A TV channel in Russia, a nation currently struggling to invade a smaller neighbour on its own border, has inexplicably threatened “England” with nuclear missile strikes. Presumably, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are off the hook then?

In a bizarre broadcast, seemingly forgetting the UK has its own nuclear weapons, Dmitry Kiselyov said:

“What will happen after Boris Johnson’s words about a retaliatory strike on Russia? Why do they threaten vast Russia with nuclear weapons while they are only a small island? The island is so small that one Sarmat missile is enough to drown it once and for all. Russian missile Sarmat [aka Satan-2], the world most powerful… is capable of… destroying an area the size of Texas or England.

A single launch, Boris, and there is no England anymore. Once and for all. Why do they play games?”

I don’t think we have too much to worry about if the difference between the UK and England is lost on this person. Besides, for a current example of how valid Russian threats are, have a look at the thrashing that Ukraine is giving Russia.

The odd threat comes after Boris Johnson dismissed fears about nuclear warfare and said he does not believe the West has to make concessions, he told TalkTV:

“Given the massive Russian backing for what Putin is doing, given the apparent obliviousness of the Russian media about what is really happening in Ukraine, the paradox is that Putin has far more political space to back down, to withdraw.”

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
312 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
4 days ago

We need more SSN an SSBN, infact we need more of everything. Defense spending needs a massive rise, and it needs doing A.S.A.P. .

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
4 days ago

I think the AUKUS deal is a good one for the UK as it is focussed on submarines as well as hypersonic technologies. I would agree in the short term our defence spending should be close to 2.5% if not 3% of GDP (even in these straightened times). When we have developed the requisite hypersonic technology we can decrease it again after this short crisis (say in five years time).

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
4 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Five years? Don’t forget Taiwan.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

Is Taiwan in Nato? Does the UK have a binding defence pact with Taiwan?

Andy reéves
Andy reéves
3 days ago
Reply to  James

No.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
3 days ago
Reply to  James

Are you suggesting we stand back and let China dictate the 21st century?
Taiwan makes over 50% of the world’s semiconductors and 92% of those under 10nm. These are necessary for everything from smartphones to smartbombs.
Taiwan would also give a potentially hostile PLAN a foothold outside of the first island chain.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

At least someone gets it, this is a fact I have repeated more than once on here. While we wouldn’t in reality be involved in any defence of Taiwan, we would certainly send forces to give moral protection to states there threatened by such an action. It is vital that we understand what the fall of Taiwan would mean which would be the effective collapse of much of western industry and economic strength, massive inflation, collapsing markets and currencies, horrendous increases in prices of everything. All the things that Putin was threatening but only through deluded eyes, but hell things… Read more »

G Hanson
G Hanson
3 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

China is an export economy and any attack on Taiwan would be ruinous for them in sanctions. I think we are seeing the end of globalism. Hopefully this government or any successor will start thinking about strategic planning for the country in energy, food stuffs and industry so that we are not solely reliant on overseas manufacturers and energy suppliers. Who knows we might even become an exporting nation again. Either way life is going to get more expensive so why don’t we create well paid jobs for our own people instead of relying on the service sector and selling… Read more »

Don
Don
2 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Well said 👍. More at stake than a tiny island falling to the plan

peter Wait
peter Wait
1 day ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

Perhaps Taiwan should put explosives in its silicon chip factories and threaten to destroy if China invades?

James
James
1 day ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

They certainly do indeed regarding the semiconductors, and whats been the major global supply shortage since the pandemic started easing? Ah yes semiconductors.

I didnt say we would or should stand back, simply drawing a comparison with the Ukraine situation. However Taiwan would be massively more complex for us to reinforce and or intervene.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 day ago
Reply to  James

Now that Kuwait is getting Super Hornets, perhaps their previous high spec F/A18C/D could go to Taiwan?

Darren hall
Darren hall
2 days ago
Reply to  James

No… Do you think western democratic nations will let the PRC steam roller it into the sea?

James
James
1 day ago
Reply to  Darren hall

Not at all, however the West would find that particular theatre massively more difficult to deal with than Ukraine.

Andy reéves
Andy reéves
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

We’ve got the first Dreadnaught In build the second vessel in its generally comes faster as any issues from the first one are known about and fixes in place I’d hope arming a second boat at short notice wouldn’t be affected.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
4 days ago

Agree ET. Hopefully what we’ve got is well stocked and what’s pending and planned is on track. Nothing like a real crisis to quicken things up. Somethings can be done currently, like the T45 upgrades to fully utilise the ships potential, including mk41s, CAMM and TLAM as well as upgraded Asters, the later which could potentially be co-shared for a UK GBAD, a bit like AEGIS Ashore but could be transportable? I’d like to see the recently decommissioned T-subs kept on a wee bit longer and maybe 1-2 more Astutes planned and a few more P-8s to thoroughly counter the… Read more »

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
4 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

👍👍👍

Andy reéves
Andy reéves
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

More overhyped, overpriced, slow to build white elephants that ate the bulk of the navy budget for years astute and the desperate retirement if Trafalgar’s allowed the drawdown of the surface fleet. My son was on Torbay and everyone said that it was still good for another 5 years like the swift sures before them which were also. Retired in a rush despite the millions spent on making them tomahawk capable they, at the time were regarded as one of the best SsN’s anywhere and also the Churchill’s before them were removed from service suddenly the navy is afflicted with… Read more »

Andy reéves
Andy reéves
3 days ago
Reply to  Andy reéves

We could do worse than buying them back cross deck artisan and ceptor from an already to be retired t23 but that’s too sensible and would never happen

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  Andy reéves

Morning Andy, thanks for your replies. If further tensions arise with Russia maybe somethings might come back in service rather quickly!

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
3 days ago
Reply to  Andy reéves

The Astute is a good SSN and a significant upgrade from the previous class. I’m not sure what you mean by overhyped and overpriced. They are more cost effective than the equivalent US SSN. The nuclear engineers and the submarine designers at Rolls-Royce and BAE systems are second only to KAPL and electric boat so quite frankly I’m not sure what you mean to be honest.

Steve
Steve
4 days ago

Whilst I don’t disagree, how would that help with a nuclear strike. Not a single country in the world has the ability to defend itself against a intercontinental ballistic missile.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
4 days ago
Reply to  Steve

I’m just beating the old, we need more spending drum.

Look what going on, it’s looks like the Chinese might be now starting to get ready to go into Taiwan.

Yet except for giving everything away to the Ukraine we don’t seem to be do anything to up our defensive capabilities.

Steve
Steve
3 days ago

Taiwan would be another ukraine, as in not our fight. However I suspect Russias completely failure, will have given China serious questions about whether it’s worth the effort. At least I hope so.

G Hanson
G Hanson
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Unfortunately it is our fight if he goes on to attack a NATO country next door to the Ukraine, better a weakened Russia now who with any luck will not be in a position to attack further west

Andy reéves
Andy reéves
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Nuclear tipped warheads for tomahawk missiles

Andy reéves
Andy reéves
3 days ago
Reply to  Andy reéves

They do exist

OldSchool
OldSchool
4 days ago

Better to just lift the number of nuclear missile/warheads going to sea on the UK’s deterrent force.

Oh and bring back Vulcans and Victors – they were sooooo sexy😂.

Puffing Billy
Puffing Billy
4 days ago

We should get possibly one or even two more Trident boats out to complement the one always on standing patrol.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 days ago
Reply to  Puffing Billy

As well as the French one and the numerous US systems?

How many times do you need to blow up Moscow?

A Russian nuclear attack would be an article 5 moment. They know that as well as we do.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
4 days ago

How many times do you need to blow up Moscow?

If Russia pretty much killed everyone in the UK. I wouldn’t just want Moscow nuked. I’d want every town, city, military base and shack with inbred hill billy Russians nuked.

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago

Sanctions will force Russia to use nuclear weapons.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Russian stooge?

Terence Patrick Hewett
Terence Patrick Hewett
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

What’s the weather like in St Petersburg komrade: you people have really lost it.

Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

The Russians are not fools they would know NATO nukes would be the ultimate sanction… this is just more Russian sabre rattling. It impresses no one. The fact they have to resort to such outbursts shows how much they are militarily impotent in conventional warfare.

