Russia invades Ukraine

[DarloRich]

That’s got nothing to do with the inaccurate retelling of history that I was responding to. There was no credible direct threat of invasion when the UK declared war on Germany.

But that wasn't why we declared war. We declared war because an ally, to whom we had given a security guarantee (albeit a worthless one in practice), was invaded

 

[najaB]

I can. Just as that position was the default 85 years ago - and that was with a supportive President with activist advisors, not the America First President supported by similar advisors.

The President and his advisors, maybe, but that would be fatally unpopular with the majority of US citizens.

 

[Noddy]

But that wasn't why we declared war. We declared war because an ally, to whom we had given a security guarantee (albeit a worthless one in practice), was invaded

Absolutely, that’s the point! It was not me that was trying to reframe history in that way. We didn’t declare war as an act of self-defence or because we were under direct threat of invasion.

 

[JamesT]

Um, Russia doesn't have any cruise missiles that could be launched from the main Russian territory that could hit the U.K.

And conventional normally means non-nuclear warheads.

Do you actually mean ICBM? Or do you mean air launched cruise missiles?

Whichever, that is still extremely unlikely, as I have outlined already earlier today in this topic even if we sent forces to fight alongside the Ukrainian forces in the front line. Which I have not actually said in any of my recent posts.

They have cruise missiles that can be ship or submarine launched with a 1500km range. A frigate in the North Atlantic could easily hit London.

 

[Annetts key]

They have cruise missiles that can be ship or submarine launched with a 1500km range. A frigate in the North Atlantic could easily hit London.

That is a possibility. Although I suspect if we and our friends that also have a navy and/or air force did think that Russian warships would try something, patrols would be increased to try to intercept any attempt.

The Royal Navy and RAF already keep a close eye on the movements of Russian aircraft and navy vessels. Both official Russian navy warships and Russian fishing vessels that are actually sky/intellence gathering ships.

The Russian navy has not exactly covered itself in glory. Money for keeping ships and submarines properly maintained has been limited. So how many are really fully operational is unknown.

A new large military tug (so big it has a helicopter pad) capsized this month long before fitting out and commissioning work has been completed. And Russia has given up on repair work to bring their one and only aircraft carrier back into service.

Now, of course we should never underestimate the Russian navy. But as I said before, the chances of Russia attacking us with a nuclear weapon is extremely low.

 

[Cloud Strife]

A European led attack on the ground in Ukraine would likely be disastrous

It depends how the attack was formed. If it was a proper NATO attack, with air support and all the rest of it, Russia would likely end up just throwing men at the problem, causing horrific casualties on their part, combined with them not having any real way to fight back. We know their air defences are pathetic outside of a few key areas, and they don't have anywhere near the level of surveillance capabilities that European NATO members have. If the attack was also coordinated to remove the Grodno Region from the equation through stirring up local Poles (to link up with Poles in the Vilnius and Podlasie regions) against the Belarusian government and with Polish military support, then it would be even worse for Russia.

Right now, the only reason why Russia is able to advance is that they simply have the manpower to do so. They don't think anything of sending 10 men forwards and ending up with 1 or 2 left, who can secure 50-100m in advance before reinforcements arrive. It's no longer a war of armour, but a war of meters, and Russia is still nowhere near taking the whole of the Donetsk Oblast. The problem for Ukraine is that they can go on like this indefinitely, whereas Ukraine will face having to conscript women at some point to operate drones on the front-ish lines.

I further wonder how many of those pushing for direct involvement might think differently if they were diving into the Tube to hide away as air raid sirens were blaring. It's easy to come across as brave behind a keyboard, but when it's you under attack...

I can say it straight: I'm a dual British / (naturalised) Polish citizen, and I have absolutely no interest in going to war or even joining the territorial defences here in PL. I could be persuaded if the WOT (Wojska Obrony Terytorialnej - Territorial Defence Force) had something that would suit my knowledge and skills, but I have no interest in crawling around in mud for two weeks or being a general infantry goon. I know my way around a computer, I know a thing or two about marketing and the different psychology of working with "Westerners" vs "Easterners", but to hell with crawling around a muddy field and being shot at. It doesn't interest me, but well, this is what the territorial defences want from their recruits. I don't mind learning to handle a gun, but I'm not giving up two weeks of my life to sleep in barracks and eat lousy food.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2025 ==

The Russian navy has not exactly covered itself in glory. Money for keeping ships and submarines properly maintained has been limited. So how many are really fully operational is unknown.

