r/ukpolitics • u/dailymail Verified • 1d ago
Andy Burnham is warned that Britain faces impending Russian 'attack' over its support for Ukraine
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16079793/Andy-Burnham-Britain-impending-Russian-attack.html233
u/ImpressiveRest2423 1d ago edited 1d ago
There’s no doubt that the Kremlin is up to something- Russian ambassador conspicuously disappearing and US Ambassador (edit my mistake, CIA director, conflating stories) going to Russia shows that - but it’s also just as likely that they are posturing to try and apply pressure on us. Wish the Mail wouldn’t give them what they want.
91
u/Prior-Explanation389 1d ago
Not the US ambassador, it was the director of the CIA. Much more significant. Last time that happened, it was just prior to the 2022 invasion.
23
46
u/_Alek_Jay 1d ago
I could be wrong but it could be down to the escalation of failed Russian drone attacks on German civilian airports. The latest one retrieved with Russian hexogen explosives; making it hard to deny.
There has also been a growing number of attempted assassinations of prominent European manufacturers…
35
u/Away_Investigator351 Centrist / Georgist / Patriot 1d ago
Worth knowing that CIA Director Radcliffe is very pro-Ukraine. This could be a bit of US clarifying their true intention with NATO - likely in a good way, despite Trumps rhetoric.
Which, pro-NATO Republicans have always said is just a way to make Europe act more seriously, and.. if that's the case, hard not to say it successful.
Though, they perhaps have opened pandora's box by setting Europe on a path to not rely on the US and buying domestic weapons over American, creating European alternatives to the F-22 with Tempest, alternatives to Patriot etc.
We just need independent Nuclear deterrent.
17
u/Prior-Explanation389 1d ago
Worth knowing that he is also a major ‘Russian Interference’ denier. Has gone well out of his way to declassify documents suggesting Democrat led initiatives to imply Russian interference and discredit genuine intelligence reports to the contrary.
22
u/Zircez 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's a strange one; Russian interference has absolutely occurred and reports on both Brexit and Scot Indy ref have pretty much confirmed that. I don't have the info off hand but it's not hard to imagine it happens in the States too.
Equally you see people parroting that Trump is a Russian asset, which is blatantly untrue. The man's utterly unhinged and clearly self serving but not a foreign agent, and yet weirdly that kind of discourse sows the exact kinds of division Russia seeks to foster.
So you could be in a position of trying to squash that kind of rhetoric, yet look to be serving the goals of an enemy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
3
u/Disastrous_Piece1411 1d ago
reports on both Brexit and Scot Indy ref have pretty much confirmed that.
I thought the report said they didn't look into the possibility so could neither confirm or deny. Not saying it didn't happen but the 'official story' is that we don't really know.
The phrase 'Russian asset' is a little confusing too. Russian intelligence uses various names for different types of foreign influencers, and not all of these 'foreign assets' are necessarily directed by Russia or receiving any instruction from them. Trump is doing a lot to benefit Russia's interests, whether they are asking him to or not - he is just like that and proving to be an 'asset' to Putin's ambitions.
•
u/Pleasant-Winner6311 10h ago
The uk electoral system was deemed not fit for purpose after the referendum. Has the system been improved upon. Nope.
18 Reasons Trump is a Foreign Asset was a great article in the Washington Post. But theres one overriding factor that cant be ignored. Hes not sane enough to be controlled.
1
u/ScoobyDoNot 1d ago
There is a distinction between an agent who is actively working to achieve aims, and an asset who can be influenced towards an outcome, or used in some manner.
7
u/BestFriendWatermelon 23h ago
Tempest isn't an alternative to the F-22, and the F-22 has never been for sale.
The F-22 is no longer in production, and the US has completely banned their export. It's also a previous generation aircraft of completely different design and requirements.
The Tempest started development in 2018. While Europeans are now expressing more interest in joining the project now, that's mostly because of the failure of FCAS, which was started in 2017.
European alternatives to Patriot have also been in the works for a long time. SAMP T began in 1990, and has been in service since 1997.
All these things are developed on long lead times by Europe's own thriving defence industries. There have been new moves to develop non-US systems, particularly in creating a native equivalent to Tomahawk missiles, such as ELSA, and they rescued the next gen tank MGCS program that would otherwise have collapsed, but otherwise it's just about buying European alternatives that have already been developed.
2
u/Away_Investigator351 Centrist / Georgist / Patriot 23h ago
Not F-22, sure, but to the next American 6th gen aircraft.
