It's healthy to not want to fight, says General Sir Richard Barrons, but young British people may realise they have to be conscripted if war erupts between Nato and Russia
This is bullshit. There will be no war between NATO and Russia of the type that needs Britons to conscript. Russia has few meat sacks left to send into any war. Having sacrificed 350,000 of its youth in Ukraine, Russia is scraping then bottom of the barrel for chumps willing the have their guts splattered on distant frozen farm fields. Russia now has to resort to mining prisons and third world countries for troops. What remains of Russia’s war materiel (tanks, vehicles, etc) is antiquated. When it comes to conventional warfare, Russia is a joke.
Now nukes and missles on the other hand, that’s a different story. Russia has plenty of them. But again, if Russia hits NATO with something like that, retaliation is like-for-like, and no foot soldiers are needed.
But it won’t come to that because in spite of Russia’s blustering and the media’s fear mongering, Russia knows that such a strike on nato would mean the end of Russia. And Russia wants to continue to exist.
Russia will not be seeking to get a firm NATO response in the form of troops mobilised; they will be seeking to carefully undermine confidence in article 5 with small offenses that “should” trigger it but (they hope) don’t, causing fractures in the alliance that will allow them to be more brazen. They don’t want to deal with blocs of countries, they have more leverage in 1:1 negotiations and will seek ways to force more of these on NATO members.
Which they’ve done blatantly since Georgia. Well put friend. I’ve been trying to articulate it this succinctly. Always think of raptors testing the cage.
This is bullshit. There will be no war between NATO and Russia of the type that needs Britons to conscript. Russia has few meat sacks left to send into any war. Having sacrificed 350,000 of its youth in Ukraine, Russia is scraping then bottom of the barrel for chumps willing the have their guts splattered on distant frozen farm fields. Russia now has to resort to mining prisons and third world countries for troops. What remains of Russia’s war materiel (tanks, vehicles, etc) is antiquated. When it comes to conventional warfare, Russia is a joke.
Now nukes and missles on the other hand, that’s a different story. Russia has plenty of them. But again, if Russia hits NATO with something like that, retaliation is like-for-like, and no foot soldiers are needed.
But it won’t come to that because in spite of Russia’s blustering and the media’s fear mongering, Russia knows that such a strike on nato would mean the end of Russia. And Russia wants to continue to exist.
Russia will not be seeking to get a firm NATO response in the form of troops mobilised; they will be seeking to carefully undermine confidence in article 5 with small offenses that “should” trigger it but (they hope) don’t, causing fractures in the alliance that will allow them to be more brazen. They don’t want to deal with blocs of countries, they have more leverage in 1:1 negotiations and will seek ways to force more of these on NATO members.
More snake than bear.
They’ve always been like this. Their spy game has always been better than ours, where we excelled at cryptography
Which they’ve done blatantly since Georgia. Well put friend. I’ve been trying to articulate it this succinctly. Always think of raptors testing the cage.
Credit for this explanation to Anders Puck Nielsen. He puts things into words in a way that clicks with me
Not familiar
Yes, or attempts at lightning strikes that force the response to not be defence but invasion of a recently invaded country.
The attack on Ukraine was an attempt at this, and would have fractured NATO had it worked because it would work just as well against Estonia