Russia

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Vanishingly unlikely in the short to medium term.

I can see there being a very very small possibility there could be some crossover between Ukraine joining at some point in the future, and Russia testing how strong their membership is with some sort of deniable attack.

Unlikely? It was/is never going to happen (conventionally) in mainland Europe (or Atlantic region). 

[Jimmy_D]

12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Unlikely? It was/is never going to happen (conventionally) in mainland Europe (or Atlantic region). 

Indeed, it’s as close to impossible as anyone can reasonably expect, which is the exact point I was making. While of course it would be orders of magnitude stronger with China onside, Ukraine’s peace formula doesn’t need China and Russia to agree for Ukraine to achieve lasting security.

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Indeed, it’s as close to impossible as anyone can reasonably expect, which is the exact point I was making. While of course it would be orders of magnitude stronger with China onside, Ukraine’s peace formula doesn’t need China and Russia to agree for Ukraine to achieve lasting security.

It kind of needs Russia to stop devastating parts of it. That would help.

[Lighthouse]

Just thinking out loud, I wonder if Ukraine could join NATO with some sort of artificial border across the country. For example a line running to the East of Kharkhiv, Dnipro and Odesa, to the west of which is considered NATO territory and all the connotations which come with it, whilst the war is in progress. NATO troops and equipment could be stationed in western Ukraine with the ultimatum that any Russian aggression in this zone will be treated as an attack on NATO territory.

[Baird of the land]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Just thinking out loud, I wonder if Ukraine could join NATO with some sort of artificial border across the country. For example a line running to the East of Kharkhiv, Dnipro and Odesa, to the west of which is considered NATO territory and all the connotations which come with it, whilst the war is in progress. NATO troops and equipment could be stationed in western Ukraine with the ultimatum that any Russian aggression in this zone will be treated as an attack on NATO territory.

Some ex nato general suggested something similar. Seemed a dangerous wheeze to me with the real intent of triggering an incident. Not least because you’d think Ukraine would make attacks from protected zones

 

 

 

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

On 15/01/2024 at 17:11, Lighthouse said:

Just thinking out loud, I wonder if Ukraine could join NATO with some sort of artificial border across the country. For example a line running to the East of Kharkhiv, Dnipro and Odesa, to the west of which is considered NATO territory and all the connotations which come with it, whilst the war is in progress. NATO troops and equipment could be stationed in western Ukraine with the ultimatum that any Russian aggression in this zone will be treated as an attack on NATO territory.

Ukraine’s natural resources are east of the Dnipro.

[aintforever]

On 15/01/2024 at 21:11, Lighthouse said:

Just thinking out loud, I wonder if Ukraine could join NATO with some sort of artificial border across the country. For example a line running to the East of Kharkhiv, Dnipro and Odesa, to the west of which is considered NATO territory and all the connotations which come with it, whilst the war is in progress. NATO troops and equipment could be stationed in western Ukraine with the ultimatum that any Russian aggression in this zone will be treated as an attack on NATO territory.

Think at the moment NATO is in a much better position leaving it as it is with Ukraine fighting a proxy war, don't see what they would have to gain by deciding Ukraine up. AT the moment NATO can destroy the Russian military at will without any comeback. Plus I doubt the Ukrainians will like the idea of their country being divided up.

That said I expect eventually there will be some sort of peace deal that involves Ukraine being part of NATO and conceding some territory to Russia, I just think the fighting will have to stop before Ukraine joins NATO.

Edited 18 January, 2024 by aintforever

[AlexLaw76]

9 hours ago, aintforever said:

Think at the moment NATO is in a much better position leaving it as it is with Ukraine fighting a proxy war, don't see what they would have to gain by deciding Ukraine up. AT the moment NATO can destroy the Russian military at will without any comeback. Plus I doubt the Ukrainians will like the idea of their country being divided up.

