British transport aircraft are now in their third day of delivering “thousands” of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine in the face of a massive build-up of Russian troops.

Minister James Heappey told Times Radio that the Ministry of Defence has given “thousands” of anti-armour weapons to Ukraine. According to a statement given by the Defence Secretary in the House of Commons today, the 17th of January 2022.

“We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light, anti-armour, defensive weapon systems. A small number of UK personnel will also provide early-stage training for a short period of time, within the framework of Operation ORBITAL, before then returning to the United Kingdom. This security assistance package complements the training and capabilities that Ukraine already has, and those that are also being provided by the UK and other Allies in Europe and the United States. Ukraine has every right to defend its borders, and this new package of aid further enhances its ability to do so.“

You can read the full statement here.

I was on the ground at RAF Brize Norton and photgraphed the arrival of vehicles carrying explosives to the base which were later loaded onto a C-17. An image of the arrival is shown below.

Image UKDJ.

The flights started on the 17th of January, with Royal Air Force C-17 aircraft departing RAF Brize Norton for Kiev multiple times per day, today is the third consecutive day of deliveries.

This is a screenshot of flight tracking software showing two British C-17s in flight at various part of their journeys to and from Ukraine.

Video from Ukraine even shows the aircraft being unloaded.

What weapons are being sent?

Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon, or NLAW for short. The Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW) is described by its makers Saab in the following way:

“The Bofors NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon) is the first ever single soldier missile system that rapidly knocks out any Main Battle Tank in just one shot by striking it from above.”

You can read more about the system from respected defence commentator ‘Think Defence’ by clicking here.

Here’s a video of the system in action.

George Allison
George Allison
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. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

248 COMMENTS

  1. I’m just impressed we actually have stuff to give away, I’d love a look around these storage facilities are whats hiding in them

    • I was going to say the same myself 🤣 we must be running low. I wonder if we still have Milan ATGMs for a rainy day. I’m sure they could take out an APC.
      I take it we don’t publish our stock piles of NLAW, Starstreak, Javelin, 81mm mortars, Grenades and ammunition etc.

      • I mean, we won’t need them in the short term and can easily get more if long term we did.

        At least they are being put to good use. Most would likely have wasted away in storage anyway.

      • What about supplying some surplus Rapiers?
        Silly question, but why are we telling the Russians exactly what we’re sending? Sending ATMs is great and good on the UK but I’d also be worried about their artillery and attack helicopters and tanks. The two former will need to be effectively tackled.

        • This is more of a deterence move than a realistic hope of defending Ukraine. Russia has a massive air and artillery advantage over Ukraine and so they will pound defensive lines well before anything gets into range of these short range missiles.

          I guess the hope is that by publically letting Russia know that it will be harder than they expected, might give them second thoughts.

          The real question is what has the US given them.

        • The Russian bear must be worried that a full invasion may not be a quick affair. This sort of publicity will heighten his doubts and raise the potential losses for him, on the other hand perhaps other hardware is already en route.

  2. Global UK in action, exerting its influence for peace with freedom. On the one hand sending defensive weapons like NLAW but also inviting Lavrov to London for talks. Talks with the US have brought no result; Germany is no use. The EU is no use. Kudos to Ben Wallace. 👏👏

    • Good Grief! Wallace is grandstanding. That’s his MO. The UK is a minor player in all of this and sending some antitank weapons to Ukraine won’t deter Putin if he decides to invade. Why would Lavrov talk with Wallace? Wallace has no power. The players here are the US, NATO, and Germany. Calculations by the Russians would most certainly come to the conclusion that the UK cannot affect the situation. It’s all fine to root for the home team but don’t get carried away and let’s deal with reality.

        • We should be looking to learn something from them then. Sure, not all is ideal with their forces, far from it. But they seem to have a hell of a lot more to show for their spending.

        • The Budgets might be the same but the forces certainly aren’t. The British have 80 tanks the Russians 15,000, the British have around 100 front line fighter Jets,the Russians over 4000, the British have only a tiny fraction of artillery,no S400,500 missiles,no hypersonic missiles,a few thousand troops, 12 navy jets, almost no troops ect…In short,the British force is tiny and would be swatted by Russia like a fly. The fact they are supplying a few anti tank missiles is nothing but propaganda to show they are supporting Nato’s aggressive expansion east to Russia’s doorstep.

          • Please.
            Russia has 2500 modern tanks of which half are facing china

            The russian airforce has approx 450 su27 series ac. In both cases what is the real availability? Also note – zero 5th gen ac operational

            The UK operates through ALLIANCES. Now this is a difficult concept to grasp for some. For example our close partner Poland operate 900 frontline tanks (and soon F35s). Andthey border Ukraine.

            I wouldn’t underestimate poor little insignificant Britain

          • This doesn’t deserve a reply but sigh….

            There is no aggressive NATO expansion. Merely democratic nations joining a defensive alliance because of an existential threat from Russia.

            Anyone who believes otherwise is either a liar or stupid. Your call

          • Britain would not plan to go to war with Russia without being part of some massive NATO effort.

          • Graham,

            We have a declared 227 CR2 tanks out of 408 purchased. Where do you get the figure of 80 from?

            Do you think Britain’s forces are going toe-to-toe with the Russians on our own??

            I wouldn’t desribe NATO’s expansion eastwards to be aggressive, but it certainly rattles the Russkis.

      • Russia has indicated from its actions at the 3 meetings held last week that it is only interested in talking with the Boss, the US, not the underlings NATO. The UK is Russia’s eyes is just a poodle of the US and a badly defended one, against Russian weapons, at that. As to Global UK in action, that’s a farce if applied to the military.

          • Why would they need one? As far as I know they have no plans to attack some second or third world country. Anyway, they are not much use now against a proper foe armed with decent AShM.

          • You stated Global UK was a farce militarily, but as one of only 2 nations on the planet that can deploy a 5th gen CSG I disagree somewhat.

          • The French might dispute that. Also it is a valid viewpoint that having a CSG is a bit of a millstone.

          • Sorry I didn’t link the aircraft. They might argue that their carrier plus their aircraft would be an equal to ours.

          • Suggest you do your homework re Charles de Gaulle v Queen Elizabeth at least…then overlay the air group comparison…and top it off with with a comparative study of ship compliment/ group make up re: CSG 21 and the French CSG.

          • You didn’t think of aircraft when discussing carrier capabilities? That’s like comparing battleships but forgetting their guns 😆

          • Disagree as the French CDG was at certain times the only option for France to carry out offensive ops against IS from a sovereign location, without requiring overfly permission etc. And the CDG does not operate 5th Gen assets.

          • One of the increasing number of countries that have realised the potential of long range AShM both shore and air launched.

