Russia invades Ukraine

[ainsworth74]

I think that if we look factually, that is untrue.

Quite. Europe certainly has and/or can develop the capacity to defeat Russia alone. The EU by itself has an economy around ten times the size of Russia, it has a population of 450m to Russia's 145m, the EU has wider and better access to global markets than the Russia has, etc etc. Add in the UK and Norway and things tilt even further in favour of Europe.

What Europe lacks is the willingness to endure hardships that might be needed in order to put ourselves on the footing needed to provide the support needed for Ukraine to defeat Russia. We're very very slowly getting there. But it is mad that we're now three years into this and still seemingly the entire continent of Europe cannot out produce Russia and North Korea in terms of artillery shells for example. That's the real problem, turning our latent capacity into actual capability.

 

[Cdd89]

I think the hope/gamble being made regarding settlement is that Putin privately realises the invasion was a mistake (in terms of military costs, sanctions and exclusion from the international community).

If he indeed thinks that, then the chances of a repeat invasion are relatively low. If he doesn't, then all bets are off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What Europe lacks is the willingness to endure hardships that might be needed in order to put ourselves on the footing needed to provide the support needed for Ukraine to defeat Russia. We're very very slowly getting there. But it is mad that we're now three years into this and still seemingly the entire continent of Europe cannot out produce Russia and North Korea in terms of artillery shells for example. That's the real problem, turning our latent capacity into actual capability.

I don't think it is actually reasonable to suggest that, for example, European people give up state healthcare or effective public transport systems in order to help another country, to be honest. And that's what the interventionists are calling for, and I can't help but think there are other motivations involved too.

The question that would dictate whether that is necessary is whether Russia actually poses a DIRECT threat to those countries if left to do what it wants. And in many cases it probably does not. I'm no apologist for Putin, but I do believe him when he says he has no intention of invading the United Kingdom, for instance - what would he do with it? He's interested in recreating the Soviet Union as far as I can see it, and while I don't support that aim in the slightest and never have, the impact of him so doing would probably have a lower impact on the economy and living standards of Western European countries than spending years funding bombs for those countries to defend themselves against him, and if he *did* directly attack the UK with missiles, for example, support is just going to be zero for our friends and families being killed for what is, like it or not, someone else's war.

In short, the only way this is going to gain widespread support would be if Putin directly and credibly threatened to bring in Western Europe. Thus far that has not happened (nuclear manhood-waving doesn't count - it would have to be more concrete - an actual formal declaration of war for instance).

 

[Killingworth]

Lavrov wore a revealing CCCP shirt on arrival in Alaska.

A very clear signal to all in Russia that the game was ultimate restoration of the Soviet Union. Putin’s glee was further evidence confirmed in his quip "next time in Moscow."

As far as I could tell all the Russian party could understand and probably speak English. Putin and Lavrov can. I doubt any in Trump's party has a similar grasp of Russian.

Such details may make a difference. It certainly emboldens Putin. Stitching up Trump and the west is a game he enjoys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lavrov wore a revealing CCCP shirt on arrival in Alaska.

A very clear signal to all in Russia that the game was ultimate restoration of the Soviet Union.

It seems obvious to me that that's what he is after, yes. Unlike say Hitler (apologies for the Godwinning, but I think he's a sensible comparison to Putin in some ways) he has no interest in invading the UK or France, though he may attack us if we get involved.

I can completely see why there is resistance to potentially laying our lives down in such a war. If we imagine for a moment it being a WW1 style conventional trench war, I would not be very happy were I to be conscripted to go and fight in it one bit. I would join a fight to defend against an attack on the UK, but Ukraine? Romania? Even Poland? No, not for a minute.

Such details may make a difference. It certainly emboldens Putin. Stitching up Trump and the west is a game he enjoys.

There's certainly a game involved too.

 

[Cdd89]

The question that would dictate whether that is necessary is whether Russia actually poses a DIRECT threat to those countries if left to do what it wants. And in many cases it probably does not.

While I agree that this is unlikely, in a scenario where Russia easily annexed all of Ukraine an invasion into a NATO country becomes far more likely. Firstly because it's physically closer, secondly because it's emboldened, and finally because an enlarged country becomes more of a threat. That involves all of Western Europe (whether we like it or not).

On Ukraine, my sense is that the West's strategy, which is to some extent accidental, has been to waste as much of Russia's time and resources as possible and deter a future invasion (not this one). The end goal is pretty clearly not to "keep Russia out of Ukraine at all costs", because if it were we would have taken direct action. This is arguably quite immoral in terms of using Ukraine and incurring a lot of death in a war of attrition, but aside from these elements it seems a relatively successful strategy. I think it highly likely that Russia will walk away from this with some small victories, and the goal of the West is thus to ensure that they were clearly not worth the price paid.

 

[Killingworth]

I hate to bring up Viet Nam. The US committed enormous amounts of men and material to support the South, then cut and ran in the face of unrelenting pressure leaving their local allies to take the consequences. Kabul?

The US basks in a relatively safe space surrounded by oceans and, up to now, friendly nations. It can make money selling all the muntions and keeping out of the way of the destruction they cause. Since WW2 that's a lesson Trump has learned well.

 

[Cowley]

All fantasy I’m afraid. Russia could just nuke Ukraine and then we’ll all be vaporised. Even if only one nuke was used the world economy would collapse.
So much nonsense posted on here.

From the same person that said in 2022:

Russia could ‘win’ tomorrow if it wanted with carpet bombing of Ukrainian cities using conventional weapons. As yet they have chosen not to do so.

You were talking nonsense then and you’re talking nonsense now.

 

[Annetts key]

I hate to bring up Viet Nam. The US committed enormous amounts of men and material to support the South, then cut and ran in the face of unrelenting pressure leaving their local allies to take the consequences. Kabul?

The US basks in a relatively safe space surrounded by oceans and, up to now, friendly nations. It can make money selling all the muntions and keeping out of the way of the destruction they cause. Since WW2 that's a lesson Trump has learned well.

Err, part of the U.S.A. is VERY close to Russia. As in a handful of miles. Further, ICBM can reach all parts of the U.S.A. from.both directions. So, no, they are not as safe as you imply. However, Russia has shown no interest in wanting to attack the U.S.A. territory.

Russia is however conducting an unconventional war against European countries including the U.K.

 

[DarloRich]

Russia has shown no interest in wanting to attack the U.S.A. territory.

Why would it? It has a high vlaue agent in place running the country

All fantasy I’m afraid. Russia could just nuke Ukraine and then we’ll all be vaporised. Even if only one nuke was used the world economy would collapse.
So much nonsense posted on here.

what are you on about? Shall we be realistic and sensible here? Yes, there is a risk that nuclear weapons could be used in this ( or other conflicts around the world) but the risk here must surely be lower than previously if, as you say, Russia is winning!

Putting that aside what would be the goal in using such a weapon? Could you explain how you reach your conclusion?

Quite. Europe certainly has and/or can develop the capacity to defeat Russia alone.

replace certainly with hopefully - sadly we see from this thread and social media how many useful idiots there are in the world. Many of them on the crank right are very pro Putin.

Lavrov wore a revealing CCCP shirt on arrival in Alaska.

A very clear signal to all in Russia that the game was ultimate restoration of the Soviet Union. Putin’s glee was further evidence confirmed in his quip "next time in Moscow."

As far as I could tell all the Russian party could understand and probably speak English. Putin and Lavrov can. I doubt any in Trump's party has a similar grasp of Russian.

Such details may make a difference. It certainly emboldens Putin. Stitching up Trump and the west is a game he enjoys.

I repeat: Sudetenland 2025 but without even the, charitable, explanation of Chamberlain playing for time to rebuild the armed forces!

 

[oldman]

I think that if we look factually, that is untrue.

I see you elided the words 'or will' from my phrase 'capacity or will', which is a wee bit naughty. I very much doubt if Western Europe has the capacity now, whatever it might be able to do in future.

It is reasonable to expect that if we did become combat-involved, Russia would ramp up hybrid warfare. I hope we have robust cyber-defence and cyber-attack capabilities, but I am not sure we do.

 

[Annetts key]

Lavrov wore a revealing CCCP shirt on arrival in Alaska.

A very clear signal to all in Russia that the game was ultimate restoration of the Soviet Union. Putin’s glee was further evidence confirmed in his quip "next time in Moscow."

Did you watch video clips of "Putin" when he was in Alaska? I agree with some other commentators, that it looked like he was a double and not the real Putin. Also, would Putin really leave Russian territory?

So it's very likely that Lavrov was the real person in charge of the Russian delegation.

This was absolutely Russia playing games with Trump. Get Taco Trump to kick the can down the road a bit more, thus allowing the Russian army to advance a bit further. While hoping to get Trump to put Ukraine under pressure to compromise...

It is reasonable to expect that if we did become combat-involved, Russia would ramp up hybrid warfare. I hope we have robust cyber-defence and cyber-attack capabilities, but I am not sure we do.

Do you want to ask Aeroflot how well they were prepared?

 

[oldman]

Do you want to ask Aeroflot how well they were prepared?