The Russian Navy is pretty much in a state of crisis right now. The Black Sea Fleet has been demolished and will likely never pose a threat again, and who knows in what state the rest of the Russian Navy is in. The sinking of the Moskva was a huge shock, yet she was nearly 40 years old by the time Ukraine sent her to her doom. They lost the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, and they even lost the Kapitan Ushakov before it was completed.

 

[Yew]

The one and only circumstances under which I would find it acceptable for boots to be placed on the ground would be if that was led by the United States, because Russia would be unlikely to directly attack them because they'd get worse back. Russia at present would be scared of the USA, but not of the comparatively puny UK military.

Nobody is suggesting that the UK goes in alone.

A European led attack on the ground in Ukraine would likely be disastrous - far worse for Western European countries than Putin recreating the situation as it was pre-1990, and I don't think he'd even get that far.

Why so, given that without our assistance, Ukraine has been pretty-much holding back everything that Russia can throw at it, throwing some of the world's most well-equipped militaries into the mix seems like a recipe for battlefield success.

To pre-empt what I think you're going to say, you said the Attack would be a disaster, so that puts nuclear activities out of scope for the discussion.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I am not willing to lay my life down for Ukraine, no chance, whether that be by going to war myself or whether it be a bomb dropped on my home.

Nobody has been saying that you have to.

I further wonder how many of those pushing for direct involvement might think differently if they were diving into the Tube to hide away as air raid sirens were blaring. It's easy to come across as brave behind a keyboard, but when it's you under attack...

The assets that Russia can summon to undertake those types of actions are severely limited, any planes have to go over lots of NATO airspace, and the submarine assets that Russia can field are realistically Soviet Antiques. Quite simply, this Blitz imagery is not based in reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2025 ==

They have cruise missiles that can be ship or submarine launched with a 1500km range. A frigate in the North Atlantic could easily hit London.

It would be in range, certainly, but missiles are regularly shot down, and we have plenty of ways of doing so.

 

[najaB]

A European led attack on the ground in Ukraine would likely be disastrous

Why would Europe be leading an attack in Ukraine? If there was any shooting it would be us defending Ukraine from a Russian attack.

 

[Annetts key]

A European led attack on the ground in Ukraine would likely be disastrous - far worse for Western European countries than Putin recreating the situation as it was pre-1990, and I don't think he'd even get that far.

Why? Any operations by Western forces are likely to be air warfare and/or support and logistics well behind the front line.

Only if a peace deal was agreed would our army likely go 'boots on the ground' in the disputed areas.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I am not willing to lay my life down for Ukraine, no chance, whether that be by going to war myself or whether it be a bomb dropped on my home. It's different from World War 2; in that there was a credible direct threat of invasion to the United Kingdom if no action was taken. In this case there is not. Russia has no interest in actually invading the UK and no evidence exists to the contrary.

I further wonder how many of those pushing for direct involvement might think differently if they were diving into the Tube to hide away as air raid sirens were blaring. It's easy to come across as brave behind a keyboard, but when it's you under attack...

Err, unless you are already in the military or volunteer, you will not be sent to Ukraine. Only our professional forces and maybe some territorial army soldiers would be sent. They would not want untrained people going.

The likelihood of a Russian bomb, shell or missile falling on you is extremely small.

Do you actually know what happened in parts of the U.K. during WWII?
My dad, in the house where he lived as a child, had to evacuate with the rest of the family, as an incendiary came down the chimney. None of the family were hurt, as it never went off. After bombing the nearby city, the German aircraft would unload whatever they had left over our town as they returned to Germany.

Both my grandfather's worked in the RAF. Neither were pilots. One was a logistics driver and on one supply run in Europe (I can't remember where), found some Germans firing at his truck even though he was well behind the front line.

Both survived the war.

I have never served myself. And where I live, we have no Tube so nowhere to run to if my part of the country was attacked.

Besides, if forces friendly to Ukraine were fighting against the Russians, they would be far too busy to worry about trying to do more than a small number of symbolic attacks on the U.K.. They simply would not have the resources. Ukraine has already destroyed or severely damaged many of the Russian long range bombers.