That said I expect eventually there will be some sort of peace deal that involves Ukraine being part of NATO and conceding some territory to Russia, I just think the fighting will have to stop before Ukraine joins NATO.

that is so untrue, it is laughable

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

that is so untrue, it is laughable

By that I meant NATO troops are not dying and NATO cities are not getting blown up, whilst Russia is losing tens of thousands of troops and having their military degraded.

[AlexLaw76]

10 hours ago, aintforever said:

By that I meant NATO troops are not dying and NATO cities are not getting blown up, whilst Russia is losing tens of thousands of troops and having their military degraded.

Yep, no comeback at all.

as said way further up, the Russian Navy is barely involved, none of their vast strategic forces are involved…. 
 

yet, we would have no worry of being bitten back. Head’s gone mate.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Yep, no comeback at all.

as said way further up, the Russian Navy is barely involved, none of their vast strategic forces are involved…. 
 

yet, we would have no worry of being bitten back. Head’s gone mate.

I didn't say we would have no worry of being bitten back should we go to war, try reading.

My point was as it stands not a single NATO soldier has been killed (obviously special forces may be involved that we don't know about) or Russia hasn't laid a foot on NATO territory. Whilst Russians are being killed on their tens of thousands and they are losing all sorts of hardware. There is no reason why NATO would want Ukraine to join up at the moment.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

I didn't say we would have no worry of being bitten back should we go to war, try reading.

My point was as it stands not a single NATO soldier has been killed (obviously special forces may be involved that we don't know about) or Russia hasn't laid a foot on NATO territory. Whilst Russians are being killed on their tens of thousands and they are losing all sorts of hardware. There is no reason why NATO would want Ukraine to join up at the moment.

In the mean time,  many tens of thousands of Ukrainians are being slaughtered. But hey, as long as we are letting them give Russia a bloody nose for us, who cares.

[Lighthouse]

On 18/01/2024 at 08:11, aintforever said:

Think at the moment NATO is in a much better position leaving it as it is with Ukraine fighting a proxy war, don't see what they would have to gain by deciding Ukraine up. AT the moment NATO can destroy the Russian military at will without any comeback. Plus I doubt the Ukrainians will like the idea of their country being divided up.

That said I expect eventually there will be some sort of peace deal that involves Ukraine being part of NATO and conceding some territory to Russia, I just think the fighting will have to stop before Ukraine joins NATO.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t talking about actually cutting Ukraine in half, this would be a theoretical NATO border. What it would mean in real world terms is that Russia, even if they did have some massive, crushing victory in the east, couldn’t advance any further beyond that line, without triggering a war with NATO. It would ensure Ukraine’s security, including the ability to better protect their civilian areas from aerial assault. It may also cause Russian high command to lose enthusiasm as they would effectively have nothing to fight for.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Just to be clear, I wasn’t talking about actually cutting Ukraine in half, this would be a theoretical NATO border. What it would mean in real world terms is that Russia, even if they did have some massive, crushing victory in the east, couldn’t advance any further beyond that line, without triggering a war with NATO. It would ensure Ukraine’s security, including the ability to better protect their civilian areas from aerial assault. It may also cause Russian high command to lose enthusiasm as they would effectively have nothing to fight for.

I think Russia might be quite happy to settle for having the eastern half.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

In the mean time,  many tens of thousands of Ukrainians are being slaughtered. But hey, as long as we are letting them give Russia a bloody nose for us, who cares.

I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just the way it is. 

It's tough on Ukraine but I can't see NATO countries wanting to take the risk, it's big risk with article 5 and all that. 

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I think Russia might be quite happy to settle for having the eastern half.

Why should Ukraine give Russia more than the 20% they currently occupy  ?

[badgerx16]

Ukraine claims it used a new long range drone to hit targets in St Petersburg.

They have also developed "FrakenSAM" systems, mating US anti-air missiles such as Sea Sparrow and Sidewinder to BUK launchers and Russian radar systems.

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I think Russia might be quite happy to settle for having the eastern half.

