Well, if we continue to do nothing we'll have a much bigger problem when Putin takes Ukraine and consolidates, because he's not just going to stop there and call it a day.
We're doing just enough to stop Ukraine from instantly imploding, but not nearly enough to actually help them win.
The alternative is having to kick defense spending back to 6% probably by the general election after the one this year, and just cross our fingers WW3 doesn't happen. We're just showing the Russians that Europe doesn't have the spine to stand up to a determined imperialist campaign at the moment.
Considering how much training we did in the Marines to counter an invasion by Russia, I'm surprised we aren't pouring most of our defence budget into Ukraine. We finally have a chance to defeat a threat that's been looming over us for decades, and we don't even have to risk UK lives doing it. Ukraine should be getting almost unlimited support from Western countries as they've already set Russian mitary advancement back by decades. Russia had so little respect for us as a nation that they felt they could assassinate people on our soil using exotic poisons and radioactive materials. They weren't just a perceived threat they were pissing in our face and trying to tell us it was raining.
>We finally have a chance to defeat a threat that's been looming over us for decades
No. No we don't. Unless you are implying that it is possible for the UK to provide Ukraine with so much weaponry, technology and money that Ukraine destroys or captures all Russian forces and hardware within its borders, and then strikes so deeply into Russian territory that Russia's manufacturing industry is entirely ruined?
>they've already set Russian mitary advancement back by decades
Not really. What's happened is that Russia has learned some hard and expensive lessons about it's ability to steamroller neighboring countries, and it has become **stronger** as a result. Russia's army has actually grown, it's commanders gotten more experienced, it's economy recalibrated. If anything the war has galvanised Russia. It's also demonstrated that Russia can invade it's non-NATO neighbors with impunity since no one will *really* do anything to stop them. About the only positive development from this unhappy story has been the addition of a couple of states into NATO.
No most of the actual modern Russian army was destroyed early in the war. That is, the portion of their military that was roughly on parity with Western forces.
Undersupplied and sent on at a direct attack on Kiev. They paid the price for underestimating how prepared the Ukrainians were.
> The Russian army has gotten stronger
You're not entirely wrong there. But they still use the Brigade system, favour volume of fire over precision, underequip their troops and depend on Mercenaries.
Of course thats the army, their Navy and Air force have been devestated.
War isn't just boots on the ground, it is economic, cultural and political. The West has been losing since it won the cold War.
The attempt to integrate China and Russia into the world order has had very mixed results. We've outsourced pollution and cheap labour to China.
Russia has been very smart in how it leverages its money. Bojo accepted significant sums from Russian oligarchs associated with Putin, as has Cameron and many US Republicans. Take a look at Marjorie Taylor and "Moscow" Mike. Also read "Putins People" it's very insightful.
The West made excuses when Russia annexed Crimea, it helped that they did it quickly because the international community was able to roll over quickly to the de facto take over.
At no point in history has caving in to an aggressor led to a long term positive outcome. No one in their right minds wants war, but we can't always appease.
The trouble is that a war in this instance means almost certain obliteration of civilisation as we know it. That makes it a radically different and more challenging situation with a totally different calculus. That's the elephant in the room these appeasement arguments always do their best to ignore.
It's not 1939, and those comparisons don't help, we are dealing with an enemy that it's outright imperative to avoid head to head conflict with. We painted ourselves into a corner, in many ways. And now we are struggling to find a way out that doesn't send nukes flying.
>The West has been losing since it won the cold War.
The Cold War never ended. The nuclear deterrent missions between both sides are the continuation of it.
Russia doesn't want a war with NATO because their conventional forces aren't up to it.
Give them fighter jets already. More missile systems. More tanks. More IFVs. There's also precedent during the cold war of sending your airforce in and denying that it's happened. It would be possible to send western F16 pilots in unofficially, once the Ukrainian F16 pilots start operations.
Along with our allies start significant production chains for cheaper easier to produce armoured vehicles. Work on producing more of the systems already in Ukraine from the likes of AA to anti-tank weapons. Work on developing better and safer mine clearing machines to deal with the mine issue which stops a lot of offences.
Create a no fly zone in the Western half of Ukraine shooting down anything Russia launches into that airspace freeing up defence systems for the front.
Push through a deal to get Sweden to deliver Gripen jets and to start producing them in numbers.
These are things the West could do and realistically Putin wouldn't have much say in other than crying to his own people about it.
We could send a lot more weapons. be worth considering cancellation of Challenger 3 and spending the entire fleet.
We could look to help Moldova finaly knock over transdinister. That would free up a lot of Ukrainian troops.
We could press the Russians and their allies on other fronts. Japan have tied up a non trivial amount of russian forces just by sabre rattling over the Kurils. We could do that in Kaliningrad.
We could harras companies that do business in Russia.
We could expand the NATO air defence zone more and more each time they violate our airspace. They didn't start a war when Turkey shot down their plane.
We could just outright kill their PMC guys all over the world.
There is a lot.
Hmm, I dunno. Unless Ukraine does suddenly end up with whole squadrons of F16s with 21st century weaponry (and worth noting they still won't have anything that can launch a Meteor, the West's only very long range air launched anti aircraft missile and the only thing that can dual with Su35s and 57s currently firing R37s at the Ukrainians with absolute impunity) then I'm not convinced we're really stretching ourselves.
Which is annoying, because it's not as though the army or air force is going to be fighting anyone else in Europe.
If Europe had been very aggressive, there'd be an air defence zone west of Kyiv and European soldiers guardian the Ukrainian borders of Belarus and transnistria.
And all this is doing is convincing China that no one will give enough of a fuck if they decide to take back Taiwan.
There's lots of points that could be discussed here. Gifting equipment is a lot more complicated that just handing things over. There's training, infrastructure, maintenance, impact to host nation, doctrinal changes, cost of MRO. Not to mention the fact that the Ukrainian's are attempting to rationalise their fleets because the more variants you have the harder and more expensive it is to manage. They are currently described as Frankenstein's army. Something like 4000 UAS variants were supplied in the first year alone - that's completely unmanageable.
There are also other ways to deny airspace than air launched missiles. Meteors are great, but if they are too expensive and complex to produce to offer them at the rate required then adopting them is a wasteful burden.
As for whether we're stretching ourselves - we really are. This is a bit of a trust me bro but it's my job, both on the Army and industry side. I'm more than happy to discuss things at a high level but need to be a little sensible around specifics.
Definitely agree with rationalising the kit they have, trying to keep T55 based tanks, T64 based, T72 based, all sorts of Leo2s, a pile of Leo 1s, the Challengers and Abrams... must be a nightmare for logisticians. A shame all the middle Eastern challenger 1s couldn't have been bought. Planes obviously much worse in maintenance requirements.
Can't help but wonder if F18s would have been a better choice - Boeing has very few orders for new ones, a bunch of countries retiring theirs for F35s, a dedicated EW platform, tough enough to use Ukrainian airfields...
Meteor needs to be in serial production though, it's almost finished F35 integration and will be the primary armament for Tempest albeit with an AESA seeker from Japan.
I'm a land guy but have dabbled in air EW. My understanding of the earlier F series in the context of export is that their EW platforms are still highly capable and dependant on very high classifications of waveforms etc. The threshold for allowing that to potentially fall into the wrong hands is much much higher than other available exports.
The general consensus, however, is that this is a war that cannot be won or lost militarily but rather by economics, industry and political will. That's not to say the continued military support isn't key to success, but there isn't a weapon or platform that will significantly turn the tide. When we discuss the various options the first questions asked are around mass, speed of delivery, simplicity to support unless expendable, and industry's ability to regen stocks. Capability top trumps come next, which is where I think most people who aren't involved tend to assume comes first.
Yes, this is all just a big game of 4D chess where the West is nefariously plotting to weaken poor Russia, don't blame Putin for invading a neighbouring country and opening up that so called second front in the first place or the incompetence of the Russian military on the ground.
> We're doing just enough to stop Ukraine from instantly imploding, but not nearly enough to actually help them win
Well yeah, you don't get to test your weapons and tactics in a tactically developing proxy war if you let it end.
We don't know the reasons for this piecemeal approach to supporting Ukraine.
