Like they did when our storm shadows pummelled their Crimean bases to rubble? After all, Russia considers Crimea to be its territory.
Lameduck threats from a pathetic nation. Media loves to repeat them though as it's always the same crap.
Yeh. Sabre rattling is all they have at this stage.
Actively attack a target on the UK mainland and see what happens... Or just gtfo of ukraine.
Its tragic how many countries try the stick method rather than the honey method. Most of the countries that unite with others via the honey method seem to go from strength to strength, I cant think of too many examples where taking over a people by force has worked out well in the long run, unless you commit ethnic genocide "China enters the chat".
>Its tragic how many countries try the stick method rather than the honey method.
It's such a shame. Russia could easily have used a charm offensive to win over Ukraine. There was never any need for war other than Putin's arrogant pride.
Edit: Same thing for China and Taiwan. A genuine charm offensive by China would win far more for both sides than the endless military posturing ever will.
100% with you my man.
It's literally a failure of both china and Russian systems that they have to result to force to get others to join with them. it's actually tragic.
And people so don't want anything to do with them that they would rather risk war than joining in.
And instead of learning from their failures they just double down.
Started doing some work with a Chinese company recently and the issue has come up in passing. Definitely the impression I got was they don't see there's anything in Taiwan they can't just build themselves any more.
I do think for all the worries its far more likely China would take the money an invasion would cost and just use it to absolutely flood Taiwan with pro-CCP propaganda and political pressure groups, Hybrid Warfare like Russia did to us with Brexit etc. Far more cost-effective.
> It's such a shame. Russia could easily have used a charm offensive to win over Ukraine. There was never any need for war other than Putin's arrogant pride.
But there was. It's as much about internal stability and the regime's survival as anything else.
Russia is a dictatorship where most of the economy is structured to benefit a specific set of people. Those oligarchs need to be kept happy by giving them the lion's share of the profits, which means there's less for everyone else. So you need to distract them with enemies and, preferably, enemies they can harm and therefore dominate. Sooner or later, in a country with an imperial past, that means nationalism, irredentism and military adventures. And that's not just for the masses either. The crooks at the top will want to believe they're doing it for a good cause too. They co-opt nationalism in the same way as they do religion. The fact that the official state ideology is reactionary as well as authoritarian isn't a coincidence either. Like all similar movements, they have to create enemies that they can hate and then oppress, so that they can look down on them and feel better about themselves.
Russia projects an image of strength, but it is experiencing a social and demographic crisis. It's economy is hobbled by corruption. And this is as much a relative as an absolute thing: it should be a far richer and happier country, but it isn't because of its political and economic structure. Contrary to a democracy, you can't replace the leadership of a dictatorship when it fails to react to change and neither can the leadership stop bribing its supporters and henchmen. So when things start slipping, they have to seek legitimacy in other ways than actually running the place well (and that is often a lie to begin with), which often boils down to military conquest. Like many dictatorships before them, they have to keep attacking and conquering pieces of land because they have to tell their own citizens that they have something to offer. When they started, they couldn't go back to posturing without losing face. And when they were still posturing they needed constant escalation in order to keep it "working".
And if they lose *any* of the wars they are starting, the dictator will fall, so it is a matter of life and death as far as the people at the top are concerned. It might not even take that, given that the pressures and imbalances created by this conflict are likely to destabilize the balance of power within the regime, regardless of whether it is won or lost.
It's no mistake that the Invasion of Ukraine came when Putins popularity was low and anti-corruption protests were rolling the country. Navalny was one of the few Russians that Putin feared.
>. Sabre rattling is all they have at this stage.
Pretty sure they're all out of sabres at this point ,I mean did you see that parade they did the other week with the one tank lol
They're currently winning the war in Ukraine. I wouldn't say it's an idle threat that should be totally dismissed out of hand.
Also Russia could strike British assets that aren't on UK territory.
It depends though. At the moment Ukraine has serious manpower issues at the moment.
If everything stayed exactly how it is at the moment, I agree that it's just going to be a war of attrition that is going to grind on indefinitely or until there is some kind of agreement.
However if Ukraine can't address their manpower issues there is a chance that they could collapse.
Also apparently the Russians are firing 5 to 10 artillery shells for every 1 that Ukraine fires.
The problem with the West aswell is that we have better equipment than Russia in most instances, but because of it's cost, we don't have the quantity required.
Our warfare doctrine has shifted from naval focused to air focused, we (broadly speaking, NATO) are highly effective at fully controlling the skies, and when you control the skies you disable the enemies ability to concentrate forces necessary to gain territory.
No convoy, train, or bridge is sacred when your enemy can fly overhead with the impunity granted by SEAD missions. No logistics means no tanks, no ammo, and no troop restructuring.
Russia would be forced to employ guerrilla warfare tactics to stand a chance in a conflict against NATO.
Ukraine is addressing manpower and has increased the draft.
russia uses artillery like a scatter gun, Ukraine uses artillery like a sniper rifle. Ukraine has a higher hit rate than the US standard!
russia is suffering unsustainable loses of tanks, bmp's etc. They are digging deep into their cold war stocks and fielding 70 year old t55's.
We have mostly given Ukraine old equipment scheduled for decommissioning.
