Erm, no. We may now be classed as a militia but we are still the first choice partner for whenever a deployment is required. Our money is no longer going into conventional warfare but is now focussing on hybrid systems that move away from the need for fighting in the close.Erm no, not really. The British Army is so depleted these days Nato no longer considers it fit for active front line operations. Recent analysis of military power in Europe has drawn the conclusion the Army would be ineffective against the Russians, and the Russians know it.
Didn’t Johnson himself defend Russian influence in the UK and often meets up with his oligarch mate?All irrelevant. Do you think Russian money has influenced the UK’s strategy when it comes to Russian policy? And if so, how and when?
You can take mostly anything away from our Troops and they’ll get on without it, as soon as you take away their freedom to get on the internet then the whole force falls."Top Knot Battalion assemble!"
"Can I wear my go pro during the battle?"
"Will any dairy free options be allowed in the mess?"
"Can I livestream our secret briefings through my you tube channel?"
I'm not saying it's a tin pot army, far from it, but a recent analysis of the effectiveness of our army against the Russians concluded we would be seriously outgunned and would suffer as a result.Define ineffective?
It's not a tin pot dads army you know, it's a serious fighting machine. Even if we had to go head to head with them they'd get a lot more than a bloody nose, but we wont go head to head with them they will be fighting NATO in all probability.
Now nobody wants a war and IMHO opinion least of all Putin who would destroy his own country by doing so.
I think we need to understand that trench warfare is a thing of the past and certainly in Ukraine Putin is challenging new ideas with old ones but it's all a distraction. I don't think Putin has any intention of a landgrab, if he really is going to push into Ukraine then it's on the basis that he thinks the west probably won't do sod all about it.I'm not saying it's a tin pot army, far from it, but a recent analysis of the effectiveness of our army against the Russians concluded we would be seriously outgunned and would suffer as a result.
Look, I'm pissed off our military has been so run down over recent years we can barely defend ourselves. We've spent billions on two aircraft carriers that won't be able to sail together at the same time, and we have so few destroyers and other ships available, when they do put to sea they will have to be supported by ships from other navies. As an island nation, I'm not happy with that, but it is what it is.
When you read the comments from former military commanders, they are all of the opinion the cuts have gone too far. I think their opinions carry some weight and their concerns should be taken seriously.
I'm not making it up that Nato no longer considers our army unfit for front line duty. I have no doubt the young men and women serving in our armed forces are dedicated individuals that would perform admirably in whatever scenario they found themselves in, but if they don't have the numbers or equipment they need to protect themselves from the threat they face, then, sadly, there is only going to be one outcome.
My next door neighbour is ex army and served in Afghanistan. He was appalled by the equipment they had to use that was, in his words, 'more or less useless'.
Those are his words, not mine, and he's told me about situations he found himself in when they were desperately short of equipment. He wasn't facing the might of a mechanised army from the east, with tanks, missile launchers, attack helicopters, and artillery on a much greater scale than anything we possess.
I'm not knocking our military, we just don't have enough of it, and it's about to get even smaller.
We ran down our armed forces in the 1930's. Maybe there is a lesson to be leaned there. When was the last time we fought a well equipped army, navy, and air force that can pack a punch?
I'm not saying it's a tin pot army, far from it, but a recent analysis of the effectiveness of our army against the Russians concluded we would be seriously outgunned and would suffer as a result.
Look, I'm pissed off our military has been so run down over recent years we can barely defend ourselves. We've spent billions on two aircraft carriers that won't be able to sail together at the same time, and we have so few destroyers and other ships available, when they do put to sea they will have to be supported by ships from other navies. As an island nation, I'm not happy with that, but it is what it is.
When you read the comments from former military commanders, they are all of the opinion the cuts have gone too far. I think their opinions carry some weight and their concerns should be taken seriously.
I'm not making it up that Nato no longer considers our army unfit for front line duty. I have no doubt the young men and women serving in our armed forces are dedicated individuals that would perform admirably in whatever scenario they found themselves in, but if they don't have the numbers or equipment they need to protect themselves from the threat they face, then, sadly, there is only going to be one outcome.
My next door neighbour is ex army and served in Afghanistan. He was appalled by the equipment they had to use that was, in his words, 'more or less useless'.
Those are his words, not mine, and he's told me about situations he found himself in when they were desperately short of equipment. He wasn't facing the might of a mechanised army from the east, with tanks, missile launchers, attack helicopters, and artillery on a much greater scale than anything we possess.
I'm not knocking our military, we just don't have enough of it, and it's about to get even smaller.
We ran down our armed forces in the 1930's. Maybe there is a lesson to be leaned there. When was the last time we fought a well equipped army, navy, and air force that can pack a punch?
Source?Russia now shipping perishable medical supplies to the front line including large supply’s of blood.
Reported on Reuters.Source?
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.Both UK & US has a history of funding rebel groups in Libya, Iraq, Syria and other places to name.
Chinese Premier sitting back with a mountain of popcorn in Beijing. Waiting to clean up the mess.What I do think is a concern is that a foreign war might be convenient for Putin , Boris and Biden in terms of unifying and distracting their respective populations from domestic problems.
All the info you need is in hereI haven't even got stairs to hide under, I'd better start bloody digging and boxing up the beans and toilet roll for a long stay in the upturned bathtub.
We won't be sending troops into Ukraine because they aren't members of Nato. Yes, there are a few British troops out there helping them learn how to shoot anti tank missiles, but other than that?I think we need to understand that trench warfare is a thing of the past and certainly in Ukraine Putin is challenging new ideas with old ones but it's all a distraction. I don't think Putin has any intention of a landgrab, if he really is going to push into Ukraine then it's on the basis that he thinks the west probably won't do sod all about it.
No western leader will be considering total war or any prolonged war involving deployment because the reality is Russia will lose quickly and then nukes come into play which nobody wants. If there was war then the only likely scenario is we and everyone else would be joined by other countries and obviously the US. US involvement alone is enough to put Putin off although whether Biden is strong enough I have no idea.
Many countries in the eastern region such as Finland base their entire defence policy on holding off the Russians until the cavalry arrives and there's already a heavy defensive presence in those countries. We already have a considerable presence in the Baltics and in places like Estonia so the deterrence is already there.
Putin's style really is to conduct false flag type warfare where they invade, start a supposed puppet resistance and then they use elections to install a puppet leader. That's what happened in Crimea where Russia didn't exactly annex Crimea through force, Russia annexed Crimea by forcing it to annex itself.
We don't need to worry about packing a punch because nowadays that isn't important. What's important is showing solidarity with Ukraine and as a coalition providing enough assistance and deterrence to put Russia off. If we start deploying US and UK soldiers out there then things will get very hairy indeed. As it goes, don't provoke the bear but don't let him into your house either.
We are just a tiny part of the US military nowadays. Their call.We won't be sending troops into Ukraine because they aren't members of Nato. Yes, there are a few British troops out there helping them learn how to shoot anti tank missiles, but other than that?
I don't know what 'considerable presence' in the Baltic nations means in the overall scheme of of things. Four aircraft and a few hundred soldiers like we have in the Falkland Islands?
I don't think anyone can understand what Putin is about at the moment, and I don't think it will kick off, but let's remember it wasn't too long ago we sailed a Destroyer into the Black Sea that antagonised the Russians then sent an aircraft carrier battle fleet over to China to antagonise them as well.
What is the point of that, given the size of our country, and our place in the world?
Conventional warfare, we are tiny, but we do possess a powerful nuclear punchWe are just a tiny part of the US military nowadays. Their call.
Conventional warfare, we are tiny, but we do possess a powerful nuclear punch