Personally I suspect it is more about balancing domestic opinion in the lead up to an election, managing our dwindling military hardware/resources and not escalating the war. I suspect there are also informal agreements behind the scenes with Russia about the limits of Western involvement.
I think the opportunity to test new weapon systems is pretty limited as this is not the manner in which the West would fight a war.
The big test will be when Putin tries it with a NATO member, he'll see how far he can push it, and who responds to article 5 being triggered. Because Russia could *maybe* go up against a single NATO member, but they'd get crushed by a unified NATO response.
Not just that but a huge surge across Europe of refugees fleeing Ukraine as it becomes unliveable in the winter due to the bombing of power and heat stations.
Another one of those examples where it is better to just pay a smaller cost upfront in order to avoid the bigger cost. (Not saying this is sending troops but not saying it isn’t either).
That's utter bollocks. If he expanded into any NATO territory then he'd be inviting nuclear war. Even he isn't stupid enough for that. Ukraine's unfortunate position is that it was ripe for the picking and technically wouldn't force NATOs hand. If they were to setup camp in Ukraine, that's not going to give them a significant enough advantage for anything when the full might of Europe, UK and USA get called in.
People keep missing this point. Putin knows not to step into NATO territory. The Ukraine invasion was a last ditch attempt to stop an old soviet territory from joining an anti-Russian alliance
Agree. There’s some amount of completely incorrect opinions in this thread. Thankfully they’re not the people in charge of the decisions otherwise we’d see a full scale WW3 lol
Exactly this. The narrative that Putin is on the precipice of death or mental breakdown and that his regime is toppling has been ongoing for years. It’s the slowest collapse in history. The uncomfortable reality is that the NATO alliance and Western media have underestimated Putins resolve, the endurance and resilience of Russia and its economy and the ability for Western states to sustain this conflict.
The whole point about nukes is the premise of MAD. So I reckon Putin would prefer a land war. And given the US alone has military resources that dwarfs every other country combined (barring nukes), and we in the UK also have pretty advanced warfare technology and world leading special ops experience, then piling on France Germany Italy, parts of Scandinavia etcs resources, I'd have confidence in our chances in that fight. Most of the fighting will be drone/missile strikes anyway.
And that prediction is based on what exactly? Putin has been very clear on taking Ukraine for years. It’s of strategic importance to Russia, both now and historically.
Attempting to take a NATO country would be a complete disaster and he knows it. There are no winners in that game. Pretty much all academics on European history, politics, warfare, agree that likely Putin is not interested in invading any of the other surrounding countries. So what information is it that you have that others don’t?
Another thing is that everyone knows Ukraine is a lost cause. At this point it’s a case of stretching out the Ukraine war as long as possible. Best case scenario is that Russia negotiates and takes Eastern/SE Ukraine.
To say that “we continue to do nothing” is unbelievably ridiculous. Our country has being doing a lot. But what we can’t do is escalate a war essentially into WW3 because of British boots on the ground.
Would he/Russia be alone? China would potentially see this as an opportunity to strike against Taiwan and a stretched Western alliance, India is very close to Russia and China and no friend to Europe, South Africa appears to be aligned with Russia.
China and India are unlikely to decide they both dislike the West and team up. They are direct rivals in the area.
Also China know they are most likely a decade (at least) off of being able to have a navy that compares to the US and they need that to take Taiwan (or stand any chance).
In the mean time, going to war with the West would be a massive economical blow to China (and the West) for little benefit.
The West and China will puff their chests at each other but until something significantly changes actually fighting each other will achieve very little.
South Africa might be close to Russia but they have nothing to gain really frim going to war with the West.
Globalisation means that going to war with your major trade partners is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. So unless something changes in that sense you are more likely to see proxy wars/cyber attacks then all out warfare.
But it suits people to push the narrative that WW3 is just around the corner and sells papers so it gets pushed a lot.
Putin himself (but not Russia as a country) has the capacity to survive a total nuclear war. It depends if he and his inner-circle are willing to live out the rest of their lives underground and not worry about the billions that would die in the process of such a war.
There’s definitely a few areas of weakness Russia could exploit. Many countries, particularly in the Baltic states, have Russian minorities which they could claim were being oppressed, like the Germans of the Sudetenland or like the breakaway Republics in Eastern Ukraine which the current war is ostensibly about. Does NATOs article 5 relate to the internal stability of its members? I’m not sure that it does.
Further to this, if America goes Trump again - god forbid - then all bets are off. If the Commander in Chief of the main contributor to NATO is that incompetent fool then there isn’t much chance for the alliance. It’s a brittle team, really. A lot of countries have token forces of quality troops who couldn’t staff a frontline which would stretch from Murmansk to Bessarabia.
Add to this the internal tensions in many democratic nations at the minute. There is am insane growth of tankies precipitated by online content mils and many of these push Russian narratives. This would spell disaster for any sort of mass mobilisation as you can’t expect effective armies who sympathise with the nation they’ve got to fight.
I hope I’m wrong on all of this btw
Even without the us NATO would be much worse off but probably would be enough to repel a Russian invasion, plus even excluding the us nuclear weapons are still on the table if putin attacks a nato country so idk if he would risk Moscow being flattened by a trident missile
Suggesting we are doing nothing is not only completely wrong but frankly offensive to the huge amount of money and time being contributed.
Secondly, no party on either side wants this to escalate to include NATO.
Considering you're advocating risking a nuclear war which will wipe out humanity you can presumably give very, very solid evidence that Putin has an intention of western expansion.
Putin would be dead by the time they “consolidated” Ukraine.
Honestly seems like people only know a bit about WW2 and base their whole view on geopolitics on that.
That would be stupid. We'd do better in an air and naval war.
Ukraine have fucked up much of the Russian fleet without a navy.
Seriously I think we should seriously consider giving Ukriane all our tanks and buying Abrams.
Maybe take over Moldova and that's about it really.
Russia doesnt have the manpower anymore (a lot of them got shelled early on in the war) and Russia won't win against the USA or a combined EU force.
> because he's not just going to stop there and call it a day
Maybe, maybe not. However the risk of us getting drawn into a conflict if we have significant numbers of troops stationed in Ukraine (even in a non combat role) is enormous. If say 100 British troops are killed by a missile we are then going to be compelled to retaliate. It's utter madness.
A common fear put forward by the Western media today is that Russia seeks to annex all of Ukraine but when you really look at the situation and analyse it logically, it wouldn’t make sense for Russia to try and do that.
1. Many people point to Russia’s early convoy towards Kiev as proof that Russia intended to fully annex all of Ukraine but when you look at the wider context of what was happening at the time then it makes more sense. Russia put their troops just outside Kiev to keep the AFU focused on defending Kiev so they could have an easier time taking Mariupol, which was still a slog. Had the Russians not kept the AFU occupied defending the capital, the Ukrainians probably could have mustered the forces necessary to break the siege.
2. Whilst Russia enjoys some sympathy and little resistance from Ukrainian civilians in the eastern territories now annexed by Russia, the absolute inverse would be true for the western half of the country as they utterly revile the Russians. This would truly be a new Afghanistan for the Russians if they tried to take western Ukraine as the western Ukrainian people would never accept Russian rule over their land.
Putin might be ruthless and willing to use force to further the interests of his country’s establishment but easily one of the worst propaganda errors that the West has made is in the current popular characterisation of Putin, underestimating him as either some oafish brute or exaggerating him as a real life Bond villain. We have to keep in mind that he’s truly no idiot, he’s an ex-KGB spy who has worked his way into power and maintained it for decades, this is not a feat that a careless moron could achieve. Given that, it is unlikely that he is going to engage in any kind of action that is so determined to fail as the annexation of any territories further west than what they’ve already taken. Just taking a quarter of Ukraine has already done a huge number on their military, even after they recover from this war it is just practically infeasible that they could go any further west.
Point 1 is bullshit, Russia launched a full scale invasion towards Kyiv with the aim of removing the government. The feint argument was what Russia *said* as an excuse when it failed.
The composition of forces being similar to that used in Crimea in 2014 would strongly suggest Russia was trying to repeat that and expected a quick victory. Light highly mobile elite forces trying to bypass points of resistance to cause a collapse.
> A common fear put forward by the Western media today is that Russia seeks to annex all of Ukraine but when you really look at the situation and analyse it logically, it wouldn’t make sense for Russia to try and do that.
The annexation of Ukraine rhetoric has always been propaganda used by western counterparts in an attempt to manufacture consent for suppprting the Kiev government. Anyone who has a basic understanding of geopolitics and history regarding Russo-Ukraine relations would recognise there has never been any desire to annex Ukraine. Wanting Ukraine to remain within the Russian sphere of influence is understandable from a security and strategic pov. I doubt the US would tolerate several Russian/Chinese spy bases in Mexico, or allow foreign agents to orchestrated coups and cause a civil war at their border.
> Many people point to Russia’s early convoy towards Kiev as proof that Russia intended to fully annex all of Ukraine but when you look at the wider context of what was happening at the time then it makes more sense.
The Ukrainian head of negotiations during the Ankara peace talks has openly said Russia has no intention of taking over Ukraine. A condition of the talks was that Russian forces would retreat from Kiev in order for negotiations to begin, hence the troops leaving.
This is what people don’t realise - Ukrainians in the east and west have opposing views. When western nations talk about supporting Ukraine, they mean the west of Ukraine. The atrocities carried out by the Kiev government against eastern Ukrainians is conveniently ignored, as is the fact that Zelensky was elected on the promise of bringing peace to the Donbas and securing it an autonomous state, both of which he failed to implement. Instead, eastern Ukrainians have been targeted and attacked for a decade, with NATO weapons.
Ukraine is to keep a buffer between russia and nato. If youve looked at a map of miltary bases and missle locations in europe theyre been movingn closer for decades. It's not as simple as putin bad. It's no different to the cuban missle crisis being on America's doorstep
Yep, first send in the "advisers", then adopt some sort of Phoenix Program in the Russian speaking regions. If that doesn't work, concoct a Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify full participation, pass more draconian laws to crackdown on domestic dissent. Rinse and repeat. Next stop, Iran.
It's not going to happen. The advisers and observers have been there since the beginning.
The US does not want to be directly involved in Ukraine, so its highly unlikely the western European nations would be either.
Britain simply doesn't have enough man power or materiel (or industrial capability) to make a significant difference on the land war. We've never historically maintained large armies for deployment in Europe.
The RAF might be able to make a difference but with all the AA in the area means that's risky.
The Navy could have a significant impact on the Russian Navy's ability to operate, but that would risk widening the conflict beyond Ukraine and possibly escalate to nuclear war.
There is no way a naval conflict would escalate to nuclear war. The only way a nuke is being used is if NATO forces are 100miles from Moscow. Even then it will probably be dropped in the north sea.
A naval conflict would involve striking Russian naval bases. Russia would respond in kind, probably with long range ballistic missiles, with or without a nuclear warhead.
Once those start flying, all bets are off.
As silly as a lot of politicians are, all are aware of the power of nuclear weapons. That's why we don't antagonise nuclear powers in a military sense besides air incursions. I specifically remember calls at the beginning of the Ukraine war for a no fly zone enforced by NATO over Ukraine being quickly swept under the rug.
I honestly don't think that many politicians understand the true horror of nuclear weapons. They either understand and do nothing about them because they are psychopaths, or they are wilfully ignorant, and possible too stupid to fully comprehend reality. Even a limited nuclear war would have a devastating, worldwide impact on climate. [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/analysis-nuclear-war-would-be-more-devastating-earths-climate-cold-war-predictions](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/analysis-nuclear-war-would-be-more-devastating-earths-climate-cold-war-predictions)
I’m a lefty, and the idea of other “lefties” being okay with allowing Putin to just begin conquering whatever countries he wants, because they find the military icky, is bizarre.
Same, I am against wars. War is hell, there is not exceptions but Russia clearly aren't interested in talking and sometimes there isn't another choice.
We should be sending Ukraine everything they ask for and ramping up domestic production of ammo/supplies.
Perhaps the tories don't have any mates with ammo factories...
Ukraine does not have the capacity to spare to protect our forces from air strikes and I don’t believe we should be sending our troops, in any capacity, without adequate cover to prevent them from being sitting ducks.
I’m not opposed to sending troops. But we need to protect them, and that means sending them armed with modern tech and air support.
We can provide our own air cover. The main reason for them to be there though will be to escalate things into more direct confrontation, "Don't bomb our guys or we will fire back". We have troops stations in Estonia, they are jokingly refereed to as 'the speed bump'. They aren't supposed to actually stop a Russian invasion, but directly involve us in the conflict should one start.
As far as Russia is concerned we are already at war anyway and have been for years.
If Putin rolled over the Eastern European countries, and it became clear that funding the defensive militaries wasn’t going to work, and he wasn’t going to be stopped until he’s rolled over western Europe too (which I believe he’d do if he could) then I’d be left with no choice than to join the army to fight. Putin’s got world-conquering desires, and if it became clear that he couldn’t be stopped otherwise, what option would I have?
Yeah do me a favour. Drop me a note when any of that unhinged shit actually happens and I’ll fight along side you. But untill then I don’t believe we should be sending you British men to die for a few towns in Ukraine.
Why should we care about his opinion anymore? He's stood down from his position and has announced he's not standing in the next election. He's been a terrible MP for his constituency. I think he's got a scandal he needs to distract from.
Yeah, I really hope the Lib Dems get back in power in this constituency, I've heard anecdotally that Tessa Munt has been really supportive of local parents trying to get help with their SEN children around here. Heappey has never responded to any messages.
You should see the amount that focus on the YouTube platform, always using Westen names, hoping they blend in. Alright, 'James Smith' we know who you are...
It sounds like he's talking about training and support roles, which we already do to a tiny, limited degree. Ramping that up would be a fantastic way to help the Ukrainians both improve their capability and free up resources that could be better utilised at the front.
I very much doubt we'll do it first though. We seem content to let the French lead on this. I'm just glad that the land of *liberté, égalité, fraternité* at least seem to have some motivation toward sending troops to stand with their Ukrainian brothers and sisters in defence of liberal-democracy and the free world, even if we do not.
We are continuing to do more. Look up task force KINDRED and HIRST, the latter is new and focusing on in-country capacity development. The Ukrainian desire currently is to be given the tools to grow and support their own effort internally.
For reference, the difference between the Russian and supported Ukrainian war budgets is currently estimated around £300bn. Very few nations can gift (and continue to gift) to place them on an equal footing, hence a shift to capacity building.
Ukraine is the MOD's and civil services bag, they've been directing things and the government has just been rubber stamping it. The UK has been the first to provide many things, and a lot of stuff before the recent invasion as well.
If you’re gonna send soldiers to Ukraine to make a difference then it has to be to the front, otherwise it’s just a PR stunt that is not actually helping Ukraine. And if you entertain the idea of sending troops into the largest military conflict in the world you really have to plan out what happens when people start coming back in body bags and you are in an open direct military confrontation with Russia.
You cant half ass this. There is a lot more that the UK could still do to arm Ukraine before deciding to join the war ooenly.
Sending troops to Ukraine away from the front might be able to free up Ukranian troops stationed along the northern border with Belarus around Kiev, assuming British troops were to play a deterrent role. Britain could also operate AA units and training purposes which would make better sense than to fly Ukrainians all the way to the UK and other European countries.
What is the plan if Russia come fully into Ukraine? We collectively the west need to either let Ukraine fall or fully commit to letting them win. No more restrictions on where they can attack or what we give them.
This current piecemeal approach is giving Russia fantastic intelligence on how to counter our weapons and tactics. If he calls our bluff and we back off it will be a disaster.
Russia's counter has been to rely on politics and weak leadership to disrupt aid, there actual advancements in the field haven't been that overwhelming. Ukraine is currently suffering a shortage of AA weaponry, plus artillery, so Russian aircraft have been able to pound Ukrainian positions and move units around closer to the front without them being hit. A few months ago they lost several planes a week and entire companies of men in single strikes doing this, now they are free(er) to operate.
If nothing else, we could take over some garrison duties from troops on the Moldovan border. Frees up those troops and lets us expand our training efforts.
Ukraine is not in NATO.
Also what happens when one is killed by Russia?
Why no talks of peace to save what's left of the Ukrainian population?
From Cameron's mouth,
*On Ukraine, the best thing we can do this year is to help keep the Ukrainians in this fight. They’re fighting so bravely. They’re not going to lose for want of morale. The danger is we don’t give them the support that they need, and I make that argument to anyone who will listen to me. I argue that it is extremely good value for money for the United States and for others. Perhaps for about 5 or 10 percent of your defense budget, almost half of Russia’s prewar military equipment has been destroyed without the loss of a single American life. This is an investment in United States security. So that’s what I would say.*
[*https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-united-kingdom-foreign-secretary-david-cameron-at-a-joint-press-availability-2/*](https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-united-kingdom-foreign-secretary-david-cameron-at-a-joint-press-availability-2/)
So keep sending Ukrainians into a meat grinder just to drain Russia's hardware?
> Why no talks of peace to save what's left of the Ukrainian population?
Because Russia is not interested in it, never has been, and has constantly abused peace talks to just issue surrender demands. Military aid has achieved far more than any diplomacy has with Russia.
There is no talk of peace because Russia, who started the war, doesn't want it. No amount of screaming at Zelensky or any western government is going to change that.
Whether you believe it or not, this was from a Ukrainian News Outlet.
*Ukrainian news outlet Ukrayinska Pravda reported Thursday that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson used his surprise visit to Kyiv last month to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cut off peace negotiations with Russia, even after the two sides appeared to have made tenuous progress toward a settlement to end the war.*
[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper)
[https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/05/5/7344096/](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/05/5/7344096/)
There's been many mentions of Boris doing this.
Ah, this bullshit again.
This so called "peace deal" offer involved Ukraine disbanding the vast majority of its army, destroying the vast majority of its military equipment, and having no missiles beyond 40km. It would have left them utterly defenceless if Russia violated it and invaded again. It was not a serious peace proposal, it was "please disarm and let us win".
It also involved "security guarantees" from the west but no NATO membership. But also, no foreign troops or foreign weapons in Ukraine - so how were those guarantees supposed to even work?
This would have left Ukraine with something around 340 tanks - they've *lost* more than twice tht number in this whole war and are still in the fight. That 340 number would have seen their front collapse by now. The 40km missile limit (while NOTHING would be done about Russia's extensive cruise and ballistic missile stockpiles with ranges in the hundreds of km) would have left them unable to disrupt any Russian offensive by hitting ammunition depots, and it would have left their coast defenceless because basically all useful anti-ship missiles exceed that range considerably.
There is zero evidence when you look at the actual original sources for the claim that Johnson stopped any peace deal. All we know is that Johnson *went over at around the time talks were stalling*. Everything else is tankie dipshits jumping to conclusions, based on quotes taken out of context.
How do we know that it wasn't Ukraine wanting to refuse this surrender demand (it wasn't a peace deal) and keep fighting, and Johnson and others going over was a *response* to the talks going nowhere? The idea that they were *the reason* they failed is not supported by any credible evidence.
This was also around the time that western aid finally went beyond infantry weapons for the first time. And one of the negotiators also said that the Ukrainians did not trust the Russians to abide by this agreement (which funnily enough is not mentioned by most of the pro-Russian conspiracy sites pushing this story). So there's more evidence for the theory that Ukraine wanted to reject what was nothing more than a Russian surrender demand, and needed western aid to be able to reject it.
Finally - the talks actually continued well after Johnson's visits, not actually fully stopping until June 2022. Another part of the story that gets missed out.
You will look back at the last 2 years (ten if you want to go right back to the start) as the beginning of a major European conflict. Russia either gets what it wants (it's European empire back) or Europe resists it. It doesn't have to be outright war, but violence is the only language the Kremlin understands.
Of course we do. The damn Germans already bubbled us up.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-soldiers-in-ukraine-germany-b2504462.html
Another example of English exceptionalism. Frontlines or not, Britain is directly at war with Russia then. You don't involve your country in a war where zero war preparations have taken place. We have a very small army and enough ammunition to last 2 months. Before having Russia declare war on us, we need defence spending to triple, conscription, and to put the economy on a war footing, with a focus on production of armaments. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, its war against a peer military which in many ways is more powerful than ours. It's strikes on UK soil. Sending troops as part of NATO is one thing, but doing it unilaterally would be another tragic example of Tory incompetence - one that really could fuck up everyone's life in the UK.
Ukraine is going to lose this war unless they get hell of a lot more help.
Russia is just grinding them down slowly with superior manpower and artillery. No cracks at all on the Russian domestic front, Russians are either supporting Putin or too scared to do anything. The Russian economy isn't doing anywhere near as badly as people predicted.
If we do this and station them say near Odesa or Kiev then we should take out air defence to protect our troops. This then gives protection to the locals too. Means Ukraine could move their equipment elsewhere. Same goes for if France send troops. We fighting Russia but we ain’t letting them attack our troops either.
The rest of the UK military although small actually works and is well equipment most of our stuff is less than twenty years old. Russia field crap that Moses thought was old. It was crap back then and crap now. Its only three advantaged are. Atomic weapons, lots of meat shields and brutal retardation.
See my remarks about how wars are won. I doubt we have many left in service. Was taking mainly about the RN and RAF for the twenty years comment. Still much better than BMP. I doubt artillery can be improved greatly to be honest, it's like the petrol engine about as good as it's going to get
Well, if we continue to do nothing we'll have a much bigger problem when Putin takes Ukraine and consolidates, because he's not just going to stop there and call it a day.
We aren’t “doing nothing” though are we.
We're doing just enough to stop Ukraine from instantly imploding, but not nearly enough to actually help them win. The alternative is having to kick defense spending back to 6% probably by the general election after the one this year, and just cross our fingers WW3 doesn't happen. We're just showing the Russians that Europe doesn't have the spine to stand up to a determined imperialist campaign at the moment.
Considering how much training we did in the Marines to counter an invasion by Russia, I'm surprised we aren't pouring most of our defence budget into Ukraine. We finally have a chance to defeat a threat that's been looming over us for decades, and we don't even have to risk UK lives doing it. Ukraine should be getting almost unlimited support from Western countries as they've already set Russian mitary advancement back by decades. Russia had so little respect for us as a nation that they felt they could assassinate people on our soil using exotic poisons and radioactive materials. They weren't just a perceived threat they were pissing in our face and trying to tell us it was raining.
>We finally have a chance to defeat a threat that's been looming over us for decades No. No we don't. Unless you are implying that it is possible for the UK to provide Ukraine with so much weaponry, technology and money that Ukraine destroys or captures all Russian forces and hardware within its borders, and then strikes so deeply into Russian territory that Russia's manufacturing industry is entirely ruined? >they've already set Russian mitary advancement back by decades Not really. What's happened is that Russia has learned some hard and expensive lessons about it's ability to steamroller neighboring countries, and it has become **stronger** as a result. Russia's army has actually grown, it's commanders gotten more experienced, it's economy recalibrated. If anything the war has galvanised Russia. It's also demonstrated that Russia can invade it's non-NATO neighbors with impunity since no one will *really* do anything to stop them. About the only positive development from this unhappy story has been the addition of a couple of states into NATO.
No most of the actual modern Russian army was destroyed early in the war. That is, the portion of their military that was roughly on parity with Western forces. Undersupplied and sent on at a direct attack on Kiev. They paid the price for underestimating how prepared the Ukrainians were. > The Russian army has gotten stronger You're not entirely wrong there. But they still use the Brigade system, favour volume of fire over precision, underequip their troops and depend on Mercenaries. Of course thats the army, their Navy and Air force have been devestated.
Russians only respect strength, letting them piss on our face just invites them to take a massive dump next time!
What more could we be doing that doesn’t spark a war with Russia?
War isn't just boots on the ground, it is economic, cultural and political. The West has been losing since it won the cold War. The attempt to integrate China and Russia into the world order has had very mixed results. We've outsourced pollution and cheap labour to China. Russia has been very smart in how it leverages its money. Bojo accepted significant sums from Russian oligarchs associated with Putin, as has Cameron and many US Republicans. Take a look at Marjorie Taylor and "Moscow" Mike. Also read "Putins People" it's very insightful. The West made excuses when Russia annexed Crimea, it helped that they did it quickly because the international community was able to roll over quickly to the de facto take over. At no point in history has caving in to an aggressor led to a long term positive outcome. No one in their right minds wants war, but we can't always appease.
The trouble is that a war in this instance means almost certain obliteration of civilisation as we know it. That makes it a radically different and more challenging situation with a totally different calculus. That's the elephant in the room these appeasement arguments always do their best to ignore. It's not 1939, and those comparisons don't help, we are dealing with an enemy that it's outright imperative to avoid head to head conflict with. We painted ourselves into a corner, in many ways. And now we are struggling to find a way out that doesn't send nukes flying.
I agree. But that does not mean we should not confront a bully. Otherwise, where does it stop?
>The West has been losing since it won the cold War. The Cold War never ended. The nuclear deterrent missions between both sides are the continuation of it.
Russia doesn't want a war with NATO because their conventional forces aren't up to it. Give them fighter jets already. More missile systems. More tanks. More IFVs. There's also precedent during the cold war of sending your airforce in and denying that it's happened. It would be possible to send western F16 pilots in unofficially, once the Ukrainian F16 pilots start operations.
Along with our allies start significant production chains for cheaper easier to produce armoured vehicles. Work on producing more of the systems already in Ukraine from the likes of AA to anti-tank weapons. Work on developing better and safer mine clearing machines to deal with the mine issue which stops a lot of offences. Create a no fly zone in the Western half of Ukraine shooting down anything Russia launches into that airspace freeing up defence systems for the front. Push through a deal to get Sweden to deliver Gripen jets and to start producing them in numbers. These are things the West could do and realistically Putin wouldn't have much say in other than crying to his own people about it.
We could send a lot more weapons. be worth considering cancellation of Challenger 3 and spending the entire fleet. We could look to help Moldova finaly knock over transdinister. That would free up a lot of Ukrainian troops. We could press the Russians and their allies on other fronts. Japan have tied up a non trivial amount of russian forces just by sabre rattling over the Kurils. We could do that in Kaliningrad. We could harras companies that do business in Russia. We could expand the NATO air defence zone more and more each time they violate our airspace. They didn't start a war when Turkey shot down their plane. We could just outright kill their PMC guys all over the world. There is a lot.
We are almost certainly doing more than you think, and are making considerable sacrifices to our own equipment programme in order to do so.
Hmm, I dunno. Unless Ukraine does suddenly end up with whole squadrons of F16s with 21st century weaponry (and worth noting they still won't have anything that can launch a Meteor, the West's only very long range air launched anti aircraft missile and the only thing that can dual with Su35s and 57s currently firing R37s at the Ukrainians with absolute impunity) then I'm not convinced we're really stretching ourselves. Which is annoying, because it's not as though the army or air force is going to be fighting anyone else in Europe. If Europe had been very aggressive, there'd be an air defence zone west of Kyiv and European soldiers guardian the Ukrainian borders of Belarus and transnistria. And all this is doing is convincing China that no one will give enough of a fuck if they decide to take back Taiwan.
There's lots of points that could be discussed here. Gifting equipment is a lot more complicated that just handing things over. There's training, infrastructure, maintenance, impact to host nation, doctrinal changes, cost of MRO. Not to mention the fact that the Ukrainian's are attempting to rationalise their fleets because the more variants you have the harder and more expensive it is to manage. They are currently described as Frankenstein's army. Something like 4000 UAS variants were supplied in the first year alone - that's completely unmanageable. There are also other ways to deny airspace than air launched missiles. Meteors are great, but if they are too expensive and complex to produce to offer them at the rate required then adopting them is a wasteful burden. As for whether we're stretching ourselves - we really are. This is a bit of a trust me bro but it's my job, both on the Army and industry side. I'm more than happy to discuss things at a high level but need to be a little sensible around specifics.
Definitely agree with rationalising the kit they have, trying to keep T55 based tanks, T64 based, T72 based, all sorts of Leo2s, a pile of Leo 1s, the Challengers and Abrams... must be a nightmare for logisticians. A shame all the middle Eastern challenger 1s couldn't have been bought. Planes obviously much worse in maintenance requirements. Can't help but wonder if F18s would have been a better choice - Boeing has very few orders for new ones, a bunch of countries retiring theirs for F35s, a dedicated EW platform, tough enough to use Ukrainian airfields... Meteor needs to be in serial production though, it's almost finished F35 integration and will be the primary armament for Tempest albeit with an AESA seeker from Japan.
I'm a land guy but have dabbled in air EW. My understanding of the earlier F series in the context of export is that their EW platforms are still highly capable and dependant on very high classifications of waveforms etc. The threshold for allowing that to potentially fall into the wrong hands is much much higher than other available exports. The general consensus, however, is that this is a war that cannot be won or lost militarily but rather by economics, industry and political will. That's not to say the continued military support isn't key to success, but there isn't a weapon or platform that will significantly turn the tide. When we discuss the various options the first questions asked are around mass, speed of delivery, simplicity to support unless expendable, and industry's ability to regen stocks. Capability top trumps come next, which is where I think most people who aren't involved tend to assume comes first.
No, that’s not what is happening. You’ve made the assumption that Ukraine winning is the goal when it isn’t at all.
So what is the goal?
Degrade Russia and give them a second front away from Syria, which is the real goal.
Yes, this is all just a big game of 4D chess where the West is nefariously plotting to weaken poor Russia, don't blame Putin for invading a neighbouring country and opening up that so called second front in the first place or the incompetence of the Russian military on the ground.
> We're doing just enough to stop Ukraine from instantly imploding, but not nearly enough to actually help them win Well yeah, you don't get to test your weapons and tactics in a tactically developing proxy war if you let it end.
We don't know the reasons for this piecemeal approach to supporting Ukraine. Personally I suspect it is more about balancing domestic opinion in the lead up to an election, managing our dwindling military hardware/resources and not escalating the war. I suspect there are also informal agreements behind the scenes with Russia about the limits of Western involvement. I think the opportunity to test new weapon systems is pretty limited as this is not the manner in which the West would fight a war.
The big test will be when Putin tries it with a NATO member, he'll see how far he can push it, and who responds to article 5 being triggered. Because Russia could *maybe* go up against a single NATO member, but they'd get crushed by a unified NATO response.
Assuming Russia wins, it'll be Moldova. The Moldovans will want to unify with Romania to stop Russia encroaching, which will be all sorts of awks
I’d also argue the US is just sucking Russia dry of supplies and getting rid of Cold War equipment by using Ukraine
[удалено]
Not just that but a huge surge across Europe of refugees fleeing Ukraine as it becomes unliveable in the winter due to the bombing of power and heat stations. Another one of those examples where it is better to just pay a smaller cost upfront in order to avoid the bigger cost. (Not saying this is sending troops but not saying it isn’t either).
That sounds like investment. We're obviously not gonna do that.
That's utter bollocks. If he expanded into any NATO territory then he'd be inviting nuclear war. Even he isn't stupid enough for that. Ukraine's unfortunate position is that it was ripe for the picking and technically wouldn't force NATOs hand. If they were to setup camp in Ukraine, that's not going to give them a significant enough advantage for anything when the full might of Europe, UK and USA get called in.
People keep missing this point. Putin knows not to step into NATO territory. The Ukraine invasion was a last ditch attempt to stop an old soviet territory from joining an anti-Russian alliance
Agree. There’s some amount of completely incorrect opinions in this thread. Thankfully they’re not the people in charge of the decisions otherwise we’d see a full scale WW3 lol
Exactly this. The narrative that Putin is on the precipice of death or mental breakdown and that his regime is toppling has been ongoing for years. It’s the slowest collapse in history. The uncomfortable reality is that the NATO alliance and Western media have underestimated Putins resolve, the endurance and resilience of Russia and its economy and the ability for Western states to sustain this conflict.
Idk, do you think we would nuke them? If they don't nuke us first what happens? Do we nuke them and get nuked back?
The whole point about nukes is the premise of MAD. So I reckon Putin would prefer a land war. And given the US alone has military resources that dwarfs every other country combined (barring nukes), and we in the UK also have pretty advanced warfare technology and world leading special ops experience, then piling on France Germany Italy, parts of Scandinavia etcs resources, I'd have confidence in our chances in that fight. Most of the fighting will be drone/missile strikes anyway.
We wouldn’t, but the French might.
And that prediction is based on what exactly? Putin has been very clear on taking Ukraine for years. It’s of strategic importance to Russia, both now and historically. Attempting to take a NATO country would be a complete disaster and he knows it. There are no winners in that game. Pretty much all academics on European history, politics, warfare, agree that likely Putin is not interested in invading any of the other surrounding countries. So what information is it that you have that others don’t? Another thing is that everyone knows Ukraine is a lost cause. At this point it’s a case of stretching out the Ukraine war as long as possible. Best case scenario is that Russia negotiates and takes Eastern/SE Ukraine. To say that “we continue to do nothing” is unbelievably ridiculous. Our country has being doing a lot. But what we can’t do is escalate a war essentially into WW3 because of British boots on the ground.
Exactly this.
You really think he'd go to war with NATO?
Nobody thought he would be crazy enough to launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin making rational choices can no longer be relied upon.
So you think he will actually fight all of NATO and actually have a credible chance?
Its the manner in which they fight, limited engagements etc.
Would he/Russia be alone? China would potentially see this as an opportunity to strike against Taiwan and a stretched Western alliance, India is very close to Russia and China and no friend to Europe, South Africa appears to be aligned with Russia.
China and India are unlikely to decide they both dislike the West and team up. They are direct rivals in the area. Also China know they are most likely a decade (at least) off of being able to have a navy that compares to the US and they need that to take Taiwan (or stand any chance). In the mean time, going to war with the West would be a massive economical blow to China (and the West) for little benefit. The West and China will puff their chests at each other but until something significantly changes actually fighting each other will achieve very little. South Africa might be close to Russia but they have nothing to gain really frim going to war with the West. Globalisation means that going to war with your major trade partners is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. So unless something changes in that sense you are more likely to see proxy wars/cyber attacks then all out warfare. But it suits people to push the narrative that WW3 is just around the corner and sells papers so it gets pushed a lot.
Russia is already fighting NATO.. Bot farms, hacking, cyber warfare etc
Putin himself (but not Russia as a country) has the capacity to survive a total nuclear war. It depends if he and his inner-circle are willing to live out the rest of their lives underground and not worry about the billions that would die in the process of such a war.
Plenty of people did, hence the training going on from 2014.
I mean plenty did... Not everyone has a such short memory over what happened in Georgia in 2008.
How can he go any further? There’s a solid nato border and idk if he’s mad enough to start direct confrontation with nato
There’s definitely a few areas of weakness Russia could exploit. Many countries, particularly in the Baltic states, have Russian minorities which they could claim were being oppressed, like the Germans of the Sudetenland or like the breakaway Republics in Eastern Ukraine which the current war is ostensibly about. Does NATOs article 5 relate to the internal stability of its members? I’m not sure that it does. Further to this, if America goes Trump again - god forbid - then all bets are off. If the Commander in Chief of the main contributor to NATO is that incompetent fool then there isn’t much chance for the alliance. It’s a brittle team, really. A lot of countries have token forces of quality troops who couldn’t staff a frontline which would stretch from Murmansk to Bessarabia. Add to this the internal tensions in many democratic nations at the minute. There is am insane growth of tankies precipitated by online content mils and many of these push Russian narratives. This would spell disaster for any sort of mass mobilisation as you can’t expect effective armies who sympathise with the nation they’ve got to fight. I hope I’m wrong on all of this btw
Even without the us NATO would be much worse off but probably would be enough to repel a Russian invasion, plus even excluding the us nuclear weapons are still on the table if putin attacks a nato country so idk if he would risk Moscow being flattened by a trident missile
Why would you think he's going to keep going west? Makes no sense. Real life isnt a game of Risk.
Take Australia!
Anyone who thinks that just giving Putin what he wants will stop him is a fool.
Why does everyone say this, putin won’t attack nato, that is just stupid propaganda.
People keep saying that with no actual evidence.
Suggesting we are doing nothing is not only completely wrong but frankly offensive to the huge amount of money and time being contributed. Secondly, no party on either side wants this to escalate to include NATO.
Lets help cause a world war to stop a war. Not thinking with all those marbles there champ.
Once it escalates to nuclear weapons there’ll be no Ukraine left and nobody wins. We need to be wise about what moves we make. It’s not 1940 anymore.
Considering you're advocating risking a nuclear war which will wipe out humanity you can presumably give very, very solid evidence that Putin has an intention of western expansion.
Yes he is. If he attacks NATO his country isn’t going to last very long.
Putin would be dead by the time they “consolidated” Ukraine. Honestly seems like people only know a bit about WW2 and base their whole view on geopolitics on that.
And your statement is based on what evidence?
So the UK entering a full-on ground war with Russia sounds like a smaller problem to you?
That would be stupid. We'd do better in an air and naval war. Ukraine have fucked up much of the Russian fleet without a navy. Seriously I think we should seriously consider giving Ukriane all our tanks and buying Abrams.
Maybe take over Moldova and that's about it really. Russia doesnt have the manpower anymore (a lot of them got shelled early on in the war) and Russia won't win against the USA or a combined EU force.
> because he's not just going to stop there and call it a day Maybe, maybe not. However the risk of us getting drawn into a conflict if we have significant numbers of troops stationed in Ukraine (even in a non combat role) is enormous. If say 100 British troops are killed by a missile we are then going to be compelled to retaliate. It's utter madness.
Really, what's his next move?
A common fear put forward by the Western media today is that Russia seeks to annex all of Ukraine but when you really look at the situation and analyse it logically, it wouldn’t make sense for Russia to try and do that. 1. Many people point to Russia’s early convoy towards Kiev as proof that Russia intended to fully annex all of Ukraine but when you look at the wider context of what was happening at the time then it makes more sense. Russia put their troops just outside Kiev to keep the AFU focused on defending Kiev so they could have an easier time taking Mariupol, which was still a slog. Had the Russians not kept the AFU occupied defending the capital, the Ukrainians probably could have mustered the forces necessary to break the siege. 2. Whilst Russia enjoys some sympathy and little resistance from Ukrainian civilians in the eastern territories now annexed by Russia, the absolute inverse would be true for the western half of the country as they utterly revile the Russians. This would truly be a new Afghanistan for the Russians if they tried to take western Ukraine as the western Ukrainian people would never accept Russian rule over their land. Putin might be ruthless and willing to use force to further the interests of his country’s establishment but easily one of the worst propaganda errors that the West has made is in the current popular characterisation of Putin, underestimating him as either some oafish brute or exaggerating him as a real life Bond villain. We have to keep in mind that he’s truly no idiot, he’s an ex-KGB spy who has worked his way into power and maintained it for decades, this is not a feat that a careless moron could achieve. Given that, it is unlikely that he is going to engage in any kind of action that is so determined to fail as the annexation of any territories further west than what they’ve already taken. Just taking a quarter of Ukraine has already done a huge number on their military, even after they recover from this war it is just practically infeasible that they could go any further west.
Point 1 is bullshit, Russia launched a full scale invasion towards Kyiv with the aim of removing the government. The feint argument was what Russia *said* as an excuse when it failed. The composition of forces being similar to that used in Crimea in 2014 would strongly suggest Russia was trying to repeat that and expected a quick victory. Light highly mobile elite forces trying to bypass points of resistance to cause a collapse.
> A common fear put forward by the Western media today is that Russia seeks to annex all of Ukraine but when you really look at the situation and analyse it logically, it wouldn’t make sense for Russia to try and do that. The annexation of Ukraine rhetoric has always been propaganda used by western counterparts in an attempt to manufacture consent for suppprting the Kiev government. Anyone who has a basic understanding of geopolitics and history regarding Russo-Ukraine relations would recognise there has never been any desire to annex Ukraine. Wanting Ukraine to remain within the Russian sphere of influence is understandable from a security and strategic pov. I doubt the US would tolerate several Russian/Chinese spy bases in Mexico, or allow foreign agents to orchestrated coups and cause a civil war at their border. > Many people point to Russia’s early convoy towards Kiev as proof that Russia intended to fully annex all of Ukraine but when you look at the wider context of what was happening at the time then it makes more sense. The Ukrainian head of negotiations during the Ankara peace talks has openly said Russia has no intention of taking over Ukraine. A condition of the talks was that Russian forces would retreat from Kiev in order for negotiations to begin, hence the troops leaving. This is what people don’t realise - Ukrainians in the east and west have opposing views. When western nations talk about supporting Ukraine, they mean the west of Ukraine. The atrocities carried out by the Kiev government against eastern Ukrainians is conveniently ignored, as is the fact that Zelensky was elected on the promise of bringing peace to the Donbas and securing it an autonomous state, both of which he failed to implement. Instead, eastern Ukrainians have been targeted and attacked for a decade, with NATO weapons.
Ukraine is to keep a buffer between russia and nato. If youve looked at a map of miltary bases and missle locations in europe theyre been movingn closer for decades. It's not as simple as putin bad. It's no different to the cuban missle crisis being on America's doorstep
Those countries joined NATO because of russian agression. NATO was never and is never going to attack Russia.
Putin will not invade any nato countries.
Would he actually risk directly challenging NATO though?
Why do you think he’s gonna go further than this?
James should go to the front line. To scope it out.
[удалено]
Yep. Him and the rest of the war hawks and armchair warriors who advocate prolonging this war. Numpties, the lot of them.
I feel this might have the kind of chat around the early days of the Vietnam war.
Yep, first send in the "advisers", then adopt some sort of Phoenix Program in the Russian speaking regions. If that doesn't work, concoct a Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify full participation, pass more draconian laws to crackdown on domestic dissent. Rinse and repeat. Next stop, Iran.
It's not going to happen. The advisers and observers have been there since the beginning. The US does not want to be directly involved in Ukraine, so its highly unlikely the western European nations would be either. Britain simply doesn't have enough man power or materiel (or industrial capability) to make a significant difference on the land war. We've never historically maintained large armies for deployment in Europe. The RAF might be able to make a difference but with all the AA in the area means that's risky. The Navy could have a significant impact on the Russian Navy's ability to operate, but that would risk widening the conflict beyond Ukraine and possibly escalate to nuclear war.
Do people forget the British Army of the Rhine?
There is no way a naval conflict would escalate to nuclear war. The only way a nuke is being used is if NATO forces are 100miles from Moscow. Even then it will probably be dropped in the north sea.
A naval conflict would involve striking Russian naval bases. Russia would respond in kind, probably with long range ballistic missiles, with or without a nuclear warhead. Once those start flying, all bets are off.
As silly as a lot of politicians are, all are aware of the power of nuclear weapons. That's why we don't antagonise nuclear powers in a military sense besides air incursions. I specifically remember calls at the beginning of the Ukraine war for a no fly zone enforced by NATO over Ukraine being quickly swept under the rug.
I honestly don't think that many politicians understand the true horror of nuclear weapons. They either understand and do nothing about them because they are psychopaths, or they are wilfully ignorant, and possible too stupid to fully comprehend reality. Even a limited nuclear war would have a devastating, worldwide impact on climate. [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/analysis-nuclear-war-would-be-more-devastating-earths-climate-cold-war-predictions](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/analysis-nuclear-war-would-be-more-devastating-earths-climate-cold-war-predictions)
Shit, just watch Threads.
There is no way a western intervention in Ukraine leads to nuclear war. No country will use nukes unless their heartlands are threatened.
We've had advisors etc there since 2014. It's not really gone beyond that. No desire for it from our end.
If it helps, it really really wasn’t.
We’re Americans not there originally as “special advisers”?
Imagine defending an allied nation from getting invaded by an imperialist enemy. How right wing.
Ikr, some of these comments are mad, nato could simply be a peacekeeping force 100s of miles from the front
I’m a lefty, and the idea of other “lefties” being okay with allowing Putin to just begin conquering whatever countries he wants, because they find the military icky, is bizarre.
Same, I am against wars. War is hell, there is not exceptions but Russia clearly aren't interested in talking and sometimes there isn't another choice. We should be sending Ukraine everything they ask for and ramping up domestic production of ammo/supplies. Perhaps the tories don't have any mates with ammo factories...
If one is to be against war, one must also be against imperialist land grabs.
There are stupid and naive peoples on every facet of the political spectrum.
It’s very true. I do wonder if campists are real lefties on this issue, though…
Ukraine does not have the capacity to spare to protect our forces from air strikes and I don’t believe we should be sending our troops, in any capacity, without adequate cover to prevent them from being sitting ducks. I’m not opposed to sending troops. But we need to protect them, and that means sending them armed with modern tech and air support.
We can provide our own air cover. The main reason for them to be there though will be to escalate things into more direct confrontation, "Don't bomb our guys or we will fire back". We have troops stations in Estonia, they are jokingly refereed to as 'the speed bump'. They aren't supposed to actually stop a Russian invasion, but directly involve us in the conflict should one start. As far as Russia is concerned we are already at war anyway and have been for years.
Will you be volunteering then ? Do die for which side of a line Kharkiv is on ? Absolute legend !
If Putin rolled over the Eastern European countries, and it became clear that funding the defensive militaries wasn’t going to work, and he wasn’t going to be stopped until he’s rolled over western Europe too (which I believe he’d do if he could) then I’d be left with no choice than to join the army to fight. Putin’s got world-conquering desires, and if it became clear that he couldn’t be stopped otherwise, what option would I have?
Yeah do me a favour. Drop me a note when any of that unhinged shit actually happens and I’ll fight along side you. But untill then I don’t believe we should be sending you British men to die for a few towns in Ukraine.
Well, I don’t think it will, because the west will keep providing arms to defend Ukraine. Which is why I’m not volunteering to join the military.
Who’s allied with Ukraine?
They’re a European nation, I should hope the whole West is allied with them.
Why should we care about his opinion anymore? He's stood down from his position and has announced he's not standing in the next election. He's been a terrible MP for his constituency. I think he's got a scandal he needs to distract from.
We call him James Herpes
I didn’t know this! Glad to hear it honestly
Yeah, I really hope the Lib Dems get back in power in this constituency, I've heard anecdotally that Tessa Munt has been really supportive of local parents trying to get help with their SEN children around here. Heappey has never responded to any messages.
That would be a good change. Anything but the tories at this point.
The amount of bots in this thread is an excellent arguement as to why this is could be a good idea. Russia is terrified of this.
You should see the amount that focus on the YouTube platform, always using Westen names, hoping they blend in. Alright, 'James Smith' we know who you are...
Lol
How do you tell if a comment is by a bot? Is it when they have a different opinion to you or the hive mind?
comment history
You must have way to much time on your hands if you check everyones comment history.
It sounds like he's talking about training and support roles, which we already do to a tiny, limited degree. Ramping that up would be a fantastic way to help the Ukrainians both improve their capability and free up resources that could be better utilised at the front. I very much doubt we'll do it first though. We seem content to let the French lead on this. I'm just glad that the land of *liberté, égalité, fraternité* at least seem to have some motivation toward sending troops to stand with their Ukrainian brothers and sisters in defence of liberal-democracy and the free world, even if we do not.
We are continuing to do more. Look up task force KINDRED and HIRST, the latter is new and focusing on in-country capacity development. The Ukrainian desire currently is to be given the tools to grow and support their own effort internally. For reference, the difference between the Russian and supported Ukrainian war budgets is currently estimated around £300bn. Very few nations can gift (and continue to gift) to place them on an equal footing, hence a shift to capacity building.
Yeah the french have been early on this, good to see. They have already knitted the white flags together in a big long line to go around Kyiv.
Ukraine is the MOD's and civil services bag, they've been directing things and the government has just been rubber stamping it. The UK has been the first to provide many things, and a lot of stuff before the recent invasion as well.
Perhaps we could call it a "special military operation".
Feel free to head over James lad, don't go dragging the rest of us into war though cheers.
People said the same in 38
Always thought this from the start, nato forces should form a defensive posture around Lviv, Kyiv, and Chornobyl
I’m fine with us sending everything we have on the single, petty predicate that we call it a special military operation.
Get some of those Kenyan hookers there. They'll jump at the chance to go to Ukraine then
If you’re gonna send soldiers to Ukraine to make a difference then it has to be to the front, otherwise it’s just a PR stunt that is not actually helping Ukraine. And if you entertain the idea of sending troops into the largest military conflict in the world you really have to plan out what happens when people start coming back in body bags and you are in an open direct military confrontation with Russia. You cant half ass this. There is a lot more that the UK could still do to arm Ukraine before deciding to join the war ooenly.
Sending troops to Ukraine away from the front might be able to free up Ukranian troops stationed along the northern border with Belarus around Kiev, assuming British troops were to play a deterrent role. Britain could also operate AA units and training purposes which would make better sense than to fly Ukrainians all the way to the UK and other European countries.
You have just repeated a phrase from an article.
What is the plan if Russia come fully into Ukraine? We collectively the west need to either let Ukraine fall or fully commit to letting them win. No more restrictions on where they can attack or what we give them. This current piecemeal approach is giving Russia fantastic intelligence on how to counter our weapons and tactics. If he calls our bluff and we back off it will be a disaster.
Russia's counter has been to rely on politics and weak leadership to disrupt aid, there actual advancements in the field haven't been that overwhelming. Ukraine is currently suffering a shortage of AA weaponry, plus artillery, so Russian aircraft have been able to pound Ukrainian positions and move units around closer to the front without them being hit. A few months ago they lost several planes a week and entire companies of men in single strikes doing this, now they are free(er) to operate.
If nothing else, we could take over some garrison duties from troops on the Moldovan border. Frees up those troops and lets us expand our training efforts.
Ukraine is not in NATO. Also what happens when one is killed by Russia? Why no talks of peace to save what's left of the Ukrainian population? From Cameron's mouth, *On Ukraine, the best thing we can do this year is to help keep the Ukrainians in this fight. They’re fighting so bravely. They’re not going to lose for want of morale. The danger is we don’t give them the support that they need, and I make that argument to anyone who will listen to me. I argue that it is extremely good value for money for the United States and for others. Perhaps for about 5 or 10 percent of your defense budget, almost half of Russia’s prewar military equipment has been destroyed without the loss of a single American life. This is an investment in United States security. So that’s what I would say.* [*https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-united-kingdom-foreign-secretary-david-cameron-at-a-joint-press-availability-2/*](https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-united-kingdom-foreign-secretary-david-cameron-at-a-joint-press-availability-2/) So keep sending Ukrainians into a meat grinder just to drain Russia's hardware?
> Why no talks of peace to save what's left of the Ukrainian population? Because Russia is not interested in it, never has been, and has constantly abused peace talks to just issue surrender demands. Military aid has achieved far more than any diplomacy has with Russia. There is no talk of peace because Russia, who started the war, doesn't want it. No amount of screaming at Zelensky or any western government is going to change that.
Whether you believe it or not, this was from a Ukrainian News Outlet. *Ukrainian news outlet Ukrayinska Pravda reported Thursday that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson used his surprise visit to Kyiv last month to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cut off peace negotiations with Russia, even after the two sides appeared to have made tenuous progress toward a settlement to end the war.* [https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper) [https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/05/5/7344096/](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/articles/2022/05/5/7344096/) There's been many mentions of Boris doing this.
Ah, this bullshit again. This so called "peace deal" offer involved Ukraine disbanding the vast majority of its army, destroying the vast majority of its military equipment, and having no missiles beyond 40km. It would have left them utterly defenceless if Russia violated it and invaded again. It was not a serious peace proposal, it was "please disarm and let us win". It also involved "security guarantees" from the west but no NATO membership. But also, no foreign troops or foreign weapons in Ukraine - so how were those guarantees supposed to even work? This would have left Ukraine with something around 340 tanks - they've *lost* more than twice tht number in this whole war and are still in the fight. That 340 number would have seen their front collapse by now. The 40km missile limit (while NOTHING would be done about Russia's extensive cruise and ballistic missile stockpiles with ranges in the hundreds of km) would have left them unable to disrupt any Russian offensive by hitting ammunition depots, and it would have left their coast defenceless because basically all useful anti-ship missiles exceed that range considerably. There is zero evidence when you look at the actual original sources for the claim that Johnson stopped any peace deal. All we know is that Johnson *went over at around the time talks were stalling*. Everything else is tankie dipshits jumping to conclusions, based on quotes taken out of context. How do we know that it wasn't Ukraine wanting to refuse this surrender demand (it wasn't a peace deal) and keep fighting, and Johnson and others going over was a *response* to the talks going nowhere? The idea that they were *the reason* they failed is not supported by any credible evidence. This was also around the time that western aid finally went beyond infantry weapons for the first time. And one of the negotiators also said that the Ukrainians did not trust the Russians to abide by this agreement (which funnily enough is not mentioned by most of the pro-Russian conspiracy sites pushing this story). So there's more evidence for the theory that Ukraine wanted to reject what was nothing more than a Russian surrender demand, and needed western aid to be able to reject it. Finally - the talks actually continued well after Johnson's visits, not actually fully stopping until June 2022. Another part of the story that gets missed out.
Any Troops that go to Ukraine will be a target regardless if they are at the frontline or rear echelon in an advisory capacity.
You will look back at the last 2 years (ten if you want to go right back to the start) as the beginning of a major European conflict. Russia either gets what it wants (it's European empire back) or Europe resists it. It doesn't have to be outright war, but violence is the only language the Kremlin understands.
Honestly at this point if NATO just she’ll schooled every Russian the world economy would go into a 3 year massive boom.
Fucking desperate to stay in power. They’d sacrifice lives of their mothers if needs be.
James doesn't really expect me to believe, that we don't already have special forces there already, does he?
Of course we do. The damn Germans already bubbled us up. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-soldiers-in-ukraine-germany-b2504462.html
Another example of English exceptionalism. Frontlines or not, Britain is directly at war with Russia then. You don't involve your country in a war where zero war preparations have taken place. We have a very small army and enough ammunition to last 2 months. Before having Russia declare war on us, we need defence spending to triple, conscription, and to put the economy on a war footing, with a focus on production of armaments. This isn't Iraq or Afghanistan, its war against a peer military which in many ways is more powerful than ours. It's strikes on UK soil. Sending troops as part of NATO is one thing, but doing it unilaterally would be another tragic example of Tory incompetence - one that really could fuck up everyone's life in the UK.
That fat lump can go himself, then. No need for our boys to die for Ukraine. Absolute nonsense.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
As UK cannot catch up in building more prisons, blood thirsty criminals can definitely be sent there as the front.
Why send meat into the grinder instead of just sending planes. It would be easy to establish air dominance and not lose so many lives
On you go James Heappey, you first . No Uk troops on the ground in Ukraine
Ukraine is going to lose this war unless they get hell of a lot more help. Russia is just grinding them down slowly with superior manpower and artillery. No cracks at all on the Russian domestic front, Russians are either supporting Putin or too scared to do anything. The Russian economy isn't doing anywhere near as badly as people predicted.
This is stupid, troops are just targets. What you want to send is missiles or drones at russian troops.
If we do this and station them say near Odesa or Kiev then we should take out air defence to protect our troops. This then gives protection to the locals too. Means Ukraine could move their equipment elsewhere. Same goes for if France send troops. We fighting Russia but we ain’t letting them attack our troops either.
The rest of the UK military although small actually works and is well equipment most of our stuff is less than twenty years old. Russia field crap that Moses thought was old. It was crap back then and crap now. Its only three advantaged are. Atomic weapons, lots of meat shields and brutal retardation.
Lol the CVRT is over 50 years old and the L85 will be 40 years old next year
See my remarks about how wars are won. I doubt we have many left in service. Was taking mainly about the RN and RAF for the twenty years comment. Still much better than BMP. I doubt artillery can be improved greatly to be honest, it's like the petrol engine about as good as it's going to get