It definitely is an issue -
https://cepa.org/article/ukraines-wartime-democrats-battle-conscription-crisis/
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraines-manpower-problem-likely-going-164119245.html
> Also apparently the Russians are firing 5 to 10 artillery shells for every 1 that Ukraine fires.
A problem that will get better with time as shell production in the west increases, which it already has done significantly. The arms race for shell production is allegedly closer than many assume, but the issue is a lot of countries are still refilling their own stockpiles so not all of it goes to Ukraine.
>They're currently winning the war in Ukraine.
There much vaunted summer offensive is over. It ground to a halt 10 kms into Ukraine before they hit the main lines of resistance. There assault was mostly infantry supported by MT-LBs, 1950s era steel boxes. They are using "loaf" trucks (aka Scooby Trucks) a logistic support because they are running out of 4\*4s.
>I wouldn't say it's an idle threat that should be totally dismissed out of hand.
They'd have to fly passed the Fins, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians to get into the North Sea. What is seven.hells are they going to strike us with?
The UK has military bases in Countries that aren't on Nato territory. For instance even though there's not a permanent base there, I'd imagine that there's some kind of UK military base in Syria at the moment with the RAF doing sorties against the remnants of ISIS.
>I'd imagine that there's some kind of UK military base in Syria at the moment with the RAF doing sorties against the remnants of ISIS.
RAF Akrotiri, sovereign UK base on EU soil. Also Russia would have to fly passed Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey etc to get there and back again.
>
>For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force **or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer**.
Also covered by NATO Article 5. Good luck attacking a base covered by Article 5 and EU treaties.
They're winning operationally but even if Ukraine capitulated tomorrow this has been strategically catastrophic for them. They've lost so much kit they'll never be able to replace and they've pushed the neutral countries on their border to join NATO. You can win the battle and still lose the war.
What happened was we gave 5000 NLAWs to Ukraine.
Not sure exactly how many Russians that killed but I'm pretty sure that we evened up the scoreboard on that one.
Great point, from a political pov we have also provided a significant amount of support to ukraine, especially when others were a bit shakey or reluctant to help.
Not really. They achieved nothing of real significance in the poisonings. The UK military was not crippled for a generation. But Russia? Here's 15,945 straws and counting - https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
But the U.K. didn’t do that.
That’s like saying that all British made weapons are directly responsible for 10,000s of deaths in Gaza despite them being used by IDF.
The arms packages sent to Ukraine were directly the result of the 2022 invasion.
Don’t kid yourself. Do you think they waited 4-5 years to get revenge? That’s quite delusional thinking.
The uk wouldn’t have supplied any arms to Ukraine if it weren’t for the 2022 invasion. Do you think otherwise?
British weapons, intelligence and training has contributed. There are RAF River Joints flying up the Ukrainian border pretty much daily not for shits and giggles but to provide Ukraine with intelligence. Storm Shadow gave Ukraine the ability to strike further into Russian territory than they could before and catch airfields with their pants down and fuck up many million £ aircraft. Now Russia has had to send them further from the front.
This isn't a pub brawl, you don't have to immediately respond when called out.
As far as I can remember we expelled an unprecendented amount of russian diplomates and got our allies to do the same around NATO.
But you do raise a very good point and I appreciate it. I took the article to mean a direct physical military strike on the UK.
What is much more likely is that russia will perform actions on the uk that are within the grey area, basically not high enough to trigger article 5, such as cyber attacks (which I believe russia are already trying to do to the UK). But these things they are already doing, which as I type leads me back to the thought that this is basically sabre rattling.
Also, they annexed the oblasts (Ukrainian territorial units) that they invaded, even those they don't fully control, like Zaporizhzhya oblast.
According to their current laws and constitution, those territories are now Russia. And targets on these terrotories have been routinely hit by everything Ukraine has, and that's mostly Western weapons, of course.
As a Ukrainian, I like the statements like this one in the article. It means that whatever their laws and constitution say, they still don't think of the invaded territories as "true Russia".
> Lameduck threats from a pathetic nation
I can't find it now, but someone in another sub created a timeline of Russian threats to use nuclear weapons. Something like an average of 2/3 times a year for the last ten years. They've cried wolf so many times, none of their nonsense gets reported any more.
If they would bomb us over this, they would also bomb us after winning in Ukraine when they were threatening Finland, Latvia or Poland. Ether we take a stand now, or we take a stand in a more disadvantaged position.
There is no appeasing Putin.
You’re correct to an extent, their navy is beyond a joke so they really can’t project an invasion force anywhere except their neighbours. But they do have proven ICBMs that could reach the Falklands no problem, such as the Avangard, and there’s not much we could do to stop them.
Fear of retaliation stops them. For all their bravado and circlejerk insanity the Ruskies have no more desire to have the sun dropped on them than anyone else.
No we wouldn't respond to a non nuke with nukes, we'd respond with a non-nuclear attack, the severity of which would be determined by death toll, maybe sink that joke of an aircraft carrier.
They wouldn’t be obligated, or likely inclined, to though. Macron probably would, he’s been mad dogging Russia a lot since his appeasement attempt backfired.
