Is the UK going a step too far against Russia?

tommytwojags

Well-known member

The UK today announced pledges to support and protect non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden if they come under attack in the face of threats from Russia, including sending our armed forces. There is more than a chance that Finland will be punished by Russia for announcing its intention to join NATO. Putin has already issued a series of warnings to neighbouring countries seeking to join NATO and to those backing such countries, with a chilling threat that his actions would be swift and decisive.

If Russia decided to take action against Finland or Sweden, the UK would be obliged under the terms of today's agreements to defend them militarily. NATO on the other hand has given no such assurances. Could this backfire badly on the UK, leaving us to face the might of Russia while the USA and NATO sit back and watch? It feels a bit like we are standing up to the playground bully while everyone else keeps their distance.
 
Last edited:
He's a megalomaniac alright and his generals do what they're told.




Agreed, but it's the nuclear option I'm concerned about.
Well if he's doing that he's doing it regardless, the fact is we'd have to intervene if he attacked Finland or Sweden anyway, this is just removing any doubt that the hamster cheeked ** might have.
 

The UK today announced pledges to support and protect non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden if they come under attack in the face of threats from Russia, including sending our armed forces. There is more than a chance that Finland will be punished by Russia for announcing its intention to join NATO. Putin has already issued a series of warnings to neighbouring countries seeking to join NATO and to those backing such countries, with a chilling threat that his actions would be swift and decisive.

If Russia decided to take action against Finland or Sweden, the UK would be obliged under the terms of today's agreements to defend them militarily. NATO on the other hand has given no such assurances. Could this backfire badly on the UK, leaving us to face the might of Russia while the USA and NATO sit back and watch? It feels a bit like we are standing up to the playground bully while everyone else keeps their distance.
Given that we're not going to press the button without America's say so, it would have been good if Johnson would have enlarged our armed forces rather than reducing them.
 
We’re giving him the same bluster and rhetoric he gives to others. That’s how you have to stand up to a bully sometimes when there is no other way.

He doesn’t have the military resources to take on any other nation right now, and we are probably backing ourselves because of that. He doesn’t even have the military resources or capability to carry out his ‘ special operation ‘ in Ukraine with any kind of ease.
 
We’re giving him the same bluster and rhetoric he gives to others. That’s how you have to stand up to a bully sometimes when there is no other way.

He doesn’t have the military resources to take on any other nation right now, and we are probably backing ourselves because of that. He doesn’t even have the military resources or capability to carry out his ‘ special operation ‘ in Ukraine with any kind of ease.
We also know that if he attacked us, even as part of the defence of another country, NATO would be dragged in very quickly.
 

The UK today announced pledges to support and protect non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden if they come under attack in the face of threats from Russia, including sending our armed forces. There is more than a chance that Finland will be punished by Russia for announcing its intention to join NATO. Putin has already issued a series of warnings to neighbouring countries seeking to join NATO and to those backing such countries, with a chilling threat that his actions would be swift and decisive.

If Russia decided to take action against Finland or Sweden, the UK would be obliged under the terms of today's agreements to defend them militarily. NATO on the other hand has given no such assurances. Could this backfire badly on the UK, leaving us to face the might of Russia while the USA and NATO sit back and watch? It feels a bit like we are standing up to the playground bully while everyone else keeps their distance.
Why should NATO feel any less threatened by Russian-occupied territory than Russia does by NATO?
 
Bozzer v Putrid over in 2 secs. Bozzer gets out his chopper and..... slices off Putrid's head. What a guy !🇬🇧👍
 
I am a bit worried and uncomfortable about this I must admit.
It seems likely we will face some sort of kickback. Not sure how much damage and/or expense they could inflict on us either via military or non military means (cyber attacks for instance) ?
I hope Finland and Sweden are admitted into NATO asap, which would get us off the hook hopefully.
 

The UK today announced pledges to support and protect non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden if they come under attack in the face of threats from Russia, including sending our armed forces. There is more than a chance that Finland will be punished by Russia for announcing its intention to join NATO. Putin has already issued a series of warnings to neighbouring countries seeking to join NATO and to those backing such countries, with a chilling threat that his actions would be swift and decisive.

If Russia decided to take action against Finland or Sweden, the UK would be obliged under the terms of today's agreements to defend them militarily. NATO on the other hand has given no such assurances. Could this backfire badly on the UK, leaving us to face the might of Russia while the USA and NATO sit back and watch? It feels a bit like we are standing up to the playground bully while everyone else keeps their distance.
Bit ironic given you've spent years arguing that the UK would be better off on its own. This would be a good test of how the UK fairs now it's standing on its own two feet.
 
Last edited:
If Russia invaded Finland we would now be obliged to help militarily, although we don’t know what that means. It could be just what we’re doing with Ukraine, or we might have to be involved physically. I can’t see Nato and the USA standing by if they did invade, Ukraine is one thing, another country invaded would raise the stakes.
 
The point is it's NOT about NATO.

We've gone out on a limb without our NATO partners.
Of course it’s about us leaving the E U you only just have to look who posted it to tell you that.
A bit like you really time let it go the pair of you and look to the future.
Just thank God we’re not dependant on Russian gas like some of our former EU partners are. 🇬🇧
 
It is a dangerous and stupid act of provocation. The concept of NATO only works if all members are in lockstep. They are jeopardising our country, and NATO.

If I was Putin, I would invade Gotland to start a limited war with Sweden, and place nuclear weapons on the island. Britain then faces the option of losing standing by not getting involved, or attacking Russia alone (no NATO support as aggressive actions don't trigger the defensive pact). As a secondary result this also blocks Sweden's NATO entry as they can't accept a member already engaged in a war.

