Forum | So here we go again! by bluejacko

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

So here we go again! 07:53 - Feb 17 with 4246 views

Yet another Govt willing to put our under strength,under equipped Army into an impossible situation!
Look at it this way would you pay third party insurance on your car and then expect comprehensive cover if you had an accident? That’s what our armed forces are the nation’s insurance policy!
Now after years of neglect they are being touted by Starmer to go to Ukraine and stand in the middle of two warring countries with the frontlines in places mere yards apart as ‘peacekeepers’!
We are at our lowest ebb in armoured vehicles and artillery so how exactly are we going to enforce a ceasefire?
There are 800 miles or so of border that would need policed ,obviously we would not be able to do that so who else would be in,the French with the Foreign Legion would be one,the Poles another a combined force from the Baltic states? Italy,spa inwho knows. The Germans would claim there are too many historical reasons they couldn’t do it!
So then how long do we commit our small army to an open ended operation that WILL cost lives and treasure?
Meanwhile Trump who dreamt up this bollards can sit on his throne and say see I delivered peace and you lot messed it up when the Orcs start all over again🤬

So here we go again! on 11:16 - Feb 17 with 1256 views

SaffronWaldenBlues

We have to defend the multi-national lobbyists who fund our political parties interests in Eastern Europe after all! Your taxes pay to defend those interests. All those donations to Starmer's campaign and gifts come with a price. John Major and Kier Starmer singing from the exact same hymn sheet on this. Protect the multinationals and defeat Russian nationalism at all costs, it's not their sons off to war, is it? Continue EU and Nato imperial expansion into Eastern Europe now! Remember, we're the good guys and don't invade/exploit anyone.

All hail the neo-liberal agenda!

[Post edited 17 Feb 11:17]

An East Anglian Town overtaken by Londoners

-8

So here we go again! on 11:22 - Feb 17 with 1238 views

bluejacko

So here we go again! on 09:45 - Feb 17 by Guthrum

Tho the point about insurance is that people group together to spread the risk and financial load. That is where NATO has been so effective these last 75 years. The problem we have now is that the largest contributor to the policy appears on the brink of defaulting on their premium, so the whole business may collapse.

The UK simply cannot afford to unilaterally defend itself in a modern (hugely expensive) military environment. Not without putting the entire economy on a war footing and racking up massive debt for the future. Probably not even then if we were attacked by a powerful coalition/superpower. As Russia is finding, pretty much nobody, except perhaps the USA and China, can.

Edit: There will have to be a formalised European military umbrella, with similar guarantees to NATO's Article 5.

[Post edited 17 Feb 9:48]

I see your point militarily but if nations continue to cut defence then that pot for collective security gets smaller doesn’t it?
As for it being an insurance’ policy’ I don’t ask my neighbours to chip in to help pay mine! We have got to get our own house in order before being able to help others,I’m sure you don’t donate until your bills are paid and you can then see if you can afford it of not.

So here we go again! on 11:25 - Feb 17 with 1225 views

RIPbobby

So here we go again! on 09:42 - Feb 17 by redrickstuhaart
Errr. The suggestion is wed contribute to a peacekeping force, likely alomg with others. Sweden, Germany etc. Not start a war.

Yes that is the suggestion. But do you think that is what will happen? Starmer is massively disliked by his population. He would hope that a war would improve his status, much like it did to Thatcher in 82.

I hope we stay well away from it all. Let the united nations do the tidy up. We all know it will just drag on and on.

-3

So here we go again! on 11:47 - Feb 17 with 1194 views

redrickstuhaart

So here we go again! on 11:25 - Feb 17 by RIPbobby
Yes that is the suggestion. But do you think that is what will happen? Starmer is massively disliked by his population. He would hope that a war would improve his status, much like it did to Thatcher in 82. I hope we stay well away from it all. Let the united nations do the tidy up. We all know it will just drag on and on.

I think that is one of the most absurd claims i have ever seen on here.

So here we go again! on 11:52 - Feb 17 with 1171 views

lowhouseblue

the pressing issue is that we now need to quickly find a minimum of an additional 0.5% of gdp to put into defence - and that's only a start. that's the same order of magnitude as the extra money the budget put into the nhs - and the message from the budget was that the pot is now empty.

And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show

So here we go again! on 11:58 - Feb 17 with 1155 views

Juggsy

So here we go again! on 08:32 - Feb 17 by Swansea_Blue
Yeah, I red it as we’d only be sending them after any peace deal to act purely as a peacekeeping support force for Ukraine really. I wouldn’t have thought it would be a combat situation or even a risk of one. Russia wouldn’t dare attack NATO forces. Maybe!?

Forces from a NATO nation (UK) in a non-NATO Country (Ukraine) would be fair game without enacting the NATO umbrella. Trump is pushing this as Putin will never accept Ukraine becoming a part of NATO and also so his hands won't be dirty when the Russians kick of again. $hit show all round really.

