will press the button if there's any sort of hint of a repeat.
Right.
So I would now conclude that the sense of this meeting is that we are not with the Americans on like-for-like response, that we continue with our ground offensive in Latvia to get Russian troops out, that we say to the Russians, "Be in no doubt at all, if this happens again we will retaliate massively.
" The Americans have decided not to take our advice and have used a tactical nuclear weapon to take out a target in Russia.
Russian nuclear ICBMs are being readied for launch.
If they launch, we will have just a few minutes to make a decision.
Assuming that one or more of these missiles is targeted at London.
And that decision will be, do we fire back? Or, more precisely, what are the instructions that we give to our Trident commanders? General.
Well, the military advice can only be that er to ready the Tridents, to to reduce the notice to move, and to implement targeting procedures should the order, should the political order be to fire.
I think we should publicly reiterate that our weapons are ready - for use and that they are targeted.
- Yeah.
I'm going to go round the room one by one on this, that if we get confirmation that they are launched and are targeted at London, do we say fire or do we say don't fire? I say don't fire.
I would say fire.
Well, the targeting that the UK chooses is military installations, it does not choose populations.
I say fire.
No.
No, absolutely not.
The whole point of having continuous at-sea deterrence is that we're not vulnerable.
We've got a guaranteed second-strike capability.
But if first strike is heading towards centres of population in the UK And a decision to fire missiles from Trident submarines in the Atlantic, whether it's before or after, is not going to save those population centres.
My answer to that question is no.
No.
Right.
James.
My answer to "do we retaliate" is yes.
Given the whole concept of deterrence, nuclear deterrence, is founded on the fear of retaliation, I think we certainly have to give all the signals that we would retaliate.
- You're dodging the question, actually.
- I am.
I am.
- Can you give - Because it's too horrible to contemplate.
- Is it too difficult - And for weeks I've tried to say - this is where we would end up, so I am - I need your answer.
- I think deterrence - I need to I need to press you.
OK, deterrence is based on a realistic pledge to retaliate.
And so you would retaliate? I leave it at that.
On the assumption that that deterrence has failed, on the assumption that millions of Brits are about to die, the choice that faces the British government is, do we pointlessly kill millions of Russians, our weapons having failed, or not? And the answer In my mind, that's a no-brainer-- you don't.
Pauline has confirmed that our missiles are not aimed at population centres.
They're aimed at military targets.
I'm happy to take out a few tens of thousands of Russians but if we're talking about a massive Trident response, for no reason, given that we've failed to deter, then you don't do it.
I'm not sure I can decide to use it without knowing that - It's actually landed - It's actually landed.
Can we have a yes or a no? Not until it landed.
Who is in favour of giving instructions to our Trident commanders to fire, if launch is confirmed? Who would vote yes to instruct the Trident to fire? Three in favour.
Who is in favour of not instructing the commanders to fire? Then the noes have it.