We have a whole tranche of deeply unserious people running this country and it is going to cost us in the long run.
 
Boris has missed a trick. The price of alcohol in those countries is sky high…..he should have negotiated that any tourist with a UK passport gets all drinks for £1 a pop…..£1 a drink, fit Swedish ladies, lovely landscapes……he’d have my vote
 
Why do you have to try and twist this round so it's about Brexit and the EU? You're obsessed. It's about NATO
It's about the UK going off on its own, something the O/P has championed for a long time. Now he's finally questioning that approach.

Some of us have long understood how standing together with other countries made the UK much stronger. Pity it has taken the threat of Russia obliterating the UK with nuclear weapons for others to actually realise the value of mutual co-operation.
 
If I was Putin, I would invade Gotland to start a limited war with Sweden, and place nuclear weapons on the island. Britain then faces the option of losing standing by not getting involved, or attacking Russia alone (no NATO support as aggressive actions don't trigger the defensive pact). As a secondary result this also blocks Sweden's NATO entry as they can't accept a member already engaged in a war.


Hey don’t go giving him any ideas! A good point though. Putin’s actions up until now appear to have been mainly about keeping a part of those countries he is most concerned about joining NATO from having full control of their borders, so in effect being ruled out from entry (think Crimea, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia etc).
I am sure Finland has vulnerable island territories as well.
 
Last edited:
Hey don’t go giving him any ideas! A good point though. Putin’s actions up until now appear to have been mainly about keeping a part of those countries he is most concerned about joining NATO from having full control of their borders, so in effect being ruled out from entry (think Crimea, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia etc).#
I am sure Finland has vulnerable island territories as well.

Exactly. The key driver of this whole conflict is NATO expansion. Further NATO expansion can only intensify the situation.
 
Exactly. The key driver of this whole conflict is NATO expansion. Further NATO expansion can only intensify the situation.
It’s a driver, but it doesn’t mean it‘s right.

NATO haven’t attacked Russia. That may be Putins fear but it doesn’t make it a legitimate claim. At this point it’s simply paranoia.

Ergo if any nations wish to join NATO they shouldn’t be bullied into thinking they can’t just incase Russia kick off again. Ukraine are an innocent nation paying the price for Putins unsubstantiated concerns and muscle flexing ideals. Why would any country wish to be next on his hit list without securing some kind of back up plan.
 
It's about the UK going off on its own, something the O/P has championed for a long time. Now he's finally questioning that approach.

Some of us have long understood how standing together with other countries made the UK much stronger. Pity it has taken the threat of Russia obliterating the UK with nuclear weapons for others to actually realise the value of mutual co-operation.
Don't try and backtrack. Your post was yet another thinly veiled attack on Brexit. I know it, you know it and this entire board knows it.
 
And you're another one obsessed with the EU and Brexit. You and BHOK should get a room together.
It's you and your paranoia that has mentioned Brexit and the EU.

NATO is nothing to to do with the EU, and in this case, we've unilaterally backed Finland without either. As Tommy, that we'll know remainer says, have we backed ourselves into a corner?
 
If Putin invades Finland, I can’t see Nato standing back as they have done with Ukraine. What happens when he then invades Sweden, or any other non nato member? When does the west decide enough is enough.
 
It’s a driver, but it doesn’t mean it‘s right.

NATO haven’t attacked Russia. That may be Putins fear but it doesn’t make it a legitimate claim. At this point it’s simply paranoia.

Ergo if any nations wish to join NATO they shouldn’t be bullied into thinking they can’t just incase Russia kick off again. Ukraine are an innocent nation paying the price for Putins unsubstantiated concerns and muscle flexing ideals. Why would any country wish to be next on his hit list without securing some kind of back up plan.

Agreed, and I would think our actions are probably designed to prevent Russia doing anything silly before they both join.
 
It's you and your paranoia that has mentioned Brexit and the EU.

NATO is nothing to to do with the EU, and in this case, we've unilaterally backed Finland without either. As Tommy, that we'll know remainer says, have we backed ourselves into a corner?
My paranoia? 😆 Now that is rich
 
The fact that Sweden and Finland have remained neutral for so long has been a cornerstone of their respective societies, was lauded the world over, and held up as how countries could thrive without the constant worry of being invaded by a totalitarian neighbouring country with a despot ruler.
Then, suddenly a totalitarian despot blindsided the world by invading a neighbouring country.

The rest, as they say, is 'history', and I doubt very much that we have seen the worst of what Putin intends to do.

What it has done is make 2 nearby nations wake up and realise that the world has changed in an instant, and that they needed to shore up their defences, despite the despot threatening all kinds of 'swift and decisive' actions against countries having the audacity to join the 'big boys gang'.

If there is a 'fast track' method of joining NATO, then Sweden and Finland are at the head of the queue.

If there is any kind of ethereal, omnipresent being 'upstairs', then about now would be a good time for him/her to intervene.
I've got everything crossed that Boris giving assurances to Sweden and Finland that we would assist them doesn't come to fruition before these countries can join NATO.

Right, must get on with building my nuclear bunker.... TTFN 🥺
 
It’s a driver, but it doesn’t mean it‘s right.

NATO haven’t attacked Russia. That may be Putins fear but it doesn’t make it a legitimate claim. At this point it’s simply paranoia.

Ergo if any nations wish to join NATO they shouldn’t be bullied into thinking they can’t just incase Russia kick off again. Ukraine are an innocent nation paying the price for Putins unsubstantiated concerns and muscle flexing ideals. Why would any country wish to be next on his hit list without securing some kind of back up plan.
Why did NATO reject Russia's membership application?

NATO's raison d'etre is conflict with Russia. To believe otherwise is naive in the extreme.
 
Back
Top