So here we go again! on 12:11 - Feb 17 with 1109 views

tonybied

So here we go again! on 11:22 - Feb 17 by bluejacko

Your neighbours don't chip in for your insurance, the other people that also pay in to the same pot (insurance provider) as you do. NATO is our "insurance provider" that members pay into, in this example.

Also, insurance is not a donation, you pay your house insurance before you pay most of your other bills if you have any sense. No point paying for your TV license if you have no house to watch your TV in as the roof has fallen in.

Edit: Spelling

[Post edited 17 Feb 12:33]

So here we go again! on 12:12 - Feb 17 with 1105 views

Guthrum

So here we go again! on 11:25 - Feb 17 by RIPbobby
Yes that is the suggestion. But do you think that is what will happen? Starmer is massively disliked by his population. He would hope that a war would improve his status, much like it did to Thatcher in 82. I hope we stay well away from it all. Let the united nations do the tidy up. We all know it will just drag on and on.

1982 was not at all like the present situation. Over the Falklands, the UK had to respond or face huge damage to their international standing*. Any electoral advantage to Thatcher (which is much overstated) was purely incidental.

Quite apart from the fact it was not the UK government who initiated the crisis.

* Allowing UK territory (however much we didn't want the cost of running it) to be unilaterally seized, or being proveably incapable of defending it, would have massively diminished our status and respect.

	Good Lord! Whatever is it?
Poll:	McCarthy: A More Nuanced Poll
Blog:	[Blog] For Those Panicking About the Lack of Transfer Activity

So here we go again! on 12:26 - Feb 17 with 1066 views

bluejacko

Well this is not going away anytime soon

https://ukdj.imgix.net/2025/02/ukrainemin2.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=

Copied from UKDJ a very good forum for defence matters 👍

So here we go again! on 12:45 - Feb 17 with 1033 views

bluejacko

So here we go again! on 12:11 - Feb 17 by tonybied

[Post edited 17 Feb 12:33]

What’s the point of NATO if we don’t spend enough to contribute forces to that organisation?
You are basically saying what that numpty over the pond is saying we are leaving it to everyone else for ‘insurance’!
I said you should look to the forces like the nations insurance policy spend on it and hope to hell we never have to use it👍
Anyway the fact remains we have nowhere near the resources and manpower to spend on an open ended operation in Ukraine no matter Starmers ‘good’ intentions and I’m sure the military chiefs are telling him to wind his neck in and check before speaking.

So here we go again! on 12:59 - Feb 17 with 996 views

tonybied

So here we go again! on 12:45 - Feb 17 by bluejacko

I'm not disagreeing with the wider point, if the US effectively pull out of NATO then NATO will be massively crippled and not very much use as a deterrent (insurance policy).

My point was that your analogy about neighbours chipping in was incorrect.

Admittedly, it was rather a pedantic comment and not really adding to the wider conversation.

So here we go again! on 13:04 - Feb 17 with 986 views

Leaky

You forgot the Luxembourg Light horse

So here we go again! on 13:09 - Feb 17 with 980 views

Mercian

I would rather live as a free man in poverty than live as a wealthy man in a dictatorship and in these dangerous times the second option is unlikely but possible in the near to mid future. Sending our forces to stop Russia in The Ukraine is far better than sending them to Dover to stop them invading from France and if I have to a little more tax in order for that to happen than so be it.

So here we go again! on 13:13 - Feb 17 with 973 views

SuperKieranMcKenna

So here we go again! on 11:16 - Feb 17 by SaffronWaldenBlues

[Post edited 17 Feb 11:17]

Surely a parody account…albeit not a very funny one.

Sort of a dour version of Rick from the Young Ones.

So here we go again! on 13:14 - Feb 17 with 964 views

Swansea_Blue

So here we go again! on 11:25 - Feb 17 by RIPbobby
Yes that is the suggestion. But do you think that is what will happen? Starmer is massively disliked by his population. He would hope that a war would improve his status, much like it did to Thatcher in 82. I hope we stay well away from it all. Let the united nations do the tidy up. We all know it will just drag on and on.

Well, yes that will probably happen. Putin isn’t going to attack a collective of European troops whether they’re flying a NATO flag or not.

Starmer’s as dull as dishwater, but standing up to Putin and showing support for Ukraine beyond a Johnson-style photo op is actually showing some real leadership. I didn’t know he had it in him. There’s going to be a leadership/influence vacuum to be filled as America withdraws up its own backside. It might as well be us to step up - we can’t afford to match America’s spending but we can be at the top table again in terms of decision making.

Why are you against us supporting Ukraine in this way, in whatever capacity we’re able? That’s unclear to me. The state of our armed forces is irrelevant- we’ll just provide what we can. What’s wrong with that?