James
James
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Like any cornered beast, they are snarling to try to scare us off and make themselves look big. Not going to work on us this time Ivan!

dan
dan
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

So Russia using nukes will make the West lift the sanctions? lol

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Against Ukrainian targets of high value or western nations supplying arms to Ukraine?

John
John
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

These comments are ridiculous.

So because you have sanctions placed against you, you will commit a murder-suicide, which results in the nuclear obliteration of every person living inside Russia.

While I concede sanctions hurt… they’re supposed to… any government that advocates for the assured death of everyone living in their country as retaliation of sanctions isn’t representing the best interests of their people. Afterall, being obliterated by a nuclear bomb is worse than being sanctioned.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  John

Agreed. European NATO members will hurt big-time with potentially no oil / gas. But will not be an excuse for a nuclear strike

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

I was unable to get coco pops at Tesco today. My next thought was I’m going to nuke the bast**ds.
Russian sanctions could easily be stopped if the invasion stopped. Part of peace negotiations or whatever you want to call it. Russia started this and can stop it just as quickly. 1-2 days they can be out of Ukraine.

Andy P
Andy P
4 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Its all down to hubris and ego now MS, mostly from the boy at the top but as nationalism is sold as the only show in town to the Russian people (at least from the outside looking in) then its down to how many of those people will ‘demand’ that Russia wins…. and vote (yeah I know) accordingly. Never underrate a dictator’s hubris, it definitely has to be a part of The West’s considerations. I’m guessing that as 9th of May is creeping closer that something more tactical rather than strategic will be of more use to Putin. Its definitely… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Andy P

Or plan B

taffybadger
taffybadger
4 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

We should never give them access to western tech again, it will take a generation of Putin-like people removed for Russia to ever be trusted again.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Nothing ‘forces’ a country to use nuclear weapons unless itself so threatened or attacked. No-one has invaded Russia let alone threatened nuclear strike.
Putin is a moron.

Sean
Sean
4 days ago

And NATO would oblige, we don’t need to be able to do that on our own.

Jonathan
Jonathan
4 days ago

Don’t worry if we used our nuclear deterrent, it’s effectively a death sentence for most of the human race ( probably all of it). as a rule of thumb, crop and black soot modelling shows for every 100 warheads the world would loss 10% of its present food production for a ten year period. With areas like Russian and the US suffering the greatest loss. Also you need to remember why we have a nuclear deterrent. It’s effectively a dead mans handle that will force a full superpower exchange. If the U.K. launched both the US and Russia would have… Read more »

Nestor Makhno
Nestor Makhno
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Lets say two SSBN’s launch after uk is destroyed, thats eighty 100KT warheads,split across 80 cities, thats ~ 40 million dead russians, nobody else in NATO would need to launch theirs and russia’s only hope for survival would be to not conduct anymore first strikes. (imho)

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan, We have been using our CASD deterrent every day since 1969.

Jonathan
Jonathan
3 days ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

No Alan you don’t “use“ a deterrent like a strategic nuclear force, thats is the point of it. We have had the CASD since 1969 but we have not used it. The CASD is a classic deterrent by punishment. It’s the threat of force not the use of it that’s the deterrent by punishment ( hit me and I will blow you house up), so it’s used at the point you make the act of punishment ( in this case ending Hunan civilisation). A deterrent that would be used is a deterrent by denial, in this you “use” an active… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago

Im sure our ability to flatten Russia and make it a nuclear wasteland unfit for human habitation for millennia is the same as their ability to do likewise to us. Mutually assured destruction. MAD. Its a frightening concept when the people aiming missiles at us are so unhinged they could bring about the end of human civilisation. I think bringing a 2nd and 3rd trident sub to sortie readiness might be a good idea. Full and maximum trident and MIRV weapons loadout. The Russians are sounding off because their military are losing. 25% of their ground forces rendered combat ineffective.… Read more »

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

The radiological issues are actually minimal unless they use a cobalt lined warhead. The real issue is the nuclear winter caused by small soot particles that would block out the sun for everyone for years (100 warheads is enough to cause widespread issues in terms of food). Even those in bunkers would perish because of food shortages. However, the radiological issues after a few weeks are minimal as the amount of fission products is relatively small for each warhead – even with 5000 warheads. Most of that gets vapourised and then is entrained in the atmosphere and deposited over wide… Read more »

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

I would imagine Russia would use a tactical nuclear weapon over Ukraine to cause an EMP, high in the atmosphere. Damage would be minimal on the ground, but what about fallout?

Frank62
Frank62
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Whatever they use, if they were that stupid, would get massive retaliation, so it’s not going to happen. It’s just sabre rattling bullying. If we allow it to work then shame on us.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Admittedly, a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine is the more plausible. Imagine a lot of people are occupied with that possibility.

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

No they wouldn’t, as it would still escalate things and no matter what Poop Tin states, Russia knows NATOs capabilities and are just as afraid of nuclear escalation as the West is!

Caribbean
Caribbean
23 hours ago
Reply to  Jay R

The majority of fallout is caused by the fireball contacting the ground, above that it falls off rapidly. For a 1Mt nuke that’s around 1000m altitude and above

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Are you sure?. I dont know much about gamma radiation but i have watched when the wind blows by Raymond Briggs. That was frightening. Nuclear fallout would cause radiation poisioning and death for very large numbers of people.
So 5000 nuclear weapons discharged would equal very very large quantities of fallout. 100nuclear weapons obviously less so but still a big problem.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
4 days ago

Each Vanguard class boat is capable of carrying 16 Trident D5 missiles. Each missile can carry 5 warheads each. 80 targets. That is a truly unimaginable amount of destructive capability from one submarine. They don’t carry that number of missiles/warheads on routine patrols, but they could do.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Thought it was reduced to 12 missiles a few years ago?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Think it was less than that for a period. 16 is the max the boats can carry, but it’s always less than that. We will never know the true number. Deep32 might know.

Deep32
Deep32
3 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

It was down as low as 8 missiles for a while as you say. They don’t carry 16, as they always have some tubes for training purposes whilst at sea. Normal load is 8-12, but depending on when the last boat sailed on patrol, might be more.
As for warheads, no idea, that’s the secret bit!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
3 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Thanks mate 👍

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
4 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Correction. They can carry 8 warheads per Trident D5. 👍

Deep32
Deep32
3 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

They can actually carry 12 per missile, but START limited the amount to max 8 per missile.

Jonathan
Jonathan
3 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Yep, that destroys Russia as a nation on its own even without the inevitability of a full NATO response.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

They do seem to be totally deluded. Russia is indeed an immense country but fact is most of it is already an endless wasteland or little populated or survives on existence farming. A salvo of Tridents with multiple warheads would destroy almost anything of note to run that country and certainly their major cities of note, some people surviving with their goats in the middle of nothing facing freezing cold winters against no one here surviving is a pyrrhic victory at best. Not sure even a leader coming out of his bunker in central Russia to boast he is alive… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
3 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Yes most people do tend to take the modern world/nation state for granted and forget how fragile most of the key enablers for a nation to exist actually are. Cities are major nodes for these enablers ,destroying 80 major cities would effectively cut all power, water, communications and logistic (road, rail, air) systems as well as decision making, financial systems, food distribution.

Effectively it stops being a 21c nation and becomes a load of individual communities without any services or food. Starvation and societal collapse are inevitable.

John Stevens
John Stevens
4 days ago

Agree.. The 4 Trident sub’s the UK have is quite enough. Taking into account USA and French submarines. Extra capability lift in certain areas of conventional weapons is what the UK needs.

Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

Agreed… but we should send boats out with a full MIRV warhead load (128).

John Stevens
John Stevens
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Yes, I wonder how many warheads the UK Trident submarines will now be holding when out on patrol. Increase in the UK stockpile of warheads, so I guess that will lead to a increase on the sub’s… Sure that will be the case. I remember last year the government saying they would no longer be announcing how many warheads would be on a sub. Sensible move!

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

Wonder what threat level would trigger a second Vanguard setting sail.