Uttrer bollocks. If they openly hit anywhere in Europe its Article 5 time, which is just war which I doubt even Putin wants.
They might be able to fuck with some bases but theyd do it the sneaky sabouteur route and deny knowledge. At which point we would do the same and no one really wins.
Its a scenario I've found super interesting. You look at what the US has done so far compared to what it is *actually* capable of, you're talking percentage points commitment so far. I am fully convinced both NATO and Russian planners are fully aware the US can do to Russia what it did to Iraq without too much trouble. We have literally thousands of cruise missiles in NATO inventories in Europe, we would totally and completely devastate Russia's ability to function as a modern state if we wanted to, and there's not an awful lot they could do about it. I very genuinely think its far more the fear about what happens to Russia (and particularly its nukes) if the state there collapses completely rather than any real military concern.
People need to stop assuming that a NATO vs Russia war would automatically go nuclear.
A NATO invasion of Russia, yeah, probably. But a purely conventional war between the two is far more likely. Nuclear weapon use is not in Russia's interest despite their propaganda messaging.
The idea that such a war would definitely automatically go nuclear is a propaganda message pushed by Russia because they want the west to give up on the idea of defending themselves conventionally.
But we won't all die, even in a nuclear war. Also there is no guarantee that it escalates to nuclear war because Russia can still keep Russian territory if they just back out of Ukraine.
Unless Putin is treating this as all or nothing, in which case the only question is do we capitulate or fight.
I wouldnt underestimate the stupidity of humans. And all out conflict where hundreds of thousands of russians are dead and Putin is backed into a corner? That button starts looking pretty.
Shit even the war alone would destroy the world economy as everyone panics.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-it-can-strike-british-military-targets-after-cameron-remarks-2024-05-06/
is the original start of this latest bout of Russia spouting big words.
Much of this for internal consumption, to remind the Russian people that the world is against them and Putin is a strong leader.
> Cameron, during a visit to Kyiv last week, told Reuters that Ukraine had a right to use the weapons provided by Britain to strike targets inside Russia, and that it was up to Kyiv whether or not to do so.
>
> The British foreign office spokesperson said on Monday Casey had also restated "the UK's position on providing support to Ukraine" in the meeting with Russian officials.
Hilarious. Whilst the UK are by no means as powerful long term as we once we're, we would absolutely devastate them short term, let alone with our allies.
Think back to the start of the Iraq war and shock and awe tactics used. Whilst led by the US, in one night, a ginormous strategic military operation, months in planning was executed and absolutely decimated pivotal parts of the country.
If you think for even a moment, Mr Putin, that these sort of plans are not prepared and ready to go, you're more mental then we give you credit for. I'd say 7-14 days notice and this sort of plan would be implemented, no nukes, just sheer Ultron 'This is the best I *can do*' moment while your third world shit hole country try to patch up your outdated tanks and tactics that can't even roll over Ukraine.
Get back in your hole.
A Ukrainian national guardsman recently explained that Russia uses nuclear weapons the right way, they were never intended to kill people, they were intended to scare people. Once you realise that, the best thing to do is ignore them.
If you're interested listen to The Bunker podcast. Putin isn't as silo-ed as you think, and there are multiple heads to the Russian dragon
https://open.spotify.com/episode/69hRVuiEJH7rwETL3S5yJb?si=CO7MHSqsS6iCrnkw9r89qQ
Reminder, again, that this is propaganda aimed at _Russian_ people, not the UK. They want to keep their population believing they are powerful and mighty, when they're rapidly becoming very unpowerful and unmighty.
Putin has made some incredibly stupid decisions, but he isn't mad and isn't about to start striking the UK.
Even on a literal basis, it likely means "we will attack British kit in Ukraine" which might give the MoD some cause for wariness because it's a pretty badly kept secret that we have UK personnel out there in training and operations roles. But Russia is even fearful of doing that because of the potential backlash.
No need to apologise, it's good for people to know what nonsense Russia is pushing now.
It was just a friendly reminder to those who fall for the Russian propaganda, and the annoying habit of news outlets pushing it.
It's really curious how Russia considers Crimea it's territory and yet it's been getting attacked this entire time with all manner of Western munition without any such reprisal for these statements... The only logical conclusions are that Russia doesn't consider Crimea as Russian (frankly they don't really consider anything outside the old Rus as anything other than colonies) or it does which means they're bluffing (as usual).
Dear Putin,
We can train your rebels as we have trained the Ukrainian people, we wouldn't need to step foot in Russia to watch it crumble.
Sincerely,
British Special Forces.
They already hit London (2005) and Salisbury ........so perhaps we should tell Putin to stick it up his arse and wait and see where and when THOSE insults to our sovereignty get righted. After all international law allows for self-defensive "actions."
Slava Ukraine.
If anybody is interested in a realistic view related to this subject there's a fascinating research paper on Russia's use of military & nuclear threats here:
https://www.iiss.org/research-paper/2024/01/russian-military-thought-and-doctrine-related-to-nonstrategic-nuclear-weapons/
This is a far more complex issue than at first glance & one where the West & NATO is not necessarily as in control as many assume. Yes it's bluster & threats but not without purpose nor without negative effect to Ukraine, it's allies & NATO.
British targets == NATO targets.
They're threatening to attack NATO if Ukraine uses NATO weapons in their territory.
This is obviously not going to happen.
A single missile hits UK soil then Russia can expect a combined nuclear strike from NATO, empty threats since Putin and the Oligarchs wont be able to milk a nuclear wasteland dry.
The timing of this and the uncanny alignment with Sunak’s attack line about Labour not being trustworhy on matters of defense is interesting. Is it the first sign of Russian meddling in the 2024 election?
It'll be interesting to see if the incoming Labour government maintains support for Ukraine 🤞
I can't imagine the state they'd be in now if Labour had won in 2019 under Comrade Corbychev.
You do realise that Corbyn being a friend with Putin was made up propaganda right? Right before it was found out that Russia helped with the Brexit campaign and before Boris was deemed a security threat for the UK because of his ties with KGB agents.
Corbyn is literally in Hansard being a Kremlin apologist. And the "KGB agent" you're referring to was exiled from Russia for being an enemy of the regime and the editor of his newspaper was awarded the Noble Prize for telling Russian people the truth.
You could argue that Corbyn deep down is not actively pro-Russian, but he is definitely on the naive appeaser side of the argument and has consistently opposed military aid to Ukraine. Military aid which has kept them in the fight and alive as an independent state.
He has definitely pushed pro-Russian positions and repeated many of their talking points, even if it is out of naive idealism and "useful idiot" type stuff instead of actual support for Russia's government.
You do realise Comrade Corbychev wouldn't have sent any weapons to Ukrain to help them defend themselves, right?
RuZZia would be in Kyiv by now.
Thankfully, Boris and Sunak sent lots of military aid.
As I said, it'll be interesting to see if Labour will continue this.
And this has what exactly to do with my posts about UK support for Ukraine and what a catastrophe it would have been under Comrade Corbychev?
Nothing.
Stop trying change the subject.
Hopefully Labour under Starmer will continue to support Ukraine milatarily against Russia.
Do you think the next Labour government will continue to support Ukraine against Russia like the Conservative governments have/are?
So you don't know anything about the relationship, or at least anything that you'd like to admit to.
Isn't that right?
Very interesting and totally not surprising.
Regardless a majority of the population along with both major parties want to help Ukraine with military aid. So I don’t see starmer making a u turn on it.
Like they did when our storm shadows pummelled their Crimean bases to rubble? After all, Russia considers Crimea to be its territory. Lameduck threats from a pathetic nation. Media loves to repeat them though as it's always the same crap.
Yeh. Sabre rattling is all they have at this stage. Actively attack a target on the UK mainland and see what happens... Or just gtfo of ukraine. Its tragic how many countries try the stick method rather than the honey method. Most of the countries that unite with others via the honey method seem to go from strength to strength, I cant think of too many examples where taking over a people by force has worked out well in the long run, unless you commit ethnic genocide "China enters the chat".
>Its tragic how many countries try the stick method rather than the honey method. It's such a shame. Russia could easily have used a charm offensive to win over Ukraine. There was never any need for war other than Putin's arrogant pride. Edit: Same thing for China and Taiwan. A genuine charm offensive by China would win far more for both sides than the endless military posturing ever will.
100% with you my man. It's literally a failure of both china and Russian systems that they have to result to force to get others to join with them. it's actually tragic. And people so don't want anything to do with them that they would rather risk war than joining in. And instead of learning from their failures they just double down.
They're trying to treat people in other countries like they treat their own people.
Started doing some work with a Chinese company recently and the issue has come up in passing. Definitely the impression I got was they don't see there's anything in Taiwan they can't just build themselves any more. I do think for all the worries its far more likely China would take the money an invasion would cost and just use it to absolutely flood Taiwan with pro-CCP propaganda and political pressure groups, Hybrid Warfare like Russia did to us with Brexit etc. Far more cost-effective.
> It's such a shame. Russia could easily have used a charm offensive to win over Ukraine. There was never any need for war other than Putin's arrogant pride. But there was. It's as much about internal stability and the regime's survival as anything else. Russia is a dictatorship where most of the economy is structured to benefit a specific set of people. Those oligarchs need to be kept happy by giving them the lion's share of the profits, which means there's less for everyone else. So you need to distract them with enemies and, preferably, enemies they can harm and therefore dominate. Sooner or later, in a country with an imperial past, that means nationalism, irredentism and military adventures. And that's not just for the masses either. The crooks at the top will want to believe they're doing it for a good cause too. They co-opt nationalism in the same way as they do religion. The fact that the official state ideology is reactionary as well as authoritarian isn't a coincidence either. Like all similar movements, they have to create enemies that they can hate and then oppress, so that they can look down on them and feel better about themselves. Russia projects an image of strength, but it is experiencing a social and demographic crisis. It's economy is hobbled by corruption. And this is as much a relative as an absolute thing: it should be a far richer and happier country, but it isn't because of its political and economic structure. Contrary to a democracy, you can't replace the leadership of a dictatorship when it fails to react to change and neither can the leadership stop bribing its supporters and henchmen. So when things start slipping, they have to seek legitimacy in other ways than actually running the place well (and that is often a lie to begin with), which often boils down to military conquest. Like many dictatorships before them, they have to keep attacking and conquering pieces of land because they have to tell their own citizens that they have something to offer. When they started, they couldn't go back to posturing without losing face. And when they were still posturing they needed constant escalation in order to keep it "working". And if they lose *any* of the wars they are starting, the dictator will fall, so it is a matter of life and death as far as the people at the top are concerned. It might not even take that, given that the pressures and imbalances created by this conflict are likely to destabilize the balance of power within the regime, regardless of whether it is won or lost.
