Should we be worried about war

[Seasidesand76]

Seen a lot in the news about Ukraine using USA missiles against Russia. I've been thinking more along the lines that it won't start a WW3 and will resolve at some point without the UK getting directly involved in war. But there seems to be more and more tension and threats of an all out war recently.

Should we be worried about WW3? I haven't been prepping or anything but does make me wonder if I should start getting a few days worth of food in case. At the same time I don't want to go down the prepper hole and start getting over the top.

@Lyannaa Ukraine are not in nato. There is no responsibility to help them. There is responsibility to protect our own citizens though

Russia has shown that if you turn a blind eye to their violent ways, Putin will carry on. It's most certainly in the interests of the UK to make a stand against this. Taking over Ukraine hasn't been the walk in the park that Putin envisaged and that's a good thing because next time he will go after a NATO country if he isn't stopped.

Good, about 2 years too late, hopefully the £500m saved from scrapping two ancient ships can be used to manufacture far more Storm shadows and the Ukrainians can use them to destroy the Russian military.... which will bring Putin to the negotiating table.

We have appeased Russia before, didn't respond and Putin used Plutonium and then nerve agent on UK soil, killing innocent people in horrendous ways, there was enough nerve agent in that perfume bottle to kill everyone in Salisbury.

Moscow backed groups have been launching cyber attacks against the UK, long before Ukraine.

But thats all ok with you, lets hide under our tables and hope Putin will be nice..... worked well with Nazi Germany didn't it?

Educate yourself on the Budapest Memorandum that the UK was a signature to. We most definitely have a legal and a moral obligation to defend Ukraine.

True, we cannot be the worlds Policeman anymore and neither can the Americans.

But Ukraine is in Europe, its in our midst, that gives as a responsibility not just to Ukraine but to the future Europe too.

The UKs future is tied to what happens on the mainland, always has been.

But perhaps i've misunderstood your point.

@Alexandra2001

"But Ukraine is in Europe, it's in our midst, that gives as a responsibility not just to Ukraine but to the future Europe too.

The UKs future is tied to what happens on the mainland, always has been.

But perhaps i've misunderstood your point."

I guess my point is:

If other European countries some with borders much closer to Russia than the UK don't seem bothered about increasing defence spending then why should the UK.

If the UK were to increase support to make up for any US shortfalls then it will simply be UK taxpayers picking up the bill because other European taxpayers don't want to.

I don't think any additional spending from the UK will change the outcome of the war in 2025, so why waste more UK taxpayers money on milk aid.

I certainly agree that the UK should increase its defence spending to 3% and perhaps if Ukraine does have to cede territory for peace in 2025 then this finally be the wake up call Europe needed.

I don't want to be sending British men and women to fight a war that quite frankly other European countries should be dealing with.

I firmly disagree with those who say that unless we stop Putin in Ukraine then before you know the Russians will be in Basingstoke simply because they vaguely remember the 1930s appeasement of the Hitler from their GCSE History. In my opinion a far better historical comparison would be the jingoistic rush to war in the summer of 1914 leading to the First World War and subsequent slaughter.

I feel that those calling for greater UK involvement would be the ones least likely to volunteer themselves and most likely to criticise the conduct of the war once started.

Western involvement in attacking dictators to replace them with Western style stable democracies didn't work out to well in Libya, Syria or Iraq. Freedom of speech and democracy are great ideals but I think most of these people would have preferred stability and peace even if that meant a dictator in charge.

@1dayatatime
Thats an interesting post.

My belief is should Putin take Ukraine, then the danger is he will go for the Baltic states next, they, like Ukraine, have large Russian speaking populations.... he will gamble on NATO not going to war to defend and imho, he would be right... he would build up forces to invade and NATO would not match that build up, giving him the green light.

So, Putin takes the Baltic states, thats then the end of NATO as we know it & Putin may well then take the gamble that he can then use or threaten to use a nuclear to take back more of the old USSR.... knowing full well, we wont respond.... all a worst case scenario.

I wont go into what message this will send China, NK or Iran.

Atm Ukraine is providing the blood and west, the treasury, its not a bad trade off for the UK and others, considering the risks 7 no i don't want UK troops in Ukraine, if we crack on with more support, it needn't happen.

We in Europe all need to up defence spend, i've just been listening to how Russia has used cyber to spread division across the West, it started with Brexit.

Yes 100% on those calling for action wouldn't be the ones being killed and yes, agree that toppling dictators rarely ends well.

"I firmly disagree with those who say that unless we stop Putin in Ukraine then before you know the Russians will be in Basingstoke simply because they vaguely remember the 1930s appeasement of the Hitler from their GCSE History. In my opinion a far better historical comparison would be the jingoistic rush to war in the summer of 1914 leading to the First World War and subsequent slaughter."

