MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
This you?
If you can't tell the difference between 'we need to give him everything he wants' and 'we might need to give him something' there's not much I can do. Lets hope the people holding the levers of power understand that sort of complicated nuance. 🙄
You're still not answering the question... you give him "something", why does he stop there if he knows that countries are not prepared to work together to stop him taking "more", possibly right up to "everything he wants". Defending a smaller area (with fewer people and resources) still leaves you with difficult decisions to make about defence and deterrent spending and coordination.
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?... 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.
1) it's interesting thay you don't consider Estonia, Lithuania or Latvia to be part of the West
2) it's interesting thay you simultaneously believe Russia is a spent force that would never invade "the west" and that any invasion trigger a "civilisation-ending war".
3) if you want cold unemotional calculus, how about this: if we don't want to fight Russia on the battlefield in the future, then let's stop half-stepping and fully support the Ukrainians (who already are fighting Russia and want to win the fight) to fight Russia now.
If you can't tell the difference between 'we need to give him everything he wants' and 'we might need to give him something' there's not much I can do.
You might want to listen to Putin then. Russia has been offered the 20% of Ukraine it currently holds in exchange for a ceasefire. He's repeatedly turn it down, most notably by continuing to blow things up in the bits of Ukraine he doesn't already posses. There's no giving Putin 'something' if he was going to settle for 'something' he'd have done so already.
Again, why is it you want to be blind to the expansionist and Imperialist aims of Russia?
This you?
If you can't tell the difference between 'we need to give him everything he wants' and 'we might need to give him something' there's not much I can do. Lets hope the people holding the levers of power understand that sort of complicated nuance. 🙄
The Russian Federation was given the USSR seat at the UN, despite Ukraine and Belarus having equal legal title (along with a fourth state that no longer exists)
He was de facto given Crimea in 2014.
Shortly after that he came for the Donbas and not much was done about it apart from a very few states in Europe.
In 2022 he came back for the rest of Ukraine...
It won't stop. Chamberlain made the same error just before WW2 broke out.
I'm amazed that Hungary and the former Czechoslovakia have forgotten about 1956 and 1968 respectively, but their Russian-leaning PMs seem to have.
You've started these arguments before, usually about the prospect of nuclear war. It's tiresome
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.
The similarity is that Germany practised in Spain with a modern war machine. Substitute "Russia" and "Ukraine"
The rest of Europe didn't have that practised, modern military and industry.
We were lucky that Spain had had enough of war and stayed at home
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..
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.
The three largest world powers have spent decades building their respective militaries up.
Nobody has attacked them in the conventional sense.
Ukraine became denuclearised and look what happened.
It would have been far cheaper and safer to have retained their nukes and serviced them at the cost of a few $bn than the lives lost, folk injured and traumatised, a generation missing an education, tens of $bn to rebuild, etc
The 'something' you give is pause for thought.
The first rung on the ladder to the avoidance of war is diplomacy, are we so sure we have the diplomats with a high level of skill and character to ensure that that can be effective?
If we do, fantastic. But there still needs to be a capable stick should the carrot not work.
A well equipped and prepared military (and intelligence services) that has in place capability to mitigate the risks posed, can if diplomacy fails, offer a proportionate and suitable response/deterrent to aggression in defence of itself or allies across all the domains of warfare.
If that capability is integrated and supported by a cohesive alliance then that's even better.
Maybe if we spent more time acting in a way globally that didn't compromise our integrity, or compromising our defence capability through bullshit conflicts and penny pinching, and hiding behind the USA for so long things would be different.
But here we are.
why does he stop there if he knows that countries are not prepared to work together to stop him taking "more"
Instead of asking me to engage in whataboutery why not present some evidence and make a judgement on that? Al Cairns, Mark Rutte, and now the head of MI6 seem to think there's an imminent threat of him launching a war against Europe - and by that I mean a real war not cutting a few undersea internet cables or poisoning ex-Russian spies - despite the fact, as some on this thread have observed, that he can barely hold on to a 5th of the Ukraine. So aside from rabble-rousing by politicians and officials in the West who stand to gain from massively increased military budgets, where is the concrete evidence that he intends to go to war with Europe? Even on this thread the pro-military types are a bit confused, on the one hand we need to re-arm and be ready to repel an invasion, on the other we shouldn't be worried. No one has yet explained why both these positions are true.
