Is the UK in danger from Russia?

[hereforalongtimenotagoodtime]

Keep receiving conflicting information. I am sick to my stomach and quite simply hate the unknown. So a simple question - is it likely that the UK will be in danger from Russia? And if so what does that look like? Cyber attacks, bombs being dropped?

God don't get me started on overpromoted managers not understanding tech and instead playing politics.

I lasted 10 years in defence manufacturing and left to go self-employed in an entirely different field. It got too much for me. The culture of jobs for life, jobs for the boys, three managers for every one technical person, and the fact I'd have to make the switch myself if I wanted to get ahead spelled out this was not the place for me.

Also despite being in the private sector it suffered from the same pitfalls I'm sure the public sector does. When your customers are governments with what feels like an endless / unlimited pit of money, the culture of the business is not the same as in a place where your customer is spending their own money and thus expect results on time and on budget. So much waste. So much pointless middle management. So many hours spent on pointless processes that could easily be optimised, but that would mean reductions in the amount of 'old boys' and their pointless positions.

I am so glad I'm out of it. No amount of money was worth going home every night feeling like you could have done so much and made a real difference and instead you spent the day pretending to be busy.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

This maybe a stupid question, but does the U.K. have the capacity to cyber attack back? Otherwise how would we retaliate, in a conflict situation?

To the same extent, almost certainly not. We also go about things in retaliation differently to Russia (and China etc).

Anonymous have waged a cyber war against Russia. Allegedly they are worldwide and whilst they are competent hackers, to quite what extent and long-standing they have remains to really be seen.

@cherrysthename

Fucking hell I hope no one feeling anxious about this clicked on to the thread in the hopes of rational perspectives. Some posts are shit ya pants scary, and deliberately so.

It is rational to be talking about the levelbof threat here! The dismissive comments over 'it will be over in 24 hours' are more worrying.

If we don't have conversations about food security and our over dependence on technology as a society we are at risk of all the things we don't want to talk about.

I've said it before - the collapse of civilisation as we currently know it is most likely to be from collective nervous breakdown than nuclear annihilation. This situation could trigger civil unrest in any country if infrastructure collapses and also civil opposition to government.

I'm inclined to agree. Purely on the basis of how people went nuts when KFC ran out of chicken.

We've seen how human viruses spread rapidly and how some people are more effected than others. What we could be talking about is a technological version of the same.

We should be taking it seriously.

Being anxious about it, wont make the threat go away. We do need to be vigilant and aware because so many of us work in jobs which involve techology. That puts NHS staff as front line in a cyber war for example.

We NEED awareness on this!

Although Vlad is acting the hard man, Russia's capacity to wage war on multiple fronts would be limited. Western Europe would be a different proposition. Any attacking forces would have to get past multiple hostile NATO powers before they reach us. We can also fight back. Russia does have the nuclear option, but so does NATO, and Russia would suffer terribly in a reprisal (MAD). They also have limited manpower.

This is worth repeating as @Usou is speaking a lot of sense, unlike some of the other posts on this thread.

I feel like Usou is thinking in terms of a war fought with an infantry though i.e attacking forces would have to get through multiple NATO countries. Like they're looking at the Dad's Army map with the big red arrows and seeing how much physical land sits between them and us.

Modern warfare doesn't have to be fought like that (and in fact I think you'd have to be massively underestimating the man and his cohort's intelligence to think it would be).

From what I can gather (and again, I'm not an expert) it feels like certain countries have been slyly provoking this for a long while. Kicking the dog under the table in the hopes it snaps and bites so they can justifiably shoot it. Or even more covertly, take it to the Vet's and have it humanely put down.

Maybe that's not what has been happening at all, but IF IT WAS, that's an act of modern warfare the same as any other. And it did not involve getting past the countless countries which physically sit between the dog and the one kicking it. It did not involve infantry with guns or rolling tanks or mobilising jets, and yet look how effective it's been....

@fghjk

Although Vlad is acting the hard man, Russia's capacity to wage war on multiple fronts would be limited. Western Europe would be a different proposition. Any attacking forces would have to get past multiple hostile NATO powers before they reach us. We can also fight back. Russia does have the nuclear option, but so does NATO, and Russia would suffer terribly in a reprisal (MAD). They also have limited manpower.

This is worth repeating as @Usou is speaking a lot of sense, unlike some of the other posts on this thread.

I feel like Usou is thinking in terms of a war fought with an infantry though i.e attacking forces would have to get through multiple NATO countries. Like they're looking at the Dad's Army map with the big red arrows and seeing how much physical land sits between them and us.

Modern warfare doesn't have to be fought like that (and in fact I think you'd have to be massively underestimating the man and his cohort's intelligence to think it would be).

From what I can gather (and again, I'm not an expert) it feels like certain countries have been slyly provoking this for a long while. Kicking the dog under the table in the hopes it snaps and bites so they can justifiably shoot it. Or even more covertly, take it to the Vet's and have it humanely put down.

Maybe that's not what has been happening at all, but IF IT WAS, that's an act of modern warfare the same as any other. And it did not involve getting past the countless countries which physically sit between the dog and the one kicking it. It did not involve infantry with guns or rolling tanks or mobilising jets, and yet look how effective it's been....

I do see what you mean and agree that the later discussion on cyber warfare is also interesting and there are far more knowledgeable people in this area than I commenting (have now caught up with the full thread.)

DH works in IT security and spent all yesterday with his team suring up systems and removing access to any users in Russia, China and Ukraine but who knows what has already been planted and is out there lurking?

Yes, vigilance and awareness, plus a dose of pragmaticism and a little preparation perhaps. I find a dash of vodka helps..... but am now conflicted... perhaps I'll switch to run, just to help with economic sanctions..... (yes, very dark humour us my coping mechanism, you should hear some of the stuff that's come out of my mouth while organising DPs funeral. If I believed in hell my ticket is stamped already )

Thank you to the people who answered my question about retaliation with cyber attacks, I wonder what we would do, and whether it would then become a more physical conflict.

Hybird modern warfare doesn't need to be within range. You can do it from your bedroom. Your place of work is also more likely to be a target.

Why does anyone want to use a nuke? The fallout will affect you too. And you are liable to ensure an strike on your own popular.

A preemptive cyber strike on a society more dependent than you on technology on the other hand, is less of a risk to yourselves but may have significant strategic benefits. You are far less likely to have domestic unrest.

I remain unconvinced that Russians would have had the same level of drama over KFC...

@MistressoftheDarkSide

Yes, vigilance and awareness, plus a dose of pragmaticism and a little preparation perhaps. I find a dash of vodka helps..... but am now conflicted... perhaps I'll switch to run, just to help with economic sanctions..... (yes, very dark humour us my coping mechanism, you should hear some of the stuff that's come out of my mouth while organising DPs funeral. If I believed in hell my ticket is stamped already )

Icelandic vodka is very good....

Ooh, yes, and also Polish.... phew, I have options..... rum really doesn't do it for me ..... thank you!!

@cherrysthename

Fucking hell I hope no one feeling anxious about this clicked on to the thread in the hopes of rational perspectives. Some posts are shit ya pants scary, and deliberately so.

I agree. Nothing wrong with having an understanding of what might happen, but some posters seem to relish setting out worst case scenarios.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Thank you to the people who answered my question about retaliation with cyber attacks, I wonder what we would do, and whether it would then become a more physical conflict.

Pretty much everything ultimately relies upon technology to run.

Take down energy companies and their smart meters, so no power. No power means not being able to buy anything from shops or stay warm/lights on. No power means computers can’t stay powered and companies cannot work. No power means mobiles can’t be charged and used. No power means emergency services cannot connect and get to places. No power means hospitals don’t have enough back up generators to last long.