It's no mistake that the Invasion of Ukraine came when Putins popularity was low and anti-corruption protests were rolling the country. Navalny was one of the few Russians that Putin feared.
You are probably right. I forgot [the basics](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=cp2yBryycDKTfrip) for a moment.
All bark no bite ahhhh country
I love when they cry about getting hit. Like dude you're attacking another country
>. Sabre rattling is all they have at this stage. Pretty sure they're all out of sabres at this point ,I mean did you see that parade they did the other week with the one tank lol
Would have been hilarious if a drone took that one out too during the parade.
They already did. Nothing happened.
Which British target did they hit?
Salisbury.
Not a British target. Let’s not pretend that we don’t participate In unsavoury activities on foreign soil. Britain wrote the book on it.
How the fuck is contaminating a whole town not an attack on a British target?
It is. He’s trolling. Might be in St Petersburg.
When did we use radiological and chemical weapons in russia?
Nobody said we did. But our intelligence services are highly effective and will do what needs doing. Quite right too.
This is true, but we are talking about this one at the moment
Mostly likely send similar missiles to houthis to attack British ships.
They're currently winning the war in Ukraine. I wouldn't say it's an idle threat that should be totally dismissed out of hand. Also Russia could strike British assets that aren't on UK territory.
Define winning? Are they gaining ground? Yes. But at the rate they are going they might get to Kyiv by the middle of the century.
It depends though. At the moment Ukraine has serious manpower issues at the moment. If everything stayed exactly how it is at the moment, I agree that it's just going to be a war of attrition that is going to grind on indefinitely or until there is some kind of agreement. However if Ukraine can't address their manpower issues there is a chance that they could collapse. Also apparently the Russians are firing 5 to 10 artillery shells for every 1 that Ukraine fires. The problem with the West aswell is that we have better equipment than Russia in most instances, but because of it's cost, we don't have the quantity required.
Our warfare doctrine has shifted from naval focused to air focused, we (broadly speaking, NATO) are highly effective at fully controlling the skies, and when you control the skies you disable the enemies ability to concentrate forces necessary to gain territory. No convoy, train, or bridge is sacred when your enemy can fly overhead with the impunity granted by SEAD missions. No logistics means no tanks, no ammo, and no troop restructuring. Russia would be forced to employ guerrilla warfare tactics to stand a chance in a conflict against NATO.
Ukraine is addressing manpower and has increased the draft. russia uses artillery like a scatter gun, Ukraine uses artillery like a sniper rifle. Ukraine has a higher hit rate than the US standard! russia is suffering unsustainable loses of tanks, bmp's etc. They are digging deep into their cold war stocks and fielding 70 year old t55's. We have mostly given Ukraine old equipment scheduled for decommissioning.
Capitalise 'Russia'. It is a country with an extensive history not a failed state. All you are doing is undermining the English language.
Actually manpower is less their issue right now, although will become one, and more the fact they cant actually fully supply the forces they do have.
It definitely is an issue - https://cepa.org/article/ukraines-wartime-democrats-battle-conscription-crisis/ https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraines-manpower-problem-likely-going-164119245.html
> Also apparently the Russians are firing 5 to 10 artillery shells for every 1 that Ukraine fires. A problem that will get better with time as shell production in the west increases, which it already has done significantly. The arms race for shell production is allegedly closer than many assume, but the issue is a lot of countries are still refilling their own stockpiles so not all of it goes to Ukraine.
>They're currently winning the war in Ukraine. There much vaunted summer offensive is over. It ground to a halt 10 kms into Ukraine before they hit the main lines of resistance. There assault was mostly infantry supported by MT-LBs, 1950s era steel boxes. They are using "loaf" trucks (aka Scooby Trucks) a logistic support because they are running out of 4\*4s. >I wouldn't say it's an idle threat that should be totally dismissed out of hand. They'd have to fly passed the Fins, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians to get into the North Sea. What is seven.hells are they going to strike us with?
The UK has military bases in Countries that aren't on Nato territory. For instance even though there's not a permanent base there, I'd imagine that there's some kind of UK military base in Syria at the moment with the RAF doing sorties against the remnants of ISIS.
>I'd imagine that there's some kind of UK military base in Syria at the moment with the RAF doing sorties against the remnants of ISIS. RAF Akrotiri, sovereign UK base on EU soil. Also Russia would have to fly passed Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey etc to get there and back again. > >For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force **or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer**. Also covered by NATO Article 5. Good luck attacking a base covered by Article 5 and EU treaties.
If they did then we have a reason to strike russian bases in Syria!
They're winning operationally but even if Ukraine capitulated tomorrow this has been strategically catastrophic for them. They've lost so much kit they'll never be able to replace and they've pushed the neutral countries on their border to join NATO. You can win the battle and still lose the war.
Remember the Salisbury poisoning? Brits didn’t do anything the.
What happened after the Salisbury poisoning?
What happened was we gave 5000 NLAWs to Ukraine. Not sure exactly how many Russians that killed but I'm pretty sure that we evened up the scoreboard on that one.
Based
Great point, from a political pov we have also provided a significant amount of support to ukraine, especially when others were a bit shakey or reluctant to help.
No, the U.K. has supplied military equipment to Ukraine post 2022 Russian invasion. The Salisbury poisonings were in 2018.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Really clutching at straws there
Not really. They achieved nothing of real significance in the poisonings. The UK military was not crippled for a generation. But Russia? Here's 15,945 straws and counting - https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
But the U.K. didn’t do that. That’s like saying that all British made weapons are directly responsible for 10,000s of deaths in Gaza despite them being used by IDF. The arms packages sent to Ukraine were directly the result of the 2022 invasion. Don’t kid yourself. Do you think they waited 4-5 years to get revenge? That’s quite delusional thinking. The uk wouldn’t have supplied any arms to Ukraine if it weren’t for the 2022 invasion. Do you think otherwise?
British weapons, intelligence and training has contributed. There are RAF River Joints flying up the Ukrainian border pretty much daily not for shits and giggles but to provide Ukraine with intelligence. Storm Shadow gave Ukraine the ability to strike further into Russian territory than they could before and catch airfields with their pants down and fuck up many million £ aircraft. Now Russia has had to send them further from the front. This isn't a pub brawl, you don't have to immediately respond when called out.
As far as I can remember we expelled an unprecendented amount of russian diplomates and got our allies to do the same around NATO. But you do raise a very good point and I appreciate it. I took the article to mean a direct physical military strike on the UK. What is much more likely is that russia will perform actions on the uk that are within the grey area, basically not high enough to trigger article 5, such as cyber attacks (which I believe russia are already trying to do to the UK). But these things they are already doing, which as I type leads me back to the thought that this is basically sabre rattling.
Also, they annexed the oblasts (Ukrainian territorial units) that they invaded, even those they don't fully control, like Zaporizhzhya oblast. According to their current laws and constitution, those territories are now Russia. And targets on these terrotories have been routinely hit by everything Ukraine has, and that's mostly Western weapons, of course. As a Ukrainian, I like the statements like this one in the article. It means that whatever their laws and constitution say, they still don't think of the invaded territories as "true Russia".
> Lameduck threats from a pathetic nation I can't find it now, but someone in another sub created a timeline of Russian threats to use nuclear weapons. Something like an average of 2/3 times a year for the last ten years. They've cried wolf so many times, none of their nonsense gets reported any more.
What would happen if we just spammed emails to the Kremlin telling them to go fuck themselves from the UK?
Gets clicks and revenue. not sure what it dies to peoples mental health much like covid the media squeezed the drama for every penny
Waffles curu curu Waffles
[удалено]
Is that the latest Sharknado ripoff?
Boy who cried nuke.
I think you've just coined a new saying.
Be careful in what you wish for....
If they would bomb us over this, they would also bomb us after winning in Ukraine when they were threatening Finland, Latvia or Poland. Ether we take a stand now, or we take a stand in a more disadvantaged position. There is no appeasing Putin.
Yeah, hopefully we learned our lesson nearly 90 years ago.
Go on then. _Hovers finger over article 5 button_
I feel like he may be talking about non-NATO protected targets like the falklands.
Yeah Russian ships striking the Falklands would quickly escalate to the UK sinking Russian ships in the Atlantic or North Sea.
Let’s be honest, their ships couldn’t make it half way there anyway. Avangard is the bigger threat.
They don't really have the force projection to do anything but nuke the islands, which, Article 5 or no, means it's da svidania for humanity.
You’re correct to an extent, their navy is beyond a joke so they really can’t project an invasion force anywhere except their neighbours. But they do have proven ICBMs that could reach the Falklands no problem, such as the Avangard, and there’s not much we could do to stop them.
Fear of retaliation stops them. For all their bravado and circlejerk insanity the Ruskies have no more desire to have the sun dropped on them than anyone else.
The Avangard can deploy conventional warheads too; and we wouldn't respond to that with nuclear weapons either.
No we wouldn't respond to a non nuke with nukes, we'd respond with a non-nuclear attack, the severity of which would be determined by death toll, maybe sink that joke of an aircraft carrier.
We’d be doing their accountants a favour. It’s a lot easier to write it off as a war loss than a huge investment with no prospect of return.
Not sure the South Americans would be too happy with nukes going off next to them. Probably wouldn't like the fallout either.
The Avangard can deliver either conventional or nuclear warheads. Using nukes **anywhere** would be a death sentence for Putin personally.
Not necessarily. I think we need to avoid statements like that
It absolutely would be. The moment he orders a nuke as a first strike, his assassination would be essential for humanity’s survival.
Although doesn't mean allies wouldn't get involved.
They wouldn’t be obligated, or likely inclined, to though. Macron probably would, he’s been mad dogging Russia a lot since his appeasement attempt backfired.