          • Not quite that simple, as war is about evolution. Mitigation’s, TTPs and new and ongoing tech will have a solution both hard and soft kill defence, moving to a more kinetic reaction, until the next new “evolution” comes along. Military capability is about a balanced capability, and no country in the world, apart from the US at this moment, has that full spectrum.

          • You are correct but only the US and its allies have a need for full spectrum, most of the rest, including Russia, only have a need for the defensive part.

          • Russia purely defensive? Your posts up to know have been reasonable and thought out, but including Russia in a defensive postured force only, unfortunately lets you down somewhat and maybe defines your politics.

          • That is not what I meant to say. Clearly many military assets can be used as offensive and defensive but very large amount of Russia’s military budget has gone into systems that are primarily defensive, especially their multi layer IADS with its SAMs and aircraft as well as their nuclear deterrent.

          • Russian doctrine has always been about multi layered SAM and Arty. It’s part and parcel of the old Soviet doctrine, even when the “defensive” Soviet’s parked dozens of Rifle Divisions in Europe facing West. Situation, no change, it says nothing about any overt defensive policy on the side of Putin!

          • So you’re pushing a Russian defensive only agenda?…there lies your true colour my friend. Do you think us all that stupid?..

          • Of course not, to both questions. My ‘colour’ is to present a view that others here might not agree with but is valid. Some of those views may be uncomfortable but that is the way of the World.

          • Yes sorry forgot you’re a few hours ahead of the UK (if not geographically, very much politically) Night night.

          • That is not what they are saying in Kiev, they say that the current situation is similar to last April.

        • That John is just not true. The U.K. is as it has always been a great big European leveller. If you have significant Northern European ports and your trade or warships need to transit Northern European waters you simply have to always consider the U.K. view point as we do have a navy and airforce able deny access to the Atlantic if he UK got it in into head.

          You then also need to consider our other overseas assets which are in most cases significant geopolitical pieces and a nightmare to any other nation that engages in international trade. The U.K. could easily in a conflict deny Russian access to the straits of Gibraltar, Which would deny Russia access to the Atlantic. Prevent Russia moving its North Sea fleet to strength its Black Sea fleet, hound any Russian assets that got stuck in the North Sea.

          The simple reality is that yes from a ground war in Eastern European The U.K. is not a huge player. But and this is very large any nation that wants to access the Atlantic from Northern Europe or the Med or operation in the North Atlantic would need to take a very great deal of notice of what the U.K. considers close to an act of war.

          There have been two pretty significant rules around losing a war in continental Europe:

          1) don’t waste your time invading Russia as the tyranny of Russia trading space for time will destroy you logistics tail, kill your army and then allow Russia to invade you right back.

          2) if you don’t want to end up economically crippled and lose a European war by a thousand cuts and a final kick in the weak spot when you are all used up, do not go to war with the U.K. and keep the U.K. on side.

          basically the U.K. is a Geopolitical nightmare for anyone who wants to be expansionist in Europe we are and always has been a Damocles sword to militarily aggressive European nations.

          Im not being a hawk here and say dame the guns ( most commentators on here know I’m a think around the problem not kick it in the face person). But you are vastly underestimating the role of the U.K in The Geopolitical thinking of other powers and one hopes the Russian leadership does not underestimate U.K. resolve. The big problem is the actions of our government and nato have given Russia good reason to down grade the risks of U.K. resolve, which is a big mistake as the U.K. will and had go to war On its own bat if it feels justified and I’m not sure Putin really believes that which is potential deadly for all concerned. I hope Putin looks back and realised that like Russia the U.K. does not back down from bloodshed when it thinks it’s got a national reason to fight.

          After all Gorbachev was very clear the falklands war played a not insignificant role in USSR geopolitical policy in the 1980s and helped along the eventual ending of the Cold War. As the ussr realised the UK was not a has been ex imperial shadow happy to move into international obscurity but still a Post imperial world power that would aggressively protect its own interests anywhere and that all its Geopolitical strengths were still in play and even the USSR had to consider that.

          • Thank you for your considered response and as a Brit I know exactly where you are coming from historically.
             
            The problem as I see it is whilst we are still a top European power we are trying to behave as if we are a top World power which we no longer are. Just look at our shrinking MoD budget as an example.
             
            Even as a top European power or strength is one sided, offence. If attacked we are effectively helpless, our only response would be to call on everyone else for help and pray that we were covered by Article 5, or in a final resort to plead with the US to be allowed to use ‘our’ Tridents.
             
            Also war itself is changing, economic power which was always there is now being applied, usually in the form of sanctions. Whilst the weapons of war will change the way it is fought, in that it will be fought with what is to hand due to the destruction of any method of replenishment, docks, airports etc.
             
            We are moving to a World where the powers of the Maritime Powers are becoming less important due to the commercial power driving the World’s wealth concentrating on one continent with a reducing need for strategic sea transport.
             
            This is something that we in the UK are going to have to get used to.

          • Number of facts wrong John, budget increasing in real terms but not spent effectively, maritime movement will be just as important and more so in the future and the long oft repeated story we need US approval to use Trident. Also war is changing yes, but that’s moreover about individual countries inability to carry out effective and prolonged war independently and therefore all countries need and utilise Allies.

          • Were our buget spent well, yes it would be different. Got the deterrent wrong, I now know better. Our views clearly differ on the other points. I’ll leave it at that.

          • Agreed but the deterrent view is a very contentious one with people having different views and interpretation of its sovereignty. And it will always be so methinks.

          • Hi john I very much agree on the comment around defence, I do think the U.K. has underestimated the risk around a European conflict or a conflict in which traditions alliances are less likely to be supportive of So I do think the U.K. needs to very much look at its own ability to defend its areas of responsibility and influence. That does mean looking at areas of weakness. Which I think you can see happening. Better ground based air defence capability, the ability to disperse aircraft more frigates for the RN ect.

            Because of our geography a lot of expeditionary and offensive capabilities are actually very defensive in nature, in regards to the U.K. never was the say a strong offence is a strong defence truer.

            Our carriers and F35Bs offer a very significant defence The carrier toddling around in northern waters Is both a considerable shield and Damocles sword over the head of an enemy in the European theatre ( Russia now, but who can say in 30-50 years). We need therefore to maximise as an absolute priority the carriers potential air wing ( especially as they are as useful on the carrier or on land or halfway across the world in the BAT).

            Its the same with sub surface and surface combatants like Well equipped AAW Destroyers as these are a shield and a sword ( as are any well equipped escort) again these can be used close to home or far afield.

            I think ground forces need to be totally focused on expeditionary warfare if they cannot be deployed by ship or and air, fight and manoeuvre tactically or have a special role ( medical, intel, command, special forces etc) that can support an ally or are required infrastructure for the above Anything else needs to be really looked and removed Or repurposed if they don’t have a very specific and needed role.