John Stevens
John Stevens
4 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Yes, I guess the threat level would have to be very high. If NATO are seeing unusual and potentially threatening sub movements from Russia. But, if they needed to.. I don’t think it would take the RN too long to launch a second submarine. I remember when the UK and French submarines bumped into each other.. From what I remember it did not take too long to launch the second sub as a replacement.

John Stevens
John Stevens
4 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

Also I should of said. If there was unusual movements of Russian nuclear missile launchers on land not just at sea.

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

What would NATOs response be if Russia used nuclear weapons inside Ukraine?

Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

This is a big unknown. As UK/USA/Russia agreed to protect Ukraine if it gave up its nukes perhaps now we should give its nukes back….

dan
dan
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Yep. Ukraine should have NEVER given up it’s nukes. Depending on others to protect you is never a good policy. You listening Germany? lol

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

UK and US were supposed to protect Ukraine if their territorial integrity were threatened. What happened?

Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes – have a word with CND they are all into unilateral disarmament. Ukraine did what they have been advocating for years and look what happened – they got invaded by a nuclear power….

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Agreed and don’t forget the Green Party, and most of the Labour shadow second rate cabinet! They want the same!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Green Party still saying we should leave NATO once war is over. Even as incompetent as they are not one Country in Europe could face up to Russia alone which one might think means it’s a good idea to organise mutual defence but to some it seems that an unthreatened Russia would not pick a fight with anyone. Maybe threatening Sweden, Moldova, Finland and even today effective little old Ireland with a nuclear torpedo and tsunami just might suggest otherwise.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The U.K. USA and Russia were to protect Ukraine. That’s where the issue is. The last part

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The agreement under which Ukraine signed away nuclear weapons was really weak. The do called guarantees are little more than an obligation to consult and involve the UN….

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yeah that meant a lot didn’t it surely must have been some semblance of substance in that agreement to suggest what we would do to protect it. Words for the sake of it mean nothing except to the pockets of lawyers.

1para-Commando
1para-Commando
1 day ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The Budapest Memorandum was signed to recognise Ukraine’s territorial integrity not a defensive treaty

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  dan

All 3 parties UK, USA and incredibly Russia signed a treaty stating they would protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. That treaty went well didnt it?
I agree long-term after this war Ukraine will probably want to return to being a nuclear weapons armed state.
I dont think giving Ukraine nuclear weapons now would do anything but escalate the risk of Russia using a tactical nuke on Ukraine for daring to defend their own territorial integrity.
Imagine…how dare the Ukranians fight against a bunch of murdering, rapists, looting scumbags.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Actually they didn’t agree to protect the Ukraine, they agreed to talk about protecting the Ukraine. It was a white wash flim flam toothless agreement. Think 1938 Munich and you get the idea.

You can find the terms of the agreement online, when I read it I was horrified…

Cheers CR

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Certainly ironic that it had the Worlds third biggest stockpile of nukes once.

Frank62
Frank62
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

We’d declare war at the very least.

Steve
Steve
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

It’s an interesting question that I don’t want to find out the answer. Best guess would be increased sanctions. NATO couldn’t nuke back as that would result in Russia counter attacking. The same logic could be used if Russia was to nuke a non nuclear NATO member, would the others strike back, unlikely. However in both cases it would be a massive gamble by Russia, as they can’t guarantee no counter attack.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Agree. And broadcast that to Russia so they are in no doubt. Any nuclear attack against the UK and you get hopefully more than 1 trident subs worth of MIRVS. Trident was originally designed to carry 16 D5 missiles with upto 8 MIRVS. ?plus decoys. So 128 warheads per sub. Lets get them back upto that payload total.
Ready subs 2+3 to sortie. The only trident sub left in port should be the submarine in deep refit/ dry dock. Everything else needs to be out at sea or readied for sea.
Use them or lose them.

John Stevens
John Stevens
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Yes, I know what you mean, but on this issue.. I think it’s best to keep the Russians guessing.

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

I sense a New World Order. Russia have changed everything. A more sinister and typical action by Russia could be the distribution of radioactive/nuclear material to Syria/North Korea/Iran etc. Even with Putin gone, his successor will most likely be worse.

John Stevens
John Stevens
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Yes, troubling times we live in i’m afraid to say. I do wonder if in the future when Putin has gone if his successor will want to gradually improve relations with the west. I say that because of the sanctions and how it will take a toll on the Russian economy given time. Even if as you say.. Putin’s successor is also authoritarian. For now we are well and truly back into a Cold War 2; different type of Cold War, but until Putin goes.. That will be the case for the foreseeable future.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

The sanctions are probably bitting hard now. Widespread reports of food shortages in Russian shops. Limited range of products Chinese and Indian only. The real difficulty with regards sanctions is Russia’s inability to buy high tech components for weaponry and smart munitions. They will have to purchase from China. But the Chinese stuff is based on Russian technology and generational military hardware, which has proven to be crap in Ukraine. NATO just needs to hold its nerve. Ukraine needs to keep fighting and winning. Phase 2 of the war will be telling. If Ukraine can be equipped and trained to… Read more »

John Stevens
John Stevens
3 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Yes, good points you make. I think the American 155MM artillery that has already arrived with more to come will start to help, when it comes to counter offensives by the Ukrainians. But of course much more of that type of weaponry is needed. Plus artillery from other NATO members.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Talk of Ukraine being able to launch large scale counter attacks come June so yes 9th May might be significant. Just been reading upon the M777 howitzers others will already know it well, geez that is some kit they will be lethal to the invaders how lethal depends on exactly what spec they give them I guess. Plus I note along with heavy ( if dated ) stuff from Germany, France is beginning to up the anti too with Caesar in particular a potent weapon system going in.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Worse?

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Any unethical use of dirty weapons could be utilised by Russia, as it’s the way they think! But a new world order? Not at all, the only change is that the world now knows how shite the so called Russian bear is, and how unstable their leadership is! Poop Tin will have a “heart attack” and then why would his replacement be worse? Share your thought process.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I believe we only have three subs active at the moment as Vanguard (I think) is still in refit / refuel. First Sea Lord indicted (in 2021) that she will not return to service until sometime this year.

I doubt very if we could get more than 1 sub to sea at a time as the remaining 3 boats have been worked much harder than intended for about 7 years.

Vanguard’s refuel was as a result of a small radition leak into the coolant system apparently – so not in the original plan…

Cheers CR

Deep32
Deep32
3 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Yup, that pretty much sums it all up nicely. Refuelling a core that wasn’t designed to be refuelled has added to the complexity of this refit – its why its so late with the huge cost overrun.
We will face the same problem if we have to refuel any Astute’s (25 year core life) if SSN(R) doesn’t arrive around 2035/6 when Astute herself will have been running for 25 years.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Agree Rob. The days of strategic arms controls and limiting warhead numbers are over for 2 reasons. 1. Tin pot dictator and arch nationalistic nazi Putin. He’s a mad arse 2. China is not including in arms control and is proliferating its ICBM, SLBM and air launched BM numbers. China has a stated goal to acheive MAD with NATO comparatively by 2040s. They are well on the way to doing just that. 3. Russia and China are developing new none ballistic missiles like hypervelocity glide vehicles which whilst not having a ballistic trajectory would still be able to reach medium… Read more »

Mark
Mark
4 days ago

To be fair, think since the War started the French have had 3 of their boats out according to reports in France.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
4 days ago
Reply to  Mark

How?

They have 4 SSBNs same as we do.

Can’t possibly have 4 actually deployed at anyone time due to crewing and maintenance.

More likely to be that they are at very high readiness to deploy.

Steve R
Steve R
4 days ago
Reply to  Mark

3 nuke boats? Seeing as they, like us, have 4, I see that as highly unlikely. Even if true, they can’t sustain that. In 3 months or so all 3 will be back in France and they’ll have the 4th in the water. 4 boats allows us to keep one at sea at all times, and to surge to a 2nd if need be. Worst-case scenario in a SHTF all-out WW3 situation I’m sure we could put two to sea and have a 3rd in port, loaded with our remaining missiles. Launching from in port would royally f*ck up the… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve R

We wouldn’t launch with the SM on the surface. We launch the missiles underwater for a reason. The missiles 1st stage booster doesn’t kick in until the missile broaches the surface, there is plenty of water between it and the SM. If you didn’t have that layer of water, the missile exhaust would burn straight through the SM and most likely set off a chain reaction with the other missiles propellant, causing an even bigger mess. So, its a bit of a BIG issue, that would impact lots of people (around Argyll and Bute), especially as you would most likely… Read more »

Caribbean
Caribbean
23 hours ago
Reply to  Mark

That’s true. They regularly deploy two at the same time, but on this occasion, one was a few days late back, so they accidentally, had three boats at sea together for a couple of days.

Grizzler
Grizzler
4 days ago

Be a bit too late for us though wouldn’t it – and you know I’m not really convinced it would …I know its supposed to but…..I trust no one tbh.
I’d rather be reliant on our -and only our- deterent , if ever there was a need to bring trident and the subs back under Treasury budget rather than Defence and also increase them by 2 (maybe even 3) then this would be it.

Aaron L
Aaron L
4 days ago
Reply to  Grizzler

Increasing the numbers of actual submarines is great but it’s finding a way to crew them to actually make them deployable.

Manpower doesn’t seem to be something factored in when people talk about their dream inventory whether that be for the Army, RAF or Royal Navy. Without good levels of recruitment and retention then you can have all the equipment you want, you just won’t be able to use it.

Lewcee 42
Lewcee 42
4 days ago

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by “Article 5” Please.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
3 days ago
Reply to  Lewcee 42

Article 5 of the nato charter states that if one member is attacked it is treated as an attack on all members and response by all nato members is required. Or something along those lines

geoff
geoff
4 days ago

Putin and his gang are truly evil. One would need to be possesed of a sick mind to broadcast such stuff. All we can do in the Free world is react with sanity and hope that there are enough sane Russians to hold these maniacs in check. The undeniable reality is that if Russia were to act out these mad fantasies then they would also see the obliteration of their country as a consequence.

maurice10
maurice10
4 days ago
Reply to  geoff

The only possible nuclear weapon that might be used is a low-yield tactical bomb inside of Ukraine. The scenario for such use would be in a, ‘fit of peak’ on losing the aims of this war, a demonstration of frustration, if allowed to happen? The scope of Russia’s failure is staggering and without a doubt has rewritten the war plans in NATO’s HQ. The collapse of Putin’s campaign will need to be monitored very carefully, we will be dealing with a cornered tiger and that is a dangerous situation for the World.

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

This outcome is likely. Russia can’t lose this war. The only solution is an East/West Ukraine, or a NATO/Russia conflict. Sadly the fate of Ukraine is out of Zelensky’s hands.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

The fate of Ukraine is not out of ukraines and there presidents hands. Those options are not all that is on the table. Russia can try to hold onto what they have of Ukraine and face daily attacks and counter attacks of what they hold onto.
Remember Russian revolution and leadership changes happen very quickly in past experiences.
There are literally hundreds of scenarios that could happen.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Since when has Russia’s hurt feelings been the ultimate red line? Time to grow up!

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  David

They have hurt feelings because they are the master race right? The whole world should bow down in fear and reverence to your superiority right? Errr no. We are British we dont bow. We dont hold Russia or anyone else as our superiors and guess what neither do the Ukranians. So Russias hurt feelings can kiss my backside. If you dont want to get all upset. Dont invade a neighbouring country. Dont rape and murder their women and children. Dont butcher defenceless civillians tied up with their hands behind their backs. Ukraine has recorded +8000 episodes of massed civillisn casualties… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

I very much disagree.

Russia/USSR didn’t lob nukes at Afghanistan when they lost that war.

And if you think the sanctions now are tough, think what it would be like after Putin uses even a single tactical nuke on Ukraine; the sanctions would be total. The entire West would cease any and all trading with Russia, who would become a total pariah state like North Korea, dependent totally on China and possibly India to keep them somewhat afloat.

This is even assuming no military response from NATO.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve R

I think India is goi g through the motions even now understandably I might add. If Russia starts using nukes I think it would only hasten their dive off of that particular cart even if like now they won’t advertise their actions. Even China would get very cold feet knowing that an eventual conflict with Russia is very possible if way down the line. Seems interestingly they have recently activated a cyber attack on Russian military assets close to its border which suggests they are getting twitchy which many in the intelligence community have said is already generating a deeply… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Russia can and is losing this war. Your boss mad arse Putin just is too demented to recognise that fact. Whilst Ukraine is getting stronger due to millions joining the military who are right now getting trained and developing battlefield experience. Russia on the other hand is weakening. 25% combat units deployed rendered combat ineffective means a large large number of dead Russians comrade. Not that the poor famillies back in Russia will ever know as the Russian army deployed with mobile crematorium and has a pollicy to not collect, identify and bury or repatriate their dead. Says it all… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Yes has always been the case I doubt they will be noting come May the 9th Parade, all those troops who deserted or refused to fight even during the battle of Berlin as they were used as cannon fodder to gain a few extra yards, or a few days or weeks to serve up Stalins victory announcement without proper support to do the job..

dan
dan
4 days ago
Reply to  maurice10

I seriously doubt Biden has any guts left in what’s left of him to respond to a tactical nuke attack from Russia. He’s said he’s scared to death of starting WW3. He would just add on more sanctions. lol

Nestor Makhno
Nestor Makhno
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

Biden is sending Javelins, Trump witheld them.

What was your point again?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Nestor Makhno

What concerns me is the military industrial base in the US isn’t actually fit it seems to replace those javelins and stingers and ironically to ‘protect’ that existing insufficient base they are making it much more difficult to source from abroad. Very shortsighted, even if you deem your tech is always the best (patently not always the case) if you can’t access all you need internally that’s not much help and will likely drive allies to move away from your weapons and combine to create competitive weapons that then potentially prevent US exports. I note the UK/Japan cooperation here as… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

And so he should be scared to death of starting WW3. We are all dead if it happens

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
4 days ago
Reply to  geoff

The Russian government are pathetic and clearly insane. Any nuclear exchange is game over for everyone (not just Russian) because of the great possibility of a nuclear winter and the consequent crop failures etc. I think it’s clear now that Russia needs to be decoupled financially from the west and that is the way to treat them until they get a sane person in government.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Trouble is we spent 30 years thinking we were doing that with last 20 of those where Russia was connecting with the West, it’s people interacting and getting used to western lifestyles … and yet here we are. Just not sure how it goes right next time esp after all the extreme anti western rhetoric, hell it’s Jews are Nazis, and after they complained Israel is accused of supporting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to prove it ( despite them refusing to actually supply weapons in reality) and now accusations from the Kremlin, through bus stop advertising that every well know Swede… Read more »

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago

I have always said, and it looks to be coming true, the use of Nuclear weapons is inevitable. Why keep using an axe to chop down trees when you have a chainsaw in the shed.

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Because it’s a chainsaw that guarantees the death of anyone who uses it 🤷🏻‍♂️

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

When desperate you will take your chances, like the US did against Japan.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Get your facts right. The Allies were beating Japan hands down when the US used A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was no “desperation” on the part of the US at that time. What there was, was understanding that an invasion of the Japan would be incredibly bloody. hence the use of the nukes and the demand Japan surrender.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
4 days ago
Reply to  David

I think those A bombs were dropped as a show of strength to Stalin…a warning not to order his troops to cross the Elbe.

David
David
4 days ago

No. The priority at the time was very simple. Force Japan to surrender without an incredibly bloody invasion. Okinawa times 1000.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
4 days ago
Reply to  David

That may have been the story put about at the time and since, but the USAAF had already destroyed most Japanese cities in fire storms from conventional bombs. Stalin’s threat to invade was probably the reason Japan really surrendered.

https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/008/expertclips/010

Cheers CR

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Well as we see from them still occupying their northern islands to this day. The Japanese were shocked to have lost them so quickly and indeed that may have been the greater influence.

dan
dan
4 days ago
Reply to  David

You tell that to all the mothers and fathers of the 100k plus soldiers that would have died in order to conquer mainland Japan. Heck Japan didn’t even surrender after the first nuke was dropped on them. You need to study history and the mentality of the Japanese during that time period. They were fanatics that would gladly have died for their emperor.