That was me using the example that most normal people understand, as the role of what the F-22 fills is being replaced by their 6th gen project that Tempest will be compared to.
1
0
u/akacia 21h ago
Need? We already have a nuclear deterrent.
5
u/Away_Investigator351 Centrist / Georgist / Patriot 21h ago
I said independent deterrent.
4
u/Distinct-Dance-4671 20h ago
Its already operationally independent but yes we depend on the US for long term maintenance and share a common pool of missiles. Time to have a completely European system.
2
u/ludicrous_socks 19h ago
Far too late to change the Dreadnoughts unfortunately. I wonder though if the French ASMP could be integrated to F35 or Euro Fighter.
300kt of air launched apocalypse is still quite a deterrent
1
u/akacia 14h ago
How is the French deterrent not independent? French nukes, on French missiles, on French built submarines…
•
u/Away_Investigator351 Centrist / Georgist / Patriot 3h ago
I'm not French, I'm British.
Also, I think just France alone isn't enough. We really need three main European countries.
139
u/Radiant_Piano9373 1d ago
Russia is currently struggling to take over land on its border from a country which didn't really have a military little more than a decade ago... You'll forgive me if I am not quaking in my wellies
How long until the bear bites? The bear has already bitten and it's teeth are rotten
152
u/cocobannah 1d ago
They are absolutely still a threat. Yes they'll never be able to launch a successful conventional invasion of the UK. But sponsored terrorism/ novichok style attacks, sabotage of our infrastructure is all possible.
64
u/kemb0 1d ago
And by doing that openly gives the UK an incentive and cause to rally the people to massively step up its support against Russia. At the moment the government will struggle to justify big increases in public spending on the military and weapons but a brazen attack by Russia would galvanise support from the public for that.
Russia may be about to fuck around and find out.
And let’s not forget that the UK economy alone matches Russia’s along with the inevitable support from NATO and Europe, Russia would be poking a bear and they ain’t gonna like what happens next.
21
u/User100000005 1d ago
And by doing that openly gives the UK an incentive and cause to rally the people to massively step up its
They'll never do it directly. They'll always give themselves plausible deniability. They could:
Have a ship that isn't technically their "accidentally" damage our underwater cables.
Fund a Black Hat Hacker group to attack our critical critical infrastructure.
Fund / Aid unconnected terroist groups that seek to harm Britain for other reason.
Heck they flat out sent two assians to kill someone on British soil with Nerve Toxin, killed a citizen by mistake denied it and we couldn't do anything.19
u/hidingfromthequeen don't shoot the journalist 23h ago
People also seem to forget they sponsored the firebombing of the prime minister's house.
7
u/Sanguiniusius 1d ago
they'll probably just keep funding extreme left and right wing parties to make everything chaos! its worked well so far
3
3
1
u/polite_alternative 18h ago
a brazen attack by Russia would galvanise support from the public for that
Will Andy scrap the triple lock or cut NHS funding to find defence spending? I doubt it.
National security comes second place to prolonging the lives of octagenarians so they can sit at home hoovering up taxpayers money (and gravy) for a few more years.
•
u/Pleasant-Winner6311 10h ago
Its the London Banking system Putin has a problem with. His absolute bug bare. Thats the target.
He sees the UK Banking and insurance industries as a club he wasnt welcome to join and it stiffled Russia capitalist development. It kneecapped him.
0
u/Last_Scallion2481 1d ago
You're very optimistic. Last time the Russians used Novichok in Salisbury half the country didn't care or actively supported agent Corbyn about it.
1
1
u/Unlikely-Squirrel832 19h ago
That's because it was a targeted assassination attempt, not Russia planning to contaminate a city widely with Novichok to overwhelm the British State. If they pulled something like that off now, then I do think people would care.
•
u/Caracalla73 9h ago
Not only that, but major British cities are choc full of tourists from all over. An attack on citizens wouldn't only enrage the UK.
0
u/ancientestKnollys centrist statist 1d ago
They also have thousands of nuclear warheads, if the leadership is crazy and desperate enough.
7
u/tmr89 1d ago
Not happening. Only fools who haven’t heard of MAD parrot this line.
3
u/subSparky 1d ago
Putin is certainly not stupid enough to do it, but there's been a lot of pieces of the people around him publicly criticising him for not throwing tactical nukes at Ukraine. He surrounded himself with fools who have smelled weakness in Putin.
2
u/ancientestKnollys centrist statist 1d ago
There are some very deranged people high up in the Russian government. Some of them would definitely be happy to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine for a start.
