"Seems to me the West is strangely quiet on this situation. Why is not Putin being heavily criticised ?"
I suspect for a number of reasons.
1. Less is More strategy
2. President Z's visit to the USA today will result in further news from the WH, so radio silence is pending forthcoming updates.
.
Whilst there is a terrible human cost in all of this, it's also a game of chess, and the players adopt open and hidden strategies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ydaz70Man 19 weeks ago
Rotherham /newquay |
"Because there all spineless cunts and only interested in what they get out of it.So pretty much like most other wars we have either been involved in or helped fund then,I'm shocked I tell ya lol"
nope nothing like it the west has become to soft no back bone it's not effecting us not are problem but eventually it does became there problem then what they going to do roll over and have there bellies tickled one thing I agree with trump about.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Unfortunately at this time. We can’t do much. So there’s no point in being critical. What else is there to say? Putin is about the greatest threat to world peace and civilisation since Hitler, more so in that he has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
And meanwhile the US, who’d usually, like or not, be the main bulwark we in Europe could rely on, is run by a collage of wackjobs who’re either indifferent to events outside the states, or outright sympathetic to Russia.
But we can’t openly be too critical, because we still rely on the US, and there are plenty in the current administration who’ll seize on any opportunity to show examples of European ingratitude.
It’s why the UK and the other Europeans need to rebuild our own independent military capabilities again, not just to compliment US forces, but handle our own security.
Sadly, that process of rearmament and getting people to enlist in the armed forces, especially in Western Europe, is hampered by the economic crisis, and social antipathy by young people who wonder why they should defend their country when it doesn’t seem to do anything for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A major issue is we quite literally lack a lot of capability to even do much.
If the Russians started unleashing drone waves on us like they do in Ukraine. We’d only be able to defend a handful of areas with the current air defences.
I even read that if we went to war right now, we’d have a total ammo reserve that would last for a few weeks at most if it matched the current expenditure as seen by Russia and Ukraine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A major issue is we quite literally lack a lot of capability to even do much.
If the Russians started unleashing drone waves on us like they do in Ukraine. We’d only be able to defend a handful of areas with the current air defences.
I even read that if we went to war right now, we’d have a total ammo reserve that would last for a few weeks at most if it matched the current expenditure as seen by Russia and Ukraine."
I think Russian strength is vastly overrated and in practice the Russian military is struggling a bit.
The UK is spending about $80 billion a year on defence and Russia about $150 billion a year, but almost of their money is being sunk into Ukraine.
The EU is spending about $400 billion a year and together with the UK would certainly beat Russia if it attacked NATO even if the Trump administration reneged on NATO Article 5 (which now seems a prudent assumption to make).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A war between Russia and Europe would be different from the current Ukrainian situation. Ukraine has been limited to what it can (and is allowed to) strike. Russia would prevent the European or NATO with a target rich opportunity. Targets from the Baltic to the Pacific would be in range and the Russians would be hard pressed to defend much given their currently degraded air defence. The risk to Europe/NATO would be causing so much damage that the Russians might consider escalation to tactical nuclear options to remain in the game. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A major issue is we quite literally lack a lot of capability to even do much.
If the Russians started unleashing drone waves on us like they do in Ukraine. We’d only be able to defend a handful of areas with the current air defences.
I even read that if we went to war right now, we’d have a total ammo reserve that would last for a few weeks at most if it matched the current expenditure as seen by Russia and Ukraine.
I think Russian strength is vastly overrated and in practice the Russian military is struggling a bit.
The UK is spending about $80 billion a year on defence and Russia about $150 billion a year, but almost of their money is being sunk into Ukraine.
The EU is spending about $400 billion a year and together with the UK would certainly beat Russia if it attacked NATO even if the Trump administration reneged on NATO Article 5 (which now seems a prudent assumption to make).
"
All that expenditure sounds and looks impressive, but you need to understand, it’s deceptive.
A lot of that spending money for our armed forces goes to black hole projects - like the new A Jax vehicle, or buying drones from non-UK suppliers which are more expensive than our own, and on cyber capabilities. It’s not going to the things we really need to be working on, like larger troop numbers and ammo production at high levels.