And the RAF and other friendly air forces would have a field day shooting down any that try to enter the airspace of the U.K./N.A.TO. countries.

 

[Mogster]

I’d be most concerned about an unconventional “Spider Web” type attack on UK airbases, at home or abroad. As UK airbases appear to have no air defence then they would seem to be very vulnerable. Our air force is small and mostly crowded onto a few sites, several drones with small explosive packages could do a huge ammount of damage to expensive aircraft.

Hopefully GCHQ are on the case and would catch a whiff if something like that was in the offing.

 

[martin butler]

Nothings stopping any European force from aiding the Ukrainian forces on the ground The Poles especially have very good reason to hate Russians, but also to wish to stop Russian plans for any more advancing on other countries,

same can be said for every other country that suffered under the Soviet rule, post WW2, I think the threat of Russia using Nuclear, or chemical weapons, is more postering than actual threat, tactically, they would ensure Russia loses, in a big way, plus, there is always the chance of the fall out being blown back over their own people,

and then, there would be the response, Nato would send in its QRS units, battle groups, with full support, and Russian forces in Ukraine, would be wiped out in 48 hours, and their ability to wage war ended, A singe cruise missile hitting any UK target would see an immediate NATO response,
And if it were nuclear, that's game over, either way, there would be an overwhelming response .

 

[Bletchleyite]

The likelihood of a Russian bomb, shell or missile falling on you is extremely small.

I don't wish it to be anything other than effective zero. I'm not up for increasing it even slightly for someone else's war.

Do you actually know what happened in parts of the U.K. during WWII?
My dad, in the house where he lived as a child, had to evacuate with the rest of the family, as an incendiary came down the chimney. None of the family were hurt, as it never went off. After bombing the nearby city, the German aircraft would unload whatever they had left over our town as they returned to Germany.

This is not a scenario I find acceptable unless there is a direct threat to the UK of invasion or of significant mass-casualty events requiring us to fight Russia for our own defence.

I am not willing to risk scenarios like this for someone else's war. I am not pro-Russia, but I do get fed up of interventionism which have very rarely been to our genuine benefit on the world stage.

 

[Tester]

I don't wish it to be anything other than effective zero. I'm not up for increasing it even slightly for someone else's war.



This is not a scenario I find acceptable unless there is a direct threat to the UK of invasion or of significant mass-casualty events requiring us to fight Russia for our own defence.

I am not willing to risk scenarios like this for someone else's war. I am not pro-Russia, but I do get fed up of interventionism which have very rarely been to our genuine benefit on the world stage.

Presumably you are anti-NATO then, and feel that each country should solely look after its own interests,

I think Putin would be ok with that!

 

[Annetts key]

I don't wish it to be anything other than effective zero. I'm not up for increasing it even slightly for someone else's war.

There is no such thing as zero risk or effective zero risk. Doing nothing may and likely will affect the risk of other things happening that are very likely to be to our disadvantage.

And it's not just "someone else's war", the U.K. has a strong relationship with Ukraine (see this Wikipedia article). Our government has agreed to provide Ukraine with assistance to help them in the war against Russia. Russia being an enemy as far as our country is concerned. At the moment, as I understand it, Ukraine has not asked for us to help with troops to fight on the front line.

This is not a scenario I find acceptable unless there is a direct threat to the UK of invasion or of significant mass-casualty events requiring us to fight Russia for our own defence.

I am not willing to risk scenarios like this for someone else's war. I am not pro-Russia, but I do get fed up of interventionism which have very rarely been to our genuine benefit on the world stage.

You do understand that the U.K. military is not just for the defence of Great Britain and Northern Ireland don't you? It's for the defence of all of territory that is still part of the (former) British Empire. Including various islands.

And as part of N.A.T.O. we have certain obligations should another N.A.T.O. member request assistance.

And it's not interventionism if we are asked by the government of a country to assist.

 

[najaB]

I don't wish it to be anything other than effective zero. I'm not up for increasing it even slightly for someone else's war.

It might be in another country, but it is most certainly our war. Putin's Russia is, unfortunately, an enemy of the collective West with which Ukraine is allied.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do understand that the U.K. military is not just for the defence of Great Britain and Northern Ireland don't you? It's for the defence of all of territory that is still part of the (former) British Empire. Including various islands.

