To think that preparing for war with Russia is total madness?

[Newbutoldfather]

General Patrick Sanders, our top general, warns troops ‘must be prepared to fight Russia in the battlefield’.

There is increasing acceptance of the idea that we could somehow fight a limited war with Russia. I just don’t believe this.

Leaving aside that our military consists of a toy battleship and an old man with a wooden gun (only slight hyperbole), have people wished nukes away?

I am very curious as to what this war would look like. Are they envisaging that there would be a limited battlefield and a list of allowed weapons and that the loser would shake hands and walk away?

I think we are perilously close to the total annihilation of Homo sapiens (which would happen in a nuclear war). We, meaning the west and, especially, the increasingly jingoistic UK, need to dial back the rhetoric and look for a way to find peace, even if we have to compromise on our principles.

Interested in what people think and whether people do think that AIBU.

It’s not our choice as @WhatsTheUseOfWorrying puts well but aggressors can expand drawing in allies to defend

@jasflowers ,

We wouldn’t really be dictating, just stating the limits of our support. We didn’t dictate to the Afghans that the Taliban were gifted power again, we just (disgracefully) withdrew our support for the elected government.

There is a lot of subtle background to this which goes back to the 1990s, when Russia asked to join NATO, and were told to ‘get in line’, and when the western banks economically pillaged a weakened Russia.

Also, NATO (potentially) positioning nukes in Ukraine is somewhat analogous to the Cuban missile crisis. We may ‘know’ that we are ‘peace loving’ and never the aggressor (Iraq, anyone?), but Russia doesn’t and has a paranoid leadership.

Trump could well be good here (much as I dislike him). As two aging Mafioso-type leaders, he ‘gets’ Putin. He will give him respect but also be unafraid to flex his muscle (which just isn’t the same as UK jingoistic posturing). I suspect he may well solve the problem with the type of deal I (and many real military experts) outlined above.

The only way to win this war is to do a deal and slowly separate the Russian people from the leadership via trade and allowing them to join in the global wealth. This will go on a long time after Putin is dead.

I’m surprised some posters think there will be peace if the West lets Russia take Ukraine. The West didn’t really intervene when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Did that satisfy Russia, or did it embolden them to keep on pushing?

There’s an old saying by Lenin about probing for land mines. Putin allegedly follows it:

“You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw.”

@Newbutoldfather
If you re right, then we should never have offered any support to Ukraine, would have prevented all that destruction and loss of life, just let Russia have the place because thats what you seem to want now.

So i assume should Putin have then wanted back the Baltic states, let him.

Bear in mind this would have been happening in 2022/23 had we not given any munitions.

Agree NATO/US Nukes in Ukraine was stupid but it wasn;'t going to happen, thats just an excuse, like the one that their is a Nazi Govt in Ukraine.

Trump wont deal with Putin, Trump isn't a leader is is a property developer (not a good one) and TV host, its also possible that Putin has damaging intel on Trump, DT will take the USA out of NATO and begin an era of US isolation.

That wont be good for Europe, though it might force the UK back into the EU, to start rebuilding Europes defences.

It is a problem for sure, as the UK, like quite a lot of European countries (but not all, mine has always been prepared for Russia), unwisely reduced defence spending, but it being difficult doesn't make it any less necessary.

@jasflowers ,

If we had a war against scarecrows (straw men), I’d really want you on my side!

I have not once suggested ceding Ukraine to Russia, merely negotiating over maybe 10% of the territory in return for the security of the rest of it.

And as for bringing Brexit into this, that is a total joke. The EU singly failed to keep their military up-to-date, relying on a massive hidden U.S subsidy for its deterrent. Without sheltering under the petticoats of U.S troops stationed in Europe and the NATO (aka U.S) nuclear deterrent (maybe France is an honourable exception here as a nuclear power), Putin could have walked across the plains of Germany facing German troops who had drilled with wooden weapons.

Op can you tell me one agreement russia had adhered to?

I'm sure there must be one

Or do you think they'll suddenly join the 21st century and act like rational people if "we" broker a deal

Lol !

Well, i'm all for realism!
You re very first sentence in the post i was replying too talked about Afghan and the Taliban...

The Russia speaking portion of Ukraine is around 25%, if you wish to hand over that now, what on earth was the point in 2 years of war??? (Why do you think Putin would settle for 10%)

I never mentioned Brexit but shd Trump withdraw from NATO, its going to be pretty obv Europe will need to manage its own defence and the UK will be part of that, would we be effective in or out of the EU doing that or not?