And that’s just taking out energy companies. And the older style meters won’t necessarily mean you escape it either. This is before we even have energy supplies to the U.K. limited as well.

A proper cyber attack would be as bad as physical warfare. It’s just different. Just as bad, but different.

Is Putin threatening the USA in the same way he is us? I'm avoiding the news at the minute before anybody suggests I look it up

@Dinosaurs1994 what do you mean? His threat is against anybody who interferes, why do you say he's made a threat against the UK specifically?

A proper cyber attack would be as bad as physical warfare. It’s just different. Just as bad, but different.

Yes, I'm not denying that, but my point was more that if we can't cyber attack to the same degree we might then have to do more physical stuff which would inflame Russia even more. We wouldn't be able to do nothing except react to what Russia did to us.

@Dinosaurs1994

Is Putin threatening the USA in the same way he is us? I'm avoiding the news at the minute before anybody suggests I look it up

From my understanding, he is threatening the rest of the world. It’s not specific to the U.K.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

A proper cyber attack would be as bad as physical warfare. It’s just different. Just as bad, but different.

Yes, I'm not denying that, but my point was more that if we can't cyber attack to the same degree we might then have to do more physical stuff which would inflame Russia even more. We wouldn't be able to do nothing except react to what Russia did to us.

I see what you mean and yes, maybe, although I think we would try other tactics first such as Russia being so reliant upon $ and £ to impact them financially. Is it 50% of their financial trading that is in £/$? If so, that’s a lot. Europe have € so couldn’t do the same but they could still support in other ways. Basically though, if Russia attacks us then that will invoke NATO and it will be war with a large enough number of countries to be considered another world war.

Nothing wrong with having an understanding of what might happen, but some posters seem to relish setting out worst case scenarios.

Indeed. It's like the covid boards all over again with know it all's talking about possibilities as if they're probabilities.

It is concerning, but as I can do zero about it on a personal level I'm just going to get out a reasonably small amount in cash, make sure we have some non perishables in the cupboard, and keep calm and carry on. And not click on any dodgy links.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

A proper cyber attack would be as bad as physical warfare. It’s just different. Just as bad, but different.

Yes, I'm not denying that, but my point was more that if we can't cyber attack to the same degree we might then have to do more physical stuff which would inflame Russia even more. We wouldn't be able to do nothing except react to what Russia did to us.

Your computer, power networks and communications systems are down.

How do you launch the nuke? How do you make the decision to launch the nuke? How do you ensure that the cabinet and Parliament are well informed? And your various defence departments elsewhere in the country.

Whilst these things are likely to be defended, just how well are they defended? And what things outside military control that are also needed to support the launch are vulnerable?

Remember before launching its physical attack in Ukraine, Russia launched a massive cyber attack first to try and knock out some of these things and make it more difficult for Ukraine to fight back.

So this is a legitimate question. It may not have as much impact as this, but you certainly would hamper the PM simply by producing a crisis elsewhere which he needed to deal with urgently simultaneously.

The thing with hybrid warefare is how it creates multiple crisis at the same time in an effort to overwhelm.

Its the overwhelming that compounds any single issue.

@Thewindwhispers

Putin has little interest in Britain and does not want a big war. Putin does however want to be remembered in the history books as the man who recreates the Soviet Union (and preferably also who made Russia the top superpower).

So, Putin has a problem. Many ex Soviet states are now in Nato and if/when he attacks them, he has to deal with all the Nato countries. This makes Putin very angry. (Bit like if Scotland declared independence, then joined the EU, and Britain wanted it back but didn’t want war with the whole EU.) So Putin has devotedbyears to weakening America and Europe: his fingerprints were all over Trump, Farage etc. Now post-covid he reckons Wurope and US are as weak as they’re gonna get so he has invaded Ukraine before it joins Nato, which it has been saying it wants to do.