Same kind of issue in Europe, $400 billion sounds very good, but it’s unevenly spent and again, it’s not going to areas that Europe is currently dangerously weak on, troop numbers and industrial capacity.
I would’ve agreed with you on Russia at the start of the war, but every indication shows they have grown to be a massive military power. Also remember, they have something most of Europe lacks: experience in modern peer on peer warfare. Granted the Russians are historically bad when it comes to internalising and maintaining that institutional knowledge, but if war breaks out in even two years time from now. We will be at a major disadvantage in terms of not only industrial capacity to support a large war, but experience. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A war between Russia and Europe would be different from the current Ukrainian situation. Ukraine has been limited to what it can (and is allowed to) strike. Russia would prevent the European or NATO with a target rich opportunity. Targets from the Baltic to the Pacific would be in range and the Russians would be hard pressed to defend much given their currently degraded air defence. The risk to Europe/NATO would be causing so much damage that the Russians might consider escalation to tactical nuclear options to remain in the game."
I have no doubt in a long-term Russo-European war, we would win.
We have the larger population, greater industrial potential and better technology and military training. But the issue is could we collectively turn European NATO into a war economy fast enough before the Russians secured vast tracts of the Baltics or even Poland. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Russia will keep chipping away at Ukraine. But it’s taken them four years to get the Donbas with mediocre support from the west provided to Ukraine. NATO dithered, took a year to send a tank, two years to send an aircraft, nearly three years to allow long range Himars/ storm shadow strikes. West only has itself to blame.
What Russia does have is a nuclear arsenal that Putin would use when cornered. And this is the only reason for this protracted weak support for Ukraine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A major issue is we quite literally lack a lot of capability to even do much.
If the Russians started unleashing drone waves on us like they do in Ukraine. We’d only be able to defend a handful of areas with the current air defences.
I even read that if we went to war right now, we’d have a total ammo reserve that would last for a few weeks at most if it matched the current expenditure as seen by Russia and Ukraine.
I think Russian strength is vastly overrated and in practice the Russian military is struggling a bit.
The UK is spending about $80 billion a year on defence and Russia about $150 billion a year, but almost of their money is being sunk into Ukraine.
The EU is spending about $400 billion a year and together with the UK would certainly beat Russia if it attacked NATO even if the Trump administration reneged on NATO Article 5 (which now seems a prudent assumption to make).
"
After reading this , I will sleep more soundly at night . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A war between Russia and Europe would be different from the current Ukrainian situation. Ukraine has been limited to what it can (and is allowed to) strike. Russia would prevent the European or NATO with a target rich opportunity. Targets from the Baltic to the Pacific would be in range and the Russians would be hard pressed to defend much given their currently degraded air defence. The risk to Europe/NATO would be causing so much damage that the Russians might consider escalation to tactical nuclear options to remain in the game."
Opposed to nuclear weapons What would stop the Russians launching non nuclear missiles into every critical infrastructure site within Europe including military bases/ports etc.
Surely any conflict between Russia and Nato would be equally bad for both sides.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A war between Russia and Europe would be different from the current Ukrainian situation. Ukraine has been limited to what it can (and is allowed to) strike. Russia would prevent the European or NATO with a target rich opportunity. Targets from the Baltic to the Pacific would be in range and the Russians would be hard pressed to defend much given their currently degraded air defence. The risk to Europe/NATO would be causing so much damage that the Russians might consider escalation to tactical nuclear options to remain in the game.
Opposed to nuclear weapons What would stop the Russians launching non nuclear missiles into every critical infrastructure site within Europe including military bases/ports etc.
Surely any conflict between Russia and Nato would be equally bad for both sides.
