Russia

[Picard]

44 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Reports that the Russians are not happy with the Chinese tyres they are using, and that this accounts for many of their abandoned vehicles.

A tread on Russian tyres

 

[Lighthouse]

24 minutes ago, buctootim said:

The talk with Sir John Sawers I linked above is worth 30 minutes. On sanctions and domestic pressure for political change he drew a parallel with South Africa and the fact it took 12 years to start to work.   

South Africa weren’t trying to wage a war against a country of 44 million people during apartheid.

[buctootim]

9 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

South Africa weren’t trying to wage a war against a country of 44 million people during apartheid.

Actually they pretty much were, but we'll let that pass.  

[Jimmy_D]

54 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Omens aren't good are they? We encouraged the Ukrainians to think they could be in the EU and NATO, we encouraged them to dump the Russia led economic equivalents of the EU and NATO, we sold them arms, promised them support, and when they eventually got invaded said "sorry, too risky, on yer own mate"    

Enforcing a no-fly zone is an escalation of conflict. It’d make any entity enforcing that no-fly zone a valid target, especially in the eyes of Putin, and as we’ve seen, he doesn’t care about civilian casualties. That’s a huge ask for any leader to endanger their people like that.

On the other hand, everyone wishes more were being done to help Ukraine, each day it’s getting worse there.

Beyond that, we don’t know what diplomatic information might be influencing that decision. For example, how likely is it that direct military action against Russia could draw China in?

Right now NATO’s stance at least has the benefit of diplomatically isolating Russia. As much as Putin would like to claim NATO are the instigators by claiming that supplying weapons and enforcing sanctions are acts of war against Russia, Putin has so far failed to find much support for that view, and he has few allies that think any of his actions are justified. Even China abstained from the UN vote to censure Russia, rather than vote against it as they normally would.

I think as much as the level of unity and level of sanctions quickly imposed have probably taken a few off guard, the level of restraint from NATO probably has as well. Putin has been forced to keep escalating unilaterally, and that’s further isolating him.

The consequences of providing more direct military support are uncertain at best, put me firmly in the “glad that’s not my decision” camp.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, buctootim said:

Why would NATO respond over Finland? It hasn't over Ukraine. Both are non members.  The signalling to Putin has been 'they are fair game, take a slice'.

Bosnia would be through the Bosnian Serbs  - helping fellow Slavs stave off vicious (non existent) attacks 

Realistically how long do you think sanctions will hold if Ukraine is defeated and Chinese companies start to take market share?   

  

To be fair, NATO has also not responded to the following wars currently being fought :

Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Columbia, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique,  Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Yemen as none of them are members either.  Putin can send his troops into any of those and NATO will also not intervene...

[buctootim]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Enforcing a no-fly zone is an escalation of conflict. It’d make any entity enforcing that no-fly zone a valid target, especially in the eyes of Putin, and as we’ve seen, he doesn’t care about civilian casualties. That’s a huge ask for any leader to endanger their people like that.

On the other hand, everyone wishes more were being done to help Ukraine, each day it’s getting worse there.

Beyond that, we don’t know what diplomatic information might be influencing that decision. For example, how likely is it that direct military action against Russia could draw China in?

Right now NATO’s stance at least has the benefit of diplomatically isolating Russia. As much as Putin would like to claim NATO are the instigators by claiming that supplying weapons and enforcing sanctions are acts of war against Russia, Putin has so far failed to find much support for that view, and he has few allies that think any of his actions are justified. Even China abstained from the UN vote to censure Russia, rather than vote against it as they normally would.

I think as much as the level of unity and level of sanctions quickly imposed have probably taken a few off guard, the level of restraint from NATO probably has as well. Putin has been forced to keep escalating unilaterally, and that’s further isolating him.

The consequences of providing more direct military support are uncertain at best, put me firmly in the “glad that’s not my decision” camp.