The WW1 comparison is a lot more off than the WW2 one (which also isn't great) @1dayatatime

For the last 10 years, and particularly since the start of Russia's latest war against Ukraine, Putin has framed the West in general and the USA and UK in particular as the real enemy of Russia. It's one of the pillars of his presidency and absolutely central to the way that the Russian state represents Russian national identity to its citizens. War against the West and in particular against the evil "Anglosaksy" is the main ideology of the Russian state now. That's not going to change until the Russian government changes.

Putin and his circle despise weakness - see it as something to be exploited - and see any backing down as weakness (this is where the comparison with Hitler has some validity). Any withdrawal from support for Ukraine is going to be understood by Putin as the main Russian enemy showing weakness. That's really not a position the UK wants to put itself in.

@Alexandra2001

My belief is that in 2025 and assuming Trump winds down or pulls military support for Ukraine then Putin will end up taking the parts of Ukraine already under Russian control or if Zelensky refuses to accept such a"peace deal" then he will take more land and install a puppet government in the remainder of Ukraine.

The European states will wail about being abandoned by the US and how it's all the fault of the US.

But ultimately Trump won't care and respond that it's not the job of US taxpayers to provide security to European taxpayers who don't want to pay up.

You will then see an uptick from some European states on military spending and European NATO troops being deployed in the Baltic countries. The French and Germans may finally make progress on an "EU Army".

After the mauling Russia has suffered in Ukraine and the risk of starting a war with a NATO country then personally I don't think Russia will make an overt attack on the Baltics or Poland. But I can see more Russian involvement in the Grey Zone.

But to be blunt IMO it is now too late to defeat Russia and expel Russian troops from Ukraine (if it ever was possible). Far better to cut a deal sooner rather than later to avoid more bloodshed and billions of dollars.

But sending an increase in UK aid will make no difference to the outcome, risk escalation and waste UK taxpayers money. Far better to spend that money on building up the UK military.

@WarProf

"Putin and his circle despise weakness - see it as something to be exploited - and see any backing down as weakness (this is where the comparison with Hitler has some validity). Any withdrawal from support for Ukraine is going to be understood by Putin as the main Russian enemy showing weakness. That's really not a position the UK wants to put itself in"

Actually I think Putin and his circle are more interested in cash than anything else and war is bad for business.

Ultimately it is up to each country to decide how much they wish to spend on defence which in turn is influenced by perceived threat.

But it is not the UK taxpayers job to pay for security to European taxpayers that don't want to pay the bill. Especially when the UK geographically is the least at risk of attack by Russia.

"Actually I think Putin and his circle are more interested in cash than anything else and war is bad for business."
This is not correct @1dayatatime . Putin is more interested in survival than anything else. He's reportedly obsessed with not ending up like Gaddafi, the footage of whose lynching he's said to have watched dozens of times. For Putin, survival means staying in power. Staying in power now means keeping the country on a war footing (though the specifics of that may change). The West-as-existential-threat is the excuse for that.

The Russian political/military/security elite sees the West simultaneously as the main enemy - the great existential threat to Russia - and as a bunch of spineless cucks to be taken advantage of. This is not a situation that can be negotiated away by changing policy back to a more Putin-friendly one.

"But it is not the UK taxpayers job to pay for security to European taxpayers that don't want to pay the bill. Especially when the UK geographically is the least at risk of attack by Russia."

As a European member of NATO, it's our bill, too. The states closest to Russia mostly spend a significantly higher proportion of their GDP on defence than we do - Poland spends 4%, for example.

The UK is not the least at risk of attack by Russia. It's vulnerable to conventional naval and air threats and, more immediately, it's highly vulnerable to sub-threshold attacks on critical infrastructure, as security experts in and outside government have been saying for a long time.

This was true before Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine - the 2021 Integrated Review (the UK's current national security strategy) described Russia as "the most acute direct threat to the UK" - and it's even more true now.

@WarProf

The UK is not the least at risk of attack by Russia. It's vulnerable to conventional naval and air threats

Agreed..in some ways it’s certainly more vulnerable to the air threat than some European countries further East.

@1dayatatime But if Trump pulls aid, why would Putin stop?

With no US Patriots & the billions in arms that dwarfs anything from Europe, he will just keep taking land, he will have zero interest in peace.

But he will have learnt a very important lesson that "the US will abandon Europe"

He will then go for the Baltics but not Poland, too big and a much better military than Ukraine had initially & would bring in Germany, NATO or not, which would then mean France and UK join in too.
Plus 100s of 1000s of Ukrainian soldiers willing to fight the Russians too.

However, my own belief is Trump wont abandon Ukraine, its not in the USA's interests to do so, i also don't think he will do much of what he said he would to get elected.

A caveat is i thought Harris would win........