          • You talk absolute tosh, ….and I love it (free evenings entertainment)…the truth is totally contrary to your agenda. The one thing the global pandemic has shown is the ‘Total’ reliance on the global free movement of maritime trade and goods hence a renewed importance with regards sea power and freedom of navigation. Total opposite of what you’re selling. The more you post the more you don’t make sense 👍

          • On your point about sea power I would argue that the sea is now even more strategically important, there is no nation on Earth ( or continent even) that has the required access to all the natural resources to run a 21centery manufacturing economy. China, Europe, America and Russia all need raw materials that are scattered across the globe. Chinese whole strategic goal ( the replacement of an American led liberal democracy hedgmony with A Chinese led hedgmony) is dependent on a Mercantile strategy than needs A web of interdependence things to succeed, remove any one and its strategy will collapse in on itself ( The British empire was built in exactly the same way and ended because it lost a couple of these):

            now bear with as this is complex and I’m post operative and high on morphine.

            1) Security of home, you cannot focus on world wide domination via mercantilism if your home is under threat and you need to expand massive resources protecting it ( this is possibly the biggest weakness of the British empire as it depended on retaining a balance of power in Europe and peace, this has essentially been U.K. policy since we decided we did not have the right to own France any more). This is not one of China’s weakness, it’s armed forces are sculpted to proved that regional security and there is very little room for anyone to dent this without a concerned effort by almost all liberal democracies and a whole lot more blood than anyone would want.

            2) Access to resources: this is what drove British expansion in Africa, it’s the same thing as China is doing now, we had a navy and merchant marine that could utterly dominate a combination of ever other navy on the planet as well as an education system that created leaders to extract these resources with as little cost as possible to the U.K. That was needed to make this work well for a long period of time. This is One of China’s big weaknesses ( and Russia. Even more so). if you can’t both dominate sea access to the raw materials and secure the land the sit on your doomed. So far the liberal democracies have give China and Russia a free ride, but if they shut them down hard, the balance of navel power is with the democracies ( ChIne could still not likely win a fight with the U.K. if it was anywhere other than China’s own regional power base ( the U.K. simply has a wider spectrum of more powerful deployable resources) this is likely to change very soon and there is nothing the U.K. could do about this on its own, but even in a case of chinese future hedgmony a power like the U.K. could force a back down in an area such as the BAT ( if China has to deploy a navy around the world, the U.K would only need to be able to have parity at that specific conflict point, this was the problem faced the the RN at many time and why it needed to be so overwhelmingly large, as does the USN now). So for now this is still a major weakness for China and will be for a long time.

            3) Market access: if you can’t access your markets a Mercantile strategy fails, China and Russians problem is that the major markets they depend on are the same liberal democracies they are in conflict with. This is a major And likely catastrophic weakness. You cannot use an internal market as that does not generate wealth is recycles it in a zero point game ( see the fall of the USSR). Therefore you must have a market ( the British empire controlled the destiny of a huge part of the worlds population not for conquest but for both access to resources and access to markets ad for no other reason ( that’s why Napoleon called us a nation of shop keeps, shame for him the best way to build an empire is to make stuff and sell it for huge profits). So China and Russia’s big problem is that they need the west’s markets ( most of the worlds free consumer spending power is in Europe and North America), they have had an easy ride for 30 years because western leaders were a bunch of idiot slaves to neoliberalism, but the west has woken up big time to this ( if you dig deep Brexit and Trump winning were populations rejecting neoliberal structures, but without really understanding that’s what they were doing ). So at some point the West is very likely to turn off the market accesses which kills china’s strategy.

            4) a willing population that will make stuff cheap and be paid in pennies. So we all know the working and live conditions of the British worker during the age of empire, it. Was shit and actually one of the most totalitarian times in British history ( have a read on Totalitarianism I Victoria Britain and the changes in freedoms and wellbeing of the British people before and after the start of the industrial revolution. The final nail in the Coffin of the British empire were the aspirations of its population for fair wages, good living conditions and the expansion of suffrage. I think this will be a problem for China at some point, balancing using its population as cheap labour vs what it’s population will accept.

          • John wrote:
            “”, or in a final resort to plead with the US to be allowed to use ‘our’ Tridents.””

            That is misinformation pushed out by the left of the political centre. The UK Nuclear deterent is a totally UK call.

        • Realistically, we have zero influence over Russia. The only way to influence them is talking trade, and we wouldn’t remove our sanctions on them without the US first giving us the nod. That gives Germany more influence as they already have trade with Russia that they could cut.

          Russia isn’t scared of the US military as it knows they won’t get involved and same goes for ours.

        • Well ‘Global Britain’ currently has a RN vessel en route to deliver aid to Tonga, thanks to our new permanent presence in the Pacific.

          As for talks, Russia wants to talk to the US rather than NATO because it uses every opportunity to try and drive a wedge between the US and other member nations.

        • Wealth, population and industrial base. they aways talk with a big voice in geopolitics. Normally the state of The Germam armed force And the nations lack of willingness to support armed conflict would lessen that voice (Consider the French third republic and how that went). But this does not matter one iota in The case of Germany, NATO and being surrounded by friends means the actual state of its armed forces is meaningless to its geopolitical power, it’s simply can ignore military power and it can with impunity throw around that very significant Wealth and economic power with its full weight like a hammer. It’s an unusual situation historically as most nations have to balance millitary power, wealth and economic power ( look how much percents of GDP the US and China need to spend on their military v German, that impacts on growth and wealth).

          • Ah the “We’ll just turn off the Russian gas ourselves” play.
            Reminds me of when they were saying we’d use our economic weight, and threaten to stop buying German cars, to get whatever Brexit deal we wanted.

          • Yes well the less said about Germany making itself depended on cheap gas imports the better. But it’s no more stupid than us inviting china to build a nuclear power station or our 5G infrastructure ( thank god we saw sence). The west has been generally very foolish about both China and For Germany Russia. You don’t feed you strategic likely enemies money and influence and you do not destroy your own industries because they make stuff cheaper. The west dropped the ball big time from the 90s onwards, all the end of history, the world will become liberal democracy crap, fed a hubris that may still be our downfall due to economic dependence on China.

            As for Germany they many have to work hard and spend a load of money on infrastructure but they could get themselves out of Russian gas dependency ( the rest of the west may need to support and divert some supplies in the shorter term).

            I suspect it’s consideration on the part of Russia as to how far it will push around natural Gas prices increasing with a demand squeeze on supply due to Chinese’s demand and consumption. If the market frees up Russia will lose a chip off the board.

            The west really has to learn its lessons around maintaining sovereign independence on all key industries, production and raw materials….successful nations build and make stuff to sell to the world, declining nations have to buy stuff other countries have made.

      • IMO Germany is more a supplicant than a player.

        They have spent the last years supporting Russia’s building up of its armed forces, whilst undermining Ukraine.

        Plus they have tied their future energy supply to Putin’s apron strings with no plan B, whilst closing down both their nuclear and coal-powered alternatives.

        They have not even built the LNG terminals to get gas supplies other than from Russia.

        To begin to remedy that will take 10 years or more. Until then their strategic autonomy from Moscow is limited.

        It’s not a pleasant thing to write, but that is how I see it. I’d love to be proved wrong.

        I think the most important grouping wrt Ukraine is probably the group comprising US/Canada/UK, Scandinavian Countries, and Poland / the Baltics etc. Core EU states are mainly talking.

      • Disagree, we’re an ally that’s offering and delivering assistance whilst half of Europe stands idle, Russia will certainly be taking note.

        • So you are happy that we are supporting a country ruled by oligarchs, is riddled with corruption (like Hunter Biden and Mr 10%, his Dad), that has, due to its policies since 2014, lost most of its working population (to both east and west) as well as its industry (aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks etc), is heavily in debt (to the EU, IMF, US and UK) with no hope of repaying it, is authoritarian (all TV opposing the Government shut down), honours its NAZI heroes both now and in the past, actually has a NAZI type military unit, plus has virtually no historical or current political or commercial ties to the UK. This is a poke Russia opportunity, nothing more and it is costing us UK taxpayers £billions.

          • Maybe but that was all facts. I just missed out the bit about a very major source of Ukrainian revenue being gas transit fees, with the current contract ending at the end of 2024. So what is going on now has nothing to do with that and the risk that the West has of having to stump up another $1.5B in support.

          • And whose people are free to express their opinions, demonstrate against their govt and vote for who they like. You do any of those things and let us know how you get on ?

          • Lol, think you’re more John in Minsk, than John in Milton Keynes….even if I’m wrong I’d perhaps advise a move to the former..

          • What, with the weather they have at this time of year? No way, there is no John Lewis branch there!

          • Not particularly no. I saw enough of their actions in 2015 to put me off for life. I have claimed nothing here about Russia’s political system and wont as I know very little about it.

          • Cheeks of the same arse in my view, but, regardless of this, Putin has no right to carry out further operations in another’s country, regardless of what justification he comes up with, ie ethnic Russians in Donbas etc. Same shit Hitler come up with in 38 regarding invasion of the Sudetenland.

          • Interesting turn of phrase there. The fundamental problem in Ukraine is that the Government will not implement the Minsk agreement that it signed up to in 2016 when they were under extreme military pressure. If they did all this would go away.

          • I thought it was 2015? But anyway which part is it not implementing as both sides do not seem to be complying with the requirements which were agreed?

          • You are right, my mistake. The onus is on the Ukrainian Government to implement it as it covers the whole country and they haven’t started to do so.

          • I will have to re-read the thing again but having read updates and reports on what is actually happening then our perception of events will be different. Both countries are not complying or implementing what was laid down and if we are honest it is in Putins favour for it not to be.

          • Only one country in the agreement, Ukraine, no other. Russia made sure that it was not part of the agreement and has the same status as France and Germany, the others in the Normandy Four. The Parties are the Ukrainian Government and Donesk and Luhansk..

          • Perhaps Russia should first honour the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 to honour Ukraine’s sovereignty and existing borders?…

          • From memory, Lavrov’s view on that was the Memorandum was abrogated when the elected Government in Kiev was overthrown by the coup in 2014.

          • I like that, cheeks of the same arse, works for so many things,I’m pinching that. Can’t really disagree with the sentiment either.

          • Looking for NAZI’s as usual! Go look in Eastern Germany or France, sponsored of course by your friend Mr Putin!

          • Try searching Azov in Ukraine, their logo is the “Wolfsangel” rune used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division ‘Das Reich’ or Stepan Bandera, the WWII leader of the Hitler supporting Ukrainian nationalists, who led the slaughter of thousands of Jews and is now a national hero. The Russians hate Azov.

          • Interesting read John, but alas from my experience with Russians and certain military organisations, white nationalists and blatant right wing “Nazism” is rife in the Russkie mil also. Both countries are about 30 years behind when it comes to race relations, diversity, equality and fairness!

          • Agreed but Azov proved in 2014/15 to be not just ‘normal’ right wing militarism but an active unit that viciously and without mercy applied its techniques in an ethnic cleaning campaign agaist the DNR/LDR separatists. Very proud of their beliefs they were too. Which is why virtually everyone with any interest in the area believes that if Ukrainian forces striking south releases the Russian Army special measures are planned for Azov. Civil Wars can be extremely vicious, as we know from our past.

          • Special measures are planned for Azov? See cheeks of the same arse, Russkie extremists taking revenge on Ukrainian extremists! Nothing changes or are the special measures planned for the Azov forces, by the Russians ok?

          • Ukraine is a young democracy, the TV stations shut down were controlled by oligarchs you moan about. The country has set sights on the democratic road, unlike your friend’ country despot Putin.

          • Hi john yes, Ukraine is not really any different from many other states and they don’t go over the real red lines. But we also support some completely totalitarian states that a pretty much on the same level as China in regards to oppression of their own population. In truth Ethics ( and don’t get me wrong I don’t like this fact) have no place in Geopolitics, all that matters is your own nations security and interest, that can be best served by enlightened self interest or supporting other nations. But no nation has ever done a single thing ( apart from a bit international aid now and then) that was not to its own advantage and decided on a pragmatic basis.

          • Very good, but what I can’t get my head around is why the UK Government thinks it is in our interests to pour thousands of good anti tank weapons into Ukraine, as opposed to the US’s 300? When everyone knows they can be used offensively. They are thus effectively encouraging Kiev to attack Donbas. It looks like the UK supplying munitions so the Ukrainians can die fighting Russia in the hidden interests of the UK.

          • No I think you need to remember we have a shared interest with Ukraine, they want to be free and independent and it’s in our interest that they stay free and independent. U.K. interest is best by free, strong independent European nations. At present Russia is using naked aggression so we do need to strengthen that nation to resist this. If Russia invaded it will not be Ukrainians dieing for a hidden U.K. interest it will be Russians and Ukrainians dying because Russia did not respect Ukraine sovereignty ( that’s the bottom line and you can’t wrap it up any other way). But It’s not in the interest of the U.K. for Russia to invade so behind all this there is a Russian need that we must discuss and find a solution that works for all parties. Otherwise we will see a major war in Europe.

            Simply put everyone and all sides do have one major shared interest. To not have a major war in Europe and for each nation to be secure in it on sovereignty, if we can’t get there its not just Europe that faces devastation but the entire world.

            in that context the moral right or wrong of sending weapons to a conflict zone is irrelevant and only what will prevent war matters ( and sometimes that’s being strong).

          • We have different views on Ukraine as a nation. Many on here disagree but I still believe that the only way that Russia will attack is if the Donbas is attacked. What Russia is doing now is maintaining its deterrence posture against a re-equiping Ukrainian army none of which was withdrawn from positions at the front last year.

          • Hi john, yes but differing views is fine geopolitics is chaos and complexity incarnate when you add in the behaviours of individual people to the mix it’s impossible to predict and you never know if your right wrong or a bit right until the fat lady sings.

            Personally think this a more about a Russian Nato negotiation than anything else. I don’t think Russia wants a major war neither does Ukraine or NATO ( if I though anyone did I would be stocking the bunker now). This is about the future boundaries of NATO how russia can feel safe and how Ukraine can maintain its sovereignty. My big worry is a miss step by one Or both sideS that leads to a major European war ( it happened in WW1).

          • You are right but Russia views NATO as a US tool so is really only negotiating directly with the boss, the US. Trouble is that the State Department is not used to dealing with a country that is imposing demands on it instead of the other way round, so is having big internal problems coming up with a written response to Russia’s proposals.

          • The other key problem is that Russia has completely miss understood that NATO is not the US and actually the US cannot negotiate for NATO. It’s a really significant miss understand and not understanding power that even small NATO nations have in the decision making of NATO, the US can be considered first amongst equals but that’s it, it’s one reason Trump hated NATO so much.

          • I think you are wrong but correct if it were the EU. Up until now the US has had economic, military and personal control over NATO, a factor recognised by Russia. It is clear that part of Russia’s strategy at the moment is to try and drive a wedge into that power structure and, with France, Italy and Germany breaking ranks re Ukraine responses, it seems that they might be making some headway. In some ways the current incompetence being shown by US diplomats could well lead to the end of NATO and the emergence of new groupings.

          • Any kinetic active weapon system can be used in the offensive role! However the type and effect/range of NLAW ensures it is most effective in the defensive role to include OBUA, fixed or fluid defences.

          • Agreed, but they I assume could be useful in trench warfare when the sides are 1-200 meters apart as a bunker buster.

          • We don’t give a toss about your US domestic stuff.

            But you seem hell bent on denigrating the West. I at least hope you don’t live in a Western country.

            I’d want you to leave here, but your comments are good entertainment.

          • I admire your confidence in using ‘we’. Shame you can’t take a bit of reality comment. All is not wonderful anywhere in the world and the West is doing its bit too. There is a hint in where I live in my name.

      • Germany has done sod all. It stopped exports of defensive equipment to Ukraine according to the FT and stopped RAF flights using its airspace to transport any defensive equipment.

      • Germany? Really? Germany certainly isn’t a player, it’s a payer, for Russki gas and Putin knows he has them by the balls and they won’t rock the boat.

        • Agree with most of your posts Airborne so take this as its ment…Germany certainly is a player but not in the military sense…they’ve been playing the EU and Russians for decades. Their toast always lands butter side up….and all whilst contributing the bare minimum 👍

      • It won’t deter putin from invading. However you underestimate the effectiveness of the Nlaws in guerilla warfare, which is what these will be used for. Thought some old rpgs and milans were dangerous in Afghanistan? The Nlaws will be much more effective. Combined that with the fact that Ukraine has conscription and although standards aren’t very high, much higher than your average Afghani or Iraqi insurgent. So you have a decently trained population trained from conscription, carrying out guerilla warfare with much better weaponry, that and they don’t have a coalition like in the Gulf war so they’re effectively sinking a lot, and I mean A LOT of resources on this buildup.

        They invade, they’re putting around 1/10, which doesn’t sound like a lot, but is alot of their approx 1 mil + Active forces into a region that has strong cultural ties to Russia. The native population of said region are very motivated and have much more willpower seeing as their homeland is under threat. Now a knowledgeable war historian will know that many nations, when they come under mortal threat can often multiply the total damage they can cause even if their enemies are many folds larger. Take the battle of Agincourt as example . Who knows what kind of internal dissident they might inspire. And while they’re focused on the build up on Ukraine, many other malicious actors could stir up trouble domestically.

        So while it may not completely demotivate putin from invading if he decides to, it will make him heavily reevaluate his decision. Right now he may be gesturing to get benefits from the EU ie. better terms for Nord Stream 2, etc. Warfare, Money and Politics go hand in hand after all.

        • Spot on!…too many confuse NLAWS with the likes of ‘light’ LAW 80 etc…
          This thing might be light in weight but certainly heavyweight in delivery …and all at the hands of a relatively un-trained operative. NLAWS will defeat all current MBT in top flight mode irrespective of counter measures or reactive armour. An inspired move by HM government as basically gives Joe Bloggs the ability to defeat a MBT….if that isn’t deterrence I’m not sure what is.

      • One error by both of you; Wallace invited Shoigu, the defence minister, not Lavrov. 

        Now on to the important bits… calling the UK a minor player in most things, let alone global political influence, is not true; for political influence… well we’re in the top three. Debatable how you measure. Soft power number one, hard power perhaps four or five, overall probably right behind US and China. Calling Germany a player and not the UK is flatly ridiculous; their military capacity is far smaller than ours and their influence equally outmatched. 
        Calculations by the Russians? Well, I speak Russian and in order to keep myself informed I often watch what propaganda is being broadcast on Russian channels (Rossiya 1, Red Star etc.). It is always anti-American, and anti-British. They talked about Merkel when she was there but now Germany is rarely mentioned; save for the Nord Stream situation. The fact that they talk about the US and UK means you should not underestimate what Russia thinks of us. 
        The fact that you think “some anti-tank weapons” won’t deter Putin demonstrates that you fail to understand both military strategy and politics. Here is how it does, in fact, play a large role:

        A) Militarily: 2 C-17s, over the course of three days, is a LOT of anti-tank weapons. Well into the thousands. Ukraine has only 47 Javelins. And, thanks to us, many more NLAW. This is a significant uplift in Ukrainian military capability, considering Russia follows Soviet doctrine; large scale artillery bombardment covered by area airspace denial, followed by tank regiments individually punching through the enemy frontline. More anti-tank weapons means punching through becomes a lot harder. 

        B) Strategically: It makes Ukraine a very prickly target. The only value in Putin invading Ukraine is political prestige and an appearance of power. Russia has already seized Donbas, Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea – the only assets of economic or geographic value. The higher the estimated casualties are, the less chance Ukraine will be invaded. 

        C) Politically. Canada deployed special forces to Ukraine, even if only a few. We sent NLAW and specialists. In addition to the above benefits, both of these signal that Ukraine has allies; that it will have support in a war (whether it actually will have this or not is a different question; but it, again, reduces the probability of Russia taking a chance).

        • Russia will be very concerned about the U.K. we are in a position to isolate their shipping from the Atlantic. Most people really underestimate our strategic position sitting across most of Europe’s access to the Atlantic, although reduced in number the RN and RAF would still be able to pretty much completely interdict Russian movement in and out of the North Atlantic. To really have a chance to hit the U.K. hard back Russia would always have to stretch it’s armed forces which would likely hurt them very hard. How many bombers and fighters would make the trip back to Russia and how many subs/ships would survive and engagement with the RN when it’s got the advantage of U.K. air cover.

