X

Is the UK going a step too far against Russia?

Matesrates

Well-known member
Depressingly, I can’t see anything other than war between Russia and the west at some point, when that will happen depends on many things.

The only hope is that Putin fails in Ukraine and hasn’t got either the military capability, or political will to invade Finland. In that event you would hope that he’ll be deposed internally.
 

Archibald Knox

Well-known member
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.

That’s just silly. Putin would not risk a “limited war” with Sweden.
The fact is that the minute that Finland and/or Sweden apply to become NATO members, and their applications are accepted, they immediately benefit from full NATO protection (under Ch.5) while their applications are ratified. Ratification normally takes 6 months of bureaucracy to attain full membership (with all the responsibilities that means for them) but I am sure it would be speeded up in their cases.
 
Last edited:

BWseasider

Well-known member
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.
Russia have struggled to take Ukraine right on their doorstep. What makes you think they're capable of launching an invasion of Gotland? This would require amphibious capability which is one of the hardest possible things you can do in warfare.

Talk about people being unserious!
 

Matesrates

Well-known member
Reaction from Russia to Finland joint Nato. Will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both military-technical and other nature. Russia described as furious.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
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.
If you were Putin what would you invade with exactly now that most of your army is failing in Ukraine?
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Unusually, I agree with the O/P. We constantly look at everything through our own prism, this will be seen very differently in Russia, and I don't just mean the Putin bots. NATO and Russia have had a neutral border, Russia invaded one country, so the others feel unsafe. Boris making unilateral security agreements, outside of both NATO and our Parliament, smacks of grandstanding, and I question its legality. . Now, Finland, like Sweden, and Ukraine, should have the absolute right to apply to join NATO, but the good old UK agreeing to commit our forces to Finland, whilst refusing the same in Ukraine, seems inconsistent to me and potentially dangerous. What if the US took the same view as Ukraine if Russia invaded Finland, supply weapons but no help? We would be absolutely stuffed.

There is a reason this type of agreement takes time to negotiate,
 

EagleDay

Well-known member
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
We didn't stand alone during two world wars, we wouldn't stand alone now, proving there is no need for a European
super-state.
 
Last edited:

BWseasider

Well-known member
Probably my Baltic Fleet.

Sweden has all of about 30,000 troops. A quarter or more of which are conscripts.

You do realise a fleet incorporates naval, air, and mechanised infantry forces, right?
Yes and because Sweden has national service, they have hundreds of thousands of men (and even women!) with military training available that wouldn't take long to mobilise. Let's also not forget that 20-30% of Russian forces are also conscripts.

Taking a position like Gotland would leave you completely open to anti ship missiles and air forces, Russian ships aren't the best at defending against anti ship missiles as we've seen in the Black Sea. You would then need to land and establish a beachhead, and keep those troops supplied, all whilst the air and sea are contested. The Russians could try and land airborne troops onto the island but if they're not supported quickly by sea (which would still need to pull off an amphibious landing, again very hard to do) they will be wiped out quickly. We saw at Hostomel how hopeless they were at this, essentially throwing away some of their best trained troops, which once gone, takes a very long time to rematerialise.

Considering Russia has exactly zero experience of actual amphibious operations, which require the highest degree of combined arms coordination, I can't see this plan going well for them. Especially as they've struggled to perform combined arms operations right on their own border in a land only conflict where they haven't had to utilise their naval assets, but still managed to lose their flagship. Even if they did manage to take the island at great cost, it would be continually contested and would be an absolutely insane place to try and put nuclear weapons, which could easily be lost at sea, or destroyed on land. So you'd essentially take Gotland for.......?
 

seasideone

Well-known member
That’s just silly. Putin would not risk a “limited war” with Sweden.
The fact is that the minute that Finland and/or Sweden apply to become NATO members, and their applications are accepted, they immediately benefit from full NATO protection (under Ch.5) while their applications are ratified. Ratification normally takes 6 months of bureaucracy to attain full membership (with all the responsibilities that means for them) but I am sure it would be speeded up in their cases.
I don’t think Article 5 applies until full membership is granted, which is why Boris signed a military pact with them yesterday.

Also not sure where six months comes from as 12 months is being reported as best case, but who knows with what’s going on.
 

Matesrates

Well-known member
I don’t think Article 5 applies until full membership is granted, which is why Boris signed a military pact with them yesterday.

Also not sure where six months comes from as 12 months is being reported as best case, but who knows with what’s going on.
Macron will decide
 

GeminiPool

Well-known member
Yes and because Sweden has national service, they have hundreds of thousands of men (and even women!) with military training available that wouldn't take long to mobilise. Let's also not forget that 20-30% of Russian forces are also conscripts.

Taking a position like Gotland would leave you completely open to anti ship missiles and air forces, Russian ships aren't the best at defending against anti ship missiles as we've seen in the Black Sea. You would then need to land and establish a beachhead, and keep those troops supplied, all whilst the air and sea are contested. The Russians could try and land airborne troops onto the island but if they're not supported quickly by sea (which would still need to pull off an amphibious landing, again very hard to do) they will be wiped out quickly. We saw at Hostomel how hopeless they were at this, essentially throwing away some of their best trained troops, which once gone, takes a very long time to rematerialise.

Considering Russia has exactly zero experience of actual amphibious operations, which require the highest degree of combined arms coordination, I can't see this plan going well for them. Especially as they've struggled to perform combined arms operations right on their own border in a land only conflict where they haven't had to utilise their naval assets, but still managed to lose their flagship. Even if they did manage to take the island at great cost, it would be continually contested and would be an absolutely insane place to try and put nuclear weapons, which could easily be lost at sea, or destroyed on land. So you'd essentially take Gotland for.......?

Why? Because you don't actually need to achieve much in terms of military success, you simply have to maintain a state of war between the two countries to prevent NATO accepting them as a member.

My point isn't entirely serious anyway, more to point out that actions can have unintended consequences. Hostile actions generally provoke hostile responses. Fast-tracking nations on Russia's borders into NATO whilst publicly guaranteeing their national defence could be enough to provoke a pre-emptive attack.
 

Junior_BentsPlatformShoes

Well-known member
Why? Because you don't actually need to achieve much in terms of military success, you simply have to maintain a state of war between the two countries to prevent NATO accepting them as a member.

My point isn't entirely serious anyway, more to point out that actions can have unintended consequences. Hostile actions generally provoke hostile responses. Fast-tracking nations on Russia's borders into NATO whilst publicly guaranteeing their national defence could be enough to provoke a pre-emptive attack.
I don't see this happening - Putin knows it's a dangerous game they're playing already, saber rattling about 'unfriendly' countries facing consequences. The alternative is just to sit back and let him do what he wants as with the Crimea. He's painted himself into a corner and barring some small victory in Ukraine, he's lost what he set out to achieve and set back Russia a good few decades. He's a pariah on the international leader circuit now - the best thing all around is for him to pop his clogs and someone new starts to heal rifts.
 
Last edited:

poolseasider

Well-known member
Couldn't give a stuff who joins NATO as long they stump up as a lot of countries don't put enough in the pot.
So if Finland and Sweden join it's a min of 2%GDP.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
There’s nothing different been agreed in reality has there? No obligation on Britain as such?? It just seems like a public display of support, designed to give Putin cause to think twice until arrangements for NATO membership can be resolved.
 

Seasider3610

Well-known member
Finland is the only non-NATO European Union state bordering Russia. Finland's official policy states that a wartime military strength of 280,000 personnel constitutes a sufficient deterrent. The army consists of a highly mobile field army backed up by local defence units.

Sweden also has a trained reserve force.

There is no chance that Putin can take on any NATO member.
Putins army can’t hold ground in Ukraine against a determined force 🇺🇦
 

GeminiPool

Well-known member
There’s nothing different been agreed in reality has there? No obligation on Britain as such?? It just seems like a public display of support, designed to give Putin cause to think twice until arrangements for NATO membership can be resolved.
Not yet, but Johnson wittering on about putting nukes in Sweden isn't exactly going to go down well, is it?

He's desperate for a Churchill moment.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Not yet, but Johnson wittering on about putting nukes in Sweden isn't exactly going to go down well, is it?

He's desperate for a Churchill moment.
I don't think anyone will take a great deal of notice TBH. We're talking about seasoned political leaders here and in the case of Putin, one who has spent his entire career rattling the nuclear sabre.
 

Seasider3610

Well-known member
Ukraine army destroy entire Battalion of Russian troops!


They also damaged another ship in the Black Sea area of Snake Island.

There is no chance of Putin attacking Finland or Sweden ☠️
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Given how much we are hated internationally as a country according to some; I'm just pleased to see that we are thanked by Ukraine and that our Nordic neighbours want our support in the event the Russians try it on.

Not bad for an embarrassing country.

Honestly, people need to look beyond the political figurehead and actually see this for what it is.

We are defending democratic nations and that is a good thing.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Given how much we are hated internationally as a country according to some; I'm just pleased to see that we are thanked by Ukraine and that our Nordic neighbours want our support in the event the Russians try it on.

Not bad for an embarrassing country.

Honestly, people need to look beyond the political figurehead and actually see this for what it is.

We are defending democratic nations and that is a good thing.
We are supplying a democratic nation, not defending them. That would be happening with any of our liberal democratic parties at the helm. Below that macro-commiment it is reasonable to question the Government's policies.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Probably because NATO has 2 million highly trained troops ready to go, Russia has some conscripts guided by generals who think it's still 1945.
I don't think the Russian troops are as poor as people are saying. They don't believe in what they're being told to do and they're up against angry people defending their homes.
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Containing the Independence movement by facilitating devolution is the expression you were looking for.
Created a base camp and strengthened the position of the nationalist parties is the expression you were looking for.

Has any nationalist/cessationist party in the UK, stopped campaigning or not grown since their introduction? Absolutely not; it's strengthened their hands by giving the illusion they could go out alone.

It was absolutely designed to facilitate the break up up the UK or it has done more harm to the UK than any other policy in living memory due to unintended consequences of introducing them.

Brexit is just another thing for the nationalists to use to further their agenda, but so are things like NHS car parking charges, or quite literally, the price of fish.

The Labour Government facilitated this and subsequent Governments have just pushed it along.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion let people choose, I'm perfectly comfortable with being English and British - but if in the future I'm only one of those things, because the Welsh, Irish and Scots want to go their own way; I'm entirely comfortable BUT I hate the twisted narrative that says Brexit was more harmful than actually ceding democratic control to the other nations as that is absolute bollocks.
 
Last edited:

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
Created a bar camp and strengthened the position of the nationalist parties is the expression you were looking for.

Has any nationalist/cessationist party in the UK, stopped campaigning or not grown since their introduction? Absolutely not; it's strengthened their hands by giving the illusion they could go out alone.

It was absolutely designed to facilitate the break up up the UK or it has done more harm to the UK than any other policy in living memory due to unintended consequences of introducing them.

Brexit is just another thing for the nationalists to use to further their agenda, but so are things like NHS car parking charges, or quite literally, the price of fish.

The Labour Government facilitated this and subsequent Governments have just pushed it along.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion let people choose, I'm perfectly comfortable with being English and British - but if in the future I'm only one of those things, because the Welsh, Irish and Scots want to go their own way; I'm entirely comfortable BUT I hate the twisted narrative that says Brexit was more harmful than actually ceding democratic control to the other nations as that is absolute bollocks.
Perhaps the nationalists have grown in power in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland because they were sick and tired of being treated as an afterthought by the English, UK Government. There was a time when the Welsh and the Scots were proud to be British. Tory Governments from Thatcher onwards have put paid to that.
 

Lala

Well-known member

glasshalffull

Well-known member
Ppi
Pppi
Created a bar camp and strengthened the position of the nationalist parties is the expression you were looking for.

Has any nationalist/cessationist party in the UK, stopped campaigning or not grown since their introduction? Absolutely not; it's strengthened their hands by giving the illusion they could go out alone.

It was absolutely designed to facilitate the break up up the UK or it has done more harm to the UK than any other policy in living memory due to unintended consequences of introducing them.

Brexit is just another thing for the nationalists to use to further their agenda, but so are things like NHS car parking charges, or quite literally, the price of fish.

The Labour Government facilitated this and subsequent Governments have just pushed it along.

Quite frankly, I'm of the opinion let people choose, I'm perfectly comfortable with being English and British - but if in the future I'm only one of those things, because the Welsh, Irish and Scots want to go their own way; I'm entirely comfortable BUT I hate the twisted narrative that says Brexit was more harmful than actually ceding democratic control to the other nations as that is absolute bollocks.

That argument assumes that the state of nationalist politics in the UK would have remained frozen and as peaceful as it was in the late nineties.
Given a further 25 years or so of neglect and disrespect by Westminster I doubt that would have been the case.
Was it right to give the now devolved countries a mechanism for more democracy and self determination? Probably.
Has it strengthened the hand of the nationalists? Possibly, but more so than if nothing had changed? Well we will never know.
Has Brexit strengthened the hand of the nationalists? Almost certainly.
As for being comfortable about the break up of the union then I am sure many of us on here are, but to the best of my knowledge you are not one of those putting a union jack on every other post.
 

glasshalffull

Well-known member

Putin must be shocked, angry and embarrassed by the lack of success his special operation has seen.

Whereas the people of Ukraine again astound with their courage, bravery, strength and brute determination 🥰

Yes what a heroic effort. Looking at the map though it looks as if Putin can ignore Kharkiv and still take the corridor round the East to the coast and beyond?
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Ppi
Pppi


That argument assumes that the state of nationalist politics in the UK would have remained frozen and as peaceful as it was in the late nineties.
Given a further 25 years or so of neglect and disrespect by Westminster I doubt that would have been the case.
Was it right to give the now devolved countries a mechanism for more democracy and self determination? Probably.
Has it strengthened the hand of the nationalists? Possibly, but more so than if nothing had changed? Well we will never know.
Has Brexit strengthened the hand of the nationalists? Almost certainly.
As for being comfortable about the break up of the union then I am sure many of us on here are, but to the best of my knowledge you are not one of those putting a union jack on every other post.
I think to suggest that national governments may have possibly strengthened the hands of the nationalists is a bit disingenuous.

The SNP had 3 seats before 1997, 7 in 1997 and now Scotland feels like a one party state. AS and NS surgeon have milked UK Government bad, Scottish Government good as a simplistic method of securing, growing and holding their vote.

They would never had had the platform without Scotland having a devolved government.

If I was them I'd have done the same.

I genuinely don't think that Brexit is the biggest cause of the break up of the UK; in my opinion, the decision to devolve powers 20 years earlier is a significantly larger contributory factor and in Scotland, David Cameron offering them even more powers to try and stop them going in 2014 just added more power to the nationalists elbow.

I think those who didn't want the UK to leave the EU are simply using self-determination of the nation's as something else to cast that democratic vote in a bad light and launch a faux attack on this government and the pantomime villain that is the PM.

Ironically, Brexit is a useful tool for both to those who wished to remain in the EU and national socialists who wish to leave the UK but it isn't the single most important action to contribute to the break up of the UK.

Flags are great in their place.
 

Lala

Well-known member
Yes what a heroic effort. Looking at the map though it looks as if Putin can ignore Kharkiv and still take the corridor round the East to the coast and beyond?
I don’t know. But every day and every set back is costing the Russians more money and more lives and weakens their resolve.
 

glasshalffull

Well-known member
I think to suggest that national governments may have possibly strengthened the hands of the nationalists is a bit disingenuous.

The SNP had 3 seats before 1997, 7 in 1997 and now Scotland feels like a one party state. AS and NS surgeon have milked UK Government bad, Scottish Government good as a simplistic method of securing, growing and holding their vote.

They would never had had the platform without Scotland having a devolved government.

If I was them I'd have done the same.

I genuinely don't think that Brexit is the biggest cause of the break up of the UK; in my opinion, the decision to devolve powers 20 years earlier is a significantly larger contributory factor and in Scotland, David Cameron offering them even more powers to try and stop them going in 2014 just added more power to the nationalists elbow.

I think those who didn't want the UK to leave the EU are simply using self-determination of the nation's as something else to cast that democratic vote in a bad light and launch a faux attack on this government and the pantomime villain that is the PM.

Ironically, Brexit is a useful tool for both to those who wished to remain in the EU and national socialists who wish to leave the UK but it isn't the single most important action to contribute to the break up of the UK.

Flags are great in their place.

Well HMG’s have been strengthening the hands of the Nationalists on and off for ages. Often inadvertently and through lack of action as much as actions taken.
Three very different situations though aren’t they. I have no doubt the Scottish one supports your argument the most though.
I personally think it was right to give them an assembly, although it will leave many in the regions feeling they have missed out no doubt.
I think Brexit has definitely speeded up the process of the break up of the union potentially at least.
 
Last edited:

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Well HMG’s have been strengthening the hands of the Nationalists on and off for ages. Often inadvertently and through lack of action as much as actions taken.
Three very different situations though aren’t they. I have no doubt the Scottish one supports your argument the most though.
I personally think it was right to give them an assembly, although it will leave many in the regions feeling they have missed out no doubt.
I think Brexit has definitely speeded up the process of the break up of the union potentially at least.
Not sure the regions do.

The NE which is generally seen as most likely, rejected regional government when it was last asked.

Perhaps Cornwall may fancy it as they have an incredibly strong identity (maybe diluted but second home owners).

Time will tell I just hope it all remains peaceful.
 
Top