From the Goodfellows podcast this week on why this matters to the US

“And so to think for a moment that you can allow Vladimir Putin to be victorious in Europe and believe that you're going to push back against General Secretary Xi in Asia is, in my judgment, just hopelessly naive. And as a practitioner, it's practically impossible because your friends won't trust you and your adversaries will think, I know how to create fissures in the American system and I know how to compartmentalize risk. And they will begin to move in the places that are more difficult for America to respond.

And so you can't allow the result of this. However, this ends in Europe, the result of this cannot look like a Putin victory. And when I say that, that's for America.

It can't be a Putin victory for the United States of America because the second and third order implications in, think about this, in South America, where the Chinese are building ports, in Mexico, where the Chinese, like this is close stuff with Russian ships off of Cuba. Wait, this is not some far away concept and they are all working together. The Venezuelans, the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians.”

@Alexandra2001

"However, my own belief is Trump wont abandon Ukraine, its not in the USA's interests to do so, i also don't think he will do much of what he said he would to get elected."

I fully agree that what Trump says and what actually happens are two different things- after all he said that Mexico would pay for the wall.

Has any military analyst been saying this also?

Its the first time i ve heard anyone suggesting Russia would attack the UK with conventional forces ie bomb Devonport, sink HMS QE etc etc.

That would trigger or could bring about a NATO response against Russia & if it didn't it would be the end of NATO.

Do you really think Russia would risk this?

I don't doubt Russia would use other methods of attack, ones that can have some level of deniability but not a bombing raid.

I'm just wondering however if it's intelligent to announce a 500 million cut to the defence budget at this time?

No I’m definitely not saying I think that’s a possibility.

What I am trying to do is address the claim that somehow (?geography) the Uk is safer from attack than mainland Europe…

Never hurts to have a few days of bottled water and vans of food, pasta, rice etc for any kind of emergency. In war a few days worth of supplies might not last long but could tide you over until good parcels from Red Cross or clean water supplies arrive. My sister had a mains pipe burst in her town and was left four or five days without water. Fortunately there were a few bottles in the shops and other drinks left, but supplied were running out fast. This was in the South of England , a developed country, and she had no water for four of five days. This was one of the things that prompted me to stock up on water. I have a cupboard full of those cheap aldi big bottles.

Floods, storms, power cuts are other things worth considering . I remember being warned about possible cyberattacks from Russia on banks and building societies so a few days worth of cash is helpful. Get a safe or locked cash box for it or keep in your handbag at all times so it's safe from burglars. Of course if your house and handbag are blasted by a missile, that won't be much good but then again a bank could be blasted. You do what you can. I don't think we are at the missile stage yet in the UK, hopefully not!

Oh please. Have you never heard the phrase ‘To the Victor the Spoils’ ? What do you think the real reasons for the war with Iraq were, given that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found ? Not to mention how the contracts for rebuilding after war are meted out. War is good for the economy - that’s a fact, whether you like it or not.

Putin has just successfully attacked Ukraine with intermediate range ballistic missiles. He has specifically said that he considers the UK and USA to have not heeded his words when the invasion of Ukraine took place. Which were, that Russia reserves the right to respond proportionately against any state which supplies weapons used to strike at Russia and posing an existential threat to the state itself.

Biden approved the use of missiles built by the UK and supplied by the USA. They have been used by Ukraine to hit deep into Russia. Putin has stated that NATO countries were involved in the building and supply of these missiles, and also in the programming and firing of them - saying that Ukraine doesn’t have the capability to do either. He has threatened to carry out what he said he would in the beginning - to attack proportionately against military installations in the UK and USA. Military experts have said they don’t doubt the Russian capability to do this. Putin has signed into law an escalation of the conflict by approving the use of nuclear weapons in response to any existential threat - nuclear or not. He’s not threatening directly to nuke anyone now, but the West will see any attack against a NATO country, even with conventional weapons, as an attack on the alliance and there will be a response. This could give him the excuse he needs to go nuclear against Ukraine. As one BBC reporter put it yesterday, Putin has stated his intentions and it’s the clearest indication yet that he’s now prepared to act. It’s up to the West to decide if we believe that.

I never thought Harris would win, unfortunately. She ran an absolutely vapid campaign.

If we’re so convinced MAD keeps us safe, why are NATO countries stopping short of putting boots on the ground in Ukraine ? Mutually Assured Destruction only works if all the state actors are in agreement. Putin is the renegade here. Which is why the rest of the world has stepped back. Same would have happened if Hitler had had nukes.

Putin has shown time and time again he needs no excuses, reports say that both India and China have said their support is conditional on him not using Nuclear, any such weapon would lead to another GFC, not what China needs right now.

2 ships, so worn out that they couldn't be bought back into service, drones that keep breaking down and helicopters that are 50 years old....

A v good decision to stop wasting money on these things AND no job losses, the 500m will stay within the MOD budget, so its not a cut at all.

the daily mail though will use anything to attack Labour on, it's a great shame they never reported on the cuts to UK military over the last 14 years.