          Gorbachev was always very clear that the USSR took the U.K. very seriously post the falklands war ( we a proven willingness to fight hard and the USSR knew what that meant around access to the Atlantic and being strategically pend in ( just as many Europeans aggressors have found in the past).

          • Our geographic position is only really of use in wartime. We surely are not going to inhibit the movement of Russian ships and submarines to/from the Atlantic in peacetime, even in times of tension.

          • Hi Graham

            it depends, although you can not deny passage to one specific nation ( onside of war). The U.K. could start ensuring complete compliance with legislation around pollution control of shipping, by stopping and inspecting all ships of a specific age or without prior evidence of compliance with national legislation on pollution control.

            So actually a nation that manages a strait can if so wishes make it very problematic especially for a nation with a very old and likely polluting warships.

            But the reality is Russia always has to have in the back of its mind a war between it and the U.K. becomes very difficult as the U.K. can sit back in its strategic position across the sea lanes and throttle Russia into negotiations all the while Russia’s only option would be long range attacks with expensive irreplaceable assets that would be very exposed. It Is the way the U.K. has aways managed far larger continental opponents and its aways worked in the end.

      • Nice try. The reality is Putin is a bully of weak people. He’s never had to face serious pushback. The reality of the situation is Ukrainian is a sovereign strategy and senior nato partner with whom we have a longstanding defence relationship including trainers on the ground now

      • Daniel,

        Is Germany a player, really? Or a victim of high Russian gas prices, like the rest of us. What military hardware has Germany supplied to Ukraine? Are they involved in talks with the Russians? Their military readiness is appalling and they have scarcely any more tanks than we have.

        I am certainly not arguing that UK is a major player in all this – you are right there.

  4. Blooming heck! Didn’t know we had so many NLAWs to give away! Someone asked why Atlas was not used. I suspect the A400M is not cleared by the RAF as yet to carry explosives?

  5. Let’s just hope these NLAWs aren’t used. If they are it will mean that the dug in Ukrainian infantry are under close assault from Russian armour; it will not be a small war. Such a battle would be more akin to the eastern front battles of WW2 than the limited battles of recent wars. Even a limited offensive would produce thousands of casualties and many thousands of refugees. For an idea of the ground and likely course of such a conflict look at the 1st & 2nd battles of the Donbass.

  6. I had a butchers last night and to be frank the Ukraine isn’t short of Anti-Armour weaponary:
    SPG-9 range 800 metres (Able to kill a T64BV)
    RPG-29 range 800 metres (Has proven effective agaisnt the US M1 Abrams)
    RPG-26
    RPG-22
    RPG-18
    RPG-16
    RPG-7
    RK-3 Corsar range 2500 metres
    Skif (ATGM) range 5 kilometres
    Barrier range 5 kilometres
    KOMBAT range 4 kilometres
    Stugna-P range 4 kilometres
    9K115 Metis range 1000 metres (extra stocks received from Lithuania )
    9K115-2 Metis-M range 2000 metres
    9M113 Konkurs range 4000 metres
    9K111 range 2500 metres
    9M14 Malyutka range 3000 metres
    FGM-148 Javelin range 2.5 miles (The missile that Carlsberg make)

    and now the MBT LAW, which I do believe (from reading) won’t be effected by the Russians anti missile dazzle tech such as SHTORA-1

    If push does come to shove, (and I say this from a pure military point of view) it will be very interesting to see how the Ukrainian battlefield develops regards ATMs V the MBT.

    • Perhaps they could do with some starstreak HVM as they don’t have anything to counter RuAF assets I believe? I don’t think we have much ourselves when it comes to AA

        • Russia has moved 2 S-400 battalions into Belarus along with 3 squadrons of Su-34 which speculating could be for a no-fly zone, Given the list OP gave from ATGM capabilities I think they could do with some additional AA systems.

        • Quite a lot of SAM systems but getting left behind update wise, particularly in their ability to hit small targets like cruise missiles and shells. There is a reason the US has not supplied MANPADs, they are regarded as ‘offensive’ so not allowed in.

      • Just picked up this months Airforce monthly, and it includes 8 pages on the state of affairs regards Ukraines air defences. haven’t rad it yet, but once I will do, I will upload the entire article on a time out basis.

    • Soviet weapons are very old, in addition, they rotted, plundered and sold for 30 years, in addition, Russian saboteurs blew up several large warehouses with the remains
      P.S.
      Ukraine, even in nightmares, was not going to fight with anyone until 2014
      greetings from Kiev

      • It seemed at the time that those ammo dumps may well have been blown to hide the thefts, as you say, the contents having been plundered and sold. Am I correct in thinking that you don’t have the manufacturing capability to make new 122mm and 152mm shells?

          • Not sure what that means. I have been watching the conflict from the start and when these dumps went up it was via a US site MP.net now defunct. There was a lot of information on there that led not just me to that conclusion. As to the shells AFAIK they were made in Donbas and Ukraine has had to strip the old WP countries of their stocks. I asked the question to see if I could get a more up to date view.

          • Can you explain why everyone is suspicious of John?
            I’ve seen other people post similar sentiments, or claim we should just let Russia so what it wants, or even claim that we are the aggressor in Russia’s rightful lands and still be considered patriotic pillars of this site’s small community. I feel I’ve missed something.

          • Don’t worry just pulling his leg a little. Most of his responses and replies are well thought out and respectfully put! However he does occasionally fall foul of that well known trait of doing our own capabilities down with minimum depth to his comment! We aren’t the biggest, and have suffered neglect but we are still a major player with rounded capabilities that few others have. We are both a hard and soft power, still with influence, no matter what our continuous stream of useless politicians say or do to the opposite! Cheers

          • Oh and asking a Ukrainian if they are still able to produce 122 and 152mm Arty shells prior to a possible war……int gathering never sleeps 😂

    • Ah, beat me to it David, the Russians ‘demand’ we don’t let Ukraine, Finland, Georgia and Sweden into NATO!

      Or they will start a war …. Well, yep we owe them for Salisbury, this seems like suitable payback, hope we’ve written a few slogans on the NLAW warheads.

      “Greetings from Sailsbury and all at Malaysian Airlines” might be apt…..

      I say invite all those countries to join, throw an iron curtain around Russia and call their bluff…

        • I have no doubt if the Russians start taking heavy losses Putin will throw a hissy fit. So we back down if Putin starts rattling his rockets. When do we stop ? The Baltics ? Poland ? Finland ? The Isle of Wight ? If Putins a big enough nut to start a nuclear war someone in the Russian state will arrange an accident to take care of him.

          • I would not lay my families life on that one to be honest. A military conflict that involves competing Nuclear powers has been avoided for 75 years for a reason.