Still missing the point I think. I’m not saying Ukraine surrender everything up to that line and stops fighting. Essentially there would be no change in the current war other than a hard line Russia cannot cross, with either men or missiles, well behind the front line.

[Jimmy_D]

8 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Yep, no comeback at all.

as said way further up, the Russian Navy is barely involved, none of their vast strategic forces are involved…. 
 

yet, we would have no worry of being bitten back. Head’s gone mate.

The same Russian Navy that’s been  forced to withdraw from Sevastapol by a country with no navy?

The same strategic reserves that haven’t had enough tritium produced in Russia to service more that a fraction of? And that require being destructively opened to service?

Not to mention of course those strategic reserves are completely immune to the same corruption and false claims of capability that been seen in every single other aspect of Russia’s military.

On top of that, Ukraine have already struck within Russia itself, even targeting aircraft that would be used to deliver nuclear missiles, without triggering a nuclear response.

You really think Russia are sitting there for two years, now throwing thousands of Russians with minimal training every week into just maintaining the front in Ukraine where it is, just waiting for NATO to get involved so they can suddenly reveal that they’re actually secretly overwhelmingly powerful?

[AlexLaw76]

54 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

The same Russian Navy that’s been  forced to withdraw from Sevastapol by a country with no navy?

The same strategic reserves that haven’t had enough tritium produced in Russia to service more that a fraction of? And that require being destructively opened to service?

Not to mention of course those strategic reserves are completely immune to the same corruption and false claims of capability that been seen in every single other aspect of Russia’s military.

On top of that, Ukraine have already struck within Russia itself, even targeting aircraft that would be used to deliver nuclear missiles, without triggering a nuclear response.

You really think Russia are sitting there for two years, now throwing thousands of Russians with minimal training every week into just maintaining the front in Ukraine where it is, just waiting for NATO to get involved so they can suddenly reveal that they’re actually secretly overwhelmingly powerful?

No mate. But a good speech though.

[Whitey Grandad]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Why should Ukraine give Russia more than the 20% they currently occupy  ?

Sloppy of me. 

[Baird of the land]

So apparently we all need to be ready to join a 'citizen army' to fight the Ruski's.

So depressing that the General Melchett school of generals is alive and well.

Maybe we can use some cricket bats when nukes start flying.

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

So apparently we all need to be ready to join a 'citizen army' to fight the Ruski's.

 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Baird of the land said:

So apparently we all need to be ready to join a 'citizen army' to fight the Ruski's.

So depressing that the General Melchett school of generals is alive and well.

Maybe we can use some cricket bats when nukes start flying.

Notice this comment came from the 'outgoing CGS'.

I must have missed this being mentioned in public when he wasn't outgoing (or not considered for the top job in Defence). Happy to stay quiet on the pitiful state of the Army until now.

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Notice this comment came from the 'outgoing CGS'.

I must have missed this being mentioned in public when he wasn't outgoing (or not considered for the top job in Defence). Happy to stay quiet on the pitiful state of the Army until now.

Which of the UK's 3 defence arms is in the worst condition at the moment, do you think ?

[AlexLaw76]

26 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Which of the UK's 3 defence arms is in the worst condition at the moment, do you think ?

the UK armed forces in general are in a very dire state, and rather embarrassing for a nation that tries or wants to be a leader on the global stage with the policing of it. As said waaaaay further up on this thread, the UK general public do not really care, the UK Armed Forces will be a footnote on the general election campaign.

[whelk]

Putin v the West is worth a watch

[buctootim]

On 24/01/2024 at 20:38, AlexLaw76 said:

the UK general public do not really care, the UK Armed Forces will be a footnote on the general election campaign.

They dont care until there is a crisis directly affecting Britain THEN there is lots anger and wailing and asking how this could happen.  

[aintforever]

42 minutes ago, buctootim said:

They dont care until there is a crisis directly affecting Britain THEN there is lots anger and wailing and asking how this could happen.  