The EU isn't responsible for defence, thats a nation state matter, that some countries inc the UK have run down their militaries isn't on the EU at all.

As for the EU having a military force? they haven't, they've a border force but thats it.

BUT a NATO with no USA in it will mean the EU will play an increasing large part of Europes defence.

I just hope Putin dies soon and Russia get someone more sensible in charge.

Armenia is already besieged and could lose territory. But nobody gives a crap because they are not threatened by Russia. Their problem is Turkey- as ever - and Azerbaijan.

My mjm grew up with actual school drills with gas masks and evacuations. Even she is calmer than that...

I’m surprised some posters think there will be peace if the West lets Russia take Ukraine.

...

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

...

Post-war peacetime is over for Europe.
EU society including ourselves is going to have to come to terms with the fact the drums of war are now sounding.
Western civilisation is being tested and challenged, the politicians, the media and certainly the general population at the moment seem ignorant of this stark fact.
We've become self-indulgent and weak.

@Missamyp (or anyone els),

I am curious as to what you think NATO vs Russia in 2027 would look like.

And what would victory look like?

I don't think we need to prepare for actual battles with Russia, but we absolutely need our detergents 100% in place and ready to go. Russia does not attack nations it thinks are strong but it does take advantage if it sees a crack of weakness, so we just need to look strong. It has happened for thousands of years with the people from that direction, like Atilla the Hon and Gengis Khan.

Post-war peacetime is over for Europe.

Since various European countries have enthusiastically bombed everywhere from Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan to the former Yugoslavia etc etc, it's hard to see that we deserve anything else.

I think the appetite for NATO's wars might be diminished among the Daily Mail reading brigade once we have experienced them firsthand.

A bloody stalemate, technically we're in a proxy war in the Ukraine and the Middle East.
The Baltics, Finland, and Poland are preparing for war.
The Russians are currently testing the West's military capability. They're currently running a war economy.
What are we doing, moaning about the cost of living, Raac and the weather amongst other self-indulgent nonsense!

I think the appetite for NATO's wars might be diminished among the Daily Mail reading brigade once we have experienced them firsthand.

The whole aim of having nuclear weapons is to keep your mother/fatherland safe, while you jolly off round the world doing what you want to countries that don't have nuclear weapons. That's been UK defence policy since 1945

@Missamyp ,

A bloody stalemate where?

Do you think that if Russia attacked Poland, that we would have all of NATO and Russia fighting merely in Poland, no attacking of factories in Russia, the UK and Uk, and even America.

And what do you see China doing while this is happening?

IMO, a NATO/Russia war would inevitably escalate. And, as many people have correctly said, Russia is no match for NATO in a conventional war, so their only option is strategic nukes, and relatively early, before we take out their command and control.

The fantasy of tank battles across the plains of Eastern Europe is just that-a fantasy.

We already have all the deterrent we need against any incursion into NATO, in fact our (really the U.S) army would overwhelm Russia in days.

The idea that any war is going to be over in days is a fantasy.
The West, in particular the EU has no industrial capability to produce weapons on a scale to support a war. This is what the NATO military chiefs are getting at.
The West has often laughed at other nation states capability to wage war, we have Vietnam and Afghanistan as modern proof that this mindset is a mistake.

What would Russia gain from attacking Poland? Why would Russia want to pull NATO into a conflict? Yes, it's very dangerous because war is unpredictable and there may be black swan events. But barring this let's hope that the red line is recognised and respected by both sides precisely because of an awareness of the consequences of a 21st century great power war. China too.

Iran and NK, who knows

The West, in particular the EU has no industrial capability to produce weapons on a scale to support a war.

Despite having been ruled by the military industrial complex since 1945 ...

Ultimately, no one wants to nuke anyone really though. The consequences which would land at the door of the first nuker as well would be too dire really for everyone. And everyone is aware of that.

America is incredibly good at taking nations, just not holding them against the wishes of the people, which is always tricky and not merely about the military.

It doesn’t take long to retool factories to produce weapons. America already have plenty of capacity and Germany could turn their auto factories around in weeks if they really wanted to, which they don’t for Ukraine.

Russia is a tiny economy globally speaking.

I don’t think they have any desire to come into conflict with NATO. They know how it would go, either absent of nukes or, even worse, with them.

So, going back to my OP, why the stupid and risky jingoism from the UK (and my post was about the UK, not the U.S, who are a genuine player) political and military establishment?

Because deterrence. Projection of strength. To and beyond Russia.