It would have been far cheaper and safer to have retained their nukes
I don't disagree. If we're engaging in hindsight though it would also have been much cheaper and safer not allow Western interests to meddle in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy. Many mistakes were made on all sides to lead us to this point, and it's going to require action on all sides to resolve it without escalation beyond the current cluster####. Instead though we have UK and European leaders talking up the prospect of war with extremely provocative language.
it would also have been much cheaper and safer not allow Western interests to meddle in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy.
Of all the "meddling" that's been done in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy, it's odd that you omit to mention the main state culprit (by an order of magnitude) !
It would have been far cheaper and safer to have retained their nukes
Instead though we have UK and European leaders talking up the prospect of war with extremely provocative language.
Because right now that's mostly all they have after becoming too comfortable in the shadow of security provided by the USA.
Tough words, very little to back it up.
Defence capability if managed effectively should speak for itself. The opposite is also true.
Which is why Ukraine gave zero ****s and went Leroy Jenkins in Ukraine.
we'll be back on Euromaidan being a CIA psyop again soon
I'm beginning to think there is a Russian troll bot on the forum.
it's odd that you omit to mention the main state culprit (by an order of magnitude)
You must have missed my comments about mistakes 'on all sides' and my opinion of Putin being an imperialist nutter hellbent on rebuilding something that looks like the Soviet Union (without the universal jobs and free healthcare).
I'm beginning to think there is a Russian troll bot on the forum.
Yes lets call anyone who wants to avoid war a Russian sympathiser. I'm surprised we haven't had the phrase 'useful idiot' yet. As I said, this discussion doesn't do anything to persuade me that war is unlikely. Quite the opposite in fact.
Tough words, very little to back it up.
Aye. They must have been reading this forum.
Instead of asking me to engage in whataboutery why not present some evidence and make a judgement on that?
March last year, there was an attack on a UK warehouse owned by Ukrainians that supplied protective gear to Ukraine. Russia destroyed a shopping centre in Poland, and has attacked its rail infrastructure and Polish police arrested people last year trying to install cameras along its rail lines further; Poland is currently mobilizing troops, Lithuania is even changing its rail gauge
All these countries see Russia as a current threat. Perhaps we should ask them if they feel like giving Putin 'something'
Instead of asking me to engage in whataboutery why not present some evidence and make a judgement on that?
LOL at the ironing
All these countries see Russia as a current threat. Perhaps we should ask them if they feel like giving Putin 'something'
Well it's that or war. What's your preference?
Dismissing the threat posed by Russia is foolish, they are producing more drones and missiles than the rest of Europe combined and they have the experience in using them we do not , Russia has spent years mapping our undersea cable network, https://news.sky.com/story/why-uks-undersea-cables-are-vulnerable-and-putin-has-pretty-good-map-of-where-they-are-13431588
they invested in Brexit hoping to push us away from the EU, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42342216 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/how-400-russia-run-fake-accounts-posted-bogus-brexit-tweets
they have carried out assassinations here, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/26/skripal-poisonings-bungled-assassination-kremlin-putin-salisbury
sabotage of warehouses https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/men-who-organised-russia-backed-arson-at-london-warehouse-jailed/
and hacking of private and public computer networks networks. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/10/russian-hackers-target-software-used-by-treasury-nhs/
He may have trashed his economy but hes transformed it onto a war footing and the Russian people with tightly controlled media just suck it up (compare what we did to truss when she made mortgages payments go up a bit)
Hes also been able to replenish his troops with cannon fodder from N Korea
the real issue here is that dazs position of just letting Putin take what he wants has been shown to fail
Russia faced zero consequences for taking Crimea , so obviously Putin just came to take some more
We already know exactly what will happen if Trump forces Ukraine to concede; the same as last time: Russia rebuilds and comes back for more territory .
The question is @dazh why would do you think repeating the same thing will work this time?