Bombs will not land in Britain over Ukraine. You might see some retaliatory cyber attacks but let’s face it they do a lot of that anyway - our elections, our vaccine research, etc.

The much more dangerous issue is what happens if/when Putin goes after the countries that are now Nato members: Albania, Romania etc. Bit shocked Britain has vowed to go to war with Russia if needed to protect Albania but there we are.

And the very serious question is: has Putin still got all his marbles?

I was going to post a question asking how people would feel about the UK getting involved in a war if Russia invades a neighbouring country that is in NATO. I think there would be quite a few people unhappy with this, saying that it is nothing to do with us. I'm not of that opinion, as if you are in NATO that is the agreement. You can't choose which members you are willing to help defend , otherwise NATO is meaningless ( which I fully accept might be the case of course)

I desperately don't want Putin to invade a NATO country and I am very doubtful this will happen but if he does, then yes the UK would be in direct danger. I think that is a big IF though and as things stand we are not in any direct danger I'd say

Why have they taken Chernobyl

Think about the damage they can do to the whole of european with that one site
It is absolutely terrifying

@Dinosaurs1994 well the USA is the enemy? Or perhaps more widely the counties who primarily speak English and their clients / friends / allies.

The USA want Ukraine to join NATO which Russia could see as being forced into a lose-lose situation. He's equating NATO's expansion with Hitler's preparation to launch a surprise attack. It's your enemies buying the house directly across the street so they can start filling it with guns "just incase ".

So his lose-lose situation is he either stands by and watches it happen - lets the people he perceives as the enemy who seem to do what they like and wage wars all over the world for any reason they want pitch up on his doorstep... OR he takes aggressive action now before it happens and bargains that the consequences are worth the risk.

He appears to have chosen the later and I think it will all depend on how "we" react to it.

(If I've got this entirely wrong please feel free to correct me! I've had to try and learn all this in the space of a few weeks to understand what's happening but it's obviously a complex subject and most of the MSM talks about this in very simplistic Russia = BAD terms. While of course I agree the details are obviously a lot more nuanced).

@elizabethdraper

Why have they taken Chernobyl

Think about the damage they can do to the whole of european with that one site
It is absolutely terrifying

That was my first thought this morning. Terrifying.

Tbh im largely hoping that we see more of a cold war standoff.

I think the financial stuff will compromise our ability to do more. And thats really what Putin is taking a gamble on.

I don't know that there is reward enough for Russia to invade an EU country (even one outside NATO).

I don't think we will have military level cyber attacks unless Putin feels he has no choice. I think the point is military level cyber attacks are the new nukes to an extent - and its the potential threat of them thats more important than actually using them to their full capacity.

We know that smaller attacks which may or may not be state sanctioned have been going on against the uk for a while.

Its like spying. Both sides know its going on, but dont kick off about it.

What does Putin ultimately want? Is it to expand into Europe? I'm not convinced it is. Is it more because he wants to distract from domestic issues, to create a legacy of Russian power under his control, he wants more influence internationally?

He doesn't need to necessarily move west nor launch a military level cyber attack to achieve that.

Is he an expansionist opportunist or is he a reckless megalomaniac? Thats the big question.

Is he more likely merely to push boundaries, he thinks he can get away with? And how far will the west allow it to continue? A gradual 'mission creep' strategy by Putin is much harder for the West to combat because of western public opinion. Putin has been charged with exacerbating refugee issues in the past to help weaken and destabilise western governments before. So thatd something else I would look out for. Particularly in terms of propaganda.

I think may thoughts would be to actually look further east in terms of how China interrupt this and how they eye up Taiwan which is rumoured to face a full invasion in similar fashion within the next couple of years (china's response to the invasion and the wording they use is interesting).

BUT i do think there is a real risk of a Franz Ferdinand type moment which could trigger a chain of events which could lead to defensive pacts being triggered in quick succession and thing exploding very quickly.

And in that sense thats why we should be taking the threat of cyber attacks much more seriously.