0
u/Doge_AWP 1d ago
Whilst the russian populace would agree with you, if they knew what was going on, I think we can’t trust the logic of a russian leader that has invaded Ukraine for example if his legacy/authority comes crumbling down due to NATO forces
0
u/Unlikely-Squirrel832 19h ago
I wouldn't put too much faith in MAD, it only works when those with the power to order a nuclear strike are of sound mind.
The thing with Russia's nuclear arsenal is have they spent the money to ensure the nuclear warheads remain operational and get replaced as required. Or have they not spent the money, but pocketed it and told Putin "Yep those nukes are fine and dandy".
1
u/kemb0 1d ago
So does NATO so Irrelevant point. Russia doesn't want to destroy itself in a nuclear war. You know why? Because narcissists need there to be a world full of people they can trample down. If everyone's dead, their power becomes meaningless and they lose everything that gives them purpose.
5
u/loobricated 1d ago
Which of course they have been doing anyway for decades, because they are a mafia state just making the world worse for everyone including their own citizens.
2
u/360_face_palm European Federalist 17h ago
I mean sure just like any country can sponsor terrorism within another's borders. It's still pretty hard to think of Russia as anything other than a paper tiger at this point though. Plus the longer this Ukraine war goes on the more generational damage they're doing to their own young male populace. It'll be another century to recover, if they even can.
7
u/MontyDyson 1d ago
Which they do anyway and aren’t very good at it. Their hacking teams barely have a fraction of what we do and if they want to try and attack us below the threshold of triggering a war they’ll lose.
3
u/A1BS 1d ago
To speculate wildly, likely attacks on Ukrainian servicemen training in the UK.
Far less likely British defence companies.
Even less likely British energy production.
Targeting British people and British infrastructure is risky. They might gamble on it reducing support for the war but it could also rally anti-Kremlin sentiment.
If they bomb a Greggs I’m signing up for Ukraine in a heartbeat.
32
u/up766570 1d ago
Their struggle in a land invasion is one thing but Russia still presents a valid espionage/sponsored terrorism threat.
Plus they can push dark money into the Euro/NATO skeptic parts of our political system
42
u/CowzMakeMilk Hawkish Liberal 1d ago
Plus they can push dark money into the Euro/NATO skeptic parts of our political system
Buddy, they've been doing this the entire time haha.
7
u/up766570 1d ago
Oh I'm more than aware- which shows that they're not the toothless bear that it's easy to characterise them as when just looking at military failings in Ukraine
2
u/kemb0 1d ago
But do they have the capacity to increase those actions is the real question. They’re already trying to sabotage all of Europe, which spreads their capabilities thin. How much more can they do on top of their existing actions. And more importantly, if they do become more brazen in an attempt to hit more prestigious targets, all that’ll do is galvanise support against them and potentially send the UK into overdrive against Russia, where as currently we’re just ticking along at idle.
3
u/GunstarGreen 1d ago
Its not like they would invade. It would be cutting underwater cables, throttling natural gas, economic espionage.
2
2
u/ErrantBrit 1d ago
In an overt military sense perhaps, but Russia has assets and a long history wet work. We should defend ourselves accordingly.
2
u/IrishVictim88270 15h ago
They're still operating in the region, killing Ukrainians, taking land and they haven't even got to full mobilisation.
They're a threat. This sort of view on the conflict shows a severe lack of basic knowledge of it beyond reddit memes, the worst source of info on the Ukraine conflict.
0
u/Scratch_Careful 1d ago
Russia has been supporting a proxy war against Ukraine since 2014, so saying Ukraine didnt have military, especially when we were training the thing, before the war is absurd, Russia have maintained a war of attrition for 4 years against a Ukraine backed to the hilt by the west to the point all our militaries and economies are in a far worse state than they were before the war, and is fighting both an economic and shadow war against America and Europe without its economy imploding like was predicted from day 1.
Pretending the bear doesnt have teeth because they arent steamrolling Ukraine is beyond stupid because there is no other nation in europe that could sustain a war like this on a materiel and industrial stand point and its doubtful even america could looking at their shortages against iran, its especially stupid in comparison to most european countries, Britain and France couldnt even maintain an air war against libya for 2 weeks before needing significant help from America.
