Salisbury, Skripal, Poison and Russia.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Beechey said:

And we have enough nuclear warheads to flatten every single meaningful Russian city on Earth. Hey, maybe we could order more than four Dreadnought-class SSBNs?

 

More frigates would limit the Russian Navy's ability to operate their submarine fleet in the Atlantic though, by patrolling the GIUK Gap.

Of course, we could respond in kind...but who wins that one?

 

(Apart from the alien punters smart enough to put their local currency down on human civilisation being stupid enough to wipe itself out before even knowing they're there.)

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Right, ok. I can see that might be a possibility, What policies are Russia desperately keen for the Security Council to agree on at the mo then?

Right now? To my knowledge it's just the Syria question (in their support for Assad's government). But that doesn't stop us from stating that nothing Russia puts forward to the UNSC in the future will be vetoed by us. Possibly unlikely given it could appear reckless, but it depends what other options the government has.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, we could respond in kind...but who wins that one?

 

(Apart from the alien punters smart enough to put their local currency down on human civilisation being stupid enough to wipe itself out before even knowing they're there.)

 

Fresh from picking up his Nobel Peace Prize, Mr President will step in and solve the problem before it gets to that stage. 

[Beechey]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course, we could respond in kind...but who wins that one?

 

(Apart from the alien punters smart enough to put their local currency down on human civilisation being stupid enough to wipe itself out before even knowing they're there.)

Haha, I'm not saying we'll ever go to war of course!

 

Russia works on the showing of strength, simply put: we could show them up a bit. When we decommissioned our carriers in 2010-2014, they made a big show and dance on their state TV about how they were a military and naval superpower compared to us. It's petty tit-for-tat though. They're most afraid of Western encroachment though, and have been for a couple of decades.

 

Something I hadn't thought of was how we could actually begin arming the Ukrainian armed forces.

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Erm, yes, it would. Us reversing defence cuts would place us above Russia in terms of military spending, and strength through perceived power is how Russia operates internationally. Our military is already more capable than theirs, but us having 4 instead of 2 aircraft carriers, or 12 instead of 6 destroyers, or 25 instead of 13 frigates changes the balance of power in the North Sea and North Atlantic.

 

Alternatively, we could purchase more F-35s ans base some permanently in Eastern Europe, for example.

1

 

 

 Are you living in some kind of an alternate reality?

 

Even if such spending would make us a military threat to Russia (which it palpably wouldn't) do you really think the government would commit to that kind of military budget because they got a bit naughty with an ex-spy? Seriously?

 

 

[Beechey]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

 Are you living in some kind of an alternate reality?

 

Even if such spending would make us a military threat to Russia (which it palpably wouldn't) do you really think the government would commit to that kind of military budget because they got a bit naughty with an ex-spy? Seriously?

 

 

Do I? Absolutely not. Should they? Yes. You're mad if you think Russia doesn't care about our military though mate. We are their most powerful close-proximity European threat. Our armed forces right now are a threat to Russia. I don't know why you seem to think we're somne raggid little shithole with no leg to stand on. I'd be curious to find out just how much you know about our armed forces.

 

If you watched the debate in the HoC today, you would have seen MPs from every major party present calling on the government to increase defence spending.

[Vardinio'sCat]

1 minute ago, Beechey said:

Right now? To my knowledge it's just the Syria question (in their support for Assad's government). But that doesn't stop us from stating that nothing Russia puts forward to the UNSC in the future will be vetoed by us. Possibly unlikely given it could appear reckless, but it depends what other options the government has.

 

Apart from sanctions chasing Russian money around the murky world of the City of London, I don't think we have that much influence.

 

Building more aircraft carriers will take nigh on a decade (and then we need some planes as well), the Security Council point is mainly bluster, the severe economic consequences for Russia (as a country) seem a bit of a mirage, and unless we shut the whole Russian embassy they will just send another Ambassador and staff.

 

I agree that we are a reasonable sized country, and we still have quite a lot of influence on many countries (even if that influence is decreasing significantly), but Russia isn't one of them.

 

I think you are better on economics than international affairs. I have had the odd bad thread myself. My sympathies.

 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Fresh from picking up his Nobel Peace Prize, Mr President will step in and solve the problem before it gets to that stage. 

Typo there, I assume you meant newly minted Madame President Harris, yes?

 

 

15 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Haha, I'm not saying we'll ever go to war of course!