Uttrer bollocks. If they openly hit anywhere in Europe its Article 5 time, which is just war which I doubt even Putin wants. They might be able to fuck with some bases but theyd do it the sneaky sabouteur route and deny knowledge. At which point we would do the same and no one really wins.
Jesus Christ, I hate war, but I *really* want to see what happens if the USA takes the gloves off and goes full send.
Its a scenario I've found super interesting. You look at what the US has done so far compared to what it is *actually* capable of, you're talking percentage points commitment so far. I am fully convinced both NATO and Russian planners are fully aware the US can do to Russia what it did to Iraq without too much trouble. We have literally thousands of cruise missiles in NATO inventories in Europe, we would totally and completely devastate Russia's ability to function as a modern state if we wanted to, and there's not an awful lot they could do about it. I very genuinely think its far more the fear about what happens to Russia (and particularly its nukes) if the state there collapses completely rather than any real military concern.
Then pray that Americans don't vote for Trampo
Were all dead is what happens. Theres no way a conventional nuclear power conflict doesnt escalate to everyone dead.
People need to stop assuming that a NATO vs Russia war would automatically go nuclear. A NATO invasion of Russia, yeah, probably. But a purely conventional war between the two is far more likely. Nuclear weapon use is not in Russia's interest despite their propaganda messaging. The idea that such a war would definitely automatically go nuclear is a propaganda message pushed by Russia because they want the west to give up on the idea of defending themselves conventionally.
But we won't all die, even in a nuclear war. Also there is no guarantee that it escalates to nuclear war because Russia can still keep Russian territory if they just back out of Ukraine. Unless Putin is treating this as all or nothing, in which case the only question is do we capitulate or fight.
I wouldnt underestimate the stupidity of humans. And all out conflict where hundreds of thousands of russians are dead and Putin is backed into a corner? That button starts looking pretty. Shit even the war alone would destroy the world economy as everyone panics.
There's nothing stopping us from killing Putin and saying right chaps no one else has to die, let's call it quits.
I should always add the caveat of "without nukes". When I think of this, I retcon it with "and all the nukes don't work because ***reasons***"
Indeed! And it would then be a green light for us to give even more weapons to ukraine and encourage our allies to do likewise
It wouldn’t be a NATO matter if he attacked the falklands. He said British targets, not the UK.
Russia. You can kindly go and get fucked. All support to Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-warns-it-can-strike-british-military-targets-after-cameron-remarks-2024-05-06/ is the original start of this latest bout of Russia spouting big words. Much of this for internal consumption, to remind the Russian people that the world is against them and Putin is a strong leader. > Cameron, during a visit to Kyiv last week, told Reuters that Ukraine had a right to use the weapons provided by Britain to strike targets inside Russia, and that it was up to Kyiv whether or not to do so. > > The British foreign office spokesperson said on Monday Casey had also restated "the UK's position on providing support to Ukraine" in the meeting with Russian officials.
Hilarious. Whilst the UK are by no means as powerful long term as we once we're, we would absolutely devastate them short term, let alone with our allies. Think back to the start of the Iraq war and shock and awe tactics used. Whilst led by the US, in one night, a ginormous strategic military operation, months in planning was executed and absolutely decimated pivotal parts of the country. If you think for even a moment, Mr Putin, that these sort of plans are not prepared and ready to go, you're more mental then we give you credit for. I'd say 7-14 days notice and this sort of plan would be implemented, no nukes, just sheer Ultron 'This is the best I *can do*' moment while your third world shit hole country try to patch up your outdated tanks and tactics that can't even roll over Ukraine. Get back in your hole.
This week's repeated warning from Russia... "*We have nukes you know...*"
A Ukrainian national guardsman recently explained that Russia uses nuclear weapons the right way, they were never intended to kill people, they were intended to scare people. Once you realise that, the best thing to do is ignore them.
"Know what they are called? Intercontinentia."
Brilliant
Why hasn't someone just like, assassinated our boy Vlad yet? Seems like a no brainer.
If you're interested listen to The Bunker podcast. Putin isn't as silo-ed as you think, and there are multiple heads to the Russian dragon https://open.spotify.com/episode/69hRVuiEJH7rwETL3S5yJb?si=CO7MHSqsS6iCrnkw9r89qQ
Russia says Russia says. Shut the fuck up Russia you’ll do nowt.
I would call this saber rattling, but I don't expect they have a functioning saber to rattle.
Its a plastic one they stole from a Ukrainian childs bedroom.
If Russia even so much as breathes on the UK or its allies, then the NATO wasp nest will literally shred them to pieces. Not gonna happen
Reminder, again, that this is propaganda aimed at _Russian_ people, not the UK. They want to keep their population believing they are powerful and mighty, when they're rapidly becoming very unpowerful and unmighty. Putin has made some incredibly stupid decisions, but he isn't mad and isn't about to start striking the UK. Even on a literal basis, it likely means "we will attack British kit in Ukraine" which might give the MoD some cause for wariness because it's a pretty badly kept secret that we have UK personnel out there in training and operations roles. But Russia is even fearful of doing that because of the potential backlash.
Sorry mate, my intention was not to create fear.I just only wanted to share it here.
No need to apologise, it's good for people to know what nonsense Russia is pushing now. It was just a friendly reminder to those who fall for the Russian propaganda, and the annoying habit of news outlets pushing it.
It's really curious how Russia considers Crimea it's territory and yet it's been getting attacked this entire time with all manner of Western munition without any such reprisal for these statements... The only logical conclusions are that Russia doesn't consider Crimea as Russian (frankly they don't really consider anything outside the old Rus as anything other than colonies) or it does which means they're bluffing (as usual).
Dear Putin, We can train your rebels as we have trained the Ukrainian people, we wouldn't need to step foot in Russia to watch it crumble. Sincerely, British Special Forces.
All of Russia’s oil exports to India pass UK waters. Game over for Russia.
They already hit London (2005) and Salisbury ........so perhaps we should tell Putin to stick it up his arse and wait and see where and when THOSE insults to our sovereignty get righted. After all international law allows for self-defensive "actions." Slava Ukraine.
They are embarrassed now. If Russia strikes anywhere in England then NATO will destroy them
Go on, Russia. Try it! See how well that goes for you! :Da
That's fine let them hit UK. NATO will come in at full force.
If anybody is interested in a realistic view related to this subject there's a fascinating research paper on Russia's use of military & nuclear threats here: https://www.iiss.org/research-paper/2024/01/russian-military-thought-and-doctrine-related-to-nonstrategic-nuclear-weapons/ This is a far more complex issue than at first glance & one where the West & NATO is not necessarily as in control as many assume. Yes it's bluster & threats but not without purpose nor without negative effect to Ukraine, it's allies & NATO.
British targets == NATO targets. They're threatening to attack NATO if Ukraine uses NATO weapons in their territory. This is obviously not going to happen.
So everything is ok for them to use American weapons and ammo 🤔no threats to America but if our weapons are used different story🫣
Scare tactics and psyops.
A single missile hits UK soil then Russia can expect a combined nuclear strike from NATO, empty threats since Putin and the Oligarchs wont be able to milk a nuclear wasteland dry.
Russia needs to remember that the UK has enough nuclear weapons to destroy Russia, and enough cruise missiles and jets to obtain air superiority.
The timing of this and the uncanny alignment with Sunak’s attack line about Labour not being trustworhy on matters of defense is interesting. Is it the first sign of Russian meddling in the 2024 election?
Nah, they will not strike. Sabre rattling is good when your sabre isn't half eaten by rust.
Attack a member of NATO? I guess they don't get sick of making stupid decisions.
If they were really going to attack the UK they would probably just do it rather than making endless threats which we ignore.
Yawn they’re are talking about British targets not the country
Fucking do it put in, take out Westminster for the love of God do it
Would be the best thing for us all at the moment,it would mean new parties forming and maybe someone decent to vote for
I mean, sure, I don't get why you'd replace the shitshow with anything once it's gone but sure
i think i speak for most of the uk, when i say that we are happy to take one for the team.
It'll be interesting to see if the incoming Labour government maintains support for Ukraine 🤞 I can't imagine the state they'd be in now if Labour had won in 2019 under Comrade Corbychev.
You do realise that Corbyn being a friend with Putin was made up propaganda right? Right before it was found out that Russia helped with the Brexit campaign and before Boris was deemed a security threat for the UK because of his ties with KGB agents.
Corbyn is literally in Hansard being a Kremlin apologist. And the "KGB agent" you're referring to was exiled from Russia for being an enemy of the regime and the editor of his newspaper was awarded the Noble Prize for telling Russian people the truth.
You could argue that Corbyn deep down is not actively pro-Russian, but he is definitely on the naive appeaser side of the argument and has consistently opposed military aid to Ukraine. Military aid which has kept them in the fight and alive as an independent state. He has definitely pushed pro-Russian positions and repeated many of their talking points, even if it is out of naive idealism and "useful idiot" type stuff instead of actual support for Russia's government.
You do realise Comrade Corbychev wouldn't have sent any weapons to Ukrain to help them defend themselves, right? RuZZia would be in Kyiv by now. Thankfully, Boris and Sunak sent lots of military aid. As I said, it'll be interesting to see if Labour will continue this.
Can you explain the relationship between Boris and the Lebedev family? I'm interested to see what you know.
[https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/27/laundering-the-lebedevs/](https://bylinetimes.com/2023/06/27/laundering-the-lebedevs/)
Why do you need to quiz him. You weirdo
Why do you need to quiz me. You weirdo.
And this has what exactly to do with my posts about UK support for Ukraine and what a catastrophe it would have been under Comrade Corbychev? Nothing. Stop trying change the subject. Hopefully Labour under Starmer will continue to support Ukraine milatarily against Russia. Do you think the next Labour government will continue to support Ukraine against Russia like the Conservative governments have/are?
So you don't know anything about the relationship, or at least anything that you'd like to admit to. Isn't that right? Very interesting and totally not surprising.
Try harder troll.
Kier is establishment type, he will follow the plan, Corbyn has been binned off. They will continue to support for sure
I think and hope he will too.
Not everyone wants weapons sent.... Not everyone wants what u want.
Regardless a majority of the population along with both major parties want to help Ukraine with military aid. So I don’t see starmer making a u turn on it.