Aye. They must have been reading this forum.
Don't know what you mean by that but let me make my position abundantly clear.
My first operational tour was experiencing the aftermath of the Bosnian civil war, so I've seen what happens when diplomacy fails.
My subsequent tours were Afghanistan, Iraq, another Iraq and then my final Afghanistan. So I've seen the impact when diplomacy isn't even started. When war is waged on a erroneous notion, flimsy justification or revenge.
I may not be as informed in geopolitics as some, may be a little rough around the edges, but what I do know that you and many others don't, is the cost.
So I don't advocate for enhanced capability to perpetuate war, I wouldn't wish my negative experiences on another single human.
But our military capability must be, first and foremost for the defence of our nation and that of our allies. It should be capable of providing an impactful deterrent to others who would wish us and our allies harm.
You speak from a position of privileged ignorance, be grateful for that, but stow the snark. You asked the question, you got responses then promptly have seen your arse when they challenged you and your position.
Well it's that or war. What's your preference
Deterent through increased capabilities.
Don't know what you mean by that but let me make my position abundantly clear.
A tongue in cheek joke not a comment on your post. TBH your posts are the only ones I take very seriously, most of the other posters seem to be adhering to the bellicose war narrative which I find both bizarre and terrifying given the logical outcome of that reasoning.
But our military capability must be, first and foremost for the defence of our nation and that of our allies. It should be capable of providing an impactful deterrent to others who would wish us and our allies harm.
Yes we need to defend ourselves and be prepared for likely eventualities, I have no issue with that. What I have issue with is the over-representation of the threat, and the denial of consequences of actions dictated by narrow ideology, pride and/or stubborn-ness. Some on this forum still cling to the idea of defeating Putin through military force, I just don't think that's possible for a whole load of reasons.
"There is a growing risk that Russia could attack the UK, and the nation's "sons and daughters" need to be ready to fight, the head of Britain's armed forces has said"
The UK’s armed forces are relatively small, and it’s reasonable to assume that levels of motivation would vary significantly among personnel, regardless of the oaths they’ve taken. Not everyone would necessarily be willing to fight and die in every possible scenario.
It also seems unlikely that there would be a large surge of civilians eager to enlist. Modern society is more educated and sceptical, and many people are less inclined to risk their lives for political or elite interests they don’t feel represented by.
It also seems unlikely that there would be a large surge of civilians eager to enlist. Modern society is more educated and sceptical, and many people are less inclined to risk their lives for political or elite interests they don’t feel represented by.
It depends. If it was a call to fight for what might be seen by some as an abstract threat in continental Europe then I would totally agree. If however there was a genuine physical threat to UK, then I think they would. I'm not talking about cyber attacks, low level sabotage etc. but UK citizens being killed by ballistic or cruise missiles for example. I'm not saying that scenario is likely by the way, just that if it did happen, attitudes would change very quickly. You only have to look at Ukraine to see how willing civilians can be to defend their homeland when faced with an existential threat.
[quote data-userid="2926" data-postid="13673408"
it would also have been much cheaper and safer not allow Western interests to meddle in the affairs of the Ukrainian state and economy.
This is absolute nonsense. Before the Dignity Revolution, the Ukrainian state and economy was run by competing cross-border cabals of domestic oligarchs and Russian industrial-energy operators. Just look at the Gazprom and Naftohaz arrangements and the role of RosUkrEnergo, and Russian security services assassinated people on the streets of Kyiv. Yanukovych was the epitome of a puppet - a thick ex-con inserted at the direction of Russia.
Russia is not riding to the rescue of poor Ukrainians, beleagured by the rapacious forces of Western capitalism. It is the exact opposite and the exact reason why Yanukovych was slung out and ****ed off to Rublyovka to live with Akayev and (now) Assad.
It is clear that you don’t know terribly much about the region (and have a perception of Balts, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, Poles as slightly less important people than "real" Europeans, and not part of the West) and want to jam this conflict into a tired banana republic mould. Well, it doesn't fit, and the approach drips of Corbynism.
the Soviet Union (without the universal jobs and free healthcare).
This is more romanticised leftie second hand bollocks about the Soviet Union. The healthcare isn't free if you don't get it - or you need to buy your own supplies and medications for an operation - or need to pay the doctors and nurses and orderlies off. Healthcare in Russia today is a thousand times better than it was during the Soviet Union.
Well it's that or war. What's your preference?
Well hyperbole aside, those aren't the only options. We clearly will not be able to rely on the USA to come to our aid in future and Russia's strategic aim to be (Monroe doctrine alike) the hegemonic power this side of the Atlantic and his reckless use of multi faceted war and pre-war tactics needs to be either faced with actual western troops on the front line of Ukraine, or we arm Ukraine to a point where it can actually defeat Russia rather than aim to be in a position of strength for end-point negotiations. I would rather live in a world where Putin understands that his reckless threatening of his near neighbours is a thing of the past. I think to achieve that we'll need an actively present and determined military threat that Russia would need to take seriously.
"There is a growing risk that Russia could attack the UK, and the nation's "sons and daughters" need to be ready to fight, the head of Britain's armed forces has said"
Any fighting as such will be attempted by digital and drone warfare which is a genuine concern, the idea that “our sons/daughters” will be called upon is akin to “blackadder going over the top” whilst the generals drink tea 50miles from the front line.
Not everyone would necessarily be willing to fight and die in every possible scenario.
You might be quite surprised to learn that nobody wants to die. I imagine you're looking at fighting through the lense of some bullshit gung-ho war movie which is most civilians frame opf reference.
Those in the armed forces tend to view their job through a less binary lens, Everybody has a job to do, those jobs are varied, some are close combat, some less so. But on the whole the motivation is to do your job, the one you volunteered for to the highest standard possible.
Modern society is more educated and sceptical, and many people are less inclined to risk their lives for political or elite interests they don’t feel represented by.
As for this, I'll put this in the same bin as some of your previous comments like 'pathetic' and 'weak'. Glad you think that so many who served are thick sheep.
Some on this forum still cling to the idea of defeating Putin through military force, I just don't think that's possible for a whole load of reasons.
I hold that belief as well. If you take nukes off the table, they would be overwhelmed quite quickly in a standup peer conflict with Europe. The risk of MAD is what is keeping politicians from getting too carried away, which isn't a bad thing at all.
Those on here who like to keep themselves up to speed with defence matters do a good job, the one blindspot that most have is tactics. Pound for pound most NATO countries tactical craftsmanship is many orders of magnitude greater than the Russians. That isn't a flex, just a fact.
I could write paragraphs on the topic, but would stray off topic and it wouldn't be appropriate to share, all I can share is specifically in the Army a huge amount of time and effort is spent developing those tactics, techniques and procedures that enable you to acheive your mission.
It's why many make so much of equipment in the commentator realm, because the tactical know-how is restricted and is very much the reserve of those who have been immersed in it.
The sharing of that knowledge, blended with the hard lessons the Ukrainians are sharing is one of the reasons why they're holding Russia off and Op Interflex is a key part of their 'success'.
But I don't think we're there, it's sabre rattling, but that's what politicians do. They talk tough, I don't agree with myself. I'm drawn more to the "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach.
Here's the Chief of the Defence Staff speech in full without the selective quoting and full context.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-of-the-defence-staff-speech-15-december-2025
I think this article I read the other day is worth dropping in here…
I think this article I read the other day is worth dropping in here…
I read this and noted that the title is misleading.
At the same time, an open question remains not only about how effectively this experience is absorbed, but also about how well it is implemented by British military leadership.
One of the strengths of doctrine in the UK armed forces is how quickly it can change, and change it has. Hence why quite a few major exercises have been peer vs peer to enable the test and adjust of such lessons.
If however there was a genuine physical threat to UK, then I think they would. I'm not talking about cyber attacks, low level sabotage etc. but UK citizens being killed by ballistic or cruise missiles for example. I'm not saying that scenario is likely by the way, just that if it did happen, attitudes would change very quickly. You only have to look at Ukraine to see how willing civilians can be to defend their homeland when faced with an existential threat.
Its all opinion of course, but I just can't imagine UK being anything as resilient and brave as the Ukrainians have proved.
As for this, I'll put this in the same bin as some of your previous comments like 'pathetic' and 'weak'. Glad you think that so many who served are thick sheep.
I have read people on here make excuses up for your usual boorish nonsensical ill informed rants. My thoughts are if it gives you some happiness in your sad life then it's charitable to tolerate you .. and it is Xmas soon too.
your usual boorish nonsensical ill informed rants.
Hello pot, this it kettle, send colour state. Over.
selling out your neighbours in what will likely be a futile attempt to save your own skin is pretty low.
Of course it is. But if it’s selling out Ukraine or the Baltic states in the hope - not the certainty - of avoidng nuclear war and certain death what do you think most people would choose? More importantly what do you think Donald Trump and Keir Starmer would choose?
But if it’s selling out Ukraine or the Baltic states in the hope - not the certainty - of avoidng nuclear war and certain death what do you think most people would choose?
BINGO
How many neighbours are you prepared to sell out? The whole of Europe? I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the UK isn’t last on the list. I should think the British Isles are strategically important.
What will you do if it comes to our shores?
Look at how fiercely Ukr is resisting, they’ve experienced life under Russia and definitely don’t want to experience it again.
Trump will do whatever benefits him best, just like he always does. Starmer? Who knows? How about Farage? After all his rhetoric about sovereignty you’d expect to see him tooled up on the front line.
How many neighbours are you prepared to sell out?
I don’t think it’s me you need to worry about, I’m inconsequential. Back to that calculus though. What do you think most people will think when the stark choice is upon them? What do you think the politicians will decide when the cold reality hits?
This isn’t 1939 with a nation of loyal subjects willing to endure enormous sacrifice to do the right thing. We’re a country of individualistic consumers used to a luxurious and cosseted lifestyle who have been conditioned to think only of themselves and their immediate families and close friends.
I admire your solidarity with our ‘neighbours’ but I’m not sure it’ll be widely shared. Yes that’s extremely cynical but times have changed. People aren’t just going to fall in line when politicians demand it. Far more likely they’ll vote for a govt which takes the easy option.
selling out your neighbours in what will likely be a futile attempt to save your own skin is pretty low.
Of course it is. But if it’s selling out Ukraine or the Baltic states in the hope - not the certainty - of avoidng nuclear war and certain death what do you think most people would choose? More importantly what do you think Donald Trump and Keir Starmer would choose?
Let's all marvel at your immovable and illogical pacifist fallacy.
You've been round this a hundred times on the Ukraine thread, and it's like arguing with a fruit machine.
You come round to the same argument each time, not because everyone is proven wrong, but because you aren't capable of changing a hard wired yet easily challenged opinion. You bring proof to the truism that not all opinions are equal.
What will you do if it comes to our shores?
What am I meant to do? Asking for a friend. A close friend. Very very close friend. Ok. Me. WTF am I supposed to do? I'm amongst those who resent being drawn into some ****ing war which some rich ****s can't ****ing help themselves ****ing them selves off to. If I get the chance I'll probably piss and shit myself before being killed.
My view of it is this:
I believe countries on the fringes of Europe, former USSR/eastern bloc countries should be very worried. Especially the smaller nations that provide a buffer between Russia and Nato countries. I suspect some of the leaders will die in accidents/disappear and be replaced by Russia sympathising leaders. Whether we will be compelled to provide military aid to allies, in these regions, in the future, is where I suspect Nato will be tested. I can't see Russia going all in on any major European power, such will be the consequences! Putin despite how he is portrayed, is not as maniacal as media sources suggest. Dangerous yes and if further backed into a corner may come out swinging, taking some smaller easily rolled over nations with him.
Also bear in mind Putin is not trying to wipe out the Ukrainians as a race or is stupid enough to lob nukes about so close to his own borders.
I also believe the aim of Israeli air strikes on Iran were in part to disrupt supply of arms to Russia as part of joint strategic aims of it's preferred arms supplier. A we can **** with you from all angles flex from the US they so love to indulge in.
I think the US government have effectively thrown the small fringe countries of Europe to the dogs (for Europe and Russia to tussle over) to increase US arms sales. F16 and the likes (outdated export gear that can be churned out) to allied powers now terrified of invasion. An intervention from them will only come if Europe fails badly and too much strategically important land is lost to Russia/enemy powers. It's a calculated gamble.
It's win win for the Americans. They can sit back and watch wars in far away lands, wagging a finger and do nothing apart from selling arms to the allied countries involved and all those beefing up their defences around them. Just look how much equipment we now rely on the yanks for. There's one big winner here isn't there!
In a thread titled "War" RM is one of very few contributors with actual first hand experience of the subject matter. He's anything but "ill informed".
Modern warfare against Russia would be a lot different to that faced in Iraq/Afghanistan because it’s full-scale, high-intensity industrial war. UK forces haven’t faced sustained mass artillery, entrenched front lines, huge daily ammunition expenditure, and heavy attrition since WWII. What’s new is that this is combined with drones, precision missiles, and constant surveillance, making the battlefield lethal everywhere, all the time. That mix of scale and modern technology is why it resembles the worst fighting of World War II rather than anything Britain has fought since.
Yes there would no doubt be brave talk from politicians, and even old retired ex forces .. but push come to shove I'm sure I wouldn't be in the minority not being in a rush to sign up for it.
but push come to shove I'm sure I wouldn't be in the minority not being in a rush to sign up for it.
This is what I’m getting at. No matter how much politicians and others tell us we have to fight a war, not many are going to be willing however much the hawks call them cowards or appeasers. People will simply vote in politicians - Farage probably - who will give Putin what he wants.
The threat is populist nationalism. It's what Putin and Trump have, and want to spread across the 'western world'. Having separate nations working against one other and not acting in the common interest is vital to Russia, as a nation reliant on selling natural resources. I suspect he's pointed out the business opportunities to Trump. It's why Russia pushed for the breakdown of the EU, funding Farage's crones and almost certainly Nigel himself. They're both now openly backing regressive, right wing populist 'political leaders'. Trumps attentions longer term are on South America.
If Europe works together, Putin's expansionism can be contained and Trump won't care, so long as the US isn't paying. It does mean more of a war footing, but that's begun.
This is why Reform are the enemy within, even if most of them can't see the real threat.
Also bear in mind Putin is not trying to wipe out the Ukrainians as a race or is stupid enough to lob nukes about so close to his own borders.
Are you sure about that?
"Lawmakers, legal scholars and human rights advocates say the case for genocide is no longer theoretical – and that Washington’s caution is becoming the risk."
"Senior members of Congress – from both parties – lent their voices, signaling that the genocide designation is migrating from activist circles into legislative thinking." https://www.kyivpost.com/post/66184
Russia also tested the nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile within Russian territory.
Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at Middlebury College, described it to the New York Times as “a tiny flying Chernobyl.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russias-burevestnik-nuclear-powered-missile-is-a-very-bad-idea/
his isn’t 1939 with a nation of loyal subjects willing to endure enormous sacrifice to do the right thing.
You're thinking of 1914. In 1939 immediate conscription was widely unpopular, Labour MPs voted against it. Even when war was declared and there was full conscription; it wasn't "a nation of loyal subjects". It was a nation who begrudgingly realised that they had little choice. The image of "doing the right thing" and the whole industry around "bluebirds over the white cliffs" and so on was largely post-conflict jingoism.
Modern warfare against Russia would be a lot different to that faced in Iraq/Afghanistan because it’s full-scale, high-intensity industrial war. UK forces haven’t faced sustained mass artillery, entrenched front lines, huge daily ammunition expenditure, and heavy attrition since WWII. What’s new is that this is combined with drones, precision missiles, and constant surveillance, making the battlefield lethal everywhere, all the time. That mix of scale and modern technology is why it resembles the worst fighting of World War II rather than anything Britain has fought since.
Yes there would no doubt be brave talk from politicians, and even old retired ex forces .. but push come to shove I'm sure I wouldn't be in the minority not being in a rush to sign up for it.