 

Russia works on the showing of strength, simply put: we could show them up a bit. When we decommissioned our carriers in 2010-2014, they made a big show and dance on their state TV about how they were a military and naval superpower compared to us. It's petty tit-for-tat though. They're most afraid of Western encroachment though, and have been for a couple of decades.

 

Something I hadn't thought of was how we could actually begin arming the Ukrainian armed forces.

Yeah, maybe.

 

Perhaps there's something in that but for me, funding and developing it as a threat would still ring hollow because the smart Russians would know that that new materiel could and would never actually be used, because of the way things would logically and catastrophically escalate. Is a threat really a threat when the other side knows you could never use that threat without being destroyed yourself?

 

That said, there's an awful lot of that at the higher echelons of diplomacy, it would seem - it's all smoke and mirrors.

[Beechey]

2 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Apart from sanctions chasing Russian money around the murky world of the City of London, I don't think we have that much influence.

 

Building more aircraft carriers will take nigh on a decade (and then we need some planes as well), the Security Council point is mainly bluster, the severe economic consequences for Russia (as a country) seem a bit of a mirage, and unless we shut the whole Russian embassy they will just send another Ambassador and staff.

 

I agree that we are a reasonable sized country, and we still have quite a lot of influence on many countries (even if that influence is decreasing significantly), but Russia isn't one of them.

 

I think you are better on economics than international affairs. I have had the odd bad thread myself. My sympathies.

 

I'm not sure how much money from Russian Oligarchs there is in London, but I bet it's a drop in the ocean to a city that has an economic output almost 40% that of all of the Russian Federation. On the carrier point, I know, it was just a suggestion on what a budget could be spent on. We can feasably build another carrier starting now and finish the construction by 2023-24 or so (construction cycle is sat at six years, not "a decade", and for the record, we have 15 F-35Bs already). I think your football knowledge is a bit better than your military knowledge...

 

When we expelled the Iranian ambassador in 2011 (I think?) their embassy was closed as well, it's an option that a lot of MPs were suggesting today. I suggest you watch it.

 

I suggested we can pressure them through international sanctions, our visa policy and expelling their diplomatic staff, and you agreed with this presumably, and that is exactly what influencing a country is. We are capable enough to apply pressure on the regime. It is unlikely we would change their heading, but it draws a clear line. I'm rather unsure where our opinions here differ. You ask me what we can do, I state what we can do, and what our elected representatives stated in our national Parliament, and you state some weird, faint insult, it's a bit bizarre.

 

At no point have I suggested we could change the direction of Russia or damage them to such an extent that Putin is toppled or whatever, what I have stated are irrefutable options that the UK has to pressure Russia diplomatically and economically:

1. Close their embassy
2. Order their staff back to Russia
3. Close our embassies in Russia
4. Target sanctions on all individuals close to Putin in the UK and freeze their assets
5. Confiscate the property of Russian Oligarchs in the UK with ties to the Russian regime (something else suggested in Parliament)
   1. Supposedly according to you guys they must have lots of money here
6. Halt any and all military, economic and diplomatic coordination with Russia
7. Send arms to Ukraine rather than just non-lethal equipment
8. Lobby to cut Russian banks off from SWIFT

And then others have suggested in Parliament to increase spending on defence and security, both of which frankly are needed given the state of our military and police forces.

 

Unless you disagree with the UK's ability to do something there I fail to see what your point is. If you could write your arguments in a format a bit less condescending, that'd be great.

[Beechey]

His nose is so firmly planted in Putin's cheeks, it hurts to watch from this side of the Atlantic.

 

[Finnegan]

The **** people care about aircraft carriers for? Russia and the UK will never go to war in our lifetime, not with guns anyway. 

 

Wars these days are fought on the Internet (no, not here) or in the boardrooms of multinational energy companies. 

 

And why on earth would we act militarily to them offing one of their own? We probably even knew in advance and don't really give a shit. We care if we look weak and they care if they look TOO culpable so obviously May and Johnson will pretend to look cross even though everyone knows they don't care and the Kremlin will pretend they didn't do it even though we know it's as much them as the "rebels" in Ukraine blatantly were. 

 

Russian subtly is non existent, they barely give a **** pretending because they know nobody will do anything. 

