And sadly there are some who think it's all hyperbole.
I don't think it's hyperbole, but I question the motives of Cairns and others like Rutte who are talking it up. To quote Rutte, "We must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured." Is that not hyperbole? It's pretty unambiguous, not to mention terrifying. I've got no problem with leaders being honest and telling people things are not going to be as easy as they have been for the past few decades, but this sort of scare-mongering seems extremely irresponsible. Or is it simply a case of 'we want more money out of you so we're going to terrify you into handing it over'?
I think there's accuracy in everything you've said. All can be true at the same time.
There is a threat, they've chosen to package it in a very dramatic way, they probably do see the need for resource, and there is absolutely politics and agendas at play.
Maybe the scaremongering is purposeful, maybe not.
One thing can be said is that NATO absolutely took it's eye off the ball for decades, concerning itself with blokes in dish dashes and sandals and the world ended up quite worse for it.
I don't envy Rutte who has what I view as a really complex job.
Chechnya is a good example of Putin’s absolute indifference to bloodshed and destruction
As is Syria.
This makes for sobering reading, particularly for those who think this is all hyperbole…
Trump’s defenders have sought to arguethat the administration has no problem with Europe per se; it’s the European Union it can’t stand. A Europe of individual, sovereign nation-states would, they say, find a warm embrace in Trump’s Washington. It just so happens that that’s the precise preference of one Vladimir Putin, who has regarded the weakening or breakup of the EU as a strategic aim for decades. No wonder the Kremlin lavished praise on the new US plan, which it was delighted to see aligned with “our vision”.
Or is it simply a case of 'we want more money out of you so we're going to terrify you into handing it over'?
Probably. Doesn’t mean they want the money for any reason other than to rapidly repair and strengthen our defences and deterrents. It also doesn’t mean that they need to tell us anything but the truth to “scare us” into supporting that additional spending. Russia is already regularly attacking us in sly ways that allow for (im)plausible deniability, and has made it plain they will attack European countries in more “traditional” ways as well. Added into that is a USA no longer prepared to be our umbrella of defence (even though that has always been in their own interest historically). So, things have to change, and people need to be informed why. Across Europe.
Doesn’t mean they want the money for any reason other than to rapidly repair and strengthen our defences and deterrents.
Yes because they can always be trusted to spend the money wisely when the chips are down. Dare I mention Michelle Mone and aircraft carriers with no planes?
aircraft carriers with no planes?
Politicians are the gatekeepers of money. The MOD and defence chiefs are the ones who spend it, it's also their responsibility to make ministers aware of where the gaps are in capability and make the case for the cash.
I think sometimes politicians get it a little rough in this regard. Going back to AJAX, it isn't the governments fault that it's a piece of shit that leaks fuel and causes issues through the hull vibration that renders the crew compromised.
Scale that up to national defence and the same rules apply.
Chechnya is a good example of Putin’s absolute indifference to bloodshed and destruction
As is Syria.
As is Gaza evidence of Trump's.
Is this new? That's an actual question, not rhetorical. Is it new to utterly destroy civilian infrastructure along with the luckless inhabitants, or was it always the way and we just didn't notice before?
Chechnya is a good example of Putin’s absolute indifference to bloodshed and destruction
As is Syria.
As is Gaza evidence of Trump's.
Well, quite - all the more reason for the UK's centre of defence gravity to be with the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada...the less nuts the better.
Is it new to utterly destroy civilian infrastructure along with the luckless inhabitants, or was it always the way and we just didn't notice before?
Nope, nothing new. Two questions are what it ultimately boils down to:
1. Do you think the rules don't apply to your application of violence, and/or do recognise the consensus and basis for said rules.?
2. Do you view the civilian component of your 'enemy' as innocent and separate from the armed body?
Answer no to one or both and you have nothing holding you back on eradicating large groups of people.
Maybe I am just the generation so far detached from the idea of war ever coming to this country - but I just cannot ever imagine the UK suffering the way Ukraine is with bombs falling etc.
Also, Russia just doesn`t have the manpower to take on the rest of Europe, and even with N.Korea, they still wouldn`t have anywhere near the manpower to do the same tactics they are doing now of just throwing bodies to overwhelm defenders. I can`t imagine there being much motivation to invade another country with the promise of it being a lot more bloodier (hard to imagine I know) than Ukraine - whilst I would think there would be more motivation to defend your own home, so no shortage of manpower in the short term anyway.
I read a recent piece explaining because of the ageing population in Russia, this is pretty much their last generation they will have with a large younger population to assert themselves.
Of course Russia have nuclear weapons, but so would Europe with France (assuming USA dont have the `kill-switch) and the UK.
If Russia can't beat Ukraine they are not marching into Europe.
There's no 'back door' to launch controls or the missiles on trident. It would be ****ing insanity to build in an exploitable weakness in to an ICBM system.
If Russia can't beat Ukraine they are not marching into Europe.
Ukraine had a decade of war to turn the donbas and Kharkiv border regions in to a minefield and the Russians came pretty close to encircling Kiev. But yeah, they wouldn't sweep from Ukraine to France, the would pick off bits at a time, Baltic states, land corridor to Kaliningrad etc.
The war is already in the UK. It's already here: the assassinations (just like Ukraine), the warehouses and infrastructure set on fire, the cyber attacks on healthcare, banks, major employers...
I can`t imagine there being much motivation to invade another country
OK - now put yourself in the shoes of someone who is 73 years old and has been in the security services for 50 years. Who was traumatised by a day of betrayal on Dresden, and the collapse of the Soviet Union due to "traitors". Who believes that Russia has a destiny for greatness and recovery of its lost empire. Who believes that Estonia, Poland, Kazakhstan etc are not real countries, just sham governments staffed by Nazis. Who has already invaded or occupied 3 countries. And who hasn't been told "boss, that's a ****ing terrible idea" for a decade, at least...
This is a lack of imagination, not a lack of threat.
If Russia can't beat Ukraine they are not marching into Europe.
You have to separate kinetic activity from hybrid. Russia has tried, and so far failed, to take Ukraine by kinetic force. At great cost to Ukrainian forces and civpop and, lets be honest, shocking cost to the Russian grunts.
BUTT...
They do not need to walk troops across a border in Europe to destabilise the organisation, the countries, the populations, etc, etc. It does not take much, a few thousand dollars donated to a politician, a warehouse burned, a TV appearance on RT, you name it. Every small wedge they can drive into a united organisation that faces you is a win.
That is what will screw over Ukraine: Death by 1000 cuts. The constant cyberattacks, the pressure from the politicians in the west that Russia has bought, the division in what should have been a united Europe, all of it adds up.
Maybe I am just the generation so far detached from the idea of war ever coming to this country - but I just cannot ever imagine the UK suffering the way Ukraine is with bombs falling etc.
I'm sure the local experts will know much better than me, but my understanding is that our defences against drones and whatnot is approximately zero. They don't need to loop the loop above London in squadrons of MiGs.
So why is Putin waiting?
He's getting older, so unless he starts soon he won't see his vision to completion. He knows we're not war-ready yet, so why wait while we build up our military (whole of Europe).
As my gran would have said "he's all mouth and no trousers". His loses are huge in Ukraine but they'd look tiny compared to taking on the whole of Europe. He just seems to revel in taking annoying digs at other countries by petty sabotage acts.
And I just don't get his plan. Russia was internally corrupt, but doing fine on the world stage with wealth and influence spreading worldwide (just look at how many mega rich Russians were in London).
I think Putin wants to go down as having re-established the Soviet Union.
As my gran would have said "he's all mouth and no trousers". ... annoying digs at other countries by petty sabotage acts.
I imagine your gran isn't Georgian (200,000 refugees, 400 killed) or Chechen (50,000-300,000 people killed) or Syrian (4-6,000 civilians killed in Russian air strikes) or Ukrainian (min 400,000 killed or wounded), and that none of her children have been killed (as civilians, or passengers on the Malaysian plane that Putinite forces shot down, or serving in the military) and none of her grandchildren have been kidnapped and put into orphanages in Russia. Because if she were, she'd probably think that Putin's behaviour was a bit more than "annoying digs".
OK - now put yourself in the shoes of someone who is 73 years old and has been in the security services for 50 years. Who was traumatised by a day of betrayal on Dresden, and the collapse of the Soviet Union due to "traitors". Who believes that Russia has a destiny for greatness and recovery of its lost empire. Who believes that Estonia, Poland, Kazakhstan etc are not real countries, just sham governments staffed by Nazis. Who has already invaded or occupied 3 countries. And who hasn't been told "boss, that's a ****ing terrible idea" for a decade, at least...
This is a lack of imagination, not a lack of threat.
Hmmm .. nope, still can't imagine it sorry.
Putin may have his motivations for sure, but having the resources is a wholly different situation.
Russia are making creeping gains in Ukraine by sheer numbers going into the meat grinder. Any initial attack on a NATO country such as Poland may gain a good few miles initially, but then defences would be secured and Russia would need to employ their meat grinder tactics again .. that's where it stops because they would have a lot higher casualties against NATO unleashed.
I read Russia are still able to gather 30k troops a month from the poor Russian and North African areas, but that too will run out as the lucky survivors return and share their stories. At this time Russia are reliant on North Korea for skilled engineering tasks because those 30k troops are just unskilled grunts and just fodder for the meat grinder.
And whilst UK defences are pretty much nonexistent. If missiles/drones landed here, Putin knows our missile/drones would land in Russia in reply.
I imagine your gran isn't Georgian (200,000 refugees, 400 killed) or Chechen (50,000-300,000 people killed) or Syrian (4-6,000 civilians killed in Russian air strikes) or Ukrainian.
They are all completely different to Russia attacking western Europe and you know they are. There are centuries on in-fighting, civil wars, war-lords fighting for control and invasion by other empires that shaped these regions. Putin wasn't alone in unsettling these regions - he was part of the problem but not the whole problem.
And Syria was doing a fine job of killing it's own citizens without too much help from Putin.
And Ukraine is only a couple of generations removed from that unsettled past too.
I'm not excusing the killing just pointing out the difference.
There are centuries on in-fighting, civil wars, war-lords fighting for control and invasion by other empires that shaped these regions.
You’re showing your prejudices there. That’s quite an accurate description of the history of Western Europe (and why we now have transnational organisations to try and prevent it becoming true again).
It is true that Putin can’t sweep in and take control of the whole of Europe in one swoop. But a willingness to accept years of mass death and destruction on both sides in order to capture strategic chunks bit by bit is what makes his regime so dangerous.
The biggest danger is if Putin believed that NATO wouldn’t fight if say he invaded ‘Little Latvia’ . Then discovering he’s wrong. NATO states have to demonstrate that they will respond militarily if Putin pushes further otherwise he will do so if he sees the opportunity. Sadly the only way to indicate that we are willing to defend Europe is by investing in defence. It’s using resources that we would rather use elsewhere, but it’s an unfortunate necessity given the state of the world.
You’re showing your prejudices there. That’s quite an accurate description of the history of Western Europe (and why we now have transnational organisations to try and prevent it becoming true again).
It's not prejudice it's an acceptance of reality. And I know we're no saints when it comes to invading other countries!
This thread is about whether Putin will start a military invasion of Europe and my opinion is he won't or he would marched his troops in by now.
He'll try and destabilise it of course - but that's no different to the cold-war period.
Four years ago I don’t think anyone on this thread was predicting Russia would invade Ukraine?
Putin is an opportunist with fanatical nationalist ideals. He doesn’t think like most ‘normal’ people.
apologies i saw the thread title and had to post this.
apologies i saw the thread title and had to post this
It was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the thread title as well. I’m assuming that Dazh had it in mind when he posted it.
Four years ago I don’t think anyone on this thread was predicting Russia would invade Ukraine?
Ukarine had already invaded Ukraine many times before that, in very recent history. The recent full scale invasion is probably what many people consider “war”, but the war is much older than that. That other countries (notably the UK) did so little* about previous engagements, incursions and land grabs is why Putin knew he could step things up. A lesson we need to learn.
You’re showing your prejudices there. That’s quite an accurate description of the history of Western Europe (and why we now have transnational organisations to try and prevent it becoming true again).
It's not prejudice it's an acceptance of reality. And I know we're no saints when it comes to invading other countries!
It's a reality from the past, but we're in the present.
You can take lessons from history, but there isn't a need to re-live it
This thread is about whether Putin will start a military invasion of Europe and my opinion is he won't or he would marched his troops in by now.
He'll try and destabilise it of course - but that's no different to the cold-war period.
If you want a lesson from recent history then look at Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine had leased Crimea to Russia for military use, Russia took control (the so called annexation) and the west didn't act.
"Little green men" moved on the Donbas and the west didn't act. Europe didn't begin a military build-up because it was too busy hoovering up Russian oil and gas to make other stuff.
In 2022 Russia took another step and Europe continued to hoover up Russian energy products while failing to act. It's only in 2025, now that the US rug has been pulled, that we've woken up.
Unfortunately we're now highly susceptible to far-right politics echoing the Kremlin line, so the destabilising is working. Deputy PM and leader of Italy's Lega party, Matteo Salvini, believes that continuing to supply Ukraine with weapons is pointless because it prolongs war while peace negotiations are under way. This ignores the fact that Russia continues to pound Ukraine's civilians.
State economies continue to be placed ahead of an ongoing war in Europe. Czechia’s PM Babiš has vetoed the EU reparations loan for Ukraine, as have Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy and Malta
Nobody is suggesting that anything more substantial will happen for at least five years, but if UK voting follows current polls then the UK will be under far-right influence too, so the time to begin a build-up is now for all sorts of reasons.
Will Russia invade, who knows? It has to be a consideration
*by “so little”, I don’t mean we who should have had direct engagement back then (or now for that matter), I mean that much of what has happened in recent years should have been in place over a decade ago… the shift away from Russian gas, freezing of assets, support for other countries, a refocus and increase in European defensive capabilities. So many European leaders were turning a blind eye because they thought it was in their interests domestically. Some still think that way.
Four years ago I don’t think anyone on this thread was predicting Russia would invade Ukraine?
Putin is an opportunist with fanatical nationalist ideals. He doesn’t think like most ‘normal’ people.
Mindful your timeline may be a little out: To be fair Putin had invaded some of his other near neighbours already, so it wasn`t that much of a surprise.
I wouldnt argue that Putin isnt an opportunist with fanatical nationalist ideals. But where he doesn’t think like most ‘normal’ people is because he isn`t doing the job of `normal` people. There is one thing you must give Putin credit for and that is being very intelligent. Whilst it looked like he had made a miscalculation in invading Ukraine - expecting to be greeted as a liberator of the unjust homosexual nazis Kiev regime - his playing of the long-game in financing and supporting Trump to become USA president has played out amazingly well.
If missiles/drones landed here, Putin knows our missile/drones would land in Russia in reply.
Oh? what missiles or drones would these be? Currently there's nothing* in the UK MOD capability of sea/ground/air launched weapons we could deploy from a NATO country/ or sea that could hit anything in Russia with accuracy or destructive power that would (in all likelihood) stop Putin from launching further attacks or continuing a war. On the other hand, Russia has sea launched missiles that have the capability of doing quite a bit of damage to any of our military establishments at say; Lossie or Portsmouth without bothering too much about civilian causalities - to which we have [almost]zero defensive capacity**. I guess we could use trident without a warhead, but that would be insanely risky given what sort of alarms that would set off in Russia.
Our drone capability is mostly either reconnaissance/intelligence/data link or air-to-ground loiter (the reaper series) these are not long range cruise missile type.
* the longest range non nuclear offensive missiles the RAF operates is Storm Shadow, which has a range of 500Km, its a 'precision' missile designed primarily to hit bunkers, operational control structures etc. The Navy has Harpoon - which an anti-ship missile, and the Army has an MLRS system which has a range of about 150km.
** We have type 45 destroyers that 'in theory' could intercept these missiles, of the 6 in service, there are currently 2 deployable. 4 are undergoing mid life updates.
You’re showing your prejudices there. That’s quite an accurate description of the history of Western Europe (and why we now have transnational organisations to try and prevent it becoming true again).
It's not prejudice it's an acceptance of reality. ... This thread is about whether Putin will start a military invasion of Europe
Apparently Ukraine (the biggest country entirely in Europe) is not European, and neither is Georgia or Moldova. Putin has already invaded two European countries and continued occupying a third. Wakey wakey!
Your stuff about warlords and ancient hatreds is just the usual ahistorical Orientalist bollocks.
Oh? what missiles or drones would these be? Currently there's nothing* in the UK MOD capability of sea/ground/air launched weapons we could deploy from a NATO country/ or sea that could hit anything in Russia with accuracy or destructive power that would (in all likelihood) stop Putin from launching further attacks or continuing a war.
No expert here - but a quick Google suggests Tomahawks would do pretty good at hitting inside Russia; I don`t think any country could stop Russia launching further attacks .. the sheer size of Russia and their launch capabilities guarantee that.
Admittedly only having the tomahawk capability is pathetic compared to Russia`s. But I guess thats why the UK will be speeding up the Nightfall and Brakestop projects.
I’m assuming that Dazh had it in mind when he posted it.
Indeed. That sketch is a good approximation of what seems to be going on at the moment. Maybe we just can't help ourselves? Everything gets boiled down to 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough'. It's like living in Newcastle in the early 90s.
No expert here - but a quick Google suggests Tomahawks would do pretty good at hitting inside Russia
The UK tomahawk inventory is estimated to be 100 - 150. Russia sometimes launches ten times that amount of ballistic missiles and precision drones in a single day against Ukraine and 400 to 600 a day is common. Tens of thousands in the last few months alone (some stats). We would be pissing in the wind. We are very vulnerable to conventional missile attack from Russia and our defences against that and ability to retaliate are extremely limited.
It would be like taking on a Rhino with a Nerf gun. As said above, the nuclear submarine base at Faslane, Portsmouth RN facility etc. would be prime targets, but many other military and critical infrastructure facilities could be damaged or destroyed. Without us being able to do very much about it. Add in a few undersea cables cut to take the internet down and/or massive cyber attacks and Russia could wreak absolute havoc here without any need to "invade".
No expert here - but a quick Google suggests Tomahawks would do pretty good at hitting inside Russia.
File under the same heading as Storm Shadow, good range, but limited warhead (200Kg or so). It's going to be a bad day for whatever it lands on, but its designed for hardened shelters, radar sites, comms. buildings etc. The sorts of missiles that Russia can throw at us are orders of magnitude more deadly and numerous, and currently we have little to no defense against them. If Russia wants to throw its weight about "pour encourages les autres" of Europe there's remarkably little we can do about it, defend against it, or stop it. I reckon it would only take a couple of days of missiles raining down on Portsmouth, West London, or any village next to an airbase in Lincolnshire before we're asking for terms
The UK tomahawk inventory is estimated to be 100 - 150. Russia sometimes launches ten times that amount of ballistic missiles and precision drones in a single day against Ukraine and 400 to 600 a day is common. Tens of thousands in the last few months alone (some stats). We would be pissing in the wind. We are very vulnerable to conventional missile attack from Russia and our defences against that and ability to retaliate are extremely limited.
It would be like taking on a Rhino with a Nerf gun. As said above, the nuclear submarine base at Faslane, Portsmouth RN facility etc. would be prime targets, but many other military and critical infrastructure facilities could be damaged or destroyed. Without us being able to do very much about it. Add in a few undersea cables cut to take the internet down and/or massive cyber attacks and Russia could wreak absolute havoc here without any need to "invade".
Yep - as said, UKs capabilities is pathetic to Russias by comparison. The mention of Tomahawk missiles was merely identifying the UK has something capable of hitting inside Russia .. and yes again, the UKs military is almost nonexistent.
It does emphasise how much the UK took the USA for granted - and how important it will now be to build the defences up.
The war is already happening.
Russia's Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) is behind a years-long campaign targeting energy, telecommunications, and tech providers, stealing credentials and compromising misconfigured devices hosted on AWS to give the Kremlin's snoops persistent access to sensitive networks, according to Amazon's security boss.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/15/amazon_ongoing_gru_campaign/
Yeah lets build more nukes. That'll solve it. It's not like we already have enough of them to destroy the world, maybe if we just have a few more everything will be ok
At this point it's a good thing we do have nukes, the state of our conventional military is dire and even a limited conflict that involved conventional strikes on our infrastructure and economic centres would cripple us for years if not decades.
As for averting it, no clue but I don't see much prospect whilst both Putin and Trump are both in power/alive
Did you get AI to write that?
The rhetoric coming from Knighton today is absolutely crackers. He says himself that it's very unlikely that Russia would attack the UK, then calls for a "whole of society response" to deal with a country that has spent eleven years trying to invade the country with the lowest GDP/capita in Europe. Of course it's hyperbole.
is this the same Putin whos spanked his entire economy and a good chunk of his young fit men on failing to take 1/5th of Ukraine off a stand up comedian?
Demonstrated that much the money poured into their war industry has been skimmed off and not actually been spent on the military?
Not knocking the incredible job the Ukranians have done, but surely if Putin actually stepped to a Nato country directly, he would get absolutley destroyed?
maybe this is worrying because his only real option is Nukes
addendum....this isnt to say we shouldnt act!
He's lost a lot of old, 80s kit so of course his war factories will be working at full tilt to produce more, now modern 21st century equipment and weapons. I think (imo) his hardest job will be recruiting competent troops to operate it.
I seem to recall one of those Chris Cappy videos, describing the conscripted North Koreans being mown down like ducks in a barrel by the Ukranians. the lost soo badly the ukranians felt bad because they were effectily murdering unarmed and untrained troops.
Putin needs to make a move while Trump is in power, so unless trump manages to convince the US to allow him to stay on as perpetual dictator, this is a limited time opportunity.
He says himself that it's very unlikely that Russia would attack the UK, then calls for a "whole of society response" to deal with a country that has spent eleven years trying to invade the country with the lowest GDP/capita in Europe. Of course it's hyperbole.
My thinking exactly. Calls for massive spending on arms and armies is nothing more than opportunism by people in the defence and security industrial complex. It seems their message is successfully getting through to the voters too if you take this forum as an indicator. Never seen so much excited talk about missiles, tanks, drones etc. If we put so much effort and energy into talking about NHS, housing and schools imagine how much better things would be? Still, I suppose it gives Starmer a great excuse to distract from his failings on domestic issues. Yet another PM using the drumbeat of war to protect his position, what a f###ing surprise!
“Invade” and “attack” aren’t quite the same. Will men in green be walking into Edinburgh behind tanks any time soon? No. Could lives here be lost and the UK be cut off and damaged to keep us “busy” while cities in other parts of Europe are occupied? Absolutely.
I get this “the politicians want to distract us” line, but when it comes to Russia I’m far more concerned about the politicians distracting us from the very real ongoing threat Putin (and successors) pose to us than those trying to bring it to our intention and organising to improve our responses to that threat.
Never seen so much excited talk about missiles, tanks, drones etc.
Don't be soft. We're all pointing out that we cannot fight a war with Russia. No one is getting excited. Russia has been destabilising democracies all over the world now for decades, Farage, Meloni, Orban Trump, and on and on, are all in power partly as a result of malign Russian on-line influence, part of a war fighting strategy devised by General Gerasimov This is part of an Expansionist and Imperialist strategy. What I don't get is why folks like you who are apparently anti-Imperialist and anti-authoritarian, just look the other way when it's Russia.
My thinking exactly. Calls for massive spending on arms and armies is nothing more than opportunism by people in the defence and security industrial complex.
under what circumstances *would* you consider re-arming?
Calls for massive spending on arms and armies is nothing more than opportunism by people in the defence and security industrial complex.
So how do we protect UK and EU infrastructure from the continuous attacks we are seeing from Russia other than via security/ military means? A stiff talking to? No dessert?
The thing I don't understand about it, Russia has failed to capture Ukraine, they've lost a huge amount of their regular army and equipment. Okay we know the West poured billions in arms into Ukraine, but it's not like we've run out.
Even if Trump sits on his hands (he's all but out of a Job come Spring 2028 when they break for the next election) Russia doesn't stand a chance against Europe. They have fewer than 100 Modern Tanks left, and they're out easily classed by Europe's latest, they have a few hundred Soviet Era ones left, but most are scrap and from the 60s, they won't stand a chance against Infantry, let alone modern tanks.
As far as I can tell Putin hasn't claimed interest in attacking any Nato or EU country (unless attacked first) and if Russia does, the only way to 'win' is to use it's Nuclear arsenal which of course means the end of at least most of the world as far are humans are concerned. Even with his control, I think someone in Russia will pop a cap in his ass before that happens.
Mostly, I think this is more about Trumps stated goal of getting us to put more into Nato and to keep their Arms industry busy. Their Military only exists at the size and cost that it does for national economic reasons.
What I don't get is why folks like you who are apparently anti-Imperialist and anti-authoritarian, just look the other way when it's Russia.
If by 'folks like you' you mean people from the left side of the political spectrum, then perhaps consider that the most prominent leftwing politician of recent times was way ahead of everyone else..
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-right-about-putin-from-the-start/
Still though, you carry on with your 'leftie libtard cowards' interpretation of any scepticism towards the push to re-arm. Personally I think it's a good and necessary thing to have people asking the generals and arms dealers why we need to spend billions on arms and accept their proclamations at face value. If the case for rearmament is so strong then it can surely cope with a bit of scrutiny from people who think there might be an better way than blowing up the world and killing millions/billions of people.
Still though, you carry on with your 'leftie libtard cowards' interpretation of any scepticism towards the push to re-arm.
Come on Dazh, you can do better than throw a straw man into the mix. You seem to think that the threat from Putin is overblown (just as you did before the recent full scale invasion of Ukraine began), and/or that we don't need to increase our coordination and spending on defence in Europe, despite everything both Putin and Trump have been saying over the last year. Is that still the case? If so, why?
Mostly, I think this is more about Trumps stated goal of getting us to put more into Nato and to keep their Arms industry busy. Their Military only exists at the size and cost that it does for national economic reasons.
Careful now, you're at high risk of being labelled a soft-shite by the STW hard blokes.
Careful now, you're at high risk of being labelled a soft-shite by the STW hard blokes
Have you given up on actually discussing the matter you raised now?
You seem to think that the threat from Putin is overblown
Not at all, I think the threat from Putin is very real. I just question whether that threat will be reduced by spending 100s of billions on weapons and armies, or whether the prospect of war will be increased by indulging in a new arms race. Deterrence works just fine right up to the point where it doesn't. I guess I'm not so ready to gamble the future of the world on the ability of unhinged or compromised leaders to not give in to military hawks and use the armaments at their disposal.
As far as I can tell Putin hasn't claimed interest in attacking any Nato or EU country (unless attacked first) and if Russia does, the only way to 'win' is to use it's Nuclear arsenal which of course means the end of at least most of the world as far are humans are concerned.
Ryabkov has made it clear that Nato needs to "withdraw" from the Baltic states for there to be peace in Europe (specifically linking it to the actions in Ukraine). People who think Russia's expansionist ambitions stop at Ukraine aren't listening to Putin's administration.
Even with his control, I think someone in Russia will pop a cap in his ass before that happens.
The moments immediately after Putin's death will be the most dangerous for Europe. What follows next, especially if he is "taken out", is very unpredictable.
I guess I'm not so ready to gamble the future of the world on the ability of unhinged or compromised leaders to not give in to military hawks and use the armaments at their disposal.
I think that scepticism is wise and warranted. Unfortunately I don't think Europe has much choice but to wake up and sort out our individual and collective shit on this. I can see how "preparations" and "deterrent" can lead towards escalation and action, and we need to be as wary of that as we are about leaving the door open for a slow steady erosion of Europe by giving Putin the message that we are not prepared and have no deterrent. I suppose one hope is that a Europe more ready to defend itself might be less likely to take unwarranted military action than one tied to a distant stronger military power with less to lose (the USA).
Ryabkovhas made it clear that Nato needs to "withdraw" from the Baltic states for there to be peace in Europe
Kelvin are you willing to sacrifice your life and that of all your friends and family to preserve the independence of the Baltic states? I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire. The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about. I think we probably know what Trump's position on this will be.
Even if Trump sits on his hands (he's all but out of a Job come Spring 2028 when they break for the next election)
He (and his corrupt administration) are directing a significant amount of their time & resources to ensuring there won't be free & fair elections in 2028. If he lives that long I expect him or an appointed crony to still be in power beyond then.
I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire.
And why do you think he'll stop at the Baltics?
Appeasement works just fine right up to the point where it doesn't
Here we go again with the A word. No doubt with the C(oward) word not far behind it. It's probably worth reminding ourselves that attempts at 'appeasement', or as I prefer to call it, 'diplomacy', are focused mainly on the avoidance of war and the millions/billions of deaths and untold misery it would cause. If we're going to be ideologically opposed to efforts to avoid a war, then I guess my question at the start of the thread is redundant. War is inevitable and we might as well just get used to it! With that in mind I'm off to quit my job and live out the rest of my short life as best I can. It's been lovely (virtually) knowing you all.
War is avoidable. The question you have to ask yourself is how do you best prevent a war with Russia? By actively conceding land and people to Putin in the hope that he stops there? By giving him the message that he won't be effectively resisted if he makes land grabs and imprisons and deports populations? Or is something else needed? And without the dependable support of the USA, who provides that "something else"?
If by 'folks like you' you mean people from the left side of the political spectrum,
Nope, I mean folks who're determined to be blind to Russia's multi faceted war of aggression on democracy.
Being prepared for war is cheaper than having to catch-up after the fact.
Nope, I mean folks who're determined to be blind to Russia's multi faceted war of aggression on democracy.
Many of those "folks" are on the right (in the UK and across Europe).
The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him?
Czechoslovakia is a country a long way away peopled by folk we know little about.
Here we go again with the A word.
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable? Do you read much history?
Personally I think it's a good and necessary thing to have people asking the generals and arms dealers why we need to spend billions on arms and accept their proclamations at face value. If the case for rearmament is so strong then it can surely cope with a bit of scrutiny from people who think there might be an better way than blowing up the world and killing millions/billions of people.
This is exactly whats happening. There's a huge amount of debate within the defence world about how much and on what.
The question you have to ask yourself is how do you best prevent a war with Russia?
Not IMO by embarking on a new arms race. So what else? It's going to involve some form of 'appeasement' however you define that. Putin isn't going to give up without something in return. As much as it pains me to be anywhere near to what he says, Trump seems to understand that, but not many here and in Europe seem to. As I said at the beginning, it feels a lot like our leaders have given up on avoiding a war and are now preparing the ground for executing it. This whole discussion doesn't give me much confidence that I'm wrong. It's extremely depressing.
Here we go again with the A word.
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable? Do you read much history?
I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire. The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about.
But the question for Putin is whether reintegrating the Baltics is worth a (Russian) civilisation-ending war. Putin is an opportunist. If he thinks he can get away with it, then he'll try it. It's his choice. Nobody is forcing him to expand the borders of Russia. It's got to be worth his while before he will do it.That's why you need credible deterrence. I strongly suspect that if he knew how his Ukrainian adventure has turned out, he wouldn't have started it.
Here we go again with the A word.
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war became inevitable? Do you read much history?
I have no doubt that Putin would like to 'reintegrate' the Baltics back into his 21st century Soviet Union/Russian Empire. The question for the west is are we willing to take the significant risk of a civilisation-ending war to stop him? This is the cold unemotional calculus we need to be honest about.
But the question for Putin is whether reintegrating the Baltics is worth a (Russian) civilisation-ending war. Putin is an opportunist. If he thinks he can get away with it, then he'll try it. It's his choice. Nobody is forcing him to expand the borders of Russia. It's got to be worth his while before he will do it.That's why you need credible deterrence. I strongly suspect that if he knew how his Ukrainian adventure has turned out, he wouldn't have started it.
So what else?
Go on then... if the message isn't "we will stop you" but instead, "where and who do you want in exchange for leaving us alone", where are you drawing your line? Or as long as it's East of the North Sea and the English Channel, does it not matter to you? And what happens when he doesn't stick to that agreement? Like the treaties Russia had with Ukraine?
So you don't accept that appeasement encouraged Hitler to push things so far that war becaame inevitable?
Really not sure bringing Hitler into it helps, but seeing as you ask once Hitler had taken full control of Germany I don't think anything would have prevented WWII. The interpretation that appeasement caused WWII is flawed, it just failed to prevent it. Hitler caused the war, and there was not much anyone could do to stop it. Depressingly the same is probably true of Putin.
Perhaps the best we can hope for is that we reach a position where Russia and the West settle on an uneasy equilibrium much like pre-1990? If that's the case it's going to require some significant and very difficult sacrifices.
This whole discussion doesn't give me much confidence that I'm wrong.
You've said yourself any number of times that you think that any discussion of warfare is intellectually beneath you and you dismiss it as gung-ho screeching despite any number of expert opinions and the words of Putin himself on the subject of the possibility of a wider conflict in Europe. You cant't therefore have any basis in fact with which to pronounce on anything to do with any conflict. Your opinions are basically fraudulent, because you literally don't know what you're talking about, and what's even sadder is that you don't actually want to know, despite asking in the first place.
Your position "We must give Putin what he wants because to do anything else is to risk million/billions of deaths" is entirely made up to satisfy your own intellectual position . You have no idea whether its true or not.
If that's the case it's going to require some significant and very difficult sacrifices.
Who are you willing to sacrifice? Why do you think that will result in a steady state "equilibrium" rather than further expansion of the new better resourced Russia?
"We must give Putin what he wants because to do anything else is to risk million/billions of deaths
Oh piss off, that's not my position. My position is that if war is going to be avoided we might/will probably have to give him something. Ruling that out will result in the one thing we all (well, some of us) want to avoid.
Who are you willing to sacrifice?
I don't want to sacrifice anyone or anything, but it doesn't change the fact that it might be necessary. I'm not even sure it's something anyone would/could decide, it's far more likely to be dictated by events.
My position is that if war is going to be avoided we might/will probably have to give him something.
Unless you state what the "something" is... you're saying nothing. Kyiv? Vilnius? Tallinn? Helsinki? Kraków? Berlin? But the main question to answer is... then what? We sacrifice "something" to avoid it being taken by force... why does Putin (or successors) stop there?
Oh piss off, that's not my position.
This you?
It's going to involve some form of 'appeasement' however you define that. Putin isn't going to give up without something in return. As much as it pains me to be anywhere near to what he says, Trump seems to understand that, but not many here and in Europe seem to.