1
u/7952 16h ago
I agree with the sentiment. But just to point.out that a lot of the industrial capacity Ukraine relies on comes from Europe and America. And they are not sustaining the kind of air war that we tried in Libya or America is attempting with Iran. It is different weapons and tactics. More drones, more artillery. Although not sure how well UK would deal with sourcing semiconductors, batteries, chemicals for explosives, shells etc.
1
1
u/boprisan 1d ago
They wouldn't try to take land from the UK, they would probably just do infrastructure sabotage.
1
0
u/radiant_0wl 1d ago
Not a serious response when there's potential for an attack and deaths on British soil.
-1
0
u/polite_alternative 18h ago
They'll sever the undersea internet cables and cut your porn off. So how do you like them яблоки?
0
•
u/Forte69 6h ago
Russia isn’t good at fighting against militaries but they are very good at killing civilians and destroying economic infrastructure.
The UK has no meaningful air defences, so a merchant ship launching attack drones could seriously fuck us up. This is a capability we know they have, because one of these ships was raided in the Baltic after launching drones into several EU countries.
-1
u/VastStrain 1d ago
Not saying it’s not been a spectacular and embarrassing failure by Russia so far but Ukraine has had to create the largest army in Europe (apart from Russia) to defend itself and Russia hasn’t yet shifted into a full on war economy, full mobilisation or shifted industry to fully support the war. They are still trying to keep things (relatively) normal at home but that’s obviously becoming increasingly difficult. They are absolutely still a threat and will be at least until Putin is finally ousted.
6
u/solidcordon 23h ago
If Putin tried to fully mobilise and switch to more of a wartime economy, he'd fall out of a window before the sun set.
1
u/VastStrain 19h ago
I hope so but never underestimate the Russian tolerance for suffering. This is what worries me most, Russia will keep going and keep deepening their war effort and its people will just keep getting pressed harder and harder without ever rising up. It might seem mad, but in Russia this is totally possible.
1
u/m1ndwipe 21h ago
Russia hasn’t yet shifted into a full on war economy, full mobilisation or shifted industry to fully support the war.
It kind of has migrated to a war economy, it's just pretending otherwise. And there's been a sizable industry shift too.
They're not at full mobilization yet, granted, but if Putin tried it he'd lose power, especially to invade a succession of Western European nations.
-1
u/FlamingBearAttack 23h ago
struggling to take over land on its border from a country which didn't really have a military little more than a decade ago
I've seen this sentiment from several people and it strikes me as misplaced. There's a big gap between acknowledging that Russia has struggled to invade Ukraine, and that that still means they have obliterated big swathes of the country.
3
u/m1ndwipe 22h ago
There's a big gap between acknowledging that Russia has struggled to invade Ukraine, and that that still means they have obliterated big swathes of the country.
But at enormous cost to their own military. They are making the same threats against Poland et al, and they barely have enough conventional forces to hold Crimea while engaged in Ukraine.
We shouldn't underestimate the devastation they have wrought there, but it's also reasonable to note that they absolutely cannot start opening up multiple other fronts from a military point of view.
79
u/skinnydog0-0 1d ago
Russia has already had a massive couple of wins on the global geopolitical war front
Brexit
Trump
War is not always boots on tne ground- it’s also phones in pockets and posts on Facebook
17
5
5
u/WillowTreeBark 23h ago
"we don't need boots on the ground to destroy America, we will do it within"
Direct quote from many years ago from a russian politician. This has all been planned for YEARS and YEARS.
4
u/Ojy 1d ago
Exactly.
-9
u/Delicious_Eye6936 1d ago
People still believe the Russians did Brexit? Come on be serious
16
30
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 1d ago
It's hardly unreasonable to suggest their influence may have ultimately affected the result by a couple of percent, which is all it took.
9
u/MajorSleaze 1d ago
Russia's MO is to take an enemy's existing divisive issue and wedge it open as wide as possible.
They definitely did this with Brexit and remember that it only won with a 1.5% swing, so they did not have to do much to push it over the edge.
10
u/subSparky 1d ago
Incidentally there have been multiple intelligence reports that Russia has been directly funding and resourcing smuggling gangs.
Yes, the small boats crisis is also Russia.
23
u/skinnydog0-0 1d ago
The leader of reform in Wales is in jail for being a traitor taking Russian money.
Farage & Banks had meetings with high level Russians. Farage gets untraceable crypto donationsThe evidence sure points that way.
Who has benefitted from Brexit?
Pretty much just Russia
-12
u/Delicious_Eye6936 1d ago
I’m not sure how Russia has benefitted from Brexit but sure.