All fair comments. I just think the Ukrainians have been drawn into the worst possible situation through no fault of their own - screwed by both sides. They will probably end up with no freedom, a ruined economy, friends family killed and their houses destroyed. 

I was texting a friend earlier. She left Kyiv and is hiding out in Carpathian mountains terrified. She says its now almost impossible to get from there to Poland or Slovakia. Ethnic Russian family, she left her Russian born Grandad behind in Kyiv because he wouldnt leave but can barely walk or get out to buy food, even if there is any.  She says their high rise apartment building has been hit three times.   Not sure how a medical student and her ex Red Army conscript grandad deserve any of that in 2022. 

[kyle04]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Enforcing a no-fly zone is an escalation of conflict. It’d make any entity enforcing that no-fly zone a valid target, especially in the eyes of Putin, and as we’ve seen, he doesn’t care about civilian casualties. That’s a huge ask for any leader to endanger their people like that.

On the other hand, everyone wishes more were being done to help Ukraine, each day it’s getting worse there.

Beyond that, we don’t know what diplomatic information might be influencing that decision. For example, how likely is it that direct military action against Russia could draw China in?

Right now NATO’s stance at least has the benefit of diplomatically isolating Russia. As much as Putin would like to claim NATO are the instigators by claiming that supplying weapons and enforcing sanctions are acts of war against Russia, Putin has so far failed to find much support for that view, and he has few allies that think any of his actions are justified. Even China abstained from the UN vote to censure Russia, rather than vote against it as they normally would.

I think as much as the level of unity and level of sanctions quickly imposed have probably taken a few off guard, the level of restraint from NATO probably has as well. Putin has been forced to keep escalating unilaterally, and that’s further isolating him.

The consequences of providing more direct military support are uncertain at best, put me firmly in the “glad that’s not my decision” camp.

Good points. I would add that at present a no fly zone is not necessarily needed, thus far Russia has generally refrained from an all out aerial bombardment, although that may well change. They're losing a lot of stuff daily, particulary tanks and APV's, much of which appears to be pre-1990 Soviet equipment, although their more up to date armour is still being destroyed or captured with the modern weapons available to Ukraine. The Russian body count must be over 10,000 by now, despite the ludicrously low figures issued by the Kremlin. As for Putin blaming NATO for supplying weapons, NATO did so after the invasion so again a laughable stance to take, and I hope Europe continues down this road as it's the only hope for Ukraine.

[saint1977]

I think Finland and Sweden will be accelerated into NATO. Bosnia will be very difficult for Putin to get arms to and even though the pathetic government in Serbia is brown nosing Putin, they won’t want to be surrounded by all of his zealots on the very boundary. That region has been fairly independent of the USSR since Tito established himself. 

I feel dreadfully sorry for Ukraine but if Putin touches Finland let alone any of the current Baltic NATO members, I’m fairly confident NATO will have to deploy and finish the Cold War and USSR off once and for all. Most of the Russian public want him gone and the ones who support him are too geriatric to come out and hold NATO forces up. 

Apart from the odd small gesture, China has stayed out of it and seems to think he’s been a bit of a loon. Nothing in it for them really, other than to see beleaguered Russia over-priced crap supplies, as we can see with the tyres. The cost of repairing Ukraine will be enormous though after regime change in Russia.

[AlexLaw76]

37 minutes ago, saint1977 said:

I think Finland and Sweden will be accelerated into NATO. Bosnia will be very difficult for Putin to get arms to and even though the pathetic government in Serbia is brown nosing Putin, they won’t want to be surrounded by all of his zealots on the very boundary. That region has been fairly independent of the USSR since Tito established himself. 

I feel dreadfully sorry for Ukraine but if Putin touches Finland let alone any of the current Baltic NATO members, I’m fairly confident NATO will have to deploy and finish the Cold War and USSR off once and for all. Most of the Russian public want him gone and the ones who support him are too geriatric to come out and hold NATO forces up. 

