Vladimir Putin has issued a stark warning, stating that if Ukraine is permitted to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles, it could be perceived as an act of war against Russia, further escalating tensions between Russia and NATO.
Speaking to state media on Thursday, the Russian president declared that allowing Ukraine to deploy the UK-manufactured missiles would “change the nature of the conflict,” raising the stakes for Western countries.
He cautioned that this could potentially lead to a direct confrontation with NATO.
“It would mean that NATO countries, the US, and European nations are at war with Russia,” Putin said.
There are indications that the US and UK may soon lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Storm Shadow missiles. Reports suggest that this was a key issue during meetings between US and UK foreign ministers and President Zelenskyy in Kyiv, possibly enabling Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia.
Sergei Markov, a former adviser to Putin, told LBC’s Tonight with Andrew Marr that Russia could retaliate by targeting NATO airfields if Storm Shadow missiles are used. “Russia will strike the airfields where the F16s are based,” Markov said, adding that the strikes could occur in Romania and Poland rather than Ukraine.
Putin reiterated that the deployment of these missiles would “change the nature of the conflict,” and warned that Russia would take “appropriate decisions” based on the evolving threats.
This development coincides with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington for a meeting with US President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to advance into Russian-occupied territories, as President Zelenskyy presses the West for further military support. The conflict has seen intensified rocket attacks from Russia, including a missile strike that killed three Red Cross workers.
Storm Shadow
Storm Shadow is a long-range air-launched cruise missile that has been integral in modern military operations, notably in conflicts involving NATO countries. Developed jointly by France and the United Kingdom, it offers a combination of precision and stealth in striking key targets from a significant distance. Its design allows it to be launched from various aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale, making it adaptable for several air forces.
The missile uses a turbojet engine to maintain a subsonic speed, with an operational range of around 560 km. This range allows forces to strike high-value targets while keeping their aircraft at a safe distance from hostile air defence systems. The missile’s warhead includes a specialised BROACH design, which enables it to penetrate fortified targets, such as bunkers, before detonating with a substantial explosive force.
During the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the UK provided Ukraine with Storm Shadow missiles, significantly enhancing Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. This move, coupled with France’s contribution of SCALP missiles (a variant of Storm Shadow), has given Ukrainian forces the ability to disrupt Russian supply lines and infrastructure in occupied regions, including Crimea.
The missile follows a “fire and forget” approach, meaning once launched, it autonomously navigates to its target using GPS and terrain-matching systems. This feature allows for efficient operation without requiring continuous input from the aircraft that launches it. The success of these systems in recent engagements has demonstrated their continued relevance in modern warfare, particularly in disrupting enemy infrastructure and command operations.
It’s a bit ‘boy who cares wolf’ at this point.
Indeed, by his logic, Ukraine should be declaring war on China and Iran!
The Russians know perfectly well what would happen to them if they attacked NATO airfields. Presumably the latest empty threat is aimed at Russia’s domestic audience.
Blah blah blah. We’ve heard it all a thousand times before.
You should see how many US and German social media channels have gone into overdrive. One example for you is the fool who runs Infowars. He has created a video showing what US targets/cities would be hit in a nuclear exchange, with a ticker counting the number of dead to 120 million. Now, the sensible amongst us know he pumps out the most outrageous guff on the Internet. However, the last time I looked, it had been shared 230 million times within US accounts on X alone. That’s 100 million less than the entire US population. It doesn’t take much to convince the simple and noisy folk that it is gospel.
Interestingly this may be where the west creating a fuss over should it or shouldn’t it allow Ukriane to us weapons how it wants, has actually increased tensions and rhetoric, giving Putin a chance to do what he really likes to do which is ramp up tensions and posture to the domestic audience and third and second world, If they had just handed over the weapons and been quite about targeting, keeping it all completely secret. He would have no dialogue to raise tensions over.
The problem with allowing the raising of rhetoric especially when an authoritarian dictator does it is that they can become trapped in their own rhetoric..to back away is weak and the strong dictators cannot be seen to be weak in front of a domestic audience.
So may be its best not to give him the opportunity to raise his rhetoric and just very quietly without any fanfare give Ukraine permission.
Now I know in the end he’s just mouthing off in reaction, but people like Putin do tend in the end to get stuck in rhetoric and become forced to act.
I think that would have been an own goal by the West. We had to make a show of hand-wringing about the use of long range weapons against Russia to appease the fence-sitters. It wouldn’t have stayed a secret for 2 seconds as Moscow very well knew the capabilities (or lack of) of the UKR forces and they would definately have been able to propaganda it to said fence-sitters as secret Western proxy aggression.
That’s true, but what could he actually have done then or the fence sitters done..now it’s all tense and someone is backing down…some things are just better done, some things are about negotiation. Allowing Ukraine to use the weapons it had in the way it needs to manage the deep battle should never have been an escalation or negotiation point.
one of the reasons we are where we are to be honest is western hand-wringing which quite frankly the rest of the world does not read as “ how moral and upright are the west, a shining example” they simply either see and think“ what a bunch of egotistical hypocrites and poor allies” or “what a weak set of powers that can be managed and defeated using political warfare”.
I think the hope was to make it a known risk to Russia. I.e. if you carry on doing this we will remove the limitation on Ukraine from using these weapons on the Russian mainland. Unfortunately this hasn’t worked. Now we find ourselves in a policy knot.
It’s no more ‘stark’ than the 58 other times he has ‘warned’ the West against helping Ukraine to defend itself. Russia is in no position to take on NATO and he knows it.
More talk – another red line. It was going to be war if the missile was used by Ukraine… it was given to them and no war. This is more of the same.
Putin KNOWS if he were to attack the UK article 5 would be invoked and Russia would be properly at war with NATO. He would loose that war and he would be deposed. He he will do nothing….. something he is getting good at… of course he will try and get back at us indirectly e.g. cyber attacks… but he cannot push this too hard as it may constitute an act of war. So he has to walk a narrow path..
It would be interesting to speculate how that war would play out for our armed forces and for the people of our country, and finally (least importantly) for our elected politicians!
Honestly think there would be panic in Westminster. As the Government would try to make sure strategic targets were protected. Only to be told by the MoD that it’s impossible, as they don’t have the resources.
As long as people realise it’s because of fourteen years of Tory cuts.
It would be moot at that point.
Yawn, and the 10 years of Labour cuts prior, then the Tory cuts prior to that and the labour cuts prior to that, it goes on and on.
It’s not just because of the Tory cuts though is it …its a lot more nuanced than that.
I’m not denying they have had a major impact but this goes further back than that. ..but hey if that fits your agenda then carry on.
As others say I doubt we will be worrying about who cut what if the proverbial hits the fan.
I am sure you are right. The MoD needs to drop its ‘can do’ and ‘muddle through’ philosophy and tell it how it really is. In truth, the Government should know how it is, as they keep commissioning Integrated Reviews and defence reviews, and received evidence from the HCDC etc.
Indeed a very good question. unfortunately there is no such thing as an “easy war” if there ever is such a paradox. Any war would be a devastating affair. Even though there is no likely possible risk of NATO “losing” a war to Russia as long as it does not fall apart politically ( but that is always a tiny but real possibility). The problem would be wining the War and whatever that meant.
Any war with Russian contains a number of nightmares for NATO which people who only see the balance of armies fail to consider.
1)Russia is a large nation with significant resources a lot of its key infrastructure is a long way from NATO. So yes NATO could hammer the Russian armed forces, but driving Russian to terms many be a profoundly different thing..does NATO drive an army to Moscow ? because that’s what it would probably take to drive Russia to terms.they are a proud people and NATO would not be seen as liberators from Putin, most Russians respect and support Putin. What do you do then with a nation of nearly 7 million square miles and 140million people ? do you occupy it and control them with military force..that challenge would be profound for our armed forces and may involve a bloody campaign and years on years of insurgency, that would make Iran and Iraq look like walks in the park ( people need to look at the bloodbath that was the soviet partisan campaigns of 1941 to 44 understand what that could look like). That’s going to leave a huge number of service personal mentality and physically scared as well as a lot of grieving mother’s.
2) Russia has a nuclear arsenal that could destroy civilisation, we don’t know what would trigger a russian strategic release. But we do know that at some point if it considered itself at existential risk it would probably consider undertaking a strategic strike. That would likely be a counter value target. From a civilian point of view it would mean pretty much the entire population of NATO would be waiting for a nuclear attack to occur during the war as well as the potential end of the world…that’s going to create a lot of social unrest and very very scared and unhappy people even if nothing comes of it..but in the worse cases we could loss a city full of people or in the very worst case we could cease to be a nation/civilisation and it’s not a zero risk that humanity itself would go out in a NATO Russian war.