In the current climate it does seem like a good idea to increase spending on the military. On the other hand though the much-feared Russian army couldn't even make it to Kiev without getting it's ass kicked so not sure they are much of a threat to us over here.

[buctootim]

8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

In the current climate it does seem like a good idea to increase spending on the military. On the other hand though the much-feared Russian army couldn't even make it to Kiev without getting it's ass kicked so not sure they are much of a threat to us over here.

I'm not particularly worried about Russia, they've always been far more carp than they crack themselves up to be.  But we are too weak atm and so are too many other European countries. If everybody is weak you need big coalitions and big coalitions cant agree  on anything apart from taking the first excuse for peace. 

Edited 1 February, 2024 by buctootim

[badgerx16]

The Royal Navy is less than half the size it was for the Falklands conflict.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The Royal Navy is less than half the size it was for the Falklands conflict.

My phone is less than half the size it was during the Falklands conflict.

[egg]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

The Royal Navy is less than half the size it was for the Falklands conflict.

Yep. And the fact that we're talking about mothballing one of our aircraft carriers, and can't use the other one as we can't supply and staff a support ship to run alongside it, is an absolute disgrace. 

[moonraker]

There are a number of factors that have created the woeful state of our armed forces.  Primarily the defence cuts of successive Tory governments since 2010.  They hollowed out many and removed entire capabilities in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, it was neither strategic nor a review, simply an exercise in austerity.  The corresponding manpower reductions and poor recruitment campaigns have left our forces woefully undermanned and unfit for purpose.  Political dithering, interferenceand lack of understanding by politicians on major procurement projects is a significant contributor to overspends.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, moonraker said:

There are a number of factors that have created the woeful state of our armed forces.  Primarily the defence cuts of successive Tory governments since 2010.  They hollowed out many and removed entire capabilities in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, it was neither strategic nor a review, simply an exercise in austerity.  The corresponding manpower reductions and poor recruitment campaigns have left our forces woefully undermanned and unfit for purpose.  Political dithering, interferenceand lack of understanding by politicians on major procurement projects is a significant contributor to overspends.

All factors. We can't overlook the weakness of our currency either. A billion dollar plane is crazily overpriced anyway, but the we ain't helped by having a piss weak pound when we're buying so much military kit and hardware from overseas. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 hours ago, moonraker said:

There are a number of factors that have created the woeful state of our armed forces.  Primarily the defence cuts of successive Tory governments since 2010.  They hollowed out many and removed entire capabilities in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, it was neither strategic nor a review, simply an exercise in austerity.  The corresponding manpower reductions and poor recruitment campaigns have left our forces woefully undermanned and unfit for purpose.  Political dithering, interferenceand lack of understanding by politicians on major procurement projects is a significant contributor to overspends.

Defence cuts to capability have been going on since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The SDSR in 1998, then throughout the Blair years brought further drops on the number of people, tanks, aircraft and ships - and that was the boom period!!

What makes it even more tragic in a more local context, we spend more than most in NATO!!!

the UK, like France, use clever accounting to meet the 2% of GDP spend. Just 2% of the national budget is spent on Defence. It is remarkable we have what we have, but as i said many times before, a peer-to-peer bout between UK and Russia would see us all but done after a bad weekend.

[Jimmy_D]

16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Defence cuts to capability have been going on since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The SDSR in 1998, then throughout the Blair years brought further drops on the number of people, tanks, aircraft and ships - and that was the boom period!!

What makes it even more tragic in a more local context, we spend more than most in NATO!!!

the UK, like France, use clever accounting to meet the 2% of GDP spend. Just 2% of the national budget is spent on Defence. It is remarkable we have what we have, but as i said many times before, a peer-to-peer bout between UK and Russia would see us all but done after a bad weekend.

Quite impressive to go from 

 

On 15/01/2024 at 20:16, AlexLaw76 said:

It was/is never going to happen (conventionally) in mainland Europe (or Atlantic region).

To

18 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

see us all but done after a bad weekend.

In the space of one page.

[AlexLaw76]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Quite impressive to go from 

 

To

In the space of one page.

It isn't going to happen IMO. However, Governments across Europe are telling us it is more likely. Of course, I believe they are lying, but who really knows. 

However, in UK v Russia Peer-to-Peer situation, we will be all but done after a bad weekend.

Edited 2 February, 2024 by AlexLaw76

[Jimmy_D]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It isn't going to happen IMO. However, Governments across Europe are telling us it is more likely. Of course, I believe they are lying, but who really knows. 

However, in UK v Russia Peer-to-Peer situation, we will be all but done after a bad weekend.

Right, so what would Russia’s plan be to even scratch our UK based forces?

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Right, so what would Russia’s plan be to even scratch our UK based forces?

I will wait out for the next installment from European Leaders - who are falling over themselves telling us to prepare for war with Russia (which is just bonkers). 

[Jimmy_D]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I will wait out for the next installment from European Leaders - who are falling over themselves telling us to prepare for war with Russia (which is just bonkers). 

It’s more along the lines of pointing out that the possibility of Russian attacks within the next 20 years isn’t something that can or should be ignored by Europe’s militaries.

Papers have had a bit of a field day with that.

[Raging Bull]

US to store nuclear weapons in the UK. 
 

Oh great

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Jimmy_D said:

It’s more along the lines of pointing out that the possibility of Russian attacks within the next 20 years isn’t something that can or should be ignored by Europe’s militaries.

Papers have had a bit of a field day with that.

No need to put any effort in to find direct quotes. Certain there are plenty more to find if I had 5 minutes.

 

Quote

Adm Rob Bauer, the chair of Nato’s military committee, said last week that it was “not a given that we are in peace” and that was “why we are preparing for a conflict with Russia 

Quote

Grant Shapps, the British defence secretary, used even stronger language, arguing the cold war peace dividend was over and that the UK and its allies were “moving from a postwar to a prewar world” with idealism replaced by “hard-headed realism”. It was time, he argued, for re-armament to protect Europe from “Putin’s fury”

Quote

 

.

In an interview with Europa Libera Romania on Feb. 1, Romanian Chief of Defense Gheorghita Vlad urged Romania and Europe to better prepare for a potential war with Russia

 

Quote

Earlier this month, Swedish Civil Defence Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin acknowledged to a defence conference that ‘there could be war in Sweden’. The Swedish Commander-in-Chief, General Micael Bydén, went further, declaring that all Swedes needed to ‘prepare for war’.

 

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

US to store nuclear weapons in the UK. 
 

Oh great

Again, more posturing....for something that is not going to happen, right?

[aintforever]

26 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

However, in UK v Russia Peer-to-Peer situation, we will be all but done after a bad weekend.

Yet they couldn’t even take Kiev.

 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

Yet they couldn’t even take Kiev.

 

Neither could we

[Raging Bull]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Again, more posturing....for something that is not going to happen, right?

I’ll be honest, this is the first time I’ve looked at this thread for a long time. Probably 6 months or more and I’m not paying any attention to who said what. 
 

Don’t care tbh. 
 

I think it’s probable there’ll be some serious escalation by the end of the year 

[aintforever]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Neither could we

Yeah, because for starters it’s over 2000km away and we would have to go through half of Europe. 

Bit like what the mighty Russian Army would have to do. 

[Whitey Grandad]

48 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

US to store nuclear weapons in the UK. 
 

Oh great

Haven't they been doing that for decades?

[Jimmy_D]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No need to put any effort in to find direct quotes. Certain there are plenty more to find if I had 5 minutes.

 

 

You didn't put much effort in with quoting Adm. Rob Bauer, which is where it all stems from.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/russia-war-nato-military-exercise-admiral-rob-bauer-brussels-cold-war-b1133399.html