Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
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.