Yes I know full well what it's for, and I'd prefer it was kept to being for that.

And as part of N.A.T.O. we have certain obligations should another N.A.T.O. member request assistance.

That is also true.

And it's not interventionism if we are asked by the government of a country to assist.

It's getting involved in other peoples' wars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

It might be in another country, but it is most certainly our war. Putin's Russia is, unfortunately, an enemy of the collective West with which Ukraine is allied.

Not one we need to take on militarily, not least because that war is unwinnable due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

 

[edwin_m]

Leaving aside the moral issue, it's strongly in the interests of all of Europe, including the UK, that Ukraine is willing and able to resist Russian aggression. They have a large and experienced army strategically positioned to pin down Russian forces and would probably take the opportunity to strike back if those forces were transferred away from the Ukrainian theatre to some adventure elsewhere. They are also the world leaders in drone warfare.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't wish it to be anything other than effective zero. I'm not up for increasing it even slightly for someone else's war.

Even if it is "someone else's war" if Ukraine falls, will it still be someone else's war when Russia inevitable nibbles off the Baltic States? NATO and European allies. Or when it comes for other parts of Eastern Europe? Also NATO and European allies? Or are you actually in favour of withdrawing from NATO and going it alone? You say that you don't think we should make any sacrifices for the national defence but your argument is one which would require huge amounts of additional defence expenditure over and above that which is already required due to our chronic underinvestment over decades. Quite apart from creating a more dangerous world.

You've said before you want to avoid a nuclear war at any cost (a goal which I reckon most would agree with!) but by leaving countries like Ukraine or the Balts out to dry what do you think that encourages other states with large hostile neighbours to do? What do you think Taiwan, South Korea or Japan will do if they think they cannot rely on the West to back them up? Is a nuclear war more or less likely if we add three more countries to the nuclear club? What about Türkiye? If they think that NATO might not be worth the paper its written on? Saudi Arabia if they think that they might be abandoned to the whims of Shia Iran? If Ukraine falls you're inviting nuclear proliferation on a scale not seen since the 1950s or 1960s.

This isn't an argument by me to send the troops into Ukraine and directly fight the Russians. But your view that anything that even increases the risk of a confrontation by miniscule amount because it's "someone else's war" is, in fact, doing the precise opposite. It's in all our interests to ramp up our defence capability and capacity (both here and for Europe as a whole) because doing so allows us to both better support Ukraine in the face of an untrustworthy United States but also because it reinforces deterrence of Russia and makes others who might look enviously as their neighbours think twice if they know that doing so is likely to lead to their neighbour receiving large amount of lethal aid.

Doing that might require some sacrifices (i.e. it might well mean some higher taxes and/or spending restraint) but it seems like its far more likely to achieve your objective of avoiding a serious war than just saying "I wish the risk to be zero therefore we should do nothing and avoid any involvement with matters other than those that are kinetically impacting on the UK".

 

[CMS1]

It's getting involved in other peoples' wars.

I assume you're glad that America got involved in WW1 & 2, neither of which were 'theirs'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've said before you want to avoid a nuclear war at any cost (a goal which I reckon most would agree with!) but by leaving countries like Ukraine or the Balts out to dry what do you think that encourages other states with large hostile neighbours to do? What do you think Taiwan, South Korea or Japan will do if they think they cannot rely on the West to back them up?

There is no possible way we should get involved with regard to whatever happens in Taiwan. That is DEFINITELY not our war and carries even more risk of progressing to global conflict than this!

In effect that would be putting us at war with China. China is a far more effective fighting force than Russia.

Is that fair? No, but it's pragmatic.

This isn't an argument by me to send the troops into Ukraine and directly fight the Russians. But your view that anything that even increases the risk of a confrontation by miniscule amount because it's "someone else's war" is, in fact, doing the precise opposite. It's in all our interests to ramp up our defence capability and capacity (both here and for Europe as a whole) because doing so allows us to both better support Ukraine in the face of an untrustworthy United States but also because it reinforces deterrence of Russia and makes others who might look enviously as their neighbours think twice if they know that doing so is likely to lead to their neighbour receiving large amount of lethal aid.

Doing that might require some sacrifices (i.e. it might well mean some higher taxes and/or spending restraint) but it seems like its far more likely to achieve your objective of avoiding a serious war than just saying "I wish the risk to be zero therefore we should do nothing and avoid any involvement with matters other than those that are kinetically impacting on the UK".