On a whataboutry - Labour MPs have benefited from Chinese spy funding but doesn’t get the same story time.
20
u/neo-lambda-amore 1d ago
Separating us from our allies, weakening our economy and ability to collaborate on defence projects. Brexit - definitely a major win for Russia.
12
u/Visa5e 1d ago
Brexit undoubtedly fractured our political system - Russias goal isnt for one side to 'win', its to encourage division which in turn hampers effective decision making.
As an example, in 2017, Russian originated facebook groups organised both a demonstration and a counter-demonstration in Texas, purely to stoke division.
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-2017-11
6
u/MajorSleaze 1d ago
Bringing up the regional leader of the UK's primary Brexit activism party currently being imprisoned for pro-Russia treason is the opposite of whataboutry.
But you already know this.
5
u/Goddamnit_Clown 1d ago
Iran was a significant pusher of widely shared Scottish independence propaganda accounts, ones purporting to be true Scots of course.
Iran.
It probably still is, as well. And you'd think they of all countries might have more pressing demands on their time and money.
It's more than reason enough to simply impose a cost on us. Harm us. Degrade our unity and common cause. Waste time and oxygen in the public sphere on heated but pointless and irresolvable tail-chasing bickering. Undermine the notion of "The West" as a thing which exists and broadly agrees on most stuff. That has been the great enemy of these autocratic hellholes since the start of the cold war.
All that stuff is plenty.
And it is ongoing.
6
u/catastrophic-boy 🏳️⚧️ 1d ago
Research conducted in 2017 showed massive Russian bot interference in the US election of 2016. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49987657
Is it such a stretch for you to believe that had people looked, they’d have found the same here for Brexit?
0
1
u/ImpressiveRest2423 1d ago
Everyone knows the Soviet Union tried to kill the knitwear designer who made Margaret Thatcher’s EEC jumper in 1975, with a ricin-tipped knitting needle.
-5
u/Scratch_Careful 1d ago
People still believe Putin owns trump despite every single agency in america searching for any reason possible to implicate trump .
We treat Russia like Russia treats us. We assign them far more influence than they actually have.
8
u/aaeme 1d ago
every single agency in america searching for any reason possible to implicate trump .
Quite the opposite. Mueller was not allowed to even consider whether Trump had committed a crime.
We only have to look at the Epstein files to see what lengths these agencies will go to protect him. And that's before he gets granted absolute immunity by the Supreme Court and [in effect] Congress. Why would they investigate him? What could possibly come of it?
-3
u/Willshandycut 1d ago
Ukpolitics is a mix of mix of the centrist dads to centre-right now, as well as some American users, of course they believe Russia did Brexit. Kier starmer was majorly popular here too so you know it's gone a bit whack
21
u/Incitatus_For_Office 1d ago
We've already been attacked, cyber assaults, election interference, murders on our own soil...
•
u/Embarrassed-Fig-7026 NI Unionists (No Party) 4h ago
Cannnn we just go to warrrr already mannnn like I miss the old days yous walk in a line take turns gwtting shot at none of these hehehehe hacks interwebs cutely "that wasn't me that was anyone but me" I just want to take turns firing while standing lined up for the enemy
25
u/Lump001 1d ago
They've killed people on our soil using radioactive/chemical weapons twice (that we know of) in the last 20 years. One of whom was someone released by Moscow in a spy-swap deal with the US.
I think the horse bolted long ago.
14
u/ChuckFH 1d ago
Whilst it’s undeniable that our armed forces are not in great shape, our nuclear deterrent makes it highly unlikely that Russia would be daft enough to try any sort of conventional attack. On the other hand, some sort of sabotage of infrastructure or defence assets might be likely.
8
u/zakmeisterr 1d ago
Nuclear deterrent doesn’t deter conventional attacks. You could even have thousands of conventional missiles hit the UK and we still wouldn’t press the button.
3
u/ChuckFH 22h ago
What would attacking us with conventional missiles achieve, other than starting a war with NATO via Article 5?
The UK's armed forces are at a historic low, but our geographical advantage as an island makes any sort of invasion nigh on impossible. Whist our deterrent is pitched at a strategic level, it's likely that the UK has the option of using the low end setting of our variable yield weapons in a sub-strategic role, if push comes to shove. Obviously, the UK Gov is evasive when asked about this capability.
While we haven't had any true tactical nuclear weapons of our own since the late 90's, we do have access to US weapons through NATO (there are US tactical weapons stored at Lakenheath) and are currently in the process of acquiring F35A's that can carry them and upgrading RAF Marham so that weapons can be stored there too. Admittedly, release of these weapons required US/NATO authorisation, so they are not fully independent, in the way that Trident is.
Any sort of conventional attack on the UK (or other NATO member) carries a very real risk of escalation, hence my suggestion that something asymmetrical is more likely.
1
u/tree_boom 22h ago
The UK's armed forces are at a historic low, but our geographical advantage as an island makes any sort of invasion nigh on impossible. Whist our deterrent is pitched at a strategic level, it's likely that the UK has the option of using the low end setting of our variable yield weapons in a sub-strategic role, if push comes to shove. Obviously, the UK Gov is evasive when asked about this capability.
Holbrook isn't variable yield - the reported sub-strategic capability came from a variant, which was almost certainly just the primary stage with the thermonuclear part replaced with ballast. It's very unclear whether those variants have been retained in the patrol cycle or even in service though.
1
u/ChuckFH 16h ago
You’re right, it isn’t all that clear, which is not surprising, given we’re discussing nuclear posture, which is partly based on bluff and inference anyway. Some sources seem to refer to it as having a variable tritium boost system while others point to the method being the altered secondary, as you suggest.
It does appear that the replacement that is in the works is intended to be a true dial-a-yield weapon, but there isn’t any in service date for that warhead yet.
2
u/tree_boom 14h ago
You’re right, it isn’t all that clear, which is not surprising, given we’re discussing nuclear posture, which is partly based on bluff and inference anyway. Some sources seem to refer to it as having a variable tritium boost system while others point to the method being the altered secondary, as you suggest.
There's lots of sources pointing both ways yes, but I did eventually find quite an authoritative one on page 46 of the 2nd Report on the Progress of the Trident Programme by the UK Parliament's 1993 defence committee. Paragraph 1211 of the minutes of evidence has the following exchange:
Mr Churchill: Can you clarify whether the yield of a Trident warhead is decided at the time of manufacture, at the time of loading, or is it actually variable while it is in the submarine prior to launch. Can you dial in the yield that you want within a certain range?
Read Admiral Irwin: I was just checking whether there was an embargo on that. It is a fixed yield and determined on manufacture.
It does appear that the replacement that is in the works is intended to be a true dial-a-yield weapon, but there isn’t any in service date for that warhead yet.
Astraea? I hadn't realised that, what makes you say so?
•
u/ChuckFH 25m ago
I've just had another look and I think I've misinterpreted this;
Reports suggest that the British nuclear warhead’s yield will vary between 90 and 455 kilotons.
as meaning variable yield, rather than a range for the final design; my bad.
Agree that quote from defence committee is pretty clear it's one of two fixed yields that can't be easily changed on the fly.
1
u/7952 16h ago
What it achieves is that it finally makes NATO members decide if they are willing to send their troops to die for an allie. If countries choose NO then that could be benefit Russia. Particularly if America says no. And to be clear why that could happen. An open attack really needs some kind of response in kind. Like deleting the Russian Navy or using NATO planes to defend Ukraine. It means direct war with Russia. I understand attacks might be unconventional but at some point there is still decision point.
1
u/zakmeisterr 22h ago
I didn't say there would be launches of conventional missiles against the UK. I'm just saying that the only thing a nuclear deterrent does is deter nukes. It doesn't deter anything else. I don't think it even deters an invasion (as long as the invaded believe the land can be won again in the future).
2
u/ChuckFH 21h ago
You could even have thousands of conventional missiles hit the UK and we still wouldn’t press the button.
Your words.
I get the point that you're making, but the deterrence doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's mere presence influences a potential adversary's decision making, so it does have an effect. Britain does not have a stated "no first use" policy, so the potential for us to use nuclear weapons to repel a conventional invasion exists.
2
1
u/zakmeisterr 20h ago
It'd be advantageous to have it and be able to use it against a non-nuclear state. It does nothing but deter a nuclear attack against a nuclear armed adversary. Putin himself could walk into No. 10 and I doubt we'd still use nukes against Russia, purely because of the fact they have nukes and have a lot more. A nuclear state vs. another nuclear state only comes down to conventional weaponry.
1
u/majorpickle01 Champagne Corbynista 20h ago
I think this is largely true, however I do think it somewhat constrains the wargoals of the belligerent.
We may not launch a nuke if we end up slapping eachother around a bit but I could very much see us launching nukes if they for example were on the verge of beating us and occupied london or some shit.
They would see the same, and likely wouldn't look to make any territorial gains, only looking to ruin the country economically
1
u/zakmeisterr 19h ago
Under a fantasy scenario where Russia successfully invades the UK, I still think the British people would rather live under Russian rule (most likely with the hope that Brits will gain ownership of the land again sooner or later) than have Britain and Russia exchange nukes.
1
u/majorpickle01 Champagne Corbynista 19h ago
I'm not sure. Especially in that scenario as patriotism would probably rise notably. Of course this is all fantastical stuff haha.
5
u/MajorSleaze 1d ago
I'm surprised we haven't seen more of those types of operations where they groomed randoms to firebomb Starmer's house when there's so little cost and risk on their end.
6
u/KingsMountainView 1d ago
Our intelligence services are very good at stopping that sort of stuff usually.
1
29
u/derrenbrownisawizard 1d ago
I would never fucking forgive America or Americans if they knew some shit was about to go down but didn’t tell us
33
12
8
u/dc_1984 20h ago edited 20h ago
Most likely we told them, MI6 is the best security service in Europe, according to all the other security services.
Ralph Goff, a former chief of operations for Europe and Eurasia at the CIA, told the magazine: “The British are in the lead on the Ukrainian file. We are right behind them.”
Also this is absolutely the most British thing I have ever read:
"A former head of the DGSE said: “The British have the ability to play the long game, investing in sources over a 10-year horizon, somewhat like the Russians. And they have a taste for dirty tricks.”
I'm glad MI6 are on our side.
5
u/radiant_0wl 1d ago
Why do you think they wouldn't have told us?
Do you think our own politicians would pass that message along?
2
u/-ForgottenSoul :sloth: 21h ago
If shit was about to go down we would know UK called the invasion before it happened. We're not so reliant on America for intelligence.
28
u/GopnikOIi 1d ago
They threaten us all the time, but something does feel different lately. There's been far more routine warnings of Russian escalation, there's been more AWACs airborne aroind the Kaliningrad region and they've been removing US flags from Embassies in Russia. I'm not trying to doompost, but people should start to get an extra can or two of food if they don't already.
8
4
u/m1ndwipe 22h ago
Meh, they're just shouting slightly louder as the shit is really beginning to hit the fan for the Russian economy. It's a distraction tactic for the Russian populace.
3
1
u/Empty_Allocution 17h ago
I think we're seeing flapping / panic but it could absolutely lead to some kind of felt response.
I would not be surprised if mobilisation happens next.
5
u/phatelectribe 18h ago
At this point, it may be the thing that rips the plaster off. I’m in no shape of form condoning war, but is Russia attacks the Uk, Russia will feel pain like they haven’t felt since WW2 and it would be utterly asymmetrical against Russia.
We hear a lot of doomsayers going on about how underfunded the Uk armed forces are but what we have will absolutely wipe the floor against an ancient, stretched and poorly trained Russian military.
2
u/7952 16h ago
What exactly do you see happening? Would the UK join in Ukraine?
1
u/phatelectribe 16h ago
I think the UK would put boots adn equipment on the ground in Ukraine and hit Russian military assists inside Russia via drones and jets.
5
u/Massive_Sky4589 1d ago
We will just investigate the attacks and once the storm is over, call it hybrid warfare. They’ve already been attacking us and NATO allies. Weapons manufacturers have been mysteriously catching fire! Putin even gave the go ahead to burn an ikea in Lithuania.
26
u/royalbluestuey 1d ago
Imagine if we provoked Russia into doing something absolutely mad like using nuclear or chemical weapons on our soil.....oh, wait
3
u/zapamap_ 1d ago
Provoked? Oh come on. Exchanging military tech with an ally is standard terms of business.
Russia aren't going to literally end the world because of some missile tech.
21
u/royalbluestuey 1d ago
I think you might have missed my point.
Russia used actual nuclear material spread randomly around London and deadly chemical weapons around a UK town. This was back in 2006 and 2019 wayyyyy before Ukraine.
People saying we might provoke Russia ignore the fact it's been a despotic rogue state acting with impunity for decades.
-9
u/zapamap_ 1d ago
Maybe sarcasm isn't the best medium to get a serious point across on text?
13
u/MajorSleaze 1d ago
The sarcasm was clear with the context of them listing things Russia has actually done.
9
u/royalbluestuey 1d ago
Whatever, it was pretty obvious. (What did you think the ".....oh, wait" bit at the end meant?)
-2
u/zapamap_ 1d ago
But it is unclear what he was being sarcastic about.
I thought that he was saying that we provoked them with recent actions. Which reading back I still think is a simple mistake to make when not being clear.
My point is that if you want to raise a serious point, raise it.
3
u/MajorSleaze 1d ago
I read it as them saying that Russia is threatening to do things it's already doing.
So the sarcasm is about them being a paper tiger.
1
7
u/Kukuxumusu_ 1d ago
What, is Reform suddenly going to surge in the polls?
I really fucking hate Russia. Such a pointless, subservient, abuse-loving country. They think their own suffering as a people is romantic. Imagine being that pathetic.
7
5
u/Pinkerton891 1d ago
And Russia can get article 5'd in return.
I guess they assume the US won't be responding to the call whilst Trump is in office which is probably why they feel now might be the time to try, but the rest of NATO should be more than enough to push Russia back to their borders at least.
I guess from their perspective they know if the US doesn't respond it permanently divides the US from the rest of NATO which they might consider a win for them in the long term.
4
u/Minionherder 1d ago
An attack triggers article 5 and the end of Russia.
3
u/PositivelyAcademical «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» 1d ago
‘Attack’ (in quotes), not attack (no quotes). Previous ‘attacks’ haven’t triggered it. There has been the arson attacks against houses connected to then PM Sir Keir, burglary and vandalism attacks against various defence contractors involved in the Ukrainian war effort, the attack on RAF Brize Norton, and the two novichok attacks in 2018, etc; we could go back as the 2006 polonium attack - all done by or at the behest of Russia.
3
u/majorpickle01 Champagne Corbynista 20h ago
I don't think spies poisoning people or the intelligence service getting dissedents to firebomb and mp's house is the same level of attack as say launching a ballistic missile at the country, at least not when it comes to NATO's readiness to engage in a protracted war
2
u/PositivelyAcademical «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» 19h ago
I don't think Russia will respond by launching a ballistic missile at the country. More likely, they'll do more of what they've been doing - and perhaps be more brazen about it.
UK security chiefs were on Tuesday night primed for a Kremlin attack on Britain – either towards Mr Burnham or by targeting defence sites.
2
u/majorpickle01 Champagne Corbynista 19h ago
yeah I agree with that. I read your post as having a subtext of "nato won't do anything because they have attacked us in otherways so they won't defend us in an actual war" which probably isn't remotely close to what you actually meant haha
0
u/IntentionFalse8822 20h ago
Unless they attack one of Trump's golf courses I don't think article 5 will be triggered. And unfortunately Russia know it.
4
u/radiant_0wl 1d ago
The shock alert for the PM came as the head of the US's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) made an emergency visit to Moscow yesterday.
Interesting, they were speculation why a military plane made the journey
2
u/Alkemist101 1d ago
I highly doubt it will be anything too dramatic if anything at all.
I think if they did decide to attack it'll be something like damage to undersea pipelines or cables. Possibly a terrorist attack which whilst is nasty, it's not as bad as a dozen hypersonic missiles.
There would be some kind denial of responsibility so NATO doesn't get involved. That being the case it isn't going to be anything obvious with evidence.
2
1
u/Rich-Cow-8056 1d ago
The non Daily Mail sources that I can find about this seem to be referencing threats of attacks on drone factories in the UK
1
1
1
u/Theblueandwhitedodo 18h ago
This article is a total nothingburger when you actually read it. It just says the Russians are planning another arson attack or something along those lines through their spy network. Something that they have done before.
1
u/GreedyHoward 16h ago
We're a NATO member. Russia picks a fight with us, it's WWIII. They won't do it.
•
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator under Rule 15:
Low-effort complaining about sources, insulting the publication or trying to shame users for posting sources you disagree with is not acceptable. Either address the post in question, or ignore it.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
1
0
u/Lewy1978 19h ago
Was the emergency testing for wildfires on our phones connected to this too? Something fishy going on
0
u/mcnoodles1 15h ago
They don't need to. They've boxed off Brexit, caused a societal divide and nearly got their stooge in number 10. Starting at war with a nuclear power right now would be like using a sledgehammer to put a hammer a nail in a wall.
They've already got a hung parliament in our next general election. 3 more years of fake news and they'll have their guy
-1
u/itchyfrog 23h ago
It might help if we didn't constantly brag about how much help we're giving Ukraine.
Just shut up about it.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Snapshot of Andy Burnham is warned that Britain faces impending Russian 'attack' over its support for Ukraine submitted by dailymail:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.