3) social/economic impact of a war..added to the constant fear of nuclear strike and what that would do to society..you would have the fact Europe was an active war zone..Russia could make missile strikes anywhere at any port, its SSNs could attack merchant shipping..there is a real likelihood that shipping would not be ensured to come to Europe.this would create economic hardship and massive inflation as food and goods became harder to come by. There would be shortages of raw materials and supply chain delays for industries..our economies would be put at real strain..just at the time our society was sick with fear of nuclear war…there would be an energy crisis..putting food on the shelves and keeping the lights on across Europe may be an issue…we are shipping dependent on many things.
4) Political….sections 1-2-3 would create massive social pressure that creates massive political pressure. There is no way china would give a free ride, it may not go kinetic but it’s political warfare operations would go ballistic..you could see political unrests across Europe and faced with all of that would there be the political will across or nations to prosecute the war to its end or would NATO fracture…and what we end up with is Russian forces reduced to an extent they could no longer operate and maybe an uneasy armistice that puts to bed nothing…with a profoundly unhappy Russia…re arming for round two and a traumatised Western Europe doing the Same..but unable to finish the job because of the strategic arsenal in russia..essentially a never ending hot war that neither side can afford to end.
All in all a war between large land mass and population nations/geopolitical alliances that have strategic arsenals that ensure MAD would be almost impossible to bring to meaningful end ( as in one losses complete) in a way the did not risk the end of human civilisation as we know it.
Largely concur w/ your analysis. Have little doubt that NATO collectively could decisively defeat Russia in a war limited to conventional arms, but still view sceptically a plan to militarily occupy Russian landmass. Bonaparte’s and Hitler’s attempts are obvious counterexamples. The real problem is that the war would not remain based on conventional weapons. Almost guaranteed that a NATO v. Russia war would be deemed to be an existential threat and trigger a nuclear response. Russia is slated to release the latest revision of their nuclear war doctrine in the near future Probably employ tactical nukes initially, w/ the threat of escalation to strategic weapons, depending upon NATO response. If the West had adifferent political leadership, could theoretically envision a massive first strike to decapitate regime, but w/ current leadership, believe Russians will be able to dictate pace and scope of exchange. This could prove quite problematic for Western populaces w/out access to suntan lotion w/ less than a 5M SPF. Additionally, at a minimum, ChiComs, Iranians and NKs will need to be drilled. Relatively large order.
Firmly believe that any animals, including Mad Vlad and the Orcs, if backed into a corner, will turn and attack perceived threat(s) in an instinctive attempt to survive. Virtually guaranteed.
It is time we told Mr Putin of some red lines ourselves.
If one more Russian missile , glide bomb etc is fired at Eussian territory or forces. Then Ukraine will be allowed to use western weapons to attack Russian targets.
Like it! Maybe this should have been tried ages ago. I hope Ukraine still has substantial will and forces to simultaneously push out Russian forces within their own territory as well as fire back over the fence!
Sadly the Russians apparently quite successfully counter-attacked the Ukrainan’s Kursk force and recovered 20 villages (Report in the i newspaper yesterday). It was always going to happen.
Agreed that it would be just Ukrainians romping around Russia unopposed forever, but there’s still quite a bit of back and forth. The Ukrainians aren’t getting it all their own way, but the Ukrainians are still managing to advance in places and keep it fluid enough that the Russians can’t fix them in place. A number of VDV units are apparently regularly complaining about getting hit hard in their flanks with drones, ATGMs and armour- which they’re finding less than pleasant.
Not sure if you’ve come across a chap called Tom Cooper (Sarcastosaurus) online? He’s got a substack, and seems to manage to be ahead of and in more detail than the mainstream newspapers by at least a few days. He essentially takes in all the OSINT Twitter and Telegram stuff from both sides and works out what it means on a map, and he doesn’t seem to get it wrong that often. He’s not a Ukraine fanboy either, he’s very critical where he sees problems- and he sees a lot of them.
Hmm, If I were a regular member of the public and not privy to what I see at work, I would agree with you. Tom lives in the Midlands, I had a few chats online with him about his videos over a year ago. I pointed out a few glaring errors he was making and he took them onboard. For a civvy he has managed to get a decent collection of sources on Telegram, where he lifts videos.
You are also correct @Joe16, his analysis and conclusions are reasonably good for a civvy.
Thanks Joe.Interesting to see how Ukraine’s Kursk adventure plays out – it would be very grave if they lost this force or if they withdrew it without gaining much benefit.
I shall take a look at Tom Cooper.
Unfortunately if we do put a hard line in the sand it then makes us brittle. As much as a war against NATO wouldn’t go well for Russia, there will be a lot of hesitation within the west. As such remaining as vague as possible is best as it leads to uncertainty in the enemy and doesn’t cause serious risk to our credibility.
The problem is a war against Russia would also not go well for NATO..neutralising Russias ability to fight a war in Europe would only be the start of the war..you then have to figure out how to get Russia to surrender without triggering a nuclear exchange…all the while Europe becomes an active warzone and merchant ships don’t sail and deliver their cargos in active warzones and we live on an island. The social and political upheaval from massive economic damage, reduced supplies of basics like food and energy, linked in with an ever present and real risk of strategic nuclear strikes would be profound as l.
Reported today that Putin has expelled some UK diplomats, accusing them of spying. He is exerting pressure on Starmer as he meets with Biden; trying to split the US and UK. The old, divide and conquer tactics. Putin is scared. These missile will bring the consequences of his invasion of Ukraine close to home.
Bottom line , you don’t give in to blackmail because then Putin knows he has your weak point he can exploit.
Well let Ukraine fall, what then? He rolls up to Poland or one of the Baltic states and says, “ get out or I will use nuclear weapons” then what.?
Putin is the one leading an illegal invasion , we cannot be the one to blink first.
I think Poland would smash the Russian armed forces with or without nato
In a conventional fight, I agree. But my point is you give into Putin’s blackmail once. He knows he has a weak point he can exploit.
Putin maybe crazy enough to attack NATO but I doubt those below him do. If NATO gets involved then the Ukraine war is over , and not in a way he willl like.
Agreed on all points
Sorry Brom. Poland could achieve some successes but might encounter similar challenges to those faced by Ukraine. Additionally, Poland shares a border with Russia only through Kaliningrad. Without NATO, only the US is in a position to have that fight and not currently encounter difficulties. But that is the very nature of collective treaties. The UK is not going to come off well slugging it out with Russia on its own. Put the rest of NATO forces with it and you now have a huge armed force. If it were not for that, the British government would have been forced to keep a military the size it was in 1981.
If Poland is given a few years to receive all its new toys and has time to play with them, the situation could change and the Poles with give Putin a bloody nose.
The worrying question is, which countries would refuse to answer the Art 5 call if the far more likely incursion into one of the Baltic states were to happen? Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechia, Finland, Luxembourg and Portugal have all had politicians who view the Ukraine war as not their problem and as a direct consequence of what the Ukrainians did after the Maiden Revolution in 2014. A few would directly be in the firing line and some others have already made it known their distance to such events shouldn’t commit their country to go to war with Russia as they have no beef with it.
As NATO militaries prepare for a potential conflict with Russia, there is a noticeable lack of willingness among its societies to participate in their own defence. A YouGov poll (Jan 2024), found that more than a third of those under 40’s would refuse to sign up or be conscripted, with 88% of ‘British citizens’ with a second passport saying they would refuse to be conscripted and would try to leave the country.
Your right about the current borders but Poland will have a big problem if Ukraine falls then the orcs will be right next door!
Well all the more reason to up our regular forces to a more suitable size then isn’t it ..and then arm them accordingly.
But we know that will cost money , and so thag aint gunna happen.
Not now Laboutlr have paid off the Train Drivers & Junior Dr’s for their support in the election.
Still I suppose some of that heat allowance savings will help to offset that.
That’s not the issue..what the hell do you do then…
1) how do you make a county of 7 million square miles, with 140 million people and a nuclear arsenal that could destroy civilian give up and surrender.
2) If you somehow get the government to surrender what the hell do you do then…russia has a history of partisan warfare that makes the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan look like amateur hour…do we somehow support a million strong army to take and hold Russia for a generation ?
3) if we go to war with Russia Europe becomes a warzone with all that entails..merchant ships will not be insured to carry cargos to European ports…that mean as an island we start to run out of things..Europe is not energy or food independent..our supply chains and industries require constant feeding by ships…but no ships will sail to Europe while we are at war with Russia.
4) going to piont 1 we know that if Russia is existentially threatened it will likely consider a strategic responce..every western citizen will have to live with the fact that if we are at war with Russia and trying to force a Russian surrender, at any moment Russia may chose to vaporise the town or city they live in…
The west is used to kicking the shite out of nations that cannot really threaten our existence. We send our armed forces to fight knowing that our nations and civilian populations are essentially safe..we send our armies to fight Russia we may not have a nation or civilian population at the end of it.
Why does Putin always single out the UK in his rhetoric? Does he see us as the weak link in NATO?
He seems to have this idea about freeing the world from “Anglo-Saxon culture”.
On the contrary Because we have consistently been the country who ignores his red lines. Tanks, cruise missiles, etc . We have been pushing to untie Ukraines hands.
We are one of the leading nations in organising help to Ukraine.
He already has Germany cowed , get the U.K. to back off and he is a long way to beating NATO physiologically.
Yeah, good point
Because, despite the doom mongers here who think we’re shit at everything and a third world military ( just look at the posts recently on the RN by the usual suspects ) the UK is very successful at causing serious issues to Russia, in a whole range of domains, from aid, to cyber, to intelligence gathering, to diplomacy gaining a consensus amongst allies, to our military technology.
Living in your enemies head “rent free” and causing them to even have their TV presenters urging nukes on the UK is testimony to that.
If we were nobodies the UK would hardly get a mention.
We are somebody.
And they don’t like that.
Yeah, I am a bit guilty of negative rants on here, it is not that I don’t rate our armed forces, but like a lot of other posters, I perceive that our armed forces are atrophying faster than they appear to be upgrading. It is more borne out of frustration than lack of confidence.
I get the frustration. They are far too small and getting smaller by the year.
I also get that size isn’t everyrhing, capability, knowhow, logistic tail and reach, experience, professionalism, who your allies are, all count.
It’s a balance.
I also look at other militaries. People keep comparing us to the USA, a ridiculous benchmark.
My usual thought when they threaten us is.
1) make up your mind how you are going to attack us. This is getting real old, real fast.
2) You are aware that what you throw at us, you will get back, with interest.
I agree.
Putin does it, I think, for his domestic, brainwashed audience, to paint NATO as the aggressors.
They will fall for it readily.
I agree we do live ‘rent free’ in Putin’s head.
Whilst we are good at what we do we should have more RN assets deployed and deployable and some deeper crewing.
The message that having RFA on strike and Albions, on the wall, together are terrible.
👍Exactly!
The Russians have a Angolphobic inferiority complex going back to the Great Game, when we where the greatest power in the world, which has been honed by the Soviets hatred of us thanks to us a) Being a bourgeois Monarchy representing the pinnacle of the old world, and b) thanks to us actively supporting the whites during the Russian civil war.
They’ve never really gotten over seeing us as the arch enemy.
The British are pissed at the Russians, It probably goes back to when the Bolsheviks executed the Tsar and his family who were related to the British royal family, not to mention the fact that Russians have conducted multiple murders on British soil. So yes the British are rightly pissed off. as the saying goes payback is a bitch 🙂
When he spews his bile at others, it’s less likely to make the UK media. But we are one of his favourite targets. A badge of honour we should wear with pride.
Trouble is when you get headlines like ‘panic in the channel’ because a orc submarine is in transit or the bollocks on GB news Thursday night virtually quoting Pootins rhetoric word for word (Beverly Turner,Peter Hitchens) it doesn’t help! I have still to get a reply to my complaint as yet🙄
Wonder who funds GB news…
Won’t be clicking on there again that’s for sure👍
Not worth the pixels to read this BS.
It’s obvious given what Ukraine has achieved that any wider war, including the West on the ground, would result in complete humilation for those in the East (not just Russia!).
Personally…I’d remove all restrictions on Ukraine and say “…sic ’em” 🙃
Applying the same standard, perhaps Iran should be warned that the next time that Iranian supplied missile/ drone kills Ukrainian civilians, Teheran will become a target.,
How would Ukraine target Tehran?
Ukraine is developing it’s own SRBM/IRBM capability, they might already have something in service that can reach Tehran.
Many commentators think that Starmer and Biden will agree the use of long range weapons in Russia by Ukraine. They could concoct a form of words that is on the surface reasonable and diplomatic ie ‘that Ukraine can use such weapons as they deem necessary providing they do not breach humanitarian considerations or international law’. Thus an unvoiced understanding that Ukraine could use them on military targets inside Russia.
Putin will still kick off though.
Who knows what Putin will actually do then? Biden could be called a lame duck President. The alarming thing is that Putin has until 20th Jan next year (Inauguration Day) to do something dramatic hoping for little to no retaliation by Biden, after which there is a new President, who will not be a lame duck. If it is Harris (as to me seems likely) she will have to show she is a strong President, supportive of Ukraine in the war from Day 1.
Putin now has a 4 month window to be even more aggressive and ‘up the ante’.
All Russian military and logistics assets/hubs/arms factories/refineries/bases are legitimate targets.
Yes, agreed.
Even a lame-duck Presidency isn’t going to sit on its hands if the US or allies are attacked too blatantly. Besides Harris is part of the current administration, meaning it won’t be lame duck if she’s president-elect.
So Putin says, stop supporting Ukraine or we nuke you.
So the west rolls over.
He then rolls up to a Baltic state a NATO member, Putin says “ get out or we nuke you”
What then ?
We will need to face down his nuclear blackmail eventually, The best time is NOW!!
Has the West rolled over in response to Putin threats? I don’t think so.
However i can see that support for Ukraine will slow due to war-support weariness. Dare i say it Ukraine really needed to go all out in 2023 even if that resulted in a partial collapse for Ukr. At least that would have galvanized the west.
As it is there is no appetite for pumping money and weapons into a stalemate.
It was a hypothetical scenario of what Putin may do
Standard FSB deluded misinformation that only the gullible or misinformed will believe.
Chairman xi has been clear that nuclear weapons are not authorised as part of the unlimited friendship.
The UK should think carefully because if Trump is re-elected, we could find ourselves exposed and overextended. Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine, can we trust the EU would support us if Russia did strike a UK asset ?
I don’t think we have to be too concerned about Russia striking a UK asset but the point regarding Trump is well made and the fiasco of Afghanistan is a good analogy. However, if Europe allowed Putin to defeat Ukraine because Trump walked away then it would be curtains for the Western alliance as we know it.
Personally I believe Europe on its own could easily handle Russia and with French and UK nukes available that has the ultimate back up.
I hope the UK and key European allies have made that commitment already and are prepared.
Ironically Trump and Putin could inadvertently be the best thing for the UK armed forces and its relationship with Europe.
But my gut feeling is that Harris is going to win.
I hope
1) they finally agree to allow Ukraine to do this. It is very long overdue and has cost a lot of lives.
2) there is no formal announcement, they quietly give Ukraine the nod and the first Putin know about it is that part of Russia start exploding.
“Come at me Bro”
Russian Logic 101 – “If the U.K. allow Ukraine to fire the handful of Storm Shadow missiles they have been given at Russia, then we will be left with no choice but to go to war with NATO and force NATO to fire the rest of it’s cruise missiles ( and everything else ) at us”
I have no time for Putin’s rhetoric- his threat to strike Polish or Romanian bases is empty and also daft, as neither Storm Shadow or ATACMs are launched by F-16s anyway. If anything it’s showing that he doubts his ability to hit the actual long-range weapons systems themselves.
This should have been done months ago, and it is frankly something that our governments should be ashamed of that we haven’t.
Ukraine should raise further funds by allowing people to send in a photo of their raised middle fingers; for a donation these can then be put onto stickers and applied to the Storm Shadow and ATACMS missiles before they’re launched towards Russian targets. I imagine they’d do pretty well.
I think at this point we need to have a reality check on what exactly we are doing here.
Is there support from the British people in terms of raising the ante on this conflict, to the point where British sons and daughters may be killed?
I personally would like a say on this, and at least parliament should vote. They voted on Syria. This is far more risky to the population and they should have a say through their MPs.
Personally I have no desire to sacrifice British lives, and potentially those of my children so that people of Ukraine pay taxes to Zelenskys Government rather than Putins. There is no upside for the UK population here in upping the ante.