[Post edited 17 Feb 13:15]

Poll:

Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

So here we go again! on 13:38 - Feb 17 with 912 views

Churchman

So here we go again! on 13:14 - Feb 17 by Swansea_Blue

[Post edited 17 Feb 13:15]

Why not take more of Ukraine, European troops or not? So a few are killed. Like Putin cares about lives. What are the Europeans actually going to do about it? They will have no support from the US and no real means of fighting back. Nor are they kitted out to do very much.

Lavrov’s comments summarise Russian and US views on Europe. From the BBC:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who is due to attend talks with US officials in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, has suggested that he sees no role for Europe in any peace negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine.
"I don't know what they would be doing at the negotiating table. If they are going to 'beg for' some cunning ideas about freezing the conflict - while...they really mean continuing the war - then why invite them [Europeans] there?" he says.

In other words, the rabble west of Ukraine or Russia as it will be are not even worthy of discussion. Little weak people (despite spending twice as much on Ukraine as the US). By sawing up Ukraine with Russia US has legitimised Russia’s territory grab including its little reported attack on infrastructure over the weekend. In all but name, it supports Putin’s actions. Anyone too weak - not in the room. Might is right.

The Paris meeting is very important. People are going to be choosing sides going forward. Orban has made his choice - fine. It’ll be up to the rest. But the key players will be Germany, France, Poland and the U.K.

Starmer? Not sure he’s shown much leadership beyond grabbing a few Taylor Swift tickets and promising military support we will struggle to fulfil. But hopefully something meaningful will come from this. I hope I’m wrong about him. If it doesn’t, U.K. will need to look to itself and rearm fast which will cost more than a collective response.

So here we go again! on 14:25 - Feb 17 with 879 views

WeWereZombies

So here we go again! on 13:14 - Feb 17 by Swansea_Blue

[Post edited 17 Feb 13:15]

Rather than a leadership vacuum we may find the opposite, at least three leaders vying for 'best boy' as Macron seeks to provide the pinnacle of French statesmanship and diplomacy (to try and rally his flagging ratings) and Tusk (I wasn't a football hooligan, I was a top notch teenage street fighter) get muscular. Starmer just had to wait for the right moments to say 'Steady on chaps, although we could give the Challenger tanks a run out now...'

[Post edited 17 Feb 16:39]

Poll:

What was in Wes Burns' imaginary cup of tea ?

So here we go again! on 16:33 - Feb 17 with 811 views

factual_blue

So here we go again! on 10:37 - Feb 17 by RegencyBlue
Russia was once described as Upper Volta with nuclear weapons. Given their militaries performance in Ukraine over the last three years I’d say that was still fairly accurate!

One of the main reasons their initial push on Kyiv failed in the first weeks of the war* was that the high-grade tyres for military vehicles had been flogged off for personal profit by various chaps at almost every level of the Russian armed forces. That level of corruption plagues their military,

I have a nasty feeling that, if the nuclear option could be ruled out, NATO wouldn't mind a pop at the Russian military. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who argue that their nuclear capability is a bit rubbish too.

*special military operation.

	Ta neige, Acadie, fait des larmes au soleil
Poll:	Best at sniping
Blog:	[Blog] The Shape We're In

So here we go again! on 17:21 - Feb 17 with 767 views

soupytwist

While we obviously underestimate the Russian military at our peril, if Putin has had to bring in a load of North Koreans to achieve not a great deal in Ukraine how much ability do they really have to engage in a fight against NATO troops?

So here we go again! on 17:25 - Feb 17 with 757 views

Dubtractor

Because of this thread title, I've had Whitesnake stuck in my head all day.

	I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun. I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
Poll:	Important Christmas poll - which is the best Celebration chocolate?

So here we go again! on 18:20 - Feb 17 with 713 views

bluejacko

So here we go again! on 17:21 - Feb 17 by soupytwist
While we obviously underestimate the Russian military at our peril, if Putin has had to bring in a load of North Koreans to achieve not a great deal in Ukraine how much ability do they really have to engage in a fight against NATO troops?

Fighting against NATO battle groups would be a very different scenario to whats going on now!
We would establish air superiority,
Have surveillance and command and control aircraft
Electronic warfare aircraft
Then have the use of ground attack aircraft and attack helicopters
If the US is still in the game strategic bombing of Orc supply depots and routes
Once they get past all of that then instead of waiting for any attack the BGs would use manoeuvre
warfare against them.
Obviously no plan survives contact with the enemy but that is roughly how NATO would fight.

So here we go again! on 10:31 - Feb 19 with 373 views

bluejacko

Looks like we are back at square one! Trump has said he has no problem with European troops policing the front line if we wanted too ( didn’t he in fact demand that) However pootin has stated that no way will he accept NATO on ‘his border’! Now as most European armies are in fact NATO that rules any front line involvement out for us and the others! Germany and Poland have already said they wouldn’t take part anyway! I have no doubt Starmer was sincere in his commitment to the deployment but he really should have waited before issuing a statement.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread