Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhilM said:
He wouldn’t. Just like we’re not going to be using nuclear weapons over Ukraine. He’s pig-minded and a wrong’un, but he’s not that stupid.


Lack of air assets and it’s much harder to defend an entire border from three sides than it is to concentrate your forces and choose where to attack from.
Click to expand...
People were pretty convinced he'd never invade Ukraine, tbh
 
Bruce Wayne said:
And you mentioned the lack of preparedness to engage with "our" (collective "our" again) forces, but is that meaningfully changing even now? Would we be in any better position to defend Estonia or Latvia than Ukraine?
Click to expand...
In short, yes. There’s already battle groups on the ground and they’re being strengthened now and over the coming days. There’s also naval and air assets in place and up flying right now.

BlueToff said:
People were pretty convinced he'd never invade Ukraine, tbh
Click to expand...
There’s a huge difference. Massive. If he used them, we would retaliate.
 
PhilM said:
Russia is around the fifth highest spenders world wide, with a high percentage versus GDP (4.5%) compared to many other nations.

The UK actually don't spend much less in fiscal terms, but it's a lower % of GDP although still above NATO 2% desire/requirement at close to 3%.

Collectively, we far outspend Russia on defence, still there's a lot more to it than that. Lots of NATO countries do not spend 2% with only US, UK and France.

There's also the issue of Russian conscription, how much they spend per solider and the general cost of equipment compared to costs her.

Their standards are increasing although the mantra has often been quantity. It costs us a lot more to train and maintain each solider compared to Russia.

Same with equipment. Still, you're right: we spend far more collectively but the issue is with efficiency and it's spread across maintaining lots of separate forces.
Click to expand...
Think Poland pays over the 2% ?
Lots of people wanting to put troops in , that saying you want world war 3
Even if we fight with high loss of life both sides of losing have nuclear weapons if under pressure, is it really a road anybody wants to go down?
The sanctions are weak, but we have to offer a United front.
When some of the country's are heavily dependent on Russian energy so are not prepared to follow a all in response, we are only as strong as are weakest member.
Germany , are not going to pay the price it would need no matter what the noises are to take it further.
One other casualty of all this will be the green issues as the West will have to look to fill the gap on replacing Russian energy.
Expect a rush towards tracking ect.
 
There was a Ukrainian politician on R4 earlier. To paraphrase, he said if the Russians get to Kiev, he has his gun here and will use it to defend his country as best he can. Robinson then asked him has he had any training in how to use it, to which the guy said, no, not really, but when in the heat of things it will hopefully come naturally. Britain has done its bit though, as its actual trained soldiers have sent them a YouTube video on how to fire straight. (this last bit may be made up)
 
PhilM said:
In short, yes. There’s already battle groups on the ground and they’re being strengthened now and over the coming days. There’s also naval and air assets in place and up flying right now.


There’s a huge difference. Massive. If he used them, we would retaliate.
Click to expand...
Is that an actual realistic amount though or a symbolic movement? I think the nominal Nato presence in Estonia is about 1,500 personnel, for instance, which wouldn't be able to do a great deal. How is that being changed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top