Nestor Makhno
Nestor Makhno
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

Bloody Hell, I agree with Dan…

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

If you read what I posted, you will see that was exactly what I said. The bombs were dropped to force a Japanese surrender without a bloody invasion.

Klonkie
Klonkie
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

True Dan, hence the second bomb drop on Nagasaki. I do think the Japs were likely to call it a day over the winter as their population were starving. Still, it was absolutely the prudent thing to do to save American lives.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Of course what the Japanese didn’t know was that they had used all their supply of nukes.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  dan

Indeed some reports claimed their might have been up to a million casualties to invade so I think a range of factors came into play on both sides.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  David

Still, when one state has them and the opponent does not…..

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

The US werent desperate at all, they just wanted to prevent a long drawn out invasion of Japan, which would cost even more casualties on both side.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Spot on. At that point the allies were winning and the Japanese were losing, in a big way. But an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have cost tens of thousands of allied lives.

Klonkie
Klonkie
4 days ago
Reply to  David

and ironically this probably also saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives as well.

Daniel
Daniel
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Wrong in so many ways. The Allies were prepared to take Japan conventionally, if necessary, but (correctly) assessed that the loss of life on both sides would be less if they used the A bombs instead. Additionally, they never would have reached the same conclusion if Japan had possessed a nuclear deterrent.

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Daniel

It is extremely likely Russia will use a tactical nuclear weapon in the West of Ukraine before the years end. A country with severe sanctions against it can’t continue to lose a conventional war.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

That makes no sense at all.

Steve R
Steve R
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

That’s ridiculous.

You think that things would improve for Russia after they lobbed a nuke, even a tactical, at Ukraine?

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Daniel

The US calculation to use nuclear weapons was wrong on so many levels. Nuclear deterrence can only ever be temporary.

Daniel
Daniel
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

So you believe fewer people would have been died in an allied invasion of Japan?

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

The US decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan had this backdrop. Operation Iceberg, the invasion of Okinawa, politically part of Japan, had just concluded. American and Allied casualties were 50,000. Japanese military and civilian dead, not casualties, were 250,000, out of a pre-war civilian population of 300,000. 400 Allied ships sunk or damaged as a result of wave after wave of kamikaze attacks. Even the super battleship Yamato made a suicide run. It was discovered after the war that Japan had over 12,000 kamikaze aircraft and 18,000 pilots capable of flying them. Tell my grandfather, who would have been… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

I think you are applying modern logic to what was then a unique and totally untested scenario in 1945. At that time it wasn’t thought anyone else would have a bomb for a decade or so which would have seemed like a generation to the planners in the final embers of WW2. Equally I suspect there was understandable concern for the short term scenario whereby the western allies were increasingly committed to the Pacific while a massive Soviet army was sitting in east of Europe looking for something to do. .

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
4 days ago
Reply to  Daniel

The estimate of US casualties on invading Japan was 1 million.

Daniel
Daniel
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes, I’m aware. When the upper estimate for fatalities from the dropping of the two A bombs is less than a quarter of that, it really serves to discredit Jay’s claims.

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

The US weren’t at all desperate with regard to Japan… they just rationally calculated fewer Allied servicemen AND fewer Japanese civilians would die by using atomic weapons rather than a conventional invasion.

BTW, Japan didn’t have nuclear weapons, so again, a totally false comparison.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Question.
Why is Russia desperate? Is it because your own unhinged leader took you into a war of aggression against a soverign and democratic country?
Or because you are losing that war of aggression due to your military essentially being crap.
Russias army is only good at killing civillians and raping and looting. Sorry excuse for an army.
Take nuclear weapons out of the equation and Russia knows its a basket case. Easily turned over in any war vs NATO.

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

“Take nuclear weapons out of the equation”, you can’t, that’s why NATO are powerless.

dan
dan
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

And that the current leader of NATO is Biden. lol

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

No the “current leader of NATO” is General Jens Stoltenberg. Maybe you shouldn’t comment on things you know nothing about? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Andy B
Andy B
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

Adding ‘lol’ to the end of your posts doesn’t make then any less banal. Biden is old and ineffectual etc etc what’s the alternative?

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

“NATO are powerless” seriously?
From what we’ve seen of the war in the Ukraine, the European nations of NATO could take-on and completely defeat Russia on their own!!

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Significant that you don’t deny that Russia is being beaten by a far smaller country with a far smaller military. The obvious conclusion is that Russia is badly lead and has badly led, demoralised and poorly equipped military forces. In fact, an imperialist paper tiger…..

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  David

I guess he has reckoned that for a Country with an economy the size of Spain they are doing quite well.* Becoming a poodle to China can’t be very inviting.

*Actually probably increasingly smaller than Spain the way it’s going.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

And yet circumstances show that NATO is anything but powerless in anything short of destroying the planet in an act of Suicide for all concerned by a desperate opponent. Russia is bother powerless below a nuclear strike and powerless like us all in surviving after a nuclear strike. The Worlds gone ☢️☠️

Marked
Marked
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Are you thick? I suppose as a Russian that’s a given… The US was not desperate, they had japan on the ropes and their defeat was inevitable. The atom bombs were used to end the war quickly and save an estimated million allied casualties. Not to mention Japanese casualties from an invasion which would have been horrific. In fact the Japanese would almost certainly have suffered more casualties if the bombs had not been used and every inch of Japan was fought over. Never forget that this decision was made after the world had already suffered 6 years of war… Read more »

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Yes I am thick I think. Also the people who have their fingers on the nuclear button are also thick.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

I guess if you are not long for this world and totally lacking in any value upon human life or illness has damaged you beyond and rational thought, you may contemplate giving the order ( certainly a fear I have) but one hopes those who would carry out the orders but who don’t otherwise have a death sentence upon them as do not their families, will be inclined not to be thick and see a future is better than none. Certainly a Russian submarine Skipper in the early 60s thankfully had a high enough level of intelligence when the moment… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie
4 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Excellent post Marked! Totally agree

John
John
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Those times were different. The US was the only country with nuclear weapons and used them against someone who couldn’t retaliate. It’s well understood mutually assured destruction has changed everything. The Russians and the US alike have made it clear that any deployment of nuclear weapons will be interpreted as a preemptive attack on the other and responded to accordingly. Thus, a nuclear attack in Ukraine by Russia is nothing like what the US did in Japan — because such a use could be interpreted as something more. Moreover, it must be noted that Japan, the receiver of said nuclear… Read more »

chris
chris
4 days ago
Reply to  John

Not to mention the world was just over it at that point. After the Blitz on London, D day, Battle of Stalingrad, Berlin, who really gave a crap?

Imagine what a feces fest the invasion of Japan would have looked like. The US/UK/AUS/Canada would have been gunning down every man and child to advance an inch. Probably saved a alot of lives and fortune.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Id suggest you re-read history.

dan
dan
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Not necessarily. I seriously doubt if Putin used 1 tactical nuke Biden would respond in kind. At his age and mental state it would probably render him utterly useless and cause what’s left of his mental faculties to shut down. Boris would have to step in a respond.

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

If Biden is incapacitated then the VP takes over, the US has a strong continuity chain of command set-up.
You forget both Boris and Macron have access to their own separate nuclear weapons, seems your mental state is worse than Biden’s…

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Do you know who the Vice President is, I’m afraid even Biden seems to have lost confidence in her certainly most anyone else has I’m afraid.

Sean
Sean
3 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Yes I do, because unlike some people who comment based on prejudices, I make sure I know the facts before forming an opinion and commenting.

russ
russ
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

No matter the topic you turn it around to Biden. Change the bloody record mate!

Steve R
Steve R
4 days ago
Reply to  dan

Seriously, you need to check your hate-boner for Biden. You’re like a broken record!

OOA
OOA
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Jay R, there is chance you’re right as a terrifying plausible possibility but what’s confusing for many is that the tone of your post would appear to condone such an action. Surely that isn’t the case?

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  OOA

I don’t condone such an action of course. But I have no hope for the future of the “West”. Nuclear deterrence protecting the Middle class is fading fast. State on state warfare is back upon us, and we need to wake up quick. A weakened Russia is a more powerful Russia. All the while China looks on, is Taiwan next?

Frank62
Frank62
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

If Russia is allowed to succeed by our being so easily intimidated by Russias’ blatant threats, then yes Taiwan will be next. It will be the death knell for free democratic nations if we appease neo-colonial dictators, Russian or Chinese.
It’s time for us to stand up & be counted or capitulate.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Certainly now is the least risky moment to do it most like ( you can never be certain) . If you cave in now with a despotic Empire builder wanting to leave a legacy while in his final hours of power then he and his cronies will as they believed before this mad invasion that west will always capitulate if they play the nuke card. And when you finally have a line you do have to defend they will simply not take you seriously until it’s even more likely to happen. So scary as it seems we have little choice.… Read more »

Sean
Sean
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

“ Nuclear deterrence protecting the Middle class is fading fast”

Seriously, did you say that with a straight face? I think you’ve been selling copies of “Socialist Worker” so long you’ve actually started to believe the rubbish that’s printed in it! 😆

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

That’s what I was thinking mate!

dave12
dave12
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

NATO powerless? they are the ones training and arming the Ukraine armed forces that are beating Russia who’s armed forces are dire.
A weakened Russia is a more powerful Russia??? You really are not making much sense their Jay. lol Russia can be a cornered tiger all it likes still does not change the fact its losing the war at the moment.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  dave12

A weakened Russia is exactly what we want. Thank you Jay for agreeing that even where you are in the basement of the Kremlin, typing away on a Vostok Snirtz346 Russian laptop there is a realisation that you are weakening in your senseless war vs Ukraine and actually losing.
Cheers for that confirmation of dawning realisation.

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

WTF are you waffling about? Nuclear deterrence protecting the middle class? A weakened Russia isn’t more powerful, its more unstable and has no international credibility, that’s a big difference! As for China, they are looking on and thinking no to Taiwan, not yet! The exact opposite in fact of your claim. Cheers.

Shaun
Shaun
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Yes China eyes Taiwan hungrily but what is happening in the Ukraine is causing them to reassess the prospects of an invasion as indeed the Taiwanese are revising their plans of defence. More importantly it now sees far juicer prospects, as russias military is progressively turned into fertiliser for the Ukrainian wheatlands, they have a golden opportunity to take back the lands they lost (and more) to russia in the 19th century. China doesn’t forget or forgive despite the false smiles and claims of friendship. Well Ivan I hope your Mandarin is up to scratch.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
3 days ago
Reply to  Shaun

Agree Vladivostok and deep water Pacific coastline territories are a wet dream for China’s own mad arse tin pot dictator.
Russia can expect a walk in/ attack just as soon as the Russians loses are such that little to no resistance could be mounted.
So anytime soon.

Steve R
Steve R
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

“A weakened Russia is a more powerful Russia.” I’m not sure you know how words work, at least non-Russian words. How can they be weaker but more powerful at the same time. Russia won’t use nuclear weapons because if they do then NATO will f*ck them up. Even a tactical used in Ukraine will invite a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and total sanctions and total cease of trade with Russia as a bare minimum. There is no scenario in which Russia uses a nuclear weapon and wins. Putin’s weekly threat of nuclear weapons is like a semi-retarded, weird kid who… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Agreed on that point. Just when, then.

2e
2e
4 days ago

I agree with George, I don’t think we have too much to worry about😄.
RN could use this propaganda as an argument for fitting strike-length Mk 41 VLS on the T45s and T31s in order for them to carry SM-3s and SM-6s.I think the RN should establish a sea-based ABM and land-attack (as a deterrence) network by fitting the entire surface fleet with SM-3s, SM-6s and TLAM Block Vs. The SM-6 Block IB also has hypersonic and extended range ASuW capability. The T31s’ Sea Ceptors can be quad-packed in its 32-cell VLS.

Last edited 4 days ago by 2e
Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  2e

I agree for an ABM urgent upgrade for T45. However we should also not rely on sea bases units to defend the UK. We should have a national ABM/cruise missile defence system on land.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Agree Rob. Mobile missile defence platforms based on articulated truck chasis would do it. Aster 30NT/ER or a derivative thereof would probably suffice. A land version of Sampson or Aegis for targetting. Would mean a single or small salvo of nuclear weapons likely would be intercepted.
Wouldnt stop a total and full armageddon exchange but then nothing would.
Under those circumstances its the end of the world. For Russia and NATO and probably all of himanity.

Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I would also consider land based ASMs to keep Russian ships away from the UK. Close the Channel, Irish Sea and Western Approaches

We have to start pushing back against Russian ships and aircraft.

Chris
Chris
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

I have wondered if we could have land based mk41’s and the ability to fire the new block 5a tomahawk, anything within 1000 miles or so would be held at risk.

expat
expat
4 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

BAe just tested Artisan with new software for ASBM threats. Janes reported the story.

Sean
Sean
4 days ago

Given Russia claimed right up to the invasion that their troops were massed on Ukraine’s borders for a picnic, and now their foreign minister claims Hitler is Jewish, I think we can safely dismiss anything coming from Russia as having zero authenticity, truthfulness, and accuracy. Russia is far surpassing Orwell’s Ministry of Truth for stipulating the total opposite of reality.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Correct. It’s a reflection of so much poor journalism these days that these Russian reports are picked up by so much of the UK press and repeated as if it was somehow news that Russia has nuclear missiles that can reach Europe, the UK and the US. They have had this capacity since at least the early 1960’s……..

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  David

That’s democracy for you! At least we do get reports from both sides. Reassuring. Correctly, then up to us to make judgement – like voting.
Rgs

Rob N
Rob N
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

We are set in our course in opposing Russian aggression… Russia will loss or the world will blow up. We will see…

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Yes, another Moron response, this time from a proxy of the Big One. Israel has tried to keep its head down, rightly or otherwise. Then along came a Russian…..

Klonkie
Klonkie
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean, I wonder what Orwell would make of current events, No doubt a sharp rebuke along the lines of “I bloody well warned you to be vigilant against dictators , both fascists and communists, but you didn’t listen.”

Steve R
Steve R
4 days ago
Reply to  Sean

I’m surprised Putin didn’t mention the Jewish Space Lasers!

Martin
Martin
4 days ago

For once foreigners mistaking England for Britain is a good thing, all welcome in Scotland after the apocalypse 😀

John Hartley
John Hartley
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Yes, but the nuclear Winter has been in Scotland for centuries.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
4 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

😅

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

😂😂

amin
amin
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

But the people of a country share in the fate of their country. (&

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

But … you hold the nukes 🤔😨

amin
amin
4 days ago

Russia is nothing in conventional wars.

John Hartley
John Hartley
4 days ago

Two things.

  1. Russia is not the only nuclear power. Britain has Trident & can retaliate. A nuclear attack on England/UK would be an article 5 event leading to a NATO nuclear response. Bye Bye Russia, including Siberia.
  2. The boy who cried wolf. It is foolish to bluster using nuclear weapons first, when you have no intention of doing so, because of point one. One day you may be pushed to really threaten nuclear use, but no one will take you seriously, as you made one too many false threats over the years.
Martin
Martin
4 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Scotland wont retaliate if only England gets hit, sorry guys your on your own 😀 that’s why we keep the queen here in balmoral.

Last edited 4 days ago by Martin
John Hartley
John Hartley
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

I think she is in Windsor, so she can get a quick getaway through Heathrow. Well, as long as she doesn’t fly British Airways!

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  Martin

I thought Glasgow got hit in the 80s and no one thought to do any repairs for 40 years 😉

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
3 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Oh Glasgow have there own defence shield. Biggest bloke in the pub jumps on a trampoline and smashes the warhead with a Glasgow kiss.

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Only after at least 4 pints of heavy.

Martin
Martin
4 days ago

More reason for the UK to invest in ABM. It’s possible now to defend a small area against intermediate range ICBM. I’m presuming Sarmat and other ICBM fired over a short distance will only partially burn their fuel so will be slower and lower. Avan guard may be hard to hit but what’s the chances it will work. A relatively modest ABM system deployed around uk could severely hamper a Russian strike.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Its also a gigantic investment which ultimately wont be 100% successful, spending that money on other parts of the military would be much more beneficial.