            Im happy that we support Ukraine in every way that it’s not direct war with Russia.

            To be honest I don’t think Russia will mount a full invasion, I just don’t think it has the mass to conquer Ukraine without massive casualties, and the fallout would hurt to much for very little gain. I do think something will happen and there will be “minor incidental clashes that can be caused accidental or be blamed on Ukraine.

          • Russia invades Baltics and informs other NATO states that if they get involved they will go nuclear ?

          • I think at that point nato would push on with an intervention. The real problem would be if Russia then fires one nuclear weapon in theatre, that is the real problem will America be willing to end humanity for a small Eastern European nation?

            This is the big problem As in the end we are talking about species destruction not a war with specific aims.

            As lines are pushed people make mistakes and misjudgements It’s a worrying time.

          • Putin won’t start a nuclear war – and I doubt he will launch a mass invasion of Ukraine. What does he have to gain? He stands to lose too much.

        • I think Putin wants to play toy soldiers and he’s perfectly prepared to bet other peoples lives on it. Am I the only one who sees the parallels with 1930’s Europe here? Let’s call it what it is; a narcissistic dictator claiming to protect his own people so as to invade a sovereign nation. The question is; did he learn anything from history or is he about to make the same big mistake?

      • and on top of that saying that NATO should not deploy forces in the county s that joined in Eastern Europe post Cold War!!

    • Hope the boys and girls at Cheltenham are on the ball, if this does kick off I suspect the UK might have a few internet problems.

  8. Just a thought – how many flying hours are left on our C-17 fleet? For such a small size (8 aircraft) they do get worked hard. Still, I’m glad we have them as they are a great asset that not many countries have. I know the line is down and there will be no new airframes but just wished we could have picked up a few more before it closed. I read the price tag was 200m each at the time, so not cheap.

    Any ideas what we might replace them with when the time comes? – and yeah, I know, we will get 5 instead of 8! (sorry, couldn’t resist! – HA).

    • Maybe RAF should look at purchasing a high capacity freighter for general duties and save airframe life on the C17 for tactical requirements?

    • Plenty of old boeing 700 400+x series and transport aircraft around. Could just buy an old civillian plane add a few RAF systems and use that for ferrying supplies around.

    • The C17’s were designed for a 30,000 hour lifecycle,this may possibly be extended to 45,000 hours so there’s plenty of life in them.

  10. Great. Agree. Get the supplies in now before any conflict. That way Russia cant use the excuse of newly delivered British weapons killing their soldiers once conflict has been joined.
    The more we deliver now the better the chances Ukrainian military can put up a stiff resistance.
    We should be able to replace these weapons fairly quickly as UK manufactured. In Belfast I believe.
    Follow on order for 50,000 more needed.

  11. Just below the picture of a delivery to Brize Norton the paragraph says deliveries started on 27th January. Either the UK has a time machine (flight departs 27th and arrives on 17th) or someone should be reminded that, especially with defence matters, accurate proof reading is important.

  12. I magine that average Russians have a niggling doubt in their minds. They’ve seen Putin invade Crimea relatively easily, and the Donbas not quite so smoothly. Neither time having been directly threatened by Ukraine with regard to their own legal sovereign borders, and with the latter conflict still in swing.
    Now, they are being primed for attacks deeper into Ukraine, extent unascertained, but involving potential fronts to the east, south and north with Belarus (i.e. close to Kiev). All allegedly for the security of Russians – who have still not remotely been invaded during not far short of a decade of expeditionary aggression.
    In short, whatever obfuscation Putin is feeding them as justification, they know it will involve breaching their neighbour’s sovereign territory yet again.

    • Gavin, Russian public opinion is key. Don’t believe all this nonsense about Putin getting 97% of the popular vote. Russia is, understandably after the horrendous casualties of WW2, very casualty averse (remember they lost in Afghanistan precisely because of this). Once the body bags start coming back in large numbers Putin’s position will be hard to maintain. And the body bags will come back in numbers; the Ukrainian armed forces are large and well armed. It will not be a walk in the park for Ivan and even once they’ve taken whatever chunk of Ukraine they want an ongoing insurgency, armed with western weapons, is very likely.

      • To succeed, it requires that elysian field for all invaders, the short war. Much predicted, rarely if ever attained. Nazis’ came close with Blitzkrieg; if you ignore the following five years.
        AND we have Churchill, who’s determined to save the day. For someone, at least. 🤔

      • We should help the Ukrainians defend their airspace especially, don’t lose it in begin with, the Ukrainians have substantial ground forces with armour to defend their territory.

    • the average Russian does not think in the coordinate system you proposed. they are sure that no Ukraine exists. In their opinion, Ukraine is such a ridiculous misunderstanding that should be eliminated.
      P.S.
      greetings from Kiev
      we are all here in high spirits about the received missiles

      • No one knows what most Russians think including Putin. If the last 100 years has taught the Russian people one thing it’s to keep their thoughts to themselves. We’ll find out if thousands of Russian soldiers start arriving home in body bags. You can bet Putin and his cronies are thinking about that too. Good luck and I hope for better days for your people.

      • A few years ago I worked on a big project for rollout of corporate IT systems to Moscow, Kiev, Kazakhstan.

        As you say the Russian team on the project basically did not believe in the existence of Ukraine. They see it as just a different postcode within greater russia. Some fun discussions we had!

      • Hi Oleg, I been posting for a few weeks, about helping Ukraine to keep control of it’s airspace, this would be most advantageous to your ground forces. I think the West needs to supply early warning radar systems and supply AMRAAM missiles for your Migs.

  13. Does the mod have any stinger manpads in storage I wonder and what the chances they covertly gifted a few of those on the C17s

    • Keeping state of the art MANPADs from floating around has long been an issue.

      Things like Stinger are still, rightly, highly controlled because of the risks to civilian airliners taking off.

      If it was easier for some individual inspired (?) by actions in sandy places to get a MANPAD than to smuggle a bomb on board a plane……..

      I am afraid that a lot of the older generation portable MANPADs are a waste of time against airforces with decent countermeasures.

      So I would be amazed if MANPADs are on those flights.

      That said we were going to sell them Sea Ceptor for their corvettes so a land based battery might be more likely?

  14. What is the latest Intel? Do we know if the Russians are now at the stage where they are calling up their reserves? Just imagine a war in a country with 15 active nuclear reactors… what could possibly go wrong?

    • Russia is not going to target a nuclear reactor with the likelihood they would be on the receiving end of the fallout. They do have some experience where such things are concerned.

    • Latest is 6 landing ships have crossed into the Atlantic from the Baltic and Northern fleets probably heading for the Black Sea and Russia has just begun wargames with Belarus on the Ukranian border without providing the customary 42 days notice to other countries or inviting foreign observers which they are legally obligated to do if more than 9,000 soldiers are involved.