Apart from the odd small gesture, China has stayed out of it and seems to think he’s been a bit of a loon. Nothing in it for them really, other than to see beleaguered Russia over-priced crap supplies, as we can see with the tyres. The cost of repairing Ukraine will be enormous though after regime change in Russia.

When you say finish them off. You say that as if we would not suffer massive losses.  

I do not believe the reported 10k Russian losses in Ukraine (and associated equipment). Lets say half of what is advertised is true, and would be a fair refection on what we could lose.

(Half of the reported losses) the above would be roughly equal to...

The entire parachute regiment 

All UKs new F35s 

All of the UKs tanks 

All maritime helicopters 

Plus god knows what else..effectiveky shutting the UK down. The UK being the 2nd biggest NATO contributor.

Of coursez the above is unlikely, but as you can see, no one has the appetite to test it, thankfully. 

Essentially, nothing will happen unless the US want to go "all in" for a skirmish in Europe. Against a Russia who have been pretty light-touch by their own standards in Ukraine 

 

 

 

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Reports that the Russians are not happy with the Chinese tyres they are using, and that this accounts for many of their abandoned vehicles.

Possibly, but any vehicles left standing around for ten or twenty years are going to have weak tyres. If they were inherently faulty you might expect that they would have found out with all those exercises they keep holding.

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When you say finish them off. You say that as if we would not suffer massive losses.  

I do not believe the reported 10k Russian losses in Ukraine (and associated equipment). Lets say half of what is advertised is true, and would be a fair refection on what we could lose.

(Half of the reported losses) the above would be roughly equal to...

The entire parachute regiment 

All UKs new F35s 

All of the UKs tanks 

All maritime helicopters 

Plus god knows what else..effectiveky shutting the UK down. The UK being the 2nd biggest NATO contributor.

Of coursez the above is unlikely, but as you can see, no one has the appetite to test it, thankfully. 

Essentially, nothing will happen unless the US want to go "all in" for a skirmish in Europe. Against a Russia who have been pretty light-touch by their own standards in Ukraine 

 

 

 

 

 

In what universe is invading a democratic country, and then using thermobaric and cluster weapons against civilians 'light touch'?

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

In what universe is invading a democratic country, and then using thermobaric and cluster weapons against civilians 'light touch'?

As I said, by their own standards. Did you miss that bit?

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

As I said, by their own standards. Did you miss that bit?

I'm aware of the atrocities Russia have committed in their past. I'm wondering why you seem to be implying that that's a reason to go easier on them.

[AlexLaw76]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

I'm aware of the atrocities Russia have committed in their past. I'm wondering why you seem to be implying that that's a reason to go easier on them.

What do you mean?

I am thankful that all governments have no appetite to take them on (militailry), in Ukraine or even worse, over/in Russia. 

Edited 5 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Jimmy_D]

2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What do you mean?

I am thankful that all governments have no appetite to take them on, in Ukraine or even worse, over/in Russia. 

Well, the Ukrainian government at least has an appetite to take them on.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

Well, the Ukrainian government at least has an appetite to take them on.

Lets hope it stays there then. 

[Jimmy_D]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Lets hope it stays there then. 

NATO has made its position pretty clear at this point, any military involvement in Ukraine is vanishingly unlikely.

Putin however, is extremely unpredictable at the moment. It's impossible to rule out him doing something that gives NATO no choice.

[kyle04]

I think Putin's fucked up by invading the whole country. If he'd have occupied the Donbas region alone, securing his "buffer zone" he might have got away with it. The territory could be described as "disputed" at a stretch , with a strong pro-Russian populace in the midst of a mini civil war, together with historical ties to Russia. He might have gained control of both Crimea (2014) and Donbas with very little fighting and perhaps not so much of a backlash from the outside world, then played the long game while the West worried about his next move. Instead he's managed to unite most of Europe, probably expand NATO if Finland and Sweden join, expose his military as poorly lead and maintained, condemned thousands of soldiers and civilians to their deaths, regressed his own country decades with Soviet era crackdowns on freedom of speech, crashed his own currency on a par with Zimbabwe and shown himself to be a ludicrously paranoid cold war caricature whose words count for nothing. He even has to sit 20 feet from his own top generals now.