Different or no it still makes me far more informed than you. By a significant order of magnitude.
Warfare has changed, it's undeniable, but soldiers aren't phased, they're professionally concerned and curious. I can tell you that they're not navel gazing and having an existential crisis, they're learning lessons and adapting to the threat. That's one of the real strengths of UK forces, the way it devises doctrine and tactics, all the way down to the lowest level.
it's why we're such a major player with Interflex, many lessons to teach the Ukrainians and many to learn. You've made it quite clear your view of those who serve but the armed forces are brimming with capable, intelligent and insightful men and women who innovate in ways you couldn't wrap your head around.
So by all means continue with your ill-informed digs, call me boorish or whatever gives you a feeling of superiority.
The threat is populist nationalism.
History really has come around to bite us all on the arse. The coup against Gorbachev that ultimately saw him fall from power, the rise of Yeltsin to be replaced by Putin and the false triumphalism of the Bush administration was driven largely by the [very real] threat of growing nationalism from the Soviet Republics. Had the New Union Treaty process been allowed to go ahead, in all likelihood Putin would've probably served out his career as an unremarkable middle ranking KGB officer
You're thinking of 1914.
A fair point which only reinforces the fact that we live in a very different world to the one which politicians seem to want to prepare us for. However much they talk up the prospect of war and/or the need to fund it, the general population will probably have a very different view. Personally I want to hear what our politicians are doing to avoid war rather than telling us it's inevitable.
Personally I want to hear what our politicians are doing to avoid war rather than telling us it's inevitable.
When I read Cairns statement, TBH that's what I took from it. - that we need to build our deterrence His words were;
“The shadow of war is knocking on Europe’s door once more. That is the reality. We have to be prepared to deter it,”
TBH He's not wrong. We may have fine words and a group of nations prepared to stand up to Putin's recklessness, but we need to prepare our military capability at the same time. Words aren't worth poop if Putin knows we can't back it up, and currently, we can't, and the 'mericans aren't going to help anymore
Personally I want to hear what our politicians are doing to avoid war rather than telling us it's inevitable.
Another whirl on the fruitmachine. They are doing exactly that, if you listen.
-> working on proposals to freeze the current conflict, which include giving Putin plenty that hes got no right to.
-> rearming for credible deterrence
That's one of the real strengths of UK forces, the way it devises doctrine and tactics, all the way down to the lowest level.
Its pretty much why the battle of britain was won aswell wasn't it.
We were not prepared but we took in the poles and the czechs and learned lessons on the ground not by trial and error.
When I read Cairns statement, TBH that's what I took from it. - that we need to build our deterrence His words were;
You're not actually supposed to read these things, you'll be at risk of learning if you carry on like that!
I see Putin has confirmed that it was always about land, today declaring
"Russia will liberate its historical lands on the battlefield.”
Personally I want to hear what our politicians are doing to avoid war rather than telling us it's inevitable.
I think "telling us it is inevitable" is part of the avoidance? They overhype the potential for war to get appropriate funding that will adequately deter aggression.
Here's the Chief of the Defence Staff speech in full without the selective quoting and full context.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-of-the-defence-staff-speech-15-december-2025
I'd encourage people to read the transcript of the speech the head of defence gave. Much more nuanced than the usual press selective quoting.
"Russia will liberate its historical lands on the battlefield.”
I've read some of this. Some things...
1) As far as Putin is concerned, still, nothing he is doing in Ukraine is "war"... Russia is not at war. It's still "special operations". While we can criticise our politicians and security services for "talking up" the prospects of "war", remember how much effort is going into convincing people that NOTHING Russia does is war.
2) He's still saying that it is OTHERS who have steered the region toward armed conflict. Nothing do with him, obviously. This is the "give me what I want, or I flatten it, and that's on you" line stated as clearly as possible.
3) He claims that European leaders, the "little pigs", are only seeking to make PROFIT from trying to stop his advance. All while those very leaders are trying to get to grip with the increased COST of trying to do so, now and in future, both militarily and in terms of energy and food.
Hopefully China will also want to 'liberate its historic lands' in Manchuria someday.