"
Recent reports by RUSI suggest that they have a shortage of modern short to medium range missiles. They have been relying on updated 1950s technology missiles from the likes of North Korea and Iraq. Production of modern hypersonic missiles is difficult given the state of the current Russian economy. If they had the firepower they would have used it by now in Ukraine en masse rather than in the penny packet deployment seen to date. Russia may eventually restock but it will take some time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A war between Russia and Europe would be different from the current Ukrainian situation. Ukraine has been limited to what it can (and is allowed to) strike. Russia would prevent the European or NATO with a target rich opportunity. Targets from the Baltic to the Pacific would be in range and the Russians would be hard pressed to defend much given their currently degraded air defence. The risk to Europe/NATO would be causing so much damage that the Russians might consider escalation to tactical nuclear options to remain in the game.
Opposed to nuclear weapons What would stop the Russians launching non nuclear missiles into every critical infrastructure site within Europe including military bases/ports etc.
Surely any conflict between Russia and Nato would be equally bad for both sides.
"
Lets think about this every military site a cross Europe, There are over 2000 in the Uk so am guessing 200,000 across europ thats a lot of missiles at once. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A war between Russia and Europe would be different from the current Ukrainian situation. Ukraine has been limited to what it can (and is allowed to) strike. Russia would prevent the European or NATO with a target rich opportunity. Targets from the Baltic to the Pacific would be in range and the Russians would be hard pressed to defend much given their currently degraded air defence. The risk to Europe/NATO would be causing so much damage that the Russians might consider escalation to tactical nuclear options to remain in the game.
Opposed to nuclear weapons What would stop the Russians launching non nuclear missiles into every critical infrastructure site within Europe including military bases/ports etc.
Surely any conflict between Russia and Nato would be equally bad for both sides.
Lets think about this every military site a cross Europe, There are over 2000 in the Uk so am guessing 200,000 across europ thats a lot of missiles at once."
I doubt all at once but presumably tit for tat between both sides if it went that way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Lets think about this every military site a cross Europe, There are over 2000 in the Uk so am guessing 200,000 across europ thats a lot of missiles at once.
I doubt all at once but presumably tit for tat between both sides if it went that way"
No, tit for tat doesn't work. You need to look ahead and basically play your endgame up front. Which doesn't (necessarily) mean annihilation, it means the most severe escalation before annihilation that prevents further tit or tat. Anything else just invites terrible attrition, prolonged misery and worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Lets think about this every military site a cross Europe, There are over 2000 in the Uk so am guessing 200,000 across europ thats a lot of missiles at once.
I doubt all at once but presumably tit for tat between both sides if it went that way
No, tit for tat doesn't work. You need to look ahead and basically play your endgame up front. Which doesn't (necessarily) mean annihilation, it means the most severe escalation before annihilation that prevents further tit or tat. Anything else just invites terrible attrition, prolonged misery and worse."
Then surely that pushes both sides closer to the Nuclear option |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Lets think about this every military site a cross Europe, There are over 2000 in the Uk so am guessing 200,000 across europ thats a lot of missiles at once.
I doubt all at once but presumably tit for tat between both sides if it went that way
No, tit for tat doesn't work. You need to look ahead and basically play your endgame up front. Which doesn't (necessarily) mean annihilation, it means the most severe escalation before annihilation that prevents further tit or tat. Anything else just invites terrible attrition, prolonged misery and worse.
Then surely that pushes both sides closer to the Nuclear option"
Only if it was going to get there anyway (hopefully not). That's the whole calculation that thousands of military strategists make on a regular basis. That's what posturing is all about. The sabre rattling, the big talk, the paper tigers (or bears), the intelligence, interfering in politics, etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Lets think about this every military site a cross Europe, There are over 2000 in the Uk so am guessing 200,000 across europ thats a lot of missiles at once.
I doubt all at once but presumably tit for tat between both sides if it went that way
No, tit for tat doesn't work. You need to look ahead and basically play your endgame up front. Which doesn't (necessarily) mean annihilation, it means the most severe escalation before annihilation that prevents further tit or tat. Anything else just invites terrible attrition, prolonged misery and worse.
Then surely that pushes both sides closer to the Nuclear option
Only if it was going to get there anyway (hopefully not). That's the whole calculation that thousands of military strategists make on a regular basis. That's what posturing is all about. The sabre rattling, the big talk, the paper tigers (or bears), the intelligence, interfering in politics, etc."
Not very comforting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