      • Re those ships, they may be off to join the Syrian Express supply line. The Russians might have got everyone looking in the wrong direction and they actually plan to do something in Syria not Ukraine.

      • US state dept just 10 hours ago said an invasion could be imminent. The amphibious fleet sailing for the black sea could potentially be to enable a 2nd wave or 2nd front along black sea coastline.
        If they do invade Ukraine and are involved in the conflict they shouldnt be allowed to sail back to Russian northern and Baltic fleets. Let them try to run through the Med as target practice for Italian,French and Spanish fleets. If those countries have the balls to stand upto Putin.

        • They won’t intervene on that; neither will we.

          I do not see that as any different from intervening with NATO ground or air forces.

          Might be different if Russia has already invaded further parts of the Ukraine.

        • That would be an act of war, realistically NATO or countries listed are not going to war with Russia over Ukraine. That point has been made by no country providing supporting land forces.

    • in addition to problems with nuclear reactors, there is the possibility of undermining the dam of the Kiev hydroelectric power station. the consequences will be awful

  15. As I type the 8th C-17 has just taken off en route to Kyiv, If all flights are carrying 16 pallets worth that’s a total of 2304 NLAWs delivered.

  16. in Kiev, everyone is discussing this event and many are in high spirits about the received missiles.
    I would like to thank Britain

    • Our pleasure. Im sorry we are not sending an armoured division. Even our elderly chally2s are still a damn sight better than Russian T64/72/80 crap.
      I think NATO needs to wake up and rearm Russia and China are about to prove to the world that tin pot dictators are still around and still craving conquest and empire.

    • Hopefully all we are seeing is an aggressive geopolitical play from Russia and nothing more. Hopefully the rest of Europe showing some strong red lines as well and clearly iterate that an a strong independent Ukraine is the only thing that’s acceptable.

      I do think we need to also consider the Russian view ( know your enemy and the best battle is one that’s not needed) I suspect a lot of this comes from an inbuilt Russian fear and mistrust of Western European powers (we have invaded few times to be fair) although the need of Ukraine to be independent is paramount, and so I think we need Ukraine to be very strong and be able to tell any other international player to stick it in your pipe and smoke it ( I’m a believer in peace though every side having the strength to maintain sovereignty). I think for the sake of peace we need to think if NATO is the right alliance to support this ( Something like a Regional Eastern European mutual defence alliance with Poland ect and the U.K. making it very clear it takes the Budapest memorandum very clearly and put in a binding treaty with Ukraine around what that means in regards to supporting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself). I suspect Russia would live with a mutual defence agreement that was built around democratic Eastern European nations as well as greater support from the U.K and say Germany, with a U.K. US agreement on a firm nuclear umbrella. I think that would create an alliance that was strong and Russian could not push around, with less ease for Putin to using a EU. NATO is expanding argument, as for most Russians it’s the EU and NATO which ( wrongly) triggers their paranoia and gives Putin ammunition (I think he’s got ambitions that need stopping).

      So hopefully we can give more and help train more so Ukraine is safe from outside. Just from a U.K. point of view we signed a promise to your nation so we need to keep that promise as much as we can.

      I hope that a peaceful settlement can be found that keeps Ukraine safe independent and strong, without turning your nation into anymore of a battlefield. Peace and my thoughts be with you and your nation ,and you can at least know the great majority of the British public and our leaders respects your nations sovereignty and it’s peoples right to live safe independence lives and do remember we did sign a memorandum with your nation.

      • You seem to have got very naive thinking! The idea of Europe defending itself’ is laughable, because it has a neighbour with lopsided military capabilites.
        That’s why we have NATO, post Cold War as well, and into the future.

        • Meirion the reality is Russia is not an economic peer to the major European economies, it’s only the faulty world view that came out of the end of the Cold War ( the peace dividend and end of history rubbish) that has lead to any military lack of parity, so it’s not the idea of Europe defending itself which is laughable, it the idea that Europe is not able to defend itself which is what’s laughable ( and very sad). Russia is not China, its military would not be able to sustain a major operation that threatened Western Europe, the issue is how we strength Eastern Europe to the point it becomes to much of a nut to crack.

          There is a separate conversation to be had around why Western and Northern European nations are so militarily weak that they need support from the US against a nation that has a lower GDP than Canada.

          Im not a fool I don’t disbelieve there is a problem and a crisis, but if we live in some form of victim belief system that it’s all the big bad Russians fault and we are weak little victims then that is what we will be. We need to be strong, understand what Russia actually needs ( inside the behaviour is a core need) and make sure we can protect and understand our own need).

          A strategy of strengthening Eastern Europe is exactly what we are doing, so I’m not naive, the next step is sitting down and discussing where the border of nato will be and it does need a border as the present charter is not just military support is about values culture and most importantly the expansion of those values and culture so nations that don’t share those do see Nato in its present form as expansionists, I’m not against NATO at all I think it needs to be strong, but the way we do that is remove the expansionists bit and use the cultural and social elements to remove Turkey. We then need to consider in the longer term what OUR geopolitical needs are, ( nato should be a tool that protects core Western liberal democracies against aggression and that’s it). We need a strong buffer zone between Europe and Russia ( a nuclear war will kill us all, so as far as Im Concerned sod integrating Eastern Europe into The EU ect) support the Eastern Europe nations to be a strong power block on their own ( and they do have the resources and population to do it with time and support). We then need to turn our attention to China, this is the big problem, we need to stop our economic wealth and knowledge bleeding into China we have been in a Mercantile war with China for 2 decades now, but the same hubris around the end of history crap that created military weakness in Europe has meant that we failed to realise we were being roundly beaten in a Mercantile war.

          So not naive, it that I’m not just thinking about one point but where we need to be in regards to all our Geopolitics threats without reference to trying to make the world a liberal democracies or save everyone else from themselves.

  17. Maybe time to send some “volunteers” to Ukraine. It’s great that we are sending them missile but would be better if we sent a modern air defence system. I can’t imagine the Russian Air Force being much use against something like Land Ceptor and I can’t imagine Russia getting very far without air superiority.

  18. Just a thought as we know the treasury is nothing if not cheap do you think they included a “use incase of invasion only” and a “if not used return to sender in 1 year” clause.

    • Or a not for resale clause as if there is a stand down they will be off somewhere as cash sales. A well beaten path in Ukraine. I’d be surprised if some hadn’t been sold as soon as they are/were deployed, to the Russians.

  22. Tosh. Great Britain could easily field 500 MBT’s, 80,000 troops and hundreds of warships if shove came to push!

    Russia is a paper tiger. Our superior forces would easily defeat them.

    we should use all three parachute battalions as shock troops to push them back a few hundred miles from their current forming up points.

    our submarines could easily sink all six Russian assault ships currently on route to invade Odessa.

    the British bulldog craves a fight, an easy victory for our heroes!!!!!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here