Ukraine, Russia, UK and Europe?

[Bigbob]

2 minutes ago, ditchman said:

so what is the number (actual) of fighting bods....(or some believe "armed social workers"...)

Support staff all the civilians in the stores supplying  stuff thats going to amount to a good number ?. 

You would think they would keep numbers up as who do they call in when the bin men , firemen went on strike  

[semi-auto]

Trump's involvement reminds me of the Appeasers in the thirties, and look where that ended up. It's easy to achieve peace - you simply give Putin what he wants, i.e. the territory in Ukraine that Russia has illegally acquired. Why else would he not involve Ukraine in the 'peace' talks. We speak of the 'special relationship', but what is clear from Trump's and Vance's pronouncements, that there is no such thing as a special relationship! We will be treated pretty much the same as the other sheep ('no exceptions' to the proposed tariffs regarding steel and aluminium). Remember that we stood alone during the early part of World War II and the US only came in later and at a cost to Britain (Lease Lend)! Should it come to it, will the US stand by its NATO responsibilities. I have serious doubts. I hope so desperately that I am wrong. 

[welsh1]

1 minute ago, ditchman said:

so what is the number (actual) of fighting bods....(or some believe "armed social workers"...)

All army persons are "fighting bods" all have to pass basic infantryman training., Apparantly 16300 approx are unfit to fight at this moment in time which is just over 20 percent

[mel b3]

53 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

Conscript all dole birds when needed 

That's OK,  just as long as the fighting doesn't start till around midday when they get up. 😁

[TIGHTCHOKE]

14 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

All army persons are "fighting bods" all have to pass basic infantryman training., Apparantly 16300 approx are unfit to fight at this moment in time which is just over 20 percent

I am NOT on the reserve list, are you?

[mel b3]

2 hours ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I see retired Lord Dannatt has given his opinion  Again !!!! on the State of our Arm Forces, Maybe Mr Starmer should listen to him🤔

I saw that interview this morning. 

He paints a pretty grim picture .

[Bigbob]

Thing is do they keep cutting number as they think the army should only be used to defend home soil now so can keep cutting back the defence budget 

[JohnfromUK]

The UK spends around £45B on defence - and around £200B on 'welfare' if you exclude pensions - which add another roughly £138B to welfare.

In other word, for every £1 spent on defence, we spend around £5 on welfare and £3 on pensions.

Puts it in perspective a bit.

[welsh1]

10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I am NOT on the reserve list, are you?

No i am not, and my injuries would have put me as fourth line if i was, but given i was a class 1 combat engineer and a class 1 welder trade there would have been a very good chance i would have been called up early if there had been the need.
I had the choice to sign on for reserve service, i asked the QM who was offering it what would i would have to do , he said normally just turn up once a year and get a few hundred quid, but in your case we would call you up and send you to the balkans as both your trades are in demand, i politley declined the invitation to sign on the reserves lol.

[Rem260]

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

just clarify "troops"......to the figuers you quote is that incuding the suppport staff etc....or is the figure that actual number of fighting bods on the ground or in the air and on the sea

Unless the UK is invaded and its all hands to the pump where everyone would be fighting.  The British army has struggled to put more than a enhanced armoured Brigade / weak Division into the field since the late eighties. It's all very good having troops but without equipment they just become cannon fodder.

Edited Monday at 12:18 by Rem260

[welsh1]

30 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Unless the UK is invaded and its all hands to the pump where everyone would be fighting.  The British army has struggled to put more than a enhanced armoured Brigade / weak Division into the field since the late eighties. It's all very good having troops but without equipment they just become cannon fodder.

Very true, my son is serving and it's shocking the lack of equipment that isn't battleworthy.

[Rem260]

9 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Very true, my son is serving and it's shocking the lack of equipment that isn't battleworthy.

It's shocking the amount of waste from procurement to end user.

[islandgun]

19 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Very true, my son is serving and it's shocking the lack of equipment that isn't battleworthy.