I don't have an issue with increasing taxation to fund higher defence spending should that be necessary to defend the borders of the United Kingdom, though I do have a problem with cuts - we have cut far too far already and need to be reinstating some spending on public services, not cutting it further. However, that is for defence. Getting involved in wars in other countries is not defence.

To be fair, I do take a rather Swiss line on the approach to this, so I suspect we may need to agree to differ (though it's not like Switzerland, a respected European country, doesn't agree with me!). But if every country took the Swiss line, wars would be small and quickly over because they would and could only ever be between two countries and not anyone else.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

I assume you're glad that America got involved in WW1 & 2, neither of which were 'theirs'.

That's probably the one war that their involvement was welcome in. I can't think of any wars they have got involved in since where it wouldn't have been better if they hadn't.

As for the question of NATO, I'm indeed not quite sure what it's for now. It was basically a means by which all the nuclear weapons of all NATO countries could be pointed at the Soviet Union if that started to misbehave. But Russia now isn't the Soviet Union (it's arguably as much of a problem, but in different ways) and the old approaches demonstrably no longer work, so I'm really not sure which way NATO should go. I probably would say that without the might of the United States it's of very little value at all. I think I lean towards the idea that if the US did withdraw that disbanding it and replacing it with a European Union military force might be a better way to go, ideally with us as a member, though that's probably one for another day!

 

[CMS1]

Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands etc. took the Swiss line in WW2. It didn't work. Thankfully some countries took a different line and saved them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands etc. took the Swiss line in WW2. It didn't work. Thankfully some countries took a different line and saved them.

Hitler sought to invade those countries, though. Putin does have an interest in recreating the Soviet Union in some sense, but he has no interest in Western Europe or the UK. It's not the same, not even slightly.

I can't even see him wanting East Germany back to be honest. He can barely run his own country, what would he do with it?

 

[ainsworth74]

There is no possible way we should get involved with regard to whatever happens in Taiwan. That is DEFINITELY not our war and carries even more risk of progressing to global conflict than this!

In effect that would be putting us at war with China. China is a far more effective fighting force than Russia.

Is that fair? No, but it's pragmatic.

In which case if Taiwan has to stand alone then it may well be the only sensible course of action for a Taiwanese government to pursue is the nuclear option. Is a nuclear armed Taiwan better or worse of global security? If Taiwan and China get involved in a nuclear exchange just how do you think that might play out? The climatic effects alone, assuming the nuclear exchange stayed contained to China and Taiwan, would be catastrophic. Even a small exchange involving a few dozen nukes is likely to be enough to serious reduce global crop yields due to impacts on global temperatures.

Note, I'm not suggesting that the UK should be putting boots on the ground in Taiwan or that the Royal Navy should be fighting the Chinese Navy, but that we should be willing to provide lethal aid to a country that it facing down aggression from an authoritarian state. Because that's one way of ensuring that a) Taiwan isn't invaded and b) Taiwan doesn't feel the need to consider the nuclear option with the attendant species wide risks that brings.

I don't have an issue with increasing taxation to fund higher defence spending should that be necessary to defend the borders of the United Kingdom, though I do have a problem with cuts - we have cut far too far already and need to be reinstating some spending on public services, not cutting it further. However, that is for defence. Getting involved in wars in other countries is not defence.

If you wish for the UK to become neutral and play no role with international conflicts but still able to deter all potential aggressors you will need to spend far in excess of what can be achieved through tax rises alone. Much of our defence capability is deeply intwined with NATO and global supply chains. To generate that on a sovereign UK basis will be extremely expensive.

To be fair, I do take a rather Swiss line on the approach to this, so I suspect we may need to agree to differ (though it's not like Switzerland, a respected European country, doesn't agree with me!).

Most countries don't have the advantages that Switzerland does when it comes to being able to be neutral.

But if every country took the Swiss line, wars would be small and quickly over because they would and could only ever be between two countries and not anyone else.

Yes and most of the time whoever was the larger and had the greater resource base would win. This seems like a good way of ensuring the creation of empires which is how things historically ended up ordered. The strong prospered, the weak suffered. I also think that it's a tremendously naïve way to view humanity. Whilst we're capable of great things history has consistently shown that we're also prone to bouts of extreme violence and a desire to control and expand our power. Reality is that there's no way every country is going to take the Swiss line even if that wasn't a recipe for empires.