[rallyboy]

It's a bit rich for any war criminal who is literally killing children, to claim that an alleged stranger having his yacht impounded is like a declaration of war.

If these oligarchs really have no connection to him, why is he even bothered?

The shit will really hit the fan if the UK eventually follows the EU, Canada, Australia and Switzerland, and starts properly freezing assets.

We've got to support that action soon, surely....

[badgerx16]

Ex special forces from around the world moving to Ukraine, plus this chap.....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-putin-canadian-forces-1.6372259

[whelk]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What do you mean?

I am thankful that all governments have no appetite to take them on (militailry), in Ukraine or even worse, over/in Russia. 

You really are a spineless coward. Watch out he said another scary thing today  for you to shit yourself about

[whelk]

Ok it’s the Star but if only. Alex L ‘let’s hope not it’s not true as then he might press a button. Let’s offer Finland and hopefully he will ease up’

[Lighthouse]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

When you say finish them off. You say that as if we would not suffer massive losses.  

I do not believe the reported 10k Russian losses in Ukraine (and associated equipment). Lets say half of what is advertised is true, and would be a fair refection on what we could lose.

(Half of the reported losses) the above would be roughly equal to...

The entire parachute regiment 

All UKs new F35s 

All of the UKs tanks 

All maritime helicopters 

Plus god knows what else..effectiveky shutting the UK down. The UK being the 2nd biggest NATO contributor.

Of coursez the above is unlikely, but as you can see, no one has the appetite to test it, thankfully. 

Essentially, nothing will happen unless the US want to go "all in" for a skirmish in Europe. Against a Russia who have been pretty light-touch by their own standards in Ukraine 

How have you managed to translate Russia's clusterf**k of an invasion, against one of the most chronically underfunded militaries in Europe, to Britain losing all our F35s, tanks, helicopters and the paras?

[Lighthouse]

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

Ok it’s the Star but if only. Alex L ‘let’s hope not it’s not true as then he might press a button. Let’s offer Finland and hopefully he will ease up’

whelk, thank you for opening my heart to two genuinely new emotions.

• Hoping someone has cancer
• Hoping a Daily Star headline is true

[buctootim]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

How have you managed to translate Russia's clusterf**k of an invasion, against one of the most chronically underfunded militaries in Europe, to Britain losing all our F35s, tanks, helicopters and the paras?

As one of the Ukrainian ministers said - Russia doesnt have a powerful army, just a huge one. They will win against Ukraine because its smaller with inferior tech but NATO would obliterate them in short order. 

[kyle04]

26 minutes ago, buctootim said:

As one of the Ukrainian ministers said - Russia doesnt have a powerful army, just a huge one. They will win against Ukraine because its smaller with inferior tech but NATO would obliterate them in short order. 

I think any Russian general who still inhabits the real world must now know, if we take on NATO, we're fucked, despite our Lord Hawhaw Alex's reservations. Russia may well continue with their cowardly shelling of towns and cities, but their military will continue to suffer disproportionate losses in the field. Who will crack first - certainly not Ukraine, they have little else to lose now .

[AlexLaw76]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

How have you managed to translate Russia's clusterf**k of an invasion, against one of the most chronically underfunded militaries in Europe, to Britain losing all our F35s, tanks, helicopters and the paras?

Just giving a context of the numbers, if half of the reported losses against Russia is true. Even an even small proportion would massively dent our fighting capability. The UK armed forces has been scaled back so much, that losing the odd war plane, ship or a few tanks, significantly degrades us.

There is absolutely no way the general UK population would have the appetite for anything like that, if we went to war with Russia. Thankfully, we won't (unless the US want to go all in) and it is just us idiots talking about it. 

Edited 6 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[whelk]

This was from a former president. 
 

•  

[whelk]

8 hours ago, kyle04 said:

I think any Russian general who still inhabits the real world must now know, if we take on NATO, we're fucked, despite our Lord Hawhaw Alex's reservations. Russia may well continue with their cowardly shelling of towns and cities, but their military will continue to suffer disproportionate losses in the field. Who will crack first - certainly not Ukraine, they have little else to lose now .

I think he may be 99% complete as the perfect absorber of all the Kremlin interfering and misinformation to subtlety destabilise democracy over recent years. Text book views they love to see.

[AlexLaw76]

9 hours ago, kyle04 said:

I think any Russian general who still inhabits the real world must now know, if we take on NATO, we're fucked, 

Then why are we not putting in place  the NATO tried and tested No-Fly-Zone?

Surely, if it is cut and dry, we could do this now.  I know you will say it will prohibit Ukraine taking to the skies and Russia are are using mostly long range S-S engagement.  But the UKR President is literally begging NATO to do it. So why not if Russia are 'fucked', as we know it will likely escalate into a war of sorts.

Edited 6 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Lighthouse]

19 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Then why are we not putting in place  the NATO tried and tested No-Fly-Zone?

Surely, if it is cut and dry, we could do this now.  I know you will say it will prohibit Ukraine taking to the skies and Russia are are using mostly long range S-S engagement.  But the UKR President is literally begging NATO to do it. So why not if Russia are 'fucked', as we know it will likely escalate into a war of sorts.

We don’t want to engage in any military engagement with Putin, at all. It’s an escalation NATO doesn’t want or need, harsh though it may be on Ukrainians. Putin clearly wants it as the war isn’t going well or looking good back home, he is now claiming economic sanctions constitute and act of war. He needs a big, scary, foreign enemy, rather than bombing Russian speaking school children.

On a separate note, The Kremlin seem to be going to some effort to hide the whole isolation and paranoia issue.

 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Then why are we not putting in place  the NATO tried and tested No-Fly-Zone?

Surely, if it is cut and dry, we could do this now.  I know you will say it will prohibit Ukraine taking to the skies and Russia are are using mostly long range S-S engagement.  But the UKR President is literally begging NATO to do it. So why not if Russia are 'fucked', as we know it will likely escalate into a war of sorts.

Because the UKR President isn't stupid and knows that if NATO instigates a no-fly-zone, they will instantly be drawn into the war.  He desperately wants that as it will massively bolster his forces and direct Russian aggression in several directions.  NATO on the otherhand doesn't want to go to war with Russia as it will inevitably end up with the big red buttons being pressed.

[Lighthouse]

Just been speaking to my friend from Kharkiv who has made it as far west as Lutsk and is now trying to get into Poland. It sounds like a proper ordeal; a three day journey including 24 hours solid on one train, absolutely packed with people. An overnight sleep in Ternopil train station, nothing with her but a suitcase and a rucksack with her cat in it. I’ll never complain about SW Trains or a Travelodge ever again.

[Jimmy_D]

5 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Just giving a context of the numbers, if half of the reported losses against Russia is true. Even an even small proportion would massively dent our fighting capability. The UK armed forces has been scaled back so much, that losing the odd war plane, ship or a few tanks, significantly degrades us.

There is absolutely no way the general UK population would have the appetite for anything like that, if we went to war with Russia. Thankfully, we won't (unless the US want to go all in) and it is just us idiots talking about it. 

What makes you think NATO would face those kind of losses? We’d have overwhelming air superiority.

Even assuming NATO did face those kind of losses, why would they all be contained to British forces?

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

What makes you think NATO would face those kind of losses? We’d have overwhelming air superiority.