 

Sod all will happen and the story will vanish when the next scandal comes along to distract everyone. Probably Trump saying something deliberately moronic to get the attention off them. He's not mentioned the wall in a while.... 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

The **** people care about aircraft carriers for? Russia and the UK will never go to war in our lifetime, not with guns anyway. 

 

Wars these days are fought on the Internet (no, not here) or in the boardrooms of multinational energy companies. 

 

And why on earth would we act militarily to them offing one of their own? We probably even knew in advance and don't really give a shit. We care if we look weak and they care if they look TOO culpable so obviously May and Johnson will pretend to look cross even though everyone knows they don't care and the Kremlin will pretend they didn't do it even though we know it's as much them as the "rebels" in Ukraine blatantly were. 

 

Russian subtly is non existent, they barely give a **** pretending because they know nobody will do anything. 

 

Sod all will happen and the story will vanish when the next scandal comes along to distract everyone. Probably Trump saying something deliberately moronic to get the attention off them. He's not mentioned the wall in a while.... 

All of this.

[Beechey]

10 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

The **** people care about aircraft carriers for? Russia and the UK will never go to war in our lifetime, not with guns anyway. 

 

Wars these days are fought on the Internet (no, not here) or in the boardrooms of multinational energy companies. 

 

And why on earth would we act militarily to them offing one of their own? We probably even knew in advance and don't really give a shit. We care if we look weak and they care if they look TOO culpable so obviously May and Johnson will pretend to look cross even though everyone knows they don't care and the Kremlin will pretend they didn't do it even though we know it's as much them as the "rebels" in Ukraine blatantly were. 

 

Russian subtly is non existent, they barely give a **** pretending because they know nobody will do anything. 

 

Sod all will happen and the story will vanish when the next scandal comes along to distract everyone. Probably Trump saying something deliberately moronic to get the attention off them. He's not mentioned the wall in a while.... 

Aircraft carriers nowadays are not used for fleet actions, they're used for land bombardment, anti-submarine operations, humanitarian operations and surgical strikes.

100% agreed though, cyber warfare is the future of warfare, the later we see it, the worse placed we will be to compete.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Aircraft carriers nowadays are not used for fleet actions, they're used for land bombardment and surgical strikes.

100% agreed though, cyber warfare is the future of warfare, the later we see it, the worse placed we will be to compete.

Thankfully second-strike capability is maintained in that area too by virtue of obsolete/standalone tech being used for vital systems.

[Buce]

Another Russian exile found dead:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/russian-exile-nikolai-glushkov-found-dead-at-his-london-home

 

[fuchsntf]

Russians allegedly killing Russians, exspys at that..! and we are getting upset about it.!!! Bloody amusing..

Even If it is on our soil,..No need to Fight them,they're most likely more successfull,

than we would be.

I'll say it again,in todays world any but anybody,could today use old ruski Chemie. poison agents.

 

I am beginning to Wonder,what Our own politicians have Ballsed Up again,to Keep this rolling

as top headlines. Keeps us concentrating in one direction.

Murky,dirty...but so were the Guys being Knocked Off.

Not forgetting the Uk-russian-mafia,and what International/their own.spies might have on them.

Their Business in UK is Most likely Higher,than what Our own 2 govts,turnover with each.

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

Russians allegedly killing Russians, exspys at that..! and we are getting upset about it.!!! Bloody amusing..

Even If it is on our soil,..No need to Fight them,they're most likely more successfull,

than we would be.

I'll say it again,in todays world any but anybody,could today use old ruski Chemie. poison agents.

 

I am beginning to Wonder,what Our own politicians have Ballsed Up again,to Keep this rolling

as top headlines. Keeps us concentrating in one direction.

Murky,dirty...but so were the Guys being Knocked Off.

Not forgetting the Uk-russian-mafia,and what International/their own.spies might have on them.

Their Business in UK is Most likely Higher,than what Our own 2 govts,turnover with each.

No, Skripal was a British spy. He used to work for GRU (Russia's military intelligence) but turned against Russia and began helping MI6, we gave him political asylum here. We absolutely should care about other countries deploying chemical weapons here.

[Wymsey]

Isn't it true that UK security is trying to protect the countries' electricity/power structure, with Russia apparently been looking into how it operates.

 

There's a point where we, the UK, can hold off Russia in the interest of national defence etc, but too much pressure on them to back off could escalate things even further.

Just glad that the US is one of our main allies, and have the same current viewpoint as us in that Russia is clearly behind this incident.

