Mandy Lifeboats Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 31 minutes ago, villa89 said: All 20 of them isn't really making a difference. NATO might be ignoring his red lines but they aren't actually doing anything other than the bare minimum. Russia would have seized Ukraine without them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Just now, sidcow said: An ongoing war in Europe is not suiting anyone. Its hurting Europe a lot. Allowing Russia to take Ukraine would hurt more. Lesson from history- Chamberlain 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 22 VT Supporter Share Posted March 22 19 minutes ago, limpid said: I'm not convinced their nuclear deterrent is actually functional any more. It doesn't need to be (and hasn't since we built to MAD). Nuclear weapons are bloody expensive to maintain. Yes, I've wondered about this, but I'd really not like to seek irrefutable evidence one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 22 VT Supporter Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Allowing Russia to take Ukraine would hurt more. Lesson from history- Chamberlain I was talking about the accusation that ensuing an ongoing war against Russia lasts suits the west. It really doesn't, I sure they'd love it to end as swiftly as possible. They're just not prepared to pay that price yet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Ukraine has a far larger (and arguably more capable) army than most European countries do. We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that our military is far superior to theirs, and we would just be able to steamroll the Russians where they've failed. European armies are more elite and sophisticated, but a lot smaller and generally optimised for fighting insurgents rather than a high-intensity war against a major opponent. The British army only has 150 servicable tanks, and our artillery is in a terrible state. I'm not actually sure our army would have fared better against the Russians than the Ukrainian army did, and quite possibly would have fared a lot worse. Of course NATO collectively is far stronger than Russia is, and that would remain true even if you take out America. So Europe could band together and kick Russia out of Ukraine with military force if we really wanted to, but you shouldn't kid yourself that it would be easy work - we'd take significant losses doing it. Minefields work just as well against British or French troops as they do Ukrainians, and Russian air defences are numerous and formidable enough that we'd lose a lot of planes knocking them out. We might need to recruit and train additional soldiers, and we'd need to actually move our economies to a war footing in order to sustain the military action. So the answer to "why doesn't NATO just kick Russia out of Ukraine?" is probably less about the threat of nukes, but the expense and number of deaths that would result from doing it. It could be done, but rightly or wrongly, I'm not sure there's much appetite for taking such drastic steps over Ukraine (I think the calculus would be different if Russia attacked a EU or NATO country). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pas5898 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 5 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Ukraine has a far larger (and arguably more capable) army than most European countries do. We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that our military is far superior to theirs, and we would just be able to steamroll the Russians where they've failed. European armies are more elite and sophisticated, but a lot smaller and generally optimised for fighting insurgents rather than a high-intensity war against a major opponent. The British army only has 150 servicable tanks, and our artillery is in a terrible state. I'm not actually sure our army would have fared better against the Russians than the Ukrainian army did, and quite possibly would have fared a lot worse. Comparing apples and oranges. Any UK based defensive warfare wouldn't be fought on land. We're an Island, if it was, it would be too late (hence the reason we don't need 500 tanks). Our defense is made up of surface to air and naval (which is also sadly lacking due to the Nato protective blanket) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said: Ukraine has a far larger (and arguably more capable) army than most European countries do. We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that our military is far superior to theirs, and we would just be able to steamroll the Russians where they've failed. European armies are more elite and sophisticated, but a lot smaller and generally optimised for fighting insurgents rather than a high-intensity war against a major opponent. The British army only has 150 servicable tanks, and our artillery is in a terrible state. I'm not actually sure our army would have fared better against the Russians than the Ukrainian army did, and quite possibly would have fared a lot worse. To win a war you need men and equipment. Our forces are tiny but the equipment we have is amazing. We are a tiny country with stealth fighters, attack helicopters, cruise missiles, nukes, aircraft carriers, submarines and nukes. We are equipped to defend the UK. Our forces are more than capable of doing that with the equipment we have, the allies we have and our geographical position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 19 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that our military is far superior to theirs, and we would just be able to steamroll the Russians Given how shit we are at most things this last 10+ years I am terrified at the thought of the British army having to properly going into battle alone. Without the US holding our hands we’d be **** I expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted March 22 VT