Even assuming NATO did face those kind of losses, why would they all be contained to British forces?

He’d make a great Russian military planner. Just find 200 of their oldest, rustiest Migs, crash them into the Dnepr reservoir and that equals all the RAF Typhoons destroyed, somehow.

[Sheaf Saint]

13 hours ago, buctootim said:

As one of the Ukrainian ministers said - Russia doesnt have a powerful army, just a huge one. They will win against Ukraine because its smaller with inferior tech but NATO would obliterate them in short order. 

The general level of competence (or lack of) among the Russian ranks will give Ukraine an advantage though... 

 

 

[AlexLaw76]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

What makes you think NATO would face those kind of losses? We’d have overwhelming air superiority.

Even assuming NATO did face those kind of losses, why would they all be contained to British forces?

We lose 10 a/c, or 25 tanks, or 2 warships, or 1500 troops, and we significantly degrade what we can/cannot do.  That could happen over a weekend if we were to go for it against Russia.  

Given we are the 2nd biggest actor in NATO, where do you think a bulk of the fighting force (from a single nation) will come from, even if a relatively small amount?

As said, thankfully the leaders in the West have zero appetite to go-in.  They could not help themselves fast enough in other areas of the world (and still can't in some cases)

Edited 6 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[buctootim]

13 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We lose 10 a/c, or 25 tanks, or 2 warships, or 1500 troops, and we significantly degrade what we can/cannot do.  That could happen over a weekend if we were to go for it against Russia.  

Given we are the 2nd biggest actor in NATO, where do you think a bulk of the fighting force (from a single nation) will come from, even if a relatively small amount?

As said, thankfully the leaders in the West have zero appetite to go-in.  They could not help themselves fast enough in other areas of the world (and still can't in some cases)

Thats without even discussing the the disparity in quality. Also we are something like 4th or 5th in terms of military size behind Turkey, Germany, France and maybe Italy. 

 

Edited 6 March, 2022 by buctootim

[AlexLaw76]

14 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Thats without even discussing the the disparity in quality. Also we are something like 4th or 5th in terms of military size behind Turkey, Germany, France and maybe Italy. 

Totally agree.  worth noting that France include the Gendarme in their head-count. Unsure about the others, but I believe we include pensions in our 'Defence spend'.

We do have superior 'kit' compared to nearly everyone else, but just so few in numbers as it is extremely expensive (hence my point about suffering a bad weekend at and we could offer nothing of note militarily as a result) - direct result of decades of continued slashing of our uniformed members of the MoD.  I mean, the RN is about to retire its only S-S anti-ship missile, and there will likely be a gap before a new one is brought in, despite what we read in the news snippets - WTF!

That is my point, if we lose a tiny amount, it will really degrades us.  That is the UK being the 2nd biggest actor in NATO.  We are so used to fighting people who fire at us from the back of a Toyota Hilux, whist we have complete uncontested control of the skies.

Hopefully, this big wake up call for Europe's attitude to Defence spending sticks!  I hope our Defence Budget is permanently increased to 3% (at least) and we increase numbers in all parts of the pointy end of the MoD.

Edited 6 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[buctootim]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Totally agree.  worth noting that France include the Gendarme in their head-count. Unsure about the others, but I believe we include pensions in our 'Defence spend'.

We do have superior 'kit' compared to nearly everyone else, but just so few in numbers as it is extremely expensive (hence my point about suffering a bad weekend at and we could offer nothing of note militarily as a result) - direct result of decades of continued slashing of our uniformed members of the MoD.  I mean, the RN is about to retire its only S-S anti-ship missile, and there will likely be a gap before a new one is brought in, despite what we read in the news snippets - WTF!

That is my point, if we lose a tiny amount, it will really degrades us.  That is the UK being the 2nd biggest actor in NATO.  We are so used to fighting people who fire at us from the back of a Toyota Hilux, whist we have complete uncontested control of the skies.