[Beechey]

5 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Isn't it true that UK security is trying to protect the countries' electricity/power structure, with Russia apparently been looking into how it operates.

 

There's a point where we, the UK, can hold off Russia in the interest of national defence etc, but too much pressure on them to back off could escalate things even further.

Just glad that the US is one of our main allies, and have the same current viewpoint as us in that Russia is clearly behind this incident.

For sure Russia will be probing UK cyber defences and looking for weaknesses, we will probably be doing the very same, however.

[Stadt]

The solution is become self sustainable with green energy so we can **** their gas and oil off and never have to deal with the backwards ****ers ever again

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Wookie said:

The solution is become self sustainable with green energy so we can **** their gas and oil off and never have to deal with the backwards ****ers ever again

 

Bit difficult to fuel boilers etc with wind energy. Fracking on the other hand...

[Itsthejoeker]

On 12/03/2018 at 20:29, Beechey said:

Erm, yes, it would. Us reversing defence cuts would place us above Russia in terms of military spending, and strength through perceived power is how Russia operates internationally. Our military is already more capable than theirs, but us having 4 instead of 2 aircraft carriers, or 12 instead of 6 destroyers, or 25 instead of 13 frigates changes the balance of power in the North Sea and North Atlantic.

 

Alternatively, we could purchase more F-35s ans base some permanently in Eastern Europe, for example.

 

As someone who works in defence, what you’ve written is total fantasy. Russia military capability is frightening, their tanks alone would tear this country to pieces, and that’s before you even factor in their electronic warfare capabilities and their disinformation campaigns

[Beechey]

25 minutes ago, Itsthejoeker said:

 

As someone who works in defence, what you’ve written is total fantasy. Russia military capability is frightening, their tanks alone would tear this country to pieces, and that’s before you even factor in their electronic warfare capabilities and their disinformation campaigns

Oh their MBT numbers are scary for sure (at least the T-14s are, despite their problems. T-90s aren't so much in comparison, and the T-72s (which make up 70% of their force) is not on the level of the Challenger 2), but it's a grand thing that we have an ocean separating us, don't we? Why do you think I specified naval capabilities? As far as I'm aware, Russia does not have amphibious tanks that can sail the thousand miles or so from Arctic Russia to Scotland.

 

You're mad if you think a significant fraction of Russia's tank force is fully operational, however. Look at their navy burning in port. On paper they are frightening. In the real world however they suffer from systematic underfunding, with major military projects being cancelled.

 

By 'military capability' I mean as a whole picture. Russia lacks a major heavy lift capability, lacks a proper blue-water fleet that can operate globally (and for that matter depends almost exclusively on its submarine force) permanently alone, lacks air-refuelling for example.

[Itsthejoeker]

10 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Oh their tanks are scary for sure (at least the T-14s are, despite their problems. T-90s aren't so much in comparison, and the T-72s (which make up the vast majority of their force) is not on the level of the Challenger 2), but it's a grand thing that we have an ocean separating us, don't we? Why do you think I specified naval capabilities? As far as I'm aware, Russia does not have amphibious tanks that can sail the thousand miles or so from Russia to Scotland.

 

You're mad if you think a significant fraction of Russia's tank force is operational, however. Look at their navy, burning in port.

 

By 'military capability' I mean as a whole picture. Russia lacks a major heavy lift capability, lacks a proper blue-water fleet that can operate globally (and for that matter depends almost exclusively on its submarine force), permanently alone, lacks air-refuelling for example.

 

Watch Nick Carter’s RUSI speech, a war with Russia won’t be fought with people, boats, and tanks. A cyber campaign could cripple our military capability by wiping out GPS and potentially other communications. A disinformation campaign could destroy our economy and send the country into more chaos than any Armed Forces could. 

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, Itsthejoeker said:

 

Watch Nick Carter’s RUSI speech, a war with Russia won’t be fought with people, boats, and tanks. A cyber campaign could cripple our military capability by wiping out GPS and potentially other communications. A disinformation campaign could destroy our economy and send the country into more chaos than any Armed Forces could. 

Very true, and as someone who is going to be joining the cyber security industry, I can assure you on this front we are more on an even-footing with Russia than materialistically. In fact, just in the last day the MoD and GCHQ have announced a new combined offensive force.

 

Disinformation is another thing entirely though.