Trump could sell us some

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, I can remember some years back many Armed Force personal having to buy their own Kit 

[Stonepark]

42 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Unless the UK is invaded and its all hands to the pump where everyone would be fighting.  The British army has struggled to put more than a enhanced armoured Brigade / weak Division into the field since the late eighties. It's all very good having troops but without equipment they just become cannon fodder.

It's even worse than most think....

 

For instance the Army has 3 tank armoured regiments, most of which equipment is moth balled\in storage.

The rotate each of the 3 regiments through the training range which has the only active equipment, so they get effectively 4 months per year on live training.

 

UK deployable tanks in inventory are supposedly 142 at present but with no ideal on how many have been scavenged for parts to keep others running.

 

We certainly don't have enough to deploy all 3 regiments and perhaps not even enough to deploy even 2 regiments. (56 tanks per regiment).

 

 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, semi-auto said:

Trump's involvement reminds me of the Appeasers in the thirties, and look where that ended up. It's easy to achieve peace - you simply give Putin what he wants, i.e. the territory in Ukraine that Russia has illegally acquired.

Mmm, the 'appeasers' of the 30s kept drawing red lines, Germany crossed them, so they drew new lines, and sensing weakness, Germany crossed those too.
The final line was Poland, where the allies promised to defend them, then didnt send a single man or piece of equipment.

The Ukraine conflict is entirely different Im afraid, the roles are reversed, the weak party was considered to be Russia, so the collective west decided to take the proverbial...

[steve1066]

6 hours ago, welsh1 said:

There should be a law pased first that all MP's children of fighting age should be the first to be drafted to the front line, maybe then they would think twice about their idiotic ideas and the waste of life wars give.

That would work Welsh1

[steve1066]

7 hours ago, Houseplant said:

What is going on? I have some sympathy for Trumps's America first policies. If America (and other countries) had minded there own business over the last few decades, I believe the world would be a better place, but where does this leave us now? Ukraine is not a NATO member, so not America's problem. Hints at a European army? Those that aren't keen say that it's not necessary because we have NATO. That may/may not be true. I'm not even sure that Trump's America would come to the defence of another NATO member should they come under attack. America is no longer a reliable ally. Putin must be loving how divided the west has become. Now I read that Keir Starmer is willing to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine. I could see this escalating. Opinions?

I thought that there was an obligation from America and Britain to protect the Ukrainians if they gave up the nuclear arsenal that they had inherited from the fall of the communists. I doubt Russia would have invaded if the Ukraine had still possessed all those missiles, third largest arsenal in the world at the time. 

Doesn't that prove nato is not worth a carrot.  

[Gordon R]

The treaty specified security assurances not guarantees. There was no obligation to protect Ukraine.

Ukraine is not in NATO, so how does that prove NATO isn't worth a carrot?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

26 minutes ago, steve1066 said:

I thought that there was an obligation from America and Britain to protect the Ukrainians if they gave up the nuclear arsenal that they had inherited from the fall of the communists. I doubt Russia would have invaded if the Ukraine had still possessed all those missiles, third largest arsenal in the world at the time. 

Doesn't that prove nato is not worth a carrot.  

It has done pretty well since 1949.

[old'un]

If WW3 kicks off we wont need an army.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It has done pretty well since 1949.

Russia asked about joining NATO after the collapse of the USSR, they got blanked.
Just think about all the money that could have been saved from not having to 'defend' against them ?

Ukraine wouldnt have even happened if NATO hadnt kept pushing up to Russias borders, and wouldnt have even been an issue if Russia was part of NATO.
China wouldnt be the threat that it is if there was a unified west and Russia.

In that respect NATO has failed to protect the peace, badly.

Though even now they could bring Russia on board, guarantee Ukraines security, and work towards a lasting world peace, but theres no money in that so it wont happen.

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - a harsh assessment, but sadly it might well be accurate.

[Dave-G]

8 hours ago, welsh1 said:

There should be a law pased first that all MP's children of fighting age should be the first to be drafted to the front line, maybe then they would think twice about their idiotic ideas and the waste of life wars give.

Sound like a darn good idea, bet they'd get a safe job though.

[old man]

24 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Sound like a darn good idea, bet they'd get a safe job though.

Would mysteriously be on aircraft and gone under the cover of darkness?