Hopefully, this big wake up call for Europe's attitude to Defence spending sticks!  I hope our Defence Budget is permanently increased to 3% (at least) and we increase numbers in all parts of the pointy end of the MoD.

Thats true. I don't want to go all Top Trumps about it but a group of something like Germany France and UK would defeat Russia, assuming no nukes involved.   

[Jimmy_D]

53 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Totally agree.  worth noting that France include the Gendarme in their head-count. Unsure about the others, but I believe we include pensions in our 'Defence spend'.

We do have superior 'kit' compared to nearly everyone else, but just so few in numbers as it is extremely expensive (hence my point about suffering a bad weekend at and we could offer nothing of note militarily as a result) - direct result of decades of continued slashing of our uniformed members of the MoD.  I mean, the RN is about to retire its only S-S anti-ship missile, and there will likely be a gap before a new one is brought in, despite what we read in the news snippets - WTF!

That is my point, if we lose a tiny amount, it will really degrades us.  That is the UK being the 2nd biggest actor in NATO.  We are so used to fighting people who fire at us from the back of a Toyota Hilux, whist we have complete uncontested control of the skies.

Hopefully, this big wake up call for Europe's attitude to Defence spending sticks!  I hope our Defence Budget is permanently increased to 3% (at least) and we increase numbers in all parts of the pointy end of the MoD.

So Russia losing a lot of kit against the Ukraine military over the course of two weeks... that makes you think that the UK’s military capability would be wiped out in a weekend if NATO entered said conflict?

[sadoldgit]

Not to worry chaps, Ben Wallace says that we have kicked Russian arses before and we can do it again, so all’s well!

[Jimmy_D]

Obviously not verified, but reportedly from a member of Russia’s FSB. With the way things have played out so far it rings true, although it’s still just one person’s view even if it is accurate.

[badgerx16]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not to worry chaps, Ben Wallace says that we have kicked Russian arses before and we can do it again, so all’s well!

Where's Captain Nolan when you need him ?

[Jimmy_D]

[Lighthouse]

Watching the games this weekend, I wish I’d bought shares in Ukrainian Flags Ltd.

[AlexLaw76]

2 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

So Russia losing a lot of kit against the Ukraine military over the course of two weeks... that makes you think that the UK’s military capability would be wiped out in a weekend if NATO entered said conflict?

Don't tell me, tell the western world. It is our leaders stopping short of it all.

Given how small our armed forces have become, would take very little interns of losses to make us pretty ineffective in combat.

 

[Jimmy_D]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Don't tell me, tell the western world. It is our leaders stopping short of it all.

Given how small our armed forces have become, would take very little interns of losses to make us pretty ineffective in combat.

 

So we wouldn’t be wiped out militarily in a weekend then?

There are a few reasons the West hasn’t escalated, not yet at least, but lack of military capability on NATO’s part certainly isn’t one of them.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

So we wouldn’t be wiped out militarily in a weekend then?

There are a few reasons the West hasn’t escalated, not yet at least, but lack of military capability on NATO’s part certainly isn’t one of them.

Not sure I have said we would be wiped out? If that was implied, not my intention. However, we could easily be made pretty ineffective quite quickly, with what are relative minimal losses.

Anyway, none of which will happen as we are not (yet) rolling the dice. Im sure of the projected attrition was palatable, we would have closed down the airspace by now, as we do everywhere else. 

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Not sure I have said we would be wiped out? If that was implied, not my intention. However, we could easily be made pretty ineffective quite quickly, with what are relative minimal losses.

Anyway, none of which will happen as we are not (yet) rolling the dice. Im sure of the projected attrition was palatable, we would have closed down the airspace by now, as we do everywhere else. 

Might be worth looking at what happened during the recent Green Dagger wargames exercise. Suggests we'd be extremely effective in exactly the sort of operations that would be required if it came to it.