As for the question of NATO, I'm indeed not quite sure what it's for now. It was basically a means by which all the nuclear weapons of all NATO countries could be pointed at the Soviet Union if that started to misbehave. But Russia now isn't the Soviet Union (it's arguably as much of a problem, but in different ways) and the old approaches demonstrably no longer work, so I'm really not sure which way NATO should go.

If NATO didn't exist do you think that Russia would not have already invaded the Baltic States? NATO is more relevant now than it has been at any time since the Cold War. In 2005 there was a reasonable question to ask about what the purpose of NATO was. In 2025? Not so much, it's more relevant now to the defence of Europe than ever. Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if it was in NATO? Or Georgia?

Hitler sought to invade those countries, though. Putin does have an interest in recreating the Soviet Union in some sense, but he has no interest in Western Europe or the UK. It's not the same, not even slightly.

I don't think he has an interest in conquering Western Europe and the UK but he clearly has an interest in making sure that we're divided and weak. Why on earth do you think Russian bots and influence operations are so involved in trying to stoke the divisions that we've seen playing out in the UK and abroad? It's helpful to Russian aims, plus ideally, he'll manage to get leaderships in place that are at least sympathetic to Russia and Russian goals. It's naïve in the extreme to think that Putin has no interest in the UK or Western Europe.

But clearly we'll have to agree to disagree as you noted. I find your views to be bizarre because either they will require sacrifices to be made that you've already said you don't favour (truly massive increases in defence expenditure) and/or they'll end up making the very thing that you wish to avoid (war, potentially nuclear) more likely rather than less. But you're certainly entitled to them. The advantage of living somewhere other than Russia I guess!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In which case if Taiwan has to stand alone then it may well be the only sensible course of action for a Taiwanese government to pursue is the nuclear option. Is a nuclear armed Taiwan better or worse of global security? If Taiwan and China get involved in a nuclear exchange just how do you think that might play out? The climatic effects alone, assuming the nuclear exchange stayed contained to China and Taiwan, would be catastrophic. Even a small exchange involving a few dozen nukes is likely to be enough to serious reduce global crop yields due to impacts on global temperatures.

The way I see it is more that I see China invading Taiwan as basically inevitable, and for the world as a whole that isn't a major problem in the scheme of things, much as it is to the Taiwanese. I don't want it to happen particularly, but I don't think the impact of it on the wider world would be anywhere near severe enough to warrant any kind of intervention.

Note, I'm not suggesting that the UK should be putting boots on the ground in Taiwan or that the Royal Navy should be fighting the Chinese Navy, but that we should be willing to provide lethal aid to a country that it facing down aggression from an authoritarian state. Because that's one way of ensuring that a) Taiwan isn't invaded and b) Taiwan doesn't feel the need to consider the nuclear option with the attendant species wide risks that brings.

If you wish for the UK to become neutral and play no role with international conflicts but still able to deter all potential aggressors you will need to spend far in excess of what can be achieved through tax rises alone. Much of our defence capability is deeply intwined with NATO and global supply chains. To generate that on a sovereign UK basis will be extremely expensive.

Most countries don't have the advantages that Switzerland does when it comes to being able to be neutral.

Yes and most of the time whoever was the larger and had the greater resource base would win. This seems like a good way of ensuring the creation of empires which is how things historically ended up ordered. The strong prospered, the weak suffered. I also think that it's a tremendously naïve way to view humanity. Whilst we're capable of great things history has consistently shown that we're also prone to bouts of extreme violence and a desire to control and expand our power. Reality is that there's no way every country is going to take the Swiss line even if that wasn't a recipe for empires.

If NATO didn't exist do you think that Russia would not have already invaded the Baltic States? NATO is more relevant now than it has been at any time since the Cold War. In 2005 there was a reasonable question to ask about what the purpose of NATO was. In 2025? Not so much, it's more relevant now to the defence of Europe than ever. Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if it was in NATO? Or Georgia?

I don't think he has an interest in conquering Western Europe and the UK but he clearly has an interest in making sure that we're divided and weak. Why on earth do you think Russian bots and influence operations are so involved in trying to stoke the divisions that we've seen playing out in the UK and abroad? It's helpful to Russian aims, plus ideally, he'll manage to get leaderships in place that are at least sympathetic to Russia and Russian goals. It's naïve in the extreme to think that Putin has no interest in the UK or Western Europe.