And you think he will stop at Ukraine. If Putin is serious about rebuilding Russia sphere of influence. His next target will be a NATO member. Do you suggest we renege on our article 5 obligations?
That is not what I said. I would rather take the risk of that eventuality than provoke further war now. As It stands I think its clear Russia would not be capable of rolling through Ukraine to get to Poland. Ergo the current, tolerable level of support we are providing is enough. Any more that might provoke a war between Russia and the UK needs to have a democratic mandate.
So you don’t want Ukraine to win? It is a war of attrition which Ukraine will ultimately loose.
We either uphold the international law or we don’t !!
By your logic we may as well tell North Korea and China to help themselves !!
Yes. There is overwhelming support from the British people. That’s why, although the Prime Ministers have come and gone in recent years, one of their first foreign visits is always to Kiev. Remember Salisbury.
A long time ago we should’ve warned Putin, by ultimatum, that if he didn’t withdraw from UKR within a given period we’d declare war on Russia, prosecuting Russian forces within UKR until they withdraw. We’ve been letting him get away with genocide while holding UKR back from defending themselves, costing many more lives than necessary.
We’re giving this “grey area” war all the air it needs to fester on & signalling China that we’re weak & indecisive.
There’s only one real red line in this war: Invading Ukraine.
Looks like Biden has lost his balls along with his marbles.
Why are we asking permission for a weapon the US had no hand in developing.
It shows why Tempest is so essential!!
We are asking Biden to give permission for Ukraine to use US missiles. I believe Holland has already given permission for their equipment so there’s already a NATO member who has crossed the so-called red line.
Nope, we are asking permission for Ukraine to use our missiles for Russian strikes
There are lots of comments around how NATO would carve the russian armed forces up in any war. Now this is very true, the overmatch is very significant.
But I think people are forgetting one very very important point, this would be a total war..it’s not the west overwhelmed some small military and going home for tea and biscuits. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that even smashing small and incompetent militaries is a completely different ball game to actually conquering and replacing a government. and the only way to knock Russia out of the war if it started would be to completely subjugate it.
This would be a war between large geopolitical entities and as we know they end when one is essentially destroyed through strategic exhaustion..so the question is not how to destroy Russias military capabilities for operations in Eastern Europe it’s…
1) how do you make a county of 7 million square miles, with 140 million people and a nuclear arsenal that could destroy civilian give up and surrender…hint that’s possibly the riskiest and most bloody thing since WW2,, infact it’s more risky as no side in WW2 could end humanity.
2) If you somehow get the government to surrender what the hell do you do then…russia has a history of partisan warfare that makes the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan look like amateur hour…do we somehow support a million strong army to take and hold Russia for a generation ? Because if we can somehow make Russian surrender without London and lots of other cities becoming craters..then we had better think how we prevent them from simply holding a grudge and coming back for WW4 in a couple of decades..( can I just point out that alway happens..England and France, Germany etc etc..the defeated enemy always comes for round 2 unless you some how completely destroy what was there and rebuild.
3) if we go to war with Russia Europe becomes a warzone with all that entails..merchant ships will not be insured to carry cargos to European ports…that mean as an island we start to run out of things..Europe is not energy or food independent..our supply chains and industries require constant feeding by ships…but no ships will sail to Europe while we are at war with Russia. people are going to be very very unhappy and social unrest may occur..especially when linked with a risk of being vaporised as per point 4.
4) going to point 1 we know that if Russia is existentially threatened it will likely consider a strategic response ..every western citizen will have to live with the fact that if we are at war with Russia and trying to force a Russian surrender, at any moment Russia may chose to vaporise the town or city they live in…that is going to create massive social unrest across the west.
5) china will be laughing its arse off..all that while undertaking a massive political warfare operation against the west..to help stir up the inevitable social unrest..leading to massive political pressure and NATOs one real possible weak point..political unrest leading to political fractures…
.
The west is used to kicking the shite out of nations that cannot really threaten our existence. We send our armed forces to fight knowing that our nations and civilian populations are essentially safe..we send our armies to fight Russia we may not have a nation or civilian population at the end of it. It’s not just a matter of military overwhelm…it’s a potential shit storm that leads to everyone’s end…
Is it me or does anybody else detect the way this is being played out both in govt and media we are about to sell Ukraine down the river despite what w e have spent and donated?
Hope not but there is definitely a change about in the perceived mood!