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 days ago
Reply to  James

Yes, but propaganda & bluff play a part. Having a couple of SAMP-T or THAAD batteries, is good protection against the threat of one or two missile blackmail. CASD is the response to a bigger attack.

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 days ago

Just laugh at them. They’re like spoiled brats throwing their teddies out of the pram because the Ukrainians are kicking their teeth in. We certainly shouldn’t increase the number of SSBN’s on patrol. We’ve got enough nukes to put Russia back into the stone age {admittedly not a big step for them} We’ve got enough to do to upgrade our conventional forces without worrying about these pathetic drama queens.

Last edited 4 days ago by David Steeper
RobW
RobW
4 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Indeed. It’s just sabre rattling for their domestic audience mainly. If Putin is that crazy, which I don’t think he is, to use nukes then a few more RN SSBNs will make no difference. We have enough on one sub to level most of the major urban areas in Russia. If that isn’t deterrent enough then nothing will be.

David Steeper
David Steeper
4 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Yep. Everyone can see why they’re coming out with this rubbish. They think it makes them sound strong. Instead they just come off as pathetic.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
3 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

All we need to know is a boat is out on SSBN patrol. Could be another on training and the 3rd going out as first comes back. 4th I think is still in refit.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 days ago

I think the defence budget needs to go up and we need a crash rearnaments programme. Better get some ballistic missile defences asap. More SSNs. Thats not going to be easy or cheap but we used to have a fleet of 18 SSNs. We need to get back upto at least double diggits. Russia is playing with fire. I think statements like this are for their own internal politics. Makes Russia sound as if they are somehow being threatened when the reality is they are the aggressors. A polite reminder is not needed and I think ignore this hot air.… Read more »

Marked
Marked
4 days ago

They aren’t even bright enough to realise that would mean the death of them all. Is it something genetic with them? I’ve seen more intelligent farm animals!

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Marked

If Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, NATO would do nothing.

Marked
Marked
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

I wouldn’t bank on that…

Radiation doesn’t stay within borders. Play games with contaminating a nato country and all bets are off.

Frank62
Frank62
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

So every unstable nation would learn the lesson that having nukes guarantees they can do whatever evil they like? And the west is a paper tiger ripe for the picking. We can’t afford to let this succeed.

Grizzler
Grizzler
4 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Yes thats the outcome if we were to do nothing and its not something we shoud counternance ..however I sort of begrudgingly agree , I’m not convinced we would actually do anything.
That would of course then create a different mindset in geopolitics-
It may ironically even have the effect of an marked increase in conventional weapons and forces

Nestor Makhno
Nestor Makhno
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Lets all hope putin is not as naive as you.

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

What idiot nation what let loose nuclear bombs on its direct neighbour, so the fallout and contamination stops at the border,

John Hartley
John Hartley
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

I think all the self restraint that NATO nations have kept to since February, would be ditched. At the very least, Russia would face total sanctions for many decades.

Andrew
Andrew
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

You really are batting hard for the Russians aren’t you.

Do you actually live in Moscow?

Jay R
Jay R
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

We have a dictator in Europe with nuclear weapons, being pushed back. What do you think is going to happen?

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 day ago
Reply to  Jay R

He will be hanged for war crimes by an international court.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
4 days ago

Antiballistic missile and hypersonic defence technoloy is an absolute priority for the UK. I’m glad the AUKUS deal has included in research on hypersonic missiles and defence systems. I think there should be a very high priority for increasing the defence spend by at least 0.5% to 1% of GDP – even under our current financial constraints. I would increase the number of Astutes by 1 to make it eight as well. We also need to accelerate the type 83 destroyer programme. I think nuclear pumped laser systems should also be developed as well.

expat
expat
4 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Posted this earlier. Artisan has been tested with new software. I’m wondering if T23’s could be dry docked and providing some sort of BMD.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/bae-systems-tests-new-artisan-radar-software-for-asbm-targets

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  expat

Need some missiles go with this…. Faster CAMM and or CAMM-ER?

Old Tony
Old Tony
4 days ago

It is well known – BUT IT NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN, AND OFTEN – that once upon a time Ukraine had nuclear weapons, which it gave up in return for security guarantees from its neighbours.

That being so, anyone who argues for the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the UK is in urgent need of psychiatric help.

OT

Jay R
Jay R
4 days ago
Reply to  Old Tony

In fact I would go one step further. Germany should now be a nuclear power

Daveyb
Daveyb
4 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

They are. They have direct access to US nuclear B61 weapons. Currently their Tornados are the only aircraft cleared to use these weapons. They tried to get Typhoon cleared, but the US ramped up the costs. Hence why they were looking at buying Super Hornets. That deal has been binned and they are now going to purchase the F35A instead, which has just been cleared for the weapons.

Grizzler
Grizzler
4 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

mmmmm maybe we shoud get some F35A’s as well then ……just saying is all

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Grizzler

We would not need to – the UK makes its own warheads. But we would need to recreate something similar to WE177. That would be totally under UK control and not subject to a dual key arrangement.

John Hartley
John Hartley
2 days ago
Reply to  David

One flight of fancy. If you take a 100kt Trident warhead & remove the fusion boost, you get a clean 5 to 10 kt tactical warhead. Trump ordered some, to counter Putin’s escalate to de-escalate strategy. The UK has its own 100kt Trident warheads. What if we created a 5-10 kt tactical version & put it in a Paveway IV body? We would not need many, to have a flexible tactical deterrent.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

The Germans do not have sole control of those bombs – they are dual key do cannot be used without US agreement…..

Daveyb
Daveyb
4 days ago
Reply to  David

Correct, hence why I said access to US B61s.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Japan potentially will become a nuclear power over this, Germany is a waste of time and would be a total waste of investment for them to go into this area.

Frank62
Frank62
4 days ago
Reply to  Old Tony

We need to act on those guarantees or have our word mean nothing. Our military, moral & political weakness has allowed Russia thus far. Should’ve been far firmer much sooner & nipped all this in the bud.

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

The guarantees were worthless, it was a really mealy mouthed agreement. The “guarantee” was to “seek immediate Security Council action”. Meaningless, with a Russian veto in the Security Council.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
4 days ago
Reply to  Old Tony

That being so, anyone who argues for the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the UK is in urgent need of psychiatric help.

Between the leftist and the green enviroMENTAList, we haven’t got enough padded cells

David
David
4 days ago

Spot on. Complete lack of understanding of “realpolitik”…..

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Old Tony

It was not that simple. There were loads of ex Soviet nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which were given up. Did Ukraine ever have the keys to these weapons, I.e. operational control of them?

Old Tony
Old Tony
4 days ago
Reply to  David

An interesting point. But I’ve often thought that if the nuclear weapons were under Ukraine’s physical control they could have managed to find a way of bypassing any locks. These folk are not stupid !

David
David
3 days ago
Reply to  Old Tony

Quite, they probably made them!

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Old Tony

Ukraine housed USSR nuclear weapons, no one seems to know the answer of did they have 100% sovereign use over these weapons or could they continue to maintain them after the USSR fell.

Frank62
Frank62
4 days ago

If they want Rusia turned into a nuclear waste land go ahead! Our retalatory strike alone would do that. So it’s just empty threats & we should take note of their desperation & threats bullying others & up the ante.
All the more reason to help Ukraine more & send trops & air power to expell Russias’ invaders sooner rather than later, after many more Ukrainian & Russian deaths & destruction. Otherwise we just appease & allow Russia to get away with naked aggresion.
“Peace” on Putin or Xi’s terms is no peace at all but surrendering to brutal dictatorship.

dan
dan
4 days ago

That dude is crazier than Biden. lol

TypewriterMonkey
TypewriterMonkey
4 days ago

The guff that’s coming out of the Putin regime is totally bonkers right now. Lavrov is recently quoted as saying that Hitler was a Jew. That’s so wrong, utterly ridiculous, and highly offensive. It’s the kind of crap that gets peddled by a cult. The theory of cults is… If you can get people to believe bizarre nonsense, you can get them to believe anything, and they’ll do whatever you want. Ironically, talk of wonder weapons like this is straight out of the 1945 führer bunker playbook.