I can't argue with the rationale of all this given the context of your position, to be fair.

But clearly we'll have to agree to disagree as you noted. I find your views to be bizarre because either they will require sacrifices to be made that you've already said you don't favour (truly massive increases in defence expenditure) and/or they'll end up making the very thing that you wish to avoid (war, potentially nuclear) more likely rather than less. But you're certainly entitled to them. The advantage of living somewhere other than Russia I guess!

That is true!

 

[Sorcerer]

That's probably the one war that their involvement was welcome in. I can't think of any wars they have got involved in since where it wouldn't have been better if they hadn't.

Out of interest then, what is your take on the Gulf War? As I understand it, Saudi Arabia welcomed US assistance because of fears that Saddam Hussein wouldn't have stopped at Kuwait, and the Saudi military just isn't anywhere near as capable as the United States and it's NATO allies. I acknowledge that this ended up being a major grievance for Osama bin Laden that lead to 9/11, but even on that note I would still argue that it's one of those wars that would've turned out worse without American involvement. As I've mentioned a few times, this is very much how easily Russia could be defeated in Ukraine were it not for them being a nuclear power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest then, what is your take on the Gulf War? As I understand it, Saudi Arabia welcomed US assistance because of fears that Saddam Hussein wouldn't have stopped at Kuwait, and the Saudi military just isn't anywhere near as capable as the United States and it's NATO allies. I acknowledge that this ended up being a major grievance for Osama bin Laden that lead to 9/11, but even on that note I would still argue that it's one of those wars that would've turned out worse without American involvement. As I've mentioned a few times, this is very much how easily Russia could be defeated in Ukraine were it not for them being a nuclear power.

I am unconvinced that Saddam Hussein was worth getting rid of. He was largely controllable compared to some of what has come since.

 

[Sorcerer]

I am unconvinced that Saddam Hussein was worth getting rid of. He was largely controllable compared to some of what has come since.

The goal of the Gulf War in 1991 wasn't to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it was simply to push back his forces and free Kuwait after his annexation. There was a genuine fear that he wouldn't have stopped there, and that's why the Saudi royal family welcomed US assistance. It might be easy to forget since Iraq was left in a dire state after his removal following the 2003 invasion, but the man was still a truly evil tyrannical individual, and I would still assert that pushing back against him was absolutely the right thing to do. You could probably even go further and say he was only easy to control because of how easily we steamrolled his forces in the past.

 

[Tester]

To be fair, I do take a rather Swiss line on the approach to this, so I suspect we may need to agree to differ (though it's not like Switzerland, a respected European country, doesn't agree with me!). But if every country took the Swiss line, wars would be small and quickly over because they would and could only ever be between two countries and not anyone else.

Does that Swiss line extend to compulsory military service for all males, with no conscientious objection exemption?

I can see a cultural difficulty.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't wish it to be anything other than effective zero. I'm not up for increasing it even slightly for someone else's war.

The Trump/Farage line!

This is not a scenario I find acceptable unless there is a direct threat to the UK of invasion or of significant mass-casualty events requiring us to fight Russia for our own defence.

Cone on. You aren't that naive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==

The way I see it is more that I see China invading Taiwan as basically inevitable, and for the world as a whole that isn't a major problem in the scheme of things, much as it is to the Taiwanese. I don't want it to happen particularly, but I don't think the impact of it on the wider world would be anywhere near severe enough to warrant any kind of intervention.

Taiwan makes about 27m% of the worlds semi conductors. Losing that is a big problem. Our society relies on these things.

Is it our war then?

 

[Chrius56000]

The Trump/Farage line!

Cone on. You aren't that naive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2025 ==


Taiwan makes about 27m% of the worlds semi conductors. Losing that is a big problem. Our society relies on these things.

Is it our war then?

. . .On a slight side–issue, why is it that these despots and dictators like Trump, Putin, Xi, Kim Wrong–Un, Netenyahu, whoever is in charge of Iran, Syria, etc., etc., seem to have a charmed life with never any strokes, serious illnesses, sudden deaths, etc?

. . .Does the "Devil really look after his own" as it were?