Supporter Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Allowing Russia to take Ukraine would hurt more. Lesson from history- Chamberlain Totally agree. But they're not allowing Russia to take Ukraine. They're doing what they feel they can to stop that happening but they're not putting their necks on the line and they're not liking that it's continuing. They're playing a balancing game between sending enough supplies so they don't get hit too much financially and don't have the public up in arms about the cost v how painful economically the continuing war is v potential nuclear war v our boys coming home in body bags. There are a lot of plates spinning and it's not just a simple a) We enjoy the war continuing as it suits us, b) we should go in and kick them out, c) we should let them just take Ukraine. It's complicated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 23 minutes ago, Genie said: Given how shit we are at most things this last 10+ years I am terrified at the thought of the British army having to properly going into battle alone. Without the US holding our hands we’d be **** I expect. But who are we likely battle alone against? One could say we battled Argentina alone. But we didn't really. We utilised NATO ammunition and intelligence. Our NATO allies also backfilled our military commitments elsewhere. If we did go to war with Russia without help from them USA it would conclude well before Russian boots hit UK soil. We like to ridicule the French military. But they are one of the most powerful armies in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 45 minutes ago, pas5898 said: Comparing apples and oranges. Any UK based defensive warfare wouldn't be fought on land. We're an Island, if it was, it would be too late (hence the reason we don't need 500 tanks). Our defense is made up of surface to air and naval (which is also sadly lacking due to the Nato protective blanket) 43 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: To win a war you need men and equipment. Our forces are tiny but the equipment we have is amazing. We are a tiny country with stealth fighters, attack helicopters, cruise missiles, nukes, aircraft carriers, submarines and nukes. We are equipped to defend the UK. Our forces are more than capable of doing that with the equipment we have, the allies we have and our geographical position. I never said we weren’t capable of defending Britain, I said our forces probably wouldn’t have been up to the job of defending Ukraine. (Which is relevant if people are discussing why NATO hasn’t booted Russia out of Ukraine.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: But who are we likely battle alone against? One could say we battled Argentina alone. But we didn't really. We utilised NATO ammunition and intelligence. Our NATO allies also backfilled our military commitments elsewhere. If we did go to war with Russia without help from them USA it would conclude well before Russian boots hit UK soil. We like to ridicule the French military. But they are one of the most powerful armies in the world. It is unlikely, thankfully. Whenever we stress test anything it usually breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pas5898 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 3 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: I never said we weren’t capable of defending Britain, I said our forces probably wouldn’t have been up to the job of defending Ukraine. (Which is relevant if people are discussing why NATO hasn’t booted Russia out of Ukraine.) Fair. If we was in the unfortunate position of Ukraine, we'd be conducting health and safety meetings, and ensuring our 140 tank drivers meet DEI standards, whilst Vlad walks into 10 downing street. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 3 hours ago, villa89 said: The reason they don't put boots on the ground is that the reality is that NATO doesn't really care about Ukraine, or how many people die there. It suits them to have an ongoing war that weakens Russia hugely and has little impact on Western economies. NATO couldn't be scared of Russia, they know how weak the Russian army is. The other reason is that NATO troops on the ground means NATO deaths on the ground. It’s not a popular political move to send your own people off to fight in a foreign war and watch as a proportion of them come back in body bags. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted March 22 VT Supporter Share Posted March 22 3 hours ago, Genie said: Putin is probably quite frustrated that the inflation shocks on the West are settling down now. Except for his mate in Turkey. Inflation at 67%. Interest rates at 50%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) Finland and Sweden alone likely have a far more operative army than Russia at the moment. Finland have the most artillery in Europe. The current Russian army doesn’t have a hope in hell against European NATO nations, let alone if the US sent just one carrier group to help. The UK army might be rusty, but we’ve got the capability not to be. The Scandinavian countries and Poland on the other hand would likely eat the current Russian army alive. Edited March 22 by magnkarl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Poland and Finland have capable armies and long memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 22 Moderator Share Posted March 22 Shooting and “blast” at a concert hall in Moscow, witnesses reporting men in military style uniforms involved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Some grim footage online from the concert hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 22 Moderator Share Posted March 22 19 minutes ago, LondonLax said: Some grim footage online from the concert hall. Yep, I've seen the four attackers entering the concert hall one, not pleasant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts