Forum menu
Amazing. Didn't realise you were a defence expert as well as an economics ones. Can't wait to see your hot takes on this topic.
Here's my hot take from my armchair of ignorance.
We are being prepared for war, but not a conventional or nuclear one. An information one, we already have vast amount of complete shite posted across every social media platform. The Russians will pile on even more feeding whatever causes the most division, doesn't really matter what it is just get the populations angry at each other, blame the left, centre, right, minorities, doesn't matter so long as you're constantly attacking them.. Then bribe the most corrupt, pro authoritarian options, assuming the Americans have left any room in their pockets stuffed full of cash.
. I think the explanation of why Cairns is talking up the prospect of war is probably due to the fact that the govt are desperate for economic growth.
I think it's because the Russians have poisoned people in the UK, ran groups committing arson in the UK, seek to destabilise UK institutions and companies, conduct offensive reconnaissance on sensitive UK, and EU infrastructure, have attempted to blow up UK and EU aircraft through the use of bombs in parcel post, seek to disrupt passenger aircraft with drones and lots of other stuff. But who knows it may all be a mmt thing.
^Yup, use authoritarian nationalism to split the west then mop up the more useful/resource rich bits of eastern Europe. Maybe the then have another go at the stans/Caucasus.
If you just watch 10 mins of any Kremlin TV outlet, you'll soon understand that enemy no1 in Europe is the UK. Not NATO, not Ukraine - they've very careful to only ever talk about getting rid of the "neo-Nazi" govt in Ukraine. It's the UK. They blame the UK for espionage, for propaganda, for training Ukrainian troops, for supply weaponry, for sabotaging peace talks, everything.
We are, as far as the Russian are concerned, already at war.
I've seen that were "the main bastards" a few times, but it seems to be Germany that gets attacked more.
I can't see Russian tanks rolling into the rest of Europe any time soon.
No, nobody will roll their tanks into Europe. Tanks are so yesterday. How much is a tank vs drone?
I'm also pleasantly surprised to find that, despite what must be huge frustration about the slow progress of the war, Putin hasn't resorted to any sort of nukes.
That's why "rolling" tanks into Europe does not make sense. Both sides know that tanks are costly and the result is poor.
Maybe (once this is all over) they'll have a massive rearmament programme. If so, we'd have to match it. But I'm not sure their economy could stand it.
"once this is all over"? Not in another 6 to 7 years time (I've predicted this as a 10 year war) and all will suffer economically.
What is much more likely is that they continue to try to destabilise the West through hybrid warfare, which includes things like supporting far right parties, Trump, Brexit etc. That's the thing we've got to learn to defend ourselves against much better than we are: hostile foreign actors taking advantage of our free speech laws to destabilise our economies and political systems.
That is a one sided perspective. You don't need foreign actors to destabilise the economies or political systems, the incompetent politicians are already doing that themselves.
I think it's because the Russians have poisoned people in the UK, ran groups committing arson in the UK, seek to destabilise UK institutions and companies, conduct offensive reconnaissance on sensitive UK, and EU infrastructure, have attempted to blow up UK and EU aircraft through the use of bombs in parcel post, seek to disrupt passenger aircraft with drones and lots of other stuff.
Indeed. Isn't it now taken as a given that it was Russia that was behind the cyber attack that shut down Jaguar Land Rover, which actually put a notable dint in the countries GDP? I think we can expect a lot more of that kind of thing.
Bit confused because when I started this thread I was taking Cairns' comments at face value, but some on here who seem pretty clued up about war and defence issues say we're not on a war footing or under the immediate threat of a major war as suggested by Cairns and Rutte. Which is it?
Mark Rutte is talking about preparing for something that might happen in five years
That isn't the same as a "war footing", it's merely sensible precautions because the "rules-based" world order is changing
Knowing politicians as we all do, if the current US Admin puts more responsibility on Europe for Europe's defence then no future US Admin will apologise, refund us and take the burden back. And rightly so
Europe has been content to let the US (and more recently Ukraine) shoulder the burden with some EU countries providing little, some hiding behind the others and others taking Russian energy products to both use and re-export.
That has to change
The US thinks it can milk the rest of the world to fill it's own pockets and needs put back in it's own box. If they want isolationism, let them have it. IMO all non-US NATO members should, en-masse, leave NATO and immediately form a new pact. Give the US 3 months to decommission their European bases and remove their weapons.
The "new" strategic defence partnership needs to scale up joint-domestic weapons production, and perhaps even be prepared to buy-in from elsewhere. Licensed production of <shudder> Chinese </shudder> systems? The mere thought of £/E/$ flowing to non-US manufacturers will fill Don's diaper to bursting point.
While we're at it we need to step up with some plausably deniable operations. What's that? The Yantar has sunk on dark and stormy night? Don't know anything about it, Comrade.
The key is, Europe and the non-US West need to act decisively, together, with a clear long-term plan. The US have shown themselves to petulant and unreliable Allies and the arse-kissing has to stop.
Just take the AJAX debacle as one example.
I still think we should have sent them to Russia to display "balance" between them and Ukraine. Ukraine gets stormshadows and Russia gets afvs which have about ten minutes to be effective before they take their own crew out.
Just take the AJAX debacle as one example.
I still think we should have sent them to Russia to display "balance" between them and Ukraine. Ukraine gets stormshadows and Russia gets afvs which have about ten minutes to be effective before they take their own crew out.
Vibrate them into submission.
I think it was Tim Marshall who said that it’s a long term threat because if Putin carked it tomorrow, what would emerge in his place would doubtless be even worse
I'm no expert but my gut suggests that when Putin goes there is no obvious succession. The resulting vacuum/infighting will make Russia focus inwards and reduce the expansionist threat.
The idea of my kids having to go to war is absolutely terrifying.
Europe has been content to let the US (and more recently Ukraine) shoulder the burden
Its a tad more complicated than that lazy hard right view.
Its a relationship which has been largely beneficial to both sides given how much of the European spend went to the USA and also meant the US didnt have Europe as a potential rival.
There is the lazy spend comparison but that ignores how much of the US spend is about its interests elsewhere as in Europe and also how much of the US spend is providing basic social security options eg GI bill/VA hospitals etc.
Can I say I saw the thread title and had a flashback to the start of the Covid thread
The idea of my kids having to go to war is absolutely terrifying.
I certainly don't relish the the thought of anyone's kids going to war.
I wish this country had better political masters and our political culture was more mature and responsible.
Although I'd do it all again if the knees were willing. I certainly miss the clowns, the circus, not so much.
I think we can expect a lot more of that kind of thing.
Careful now.
Putin gets taken out, possibly Trump at the same time. Don't ask me how, no idea.
Throw Nige in the mix as well?
If I was Vlad, things escalate and I really wanted to turn the screw on us, I'd sink an LNG tanker and a couple of container ships headed for the UK.
Europe has been content to let the US (and more recently Ukraine) shoulder the burden
Its a tad more complicated than that lazy hard right view.
Speaking of "lazy", at least use the full sentence for context 😉
Its a relationship which has been largely beneficial to both sides given how much of the European spend went to the USA and also meant the US didnt have Europe as a potential rival.
Only more recently. Some European countries have only just reached the old 2% GDP. Many still use Soviet weapons
There is the lazy spend comparison but that ignores how much of the US spend is about its interests elsewhere as in Europe and also how much of the US spend is providing basic social security options eg GI bill/VA hospitals etc.
The same NATO counting rules apply to every member and they all do it
Here are a couple of lines from a fellow hard-right observer (some describe him as a Nazi)
“Europe needs to step up … to secure real energy independence. You can’t keep buying gas from Moscow while also expecting security guarantees, help and backup from the Americans. That’s just wrong.”
“All European countries must be willing to spend as much on security as is truly needed, not just as much as they’ve gotten used to during years of neglect. If it takes 5 percent of GDP to cover defense, then so be it, 5 percent it is"
President Zelensky, Davos 2025
Ways to cripple their economy even more. Cloning James Corden a million times and threatening to unleash them across Russia.
Two war crimes don't make a right!
Yeah lets build more nukes. That'll solve it.
Our subs probably have enough to take out most Russian strategic positions, and as we usually know where the Russian’s subs are, because one of ours is close to them, it would be a dumb idea.
europe has relied on the US for a long time, but that's at the behest of the US to a large extent and has allowed them to maintain/increase their influence. obama and other former presidents have said that europe needs to step up and pay for it's own defense. seems reasonable and also would reduce our reliance on the US. we need to get our defense shit together quickly. if it was just a question of injecting more money in to the economy then health, education, and housing pay back significantly better than defense. the very idea that the government won't do that because it's visible or obvious is bollocks. we've (some time ago) been spending on that stuff at the expense of defense spending because the US has been picking up the bill. in return they've been fleecing us on the high street and in digital services.
We (the west) pussyfooted around Putin for too long, far too many fell for the 'NATO are the expansionist haddies, dont upset russia etc etc' nonsense
Putin rightly saw this as weakness and now with a completely supine trump in power he will keep on pushing and taking land to rebuild the old ussr
Crumbs, the ends the United States of America will go to further it's own interests ...
Beggars belief.
Our subs probably have enough to take out most Russian strategic positions, and as we usually know where the Russian’s subs are, because one of ours is close to them, it would be a dumb idea.
I think you may be overestimating our ‘at sea’ capability…
Europe has been content to let the US (and more recently Ukraine) shoulder the burden
Let's not forget that it suited the US as well, they'd much rather fight WW3 in Germany, than Indiana. That was the rather awful bargain of NATO after all. We don't care that you don't spend money on defence, we'll supply you weapons, and have bases all over the place, in return if shit goes south, it'll be in your back-yard, not ours.
I saw Edwin Starr perform an acapella version of that song live in a nightclub in Hereford. As you can imagine it somewhat changed the energy of the night.
Our subs probably have enough to take out most Russian strategic positions, and as we usually know where the Russian’s subs are, because one of ours is close to them, it would be a dumb idea.
I think you may be overestimating our ‘at sea’ capability…
There's a change brewing. The accession of Finland to NATO and agreements with the US in 23/24 opened Rovaniemi and Sodankylä up to NATO forces for both training and scalable forces according to threat levels. There are more remote areas accessible too
Russia's major nuclear sub bases around Murmansk are now within ATACMS range, which is a problem for Russia because most subs in a fleet are in port at any one time. Russia can't move the bases further east because the sea freezes
...and it's taken me writing this far to remember where I read this...
https://thebulletin.org/2025/12/the-looming-missile-crisis-in-the-arctic/
Europe has been content to let the US (and more recently Ukraine) shoulder the burden
Let's not forget that it suited the US as well, they'd much rather fight WW3 in Germany, than Indiana. That was the rather awful bargain of NATO after all. We don't care that you don't spend money on defence, we'll supply you weapons, and have bases all over the place, in return if shit goes south, it'll be in your back-yard, not ours.
I absolutely agree, but Europe has sat too far back for too long and now there's a mad scramble to catch up.
Had Europe got on with it in 2014 then we wouldn't be in this mess. Europe cannot support itself, let alone Ukraine without US assistance. This from February, but you can go back the fall of the Soviet Union with examples of where Europe needed to wake up to the changing of the 40 years (then) rules-based world order that guaranteed peace
Sir Keir Starmer has said any Ukraine peace deal would require a "US backstop" to deter Russia from attacking its neighbour again.
Speaking after a hastily convened meeting with European leaders in Paris, he said a "US security guarantee was the only way to effectively deter Russia", and vowed to discuss the "key elements" of a peace deal with US President Donald Trump in Washington next week. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4z4w3v5y8o
Amazing. Didn't realise you were a defence expert as well as an economics ones.
I mean, he didn’t even post any acronyms.
The rules based world order which I grew up under seems to be gone It was always undermined by vested interests, the powerful countries and groups manipulated and sidelined it's institutions such as the UN . I wonder if we in the UK are now experiencing what it's like when your country is one of vulnerable ones rather than one of the "empire builders".
I think it was Tim Marshall who said that it’s a long term threat because if Putin carked it tomorrow, what would emerge in his place would doubtless be even worse
I'm no expert but my gut suggests that when Putin goes there is no obvious succession. The resulting vacuum/infighting will make Russia focus inwards and reduce the expansionist threat.
The idea of my kids having to go to war is absolutely terrifying.
There is no succession plan. Putin won't allow it. He is approaching Hitler in the bunker levels of delusion. He is terrified of death and poisoning hence his self-isolation.
We can the help Ukrainians fight against Russia or we can wait 5 years and end up doing it ourselves, even more bloodily.
Our experts above predict Russia-Ukraine war will last 10 years. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and it's 2025 now...
"You won't see tanks rolling into Europe". Ukraine is Europe and that's exactly what happened...
"Putin won't invade another country". Putin is delusional and has already invaded Georgia and Ukraine, and occupied Moldova...
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'?
And Chechnya
Chechnya is a good example of Putin’s absolute indifference to bloodshed and destruction. He has only become more extreme in the last 25 years.
I should probably have said that Putin continued the occupation of Moldovan territory.
People who think that conventional wars don't happen any more may want to examine what happened in Armenia recently...or, y'know, Ukraine right now.
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.