Daveyb
Daveyb
4 days ago

Israel have asked for the statement to be annulled and want an apology from Russia. You don’t want to p*ss off the Israelis!

Longtime
Longtime
4 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Can’t see angry Israeli Gov being a bad thing for Ukraine though. Sure they’d welcome Mossad assistance

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Another nuclear power they are winding up!

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
4 days ago

As if you thought that Nazi waste of space, the genuine article, could not prove himself even more of a tosser, he goes above and beyond.
Think the adage that you cannot fool most of the people most of the time does not apply to Russians.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
4 days ago

I hope the bbc and itv have their nukes ready to fire in retaliation

JamesD
JamesD
4 days ago

I do sort agree with J, if the Russians cannot take more ground and continue facing massive losses they make take the calculated (and fucking insane) risk that using a small tactical nuke on a town to force a ukr surrender maybe worth it. I mean how could the West respond to that? Not likely to nuke Russia in exchange and can’t imagine sending in troops, it would isolate them from the almost entire world including China and India. And how could ukr respond? Refuse to surrender and what does Russia do then, nuke another town? It’s all looking pretty… Read more »

AV
AV
4 days ago
Reply to  JamesD

My worry also…..I’d imagine serious discussions have been going on for sometime to cover the possibility of tactical theatre based nukes being used by the Russians.
My take?…would we respond in kind?…dont think so.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  JamesD

I think its much more likely that they would go down the chemical route as opposed to nuclear.

izy
izy
3 days ago
Reply to  JamesD

A recent suggestion I saw was that one non-nuclear proportional response would be a massive NATO conventional cruise missile strike aimed at totally devastating Crimea’s infrastructure, thus messing up Russian resupply capabilities.

Jay R
Jay R
3 days ago
Reply to  izy

I think it will be something like an air burst tactical low yield nuclear explosion, to disable communication systems in Western Ukraine. They will give advanced warning. It’s aim will be to shock the West into dividing Ukraine. Last throw of the dice.

John Hartley
John Hartley
2 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Russia needs to be told calmly but firmly, that if it uses a single nuclear weapon, it will face total sanctions & isolation for at least 50 years.

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago

And to top it off the Green Party said just the other day we should still leave the NATO alliance and it should break up! More useless muppets claiming wages off the taxpayer!

JamesD
JamesD
4 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

But not until after Ukraine has been sorted🤣 they’re delusional

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago
Reply to  JamesD

Totally agree!

David
David
4 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Stalin called people like them “useful idiots”. Dictators only understand strength.

Jacko
Jacko
4 days ago

Amazing really we got a coalition together to kick Saddam out of Kuwait another UN sanctioned OP in the Balkans to stop genocide and here we are sitting about watching an animal destroying a country he just happened not to like!
WW3 my arse if the UN decided to play Pootin at his own game with the peacekeeper angle he really would be taking on the whole world!

Klonkie
Klonkie
4 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

I have wondered the same Jacko. I guess the point of difference is Putin has nukes and Saddam didn’t. Still, it does smack of hypocrisy.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

Neither Iraq nor the Bosnians had the worlds largest nuclear stockpile, that is the difference.

Jacko
Jacko
3 days ago
Reply to  James

Well the last time I looked we have them as well! As has been pointed out do we cower to any country that acquires nukes? If it was the UN and not NATO that took a stance he can’t attack everybody can he?

James
James
1 day ago
Reply to  Jacko

The comparison with Iraq and the Balkans is not even remotely comparable.

No he certainly cant attack everyone, and I have made the point a few times that the UN using non Nato members could quite easily send in a peacekeeping force to end this.

Technically we arent cowering at all to a nuclear power, we have been one of the major defenders of Ukraine in this situation, other than going to direct war ourselves with Russia we have very little else we can do.

Airborne
Airborne
4 days ago

Let’s wait until May 9th! I can see the possible use of a false flag attack on the parade trundling through Moscow, few hundred Russian civvies killed and a load of soldiers in the parade! Great excuse for Putin to get his people back on side, a big excuse to escalate. Also, a lot of buildings/factories related to defence etc dem to be blowing up or burning in Russia over the last week or so! Part of the story? These can be seen after “investigations” by FSB etc as part of the NATO/Ukrainian backed terrorist cells in operation building up… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko
4 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Getting very good at that at the moment aren’t they? Moldova last week and you really can see the possibility of what you suggest!

taffybadger
taffybadger
4 days ago

This man is obsessed with size ‘ England so small, we are so big ‘, Freud would have a field day with this !

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
4 days ago
Reply to  taffybadger

Small but wither a bigger economy and gdp than the entire Russian sub continent.

David
David
3 days ago
Reply to  Wasp snorter

Yes, the Russian economy is roughly half the size of the UK’s.

Tommo
Tommo
4 days ago
Reply to  taffybadger

Freud would have too Purchase a Couch at least 30ft long

Steven Kirkland
Steven Kirkland
4 days ago

The country is at war, people are in denial of this fact. Biden said at the very beginning that Russia must pay for starting WW3 in every way possible, NATO has reacted by sanctions and military aid to Ukraine but how far things may go depends on whether some inside Putin’s circle can stop him and end him. Pro Russians are brainwashed the same way the Chinese are. In Shanghai, China which is probably thee most international of the mainland, we’ve all seen the stories about Covid zero tolerance but what if I told you this wasn’t about covid and… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
4 days ago

and… delusional.

Tommo
Tommo
3 days ago

And as Stalin would say “If at first you don’t suceed Cheat with extreme predigist ” just the same txt book that Putin is following he has lost all credibility as a rational level headed stateman he has not changed since his days as a KGB officer stuck in the sleepy backwaters of Dresden his mask of statemanship has fallen and his true identity as a Checker is for all too see

nonsense
nonsense
4 days ago

Russia’s threat is to drag the Russian mainland into war

Russia is maintained thanks to past Soviet myths.

Russia’s threat to Britain will reveal that this myth is fiction.

why Russia, Putin hasn’t been destroyed yet: only because he hasn’t tried to nuke attack to Britain and the United States directly.

Russia isn’t strong , what russian thinking they selves are fantasy.

A nuclear attack is not something Russia can fire to be beaten and whined at by Ukraine like a dog.

That’s not what mutually assured destruction are about.

nonsense
nonsense
4 days ago

Russia and Putin need to grow up more.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
4 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

And someone or something blow up that bloody Kerch Bridge at both ends…

Tommo
Tommo
4 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Agree with you there Quentin the destruction of Putins architectural masterpiece, would cut off the Crimea, Russia realises this and have told the world if the Ukraine does anything too Putins Bridge it will be classed as a Terrorist Attack , And we know all about the supposed 1999 Appartment so called Chechen terrorist attacks , which gave Putin free reign too Decimate Chechena its a threat that if happen then God knows how destructive his actions would be for Ukraine But then again nothing Ventured Nothing Gained

David Steeper
David Steeper
3 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Wouldn’t it be interesting if it was blown up on 8 or even 9 May though !

Tommo
Tommo
3 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

David it would be a Coup if the Ukrainians did just that what would be even better though was if Putins so called Victory parade was along the route of the Bridge at the same time

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

What a grand idea! And let’s hope it rains heavily or something goes bang on their 9 May parade too!!

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

One of those new UAVs with some Brimstone should do it. And some UAVs with torpedos to take out those 🇷🇺 subs launching cruise missiles into Ukraine. Strength to Ukraine 🇺🇦 on all their battle fronts! 🇬🇧 🇦🇺

Tommo
Tommo
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

👍👍👍👍

Tommo
Tommo
4 days ago

Not much chance , of using our extensive network of Nuclear Bunkers as they were sold off converted into Cannabis factories But us in Bognor aren’t really bothered we’re so behind the times here a Nuclear strike on the UK wouldn’t affect us for at least 50yrs

expat
expat
4 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

😀

Tommo
Tommo
4 days ago