Is Russia really a threat to the UK?



Ramshanker said:
I concur

We can't compete with the Russians, check this video out.
It's like a cross between Terminator & Junior Kickstart. Imagine this thing chasing after you (at 4mph) on the battlefield. Truly terrifying
Click to expand...
I don’t think Big Vlad looked too chuffed with it mind
 
GK said:
True to an extent but take a look at their jaunts into sweden. Our defence budget covers cyber warfare and there are no ifs and buts about it, russia are attacking our cyber security from all angles.
Click to expand...
Dont you think we are? If we aren't trying to hack the shit out of both allies and frenemies I'd be bitterly disappointed.
 
Not while we’ve got CASD, they aren’t. We’ve entered into the second Cold War whether people like it or not and the Russians are up to their old tricks.
 
No I don't. I think Mr Carter was over-egging the pudding somewhat. He seemed to treat Russia's involvement in Syria as some king of specific training exercise for a specific future military engagement aimed at ourselves, which I thought was a bit off.

I think our relationship with Russia will always be on the cold side but it would help if we didn't antagonize the Russian bear by poking it as apart of NATO.
 
Last edited:
vinegar hill said:
There's a lot of posturing from both sides goes on, it went on all through the cold war and it's still happening.
The most likely scenario would be Eastern Europe or the Baltic states.
Russia still sees those parts as under it's area of influence and in some cases as it's rightful land.
It's took back parts of The Crimea and is actively stirring the shite in Eastern Ukraine.
Like most bully's they try bit by bit to see what they can get away with and if they see weakness they'll exploit it.
Nato is duty bound to protect some of these lands, so yes tanks would be needed on those potential theatre's of war.
Click to expand...

Agree with this - you can't let bullies / tyrants just please themselves - for Crimea / Ukraine / Baltic States you could read Rhineland / Austria / Czechoslovakia - they'll keep chipping away and get bolder. And we don't need a massive standing army - just enough to make sure that they would calculate any attack would be too risky.

Personally I would divert resources away from Trident and have more conventional forces & manpower (maybe some tactical nuclear weapons that could be delivered by cruise missiles or aircraft). A larger army (in terms of people) would be better value for money for the tax payer too as they can be deployed in other roles when not on frontline duties (peace keeping, disaster response etc.).
 
hypersonic said:
Yes, but not in the conventional guns and bombs way.

They're cyber warefare division is massive and we're severely underfunded in that area.
Click to expand...
This is the real threat.

Ukraine were hacked thousands of times in the run-up to the Crimea being annexed.

This capability enables them to unsettle countries at very little cost, as recently implicated during Trump and Brexit.
 
do we need a BOAR facing off against expected russian tank battalions pouring through the Fulda Gap - no, those days are gone

are the armed forces being cut and cut and cut - yes they are

army number are at the lowest since Napoleon?

the RN is a joke compared to what it used to be even in the Falklands time

the FAA / RAF dont have enough fast jets so will have to share

flogging off our amphibious assault so even if we had a navy and an army we could'nt actually deliver them anywhere - let alone perform any of the humanitarian stuff they do

still no Nimrod replacement 8 years after they were binned

etc, etc, etc
 

Back
Top