The trouble with glib comments is that they don't address the point that was being made, which was:

It is reasonable to expect that if we did become combat-involved, Russia would ramp up hybrid warfare. I hope we have robust cyber-defence and cyber-attack capabilities, but I am not sure we do.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think it is actually reasonable to suggest that, for example, European people give up state healthcare or effective public transport systems in order to help another country, to be honest. And that's what the interventionists are calling for, and I can't help but think there are other motivations involved too.

The question that would dictate whether that is necessary is whether Russia actually poses a DIRECT threat to those countries if left to do what it wants. And in many cases it probably does not. I'm no apologist for Putin, but I do believe him when he says he has no intention of invading the United Kingdom, for instance - what would he do with it? He's interested in recreating the Soviet Union as far as I can see it, and while I don't support that aim in the slightest and never have, the impact of him so doing would probably have a lower impact on the economy and living standards of Western European countries than spending years funding bombs for those countries to defend themselves against him, and if he *did* directly attack the UK with missiles, for example, support is just going to be zero for our friends and families being killed for what is, like it or not, someone else's war.

In short, the only way this is going to gain widespread support would be if Putin directly and credibly threatened to bring in Western Europe. Thus far that has not happened (nuclear manhood-waving doesn't count - it would have to be more concrete - an actual formal declaration of war for instance).

That strikes me as essentially a recipe for splitting Nato and letting Putin take whatever he wants of Europe bit by bit. It's credible that his end goal is to re-create not just the Soviet Union but also the Warsaw Pact. Loss of a credible alliance would also mean each European country trying to amass the resources to defend itself alone against a Russia with enough forces to challenge any one of them without the support of the others.

To be clear, I don't believe Europe should turn aggressor and invade Russia - as well as losing the moral high ground that would quickly also lose support amongst the populations of democracies, who are only likely to tolerate a war if it is to defend against a clear threat. But I believe the current support for Ukraine should be stepped up, including the means and blessing for Ukraine to strike within Russia where that helps them defend their own territory. I also believe that Europe needs to re-build its defences, although I've no way of telling if 5% is actually the number needed or just the number Trump plucked out of the air.

 

[Sorcerer]

I hate to bring up Viet Nam. The US committed enormous amounts of men and material to support the South, then cut and ran in the face of unrelenting pressure leaving their local allies to take the consequences. Kabul?

The US spent twenty years in Vietnam, and that particular conflict was quite unusual in the sense that they were engaging with guerilla insurgents that would've been a struggle for pretty much any military force. Pressure at home and the high cost was also a factor. Had they not followed the rules of engagement though then they may have been able to end that war a lot sooner, but that in itself sparks it's own separate discussion.

I'd argue that Ukraine is more akin to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where it keeps supplying the anti-Soviet forces with weapons and support without engaging with the Soviets directly. The major difference of course being that the man in the White House is a consistent flip-flopper who cares more about getting a Nobel Peace Prize than he does actually bringing a fair end to the war.

Why would it? It has a high value agent in place running the country

Personally I'd prefer to call him a useful idiot. High value agent gives him a little more credit than he deserves in my opinion.

 

[Killingworth]

Err, part of the U.S.A. is VERY close to Russia. As in a handful of miles. Further, ICBM can reach all parts of the U.S.A. from.both directions. So, no, they are not as safe as you imply. However, Russia has shown no interest in wanting to attack the U.S.A. territory.

Russia is however conducting an unconventional war against European countries including the U.K.

Relatively safe is what I said, and yes, I've previously written of the unconventional offensive being prepared, if not already being waged.

 

[najaB]

The US spent twenty years in Vietnam, and that particular conflict was quite unusual in the sense that they were engaging with guerilla insurgents that would've been a struggle for pretty much any military force. Pressure at home and the high cost was also a factor. Had they not followed the rules of engagement though then they may have been able to end that war a lot sooner, but that in itself sparks it's own separate discussion.

Biggest problem in the Second Indochina War was the same as Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003): no clearly defined objective before the USA sent troops in, which resulted in constant mission creep.

 

[35B]

The US spent twenty years in Vietnam, and that particular conflict was quite unusual in the sense that they were engaging with guerilla insurgents that would've been a struggle for pretty much any military force. Pressure at home and the high cost was also a factor. Had they not followed the rules of engagement though then they may have been able to end that war a lot sooner, but that in itself sparks it's own separate discussion.

I'd argue that Ukraine is more akin to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where it keeps supplying the anti-Soviet forces with weapons and support without engaging with the Soviets directly. The major difference of course being that the man in the White House is a consistent flip-flopper who cares more about getting a Nobel Peace Prize than he does actually bringing a fair end to the war.

Biggest problem in the Second Indochina War was the same as Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003): no clearly defined objective before the USA sent troops in, which resulted in constant mission creep.

I'd also suggest that in all of the above, there was a misdiagnosis of what kind of war was being fought, with consequently ineffective strategies and tactics being chosen.

 

[Annetts key]

The trouble with glib comments is that they don't address the point that was being made, which was:

I'm well aware of what you are saying. And I do hope that the parts of our U.K. government (including local/and other council administrations) organisations and businesses are aware of the risks and have taken suitable precautions.

Especially as the NHS suffered previously from an attack. I would hope that others would have learned from this.

 

[brad465]

I hate to bring up Viet Nam. The US committed enormous amounts of men and material to support the South, then cut and ran in the face of unrelenting pressure leaving their local allies to take the consequences. Kabul?

The US basks in a relatively safe space surrounded by oceans and, up to now, friendly nations. It can make money selling all the muntions and keeping out of the way of the destruction they cause. Since WW2 that's a lesson Trump has learned well.

Pity he didn't learn the lessons from US history around tariffs.

 

[Yew]

But it is mad that we're now three years into this and still seemingly the entire continent of Europe cannot out produce Russia and North Korea in terms of artillery shells for example.

Not really, artillery plays a much smaller role in our force design. The role that artillery plays for Ukraine or Russia, is one that our force design supplements with air power.

I see you elided the words 'or will' from my phrase 'capacity or will', which is a wee bit naughty.

I was unsure if you were talking about "has the capacity or will have the capacity" or "has the capacity, and the will to use it"

I very much doubt if Western Europe has the capacity now,

Russia is a country with an economy the size of Spain, and a population of around 120 million. I feel that often, older people seem to still have an impression of Russia which is more akin to "the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact", as opposed to the reality of modern-day Russia.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2025 ==

Biggest problem in the Second Indochina War was the same as Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003): no clearly defined objective before the USA sent troops in, which resulted in constant mission creep.

And as well, fighting against an opponent that has learned to fight in that terrain against other nations.

In French Indochina/Vietnam, the Americans were not Ho Chi Minhs first opponents - he had fought an Anglo-Japanese force, and a French force, in the years before the US arrived.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not really, artillery plays a much smaller role in our force design. The role that artillery plays for Ukraine or Russia, is one that our force design supplements with air power.

Sure though for supporting Ukraine artillery makes sense. I'm also not entirely convinced that artillery is as without a key role to play as others might be.

But either way, even if the assumption that airpower is how we'll deliver the effect that artillery usually would, how long do you think our magazines of various air dropped weapons would last and how quickly could we replenish them? I reckon the answers are "not long" and "not quickly"....

 

[Sorcerer]

I'd also suggest that in all of the above, there was a misdiagnosis of what kind of war was being fought, with consequently ineffective strategies and tactics being chosen.

And as well, fighting against an opponent that has learned to fight in that terrain against other nations.

In French Indochina/Vietnam, the Americans were not Ho Chi Minhs first opponents - he had fought an Anglo-Japanese force, and a French force, in the years before the US arrived.

It should be remembered though that the US didn't exactly struggle to occupy Afghanistan or Vietnam, and in both situations they weren't exactly forced out in the sense that their military were pushed back. They withdrew because it was becoming too costly relative to what they were gaining, and there was little to no support for continuing these wars back home after 20 years.

Indeed that is what we are hoping to do with Russia by supporting Ukraine; making it too costly and no longer worth the trouble, and unlike the US, Russia does not have the world's largest economy, manpower, alliances, or logistical skills to support long-term war efforts. The obvious drawback is that we probably won't be seeing peace deals in the foreseeable future because of it.

 

[35B]

It should be remembered though that the US didn't exactly struggle to occupy Afghanistan or Vietnam, and in both situations they weren't exactly forced out in the sense that their military were pushed back. They withdrew because it was becoming too costly relative to what they were gaining, and there was little to no support for continuing these wars back home after 20 years.

I'd disagree; the weaknesses in both places were to do with balancing US doctrine of massive firepower and high technology with the insurgency based tactics of their opponents.

Indeed that is what we are hoping to do with Russia by supporting Ukraine; making it too costly and no longer worth the trouble, and unlike the US, Russia does not have the world's largest economy, manpower, alliances, or logistical skills to support long-term war efforts. The obvious drawback is that we probably won't be seeing peace deals in the foreseeable future because of it.

Indeed, but doing so by using a strategy more akin to WWI than later more mobile conflicts. Talking of which, it is possible to see similarities between Putin's Russia and Tsarist Germany.

 

[najaB]

But either way, even if the assumption that airpower is how we'll deliver the effect that artillery usually would, how long do you think our magazines of various air dropped weapons would last and how quickly could we replenish them?

The precision stuff: not very long and quite a while. Unguided "dumb" bombs are pretty much lumps of steel with a small amount of explosives and it wouldn't take long to spin up production if necessary.

I'd disagree; the weaknesses in both places were to do with balancing US doctrine of massive firepower and high technology with the insurgency based tactics of their opponents.

Which goes back to the lack of a clear mission objective. They had the capability to "Bomb [Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam] back to the stone age" but no clear objective that would support that tactic.

 

[edwin_m]

It should be remembered though that the US didn't exactly struggle to occupy Afghanistan or Vietnam, and in both situations they weren't exactly forced out in the sense that their military were pushed back. They withdrew because it was becoming too costly relative to what they were gaining, and there was little to no support for continuing these wars back home after 20 years.

Indeed that is what we are hoping to do with Russia by supporting Ukraine; making it too costly and no longer worth the trouble

It's also what Russia is hoping to do with the West - create a situation where Europe and (particularly) the USA could still support but isn't inclined to.

Unguided "dumb" bombs are pretty much lumps of steel with a small amount of explosives and it wouldn't take long to spin up production if necessary.

So are artillery shells, but after three years the West is still well behind Russia (with help from North Korea) in producing those.

 

[Annetts key]

Russia is a country with an economy the size of Spain, and a population of around 120 million. I feel that often, older people seem to still have an impression of Russia which is more akin to "the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact", as opposed to the reality of modern-day Russia.

I agree that the Russian economy is not very large compared to the size of the country. However, trying to compare it to a EU country and get a realistic comparable answer is far from straightforward.

For a start, which currency are you pricing this in? And at what exchange rate? Which measure of GDP are you using (there is more than one)?

Then, the standard of living outside of the big cities is low, hence the cost of labour is lower. And secondly, their true economy is distorted both by the official figures being skewed and their main exports being oil and gas.

So their government / state spending depends to a large degree on gas and oil exports (amount and price) and labour costs are going to be lower than that of an EU country. Plus corruption and poor quality control will have an effect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2025 ==

The precision stuff: not very long and quite a while. Unguided "dumb" bombs are pretty much lumps of steel with a small amount of explosives and it wouldn't take long to spin up production if necessary.

Which goes back to the lack of a clear mission objective. They had the capability to "Bomb [Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam] back to the stone age" but no clear objective that would support that tactic.

I'm no expert on this, but if the "precision stuff" is mainly the electronics and the servos or whatever that is used to move the control surfaces, that kind of thing can be put into production quite fast. As long as you are willing to pay the going rate for a semiconductor fab to switch production to your requirements rather than producing commercial products.

Making the steel cases, although not very high tech, does require specific factories.

 

[najaB]

So are artillery shells, but after three years the West is still well behind Russia (with help from North Korea) in producing those.

Artillery shells require a much higher degree of precision though. A millimetre or two either way and it either doesn't fire properly or blows up the breech.

 

[Yew]

I agree that the Russian economy is not very large compared to the size of the country. However, trying to compare it to a EU country and get a realistic comparable answer is far from straightforward.

For a start, which currency are you pricing this in? And at what exchange rate? Which measure of GDP are you using (there is more than one)?

Then, the standard of living outside of the big cities is low, hence the cost of labour is lower. And secondly, their true economy is distorted both by the official figures being skewed and their main exports being oil and gas.

I think the phrase used to describe these sorts of things is "purchasing power parity", how much stuff does a given amount of money get you. It can make a significant impact, however the EU has a GDP seven times larger, and a population three times larger. Purchasing power parity might make up some ground, but it's not going to overcome that large of a disparity.

So their government / state spending depends to a large degree on gas and oil exports (amount and price) and labour costs are going to be lower than that of an EU country. Plus corruption and poor quality control will have an effect.

Labour costs will be lower, but realistically not that much lower than lots of Eastern Europe, particularly as conscription and military contracts are also putting pressures on the labour pool.

 

[35B]

The precision stuff: not very long and quite a while. Unguided "dumb" bombs are pretty much lumps of steel with a small amount of explosives and it wouldn't take long to spin up production if necessary.

Which goes back to the lack of a clear mission objective. They had the capability to "Bomb [Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam] back to the stone age" but no clear objective that would support that tactic.

But the US did have a mission objective, and it was clear. They just couldn't cope with the idea that their opponents weren't a massed army, and couldn't adapt accordingly.