· 136 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events May 10, 2026 at 2:26 PM

Russian frigate spotted in UK waters as Putin brazenly steps up his 'grey war'

Posted by theipaper


Russian frigate spotted in UK waters as Putin brazenly steps up his 'grey war'
The i Paper
Russian frigate spotted in UK waters as Putin brazenly steps up his 'grey war'
The vessel passed through British waters just days after a Russian warship sailed 30 miles off Britain's coast

🚩 Report this post

136 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Leather_Net_3330 3 days ago +1113
It would be a real shame if someone upgraded it to a russian submarine.
1113
Wonderful-Ring7697 3 days ago +301
With Russian equipment there is 50% or greater chance they will do that on their own
301
Maeran 3 days ago +74
Kursk special manouvre. If that did happen, then I hope the Russians let us rescue the poor bastards this time.
74
YourFavoriteKraut 2 days ago +2
Maybe said submarine will end up on a rock, like that time in Sweden?
2
NeoThermic 2 days ago +2
Honestly, if it happens again we should just go and rescue them even in the face of protest. The Brits and Norwegians were ready to go within hours of the disaster, but Russia waited 5 days to let them help. It took us two extra days to get the hatch open to find no survivors (Of which, one day was travel). Granted, most timelines suggest that the Russians in that sub had died before rescue would've arrived in any case; the fire they had in the survivors compartment consumed all the oxygen a few hours later.
2
helm 2 days ago +1
They could do with an unexplained explosion in the engine room.
1
ccblr06 3 days ago +11
Thats funny
11
NatalieSoleil 2 days ago +1
I see no shame. Just aim. Naturally we pick up the ones who are  forced to give up the worthless hull.
1
Asketes 2 days ago -5
You mean ..."down"grade it? 😁 Okay sorry, back to my corner.
-5
Foddley 1 day ago +1
There's a British submarine in that photo, itching for the chance.
1
Arefue 3 days ago +309
Sink it
309
Jazzlike_Video2 3 days ago +103
Tell him Ukraine did it.
103
totallyRebb 3 days ago +54
It might actually be Ukraine, who knows how far their sea drones go by now.
54
NatalieSoleil 2 days ago +11
With a bit of will power they go all around the world :)
11
purpleduckduckgoose 2 days ago +2
...do you see Ukrainian sea drones? GODDAMNIT KAMCHATKA NOT AGAIN
2
Wilhelm57 2 days ago -63
I stop believing n Ukraine, the moment Zelensky started selling drones to the Gulf States. Maybe we had it wrong and the Russians living in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk region were being attacked. We tend to forget, corruption has been the legacy of the former Soviet Union. Western nations have given billions to Ukraine, did all that help can be actually accounted for?
-63
blow_on_my_trombone 2 days ago +24
Are you thick in the head?
24
biscuitarse 2 days ago +18
> Western nations have given billions to Ukraine, did all that help can be actually accounted for? [Yeah, right here genius](https://www.listnook.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fu90i9qjz490h1.jpeg)
18
_FLostInParadise_ 2 days ago +13
You need to work on your english if you want people to believe this horseshit.
13
myotheraccount559 2 days ago +3
Holy bot. Yes it's accounted for Why would there be an issue with selling drones? They have tons of drones it's other weapons they need LMAO, straight up propaganda. Russia took Crimea because Ukraine had discovered oil nearby
3
Koala_eiO 2 days ago +11
Tell Cersei, I want her to know it was me.
11
TheRebuild28 3 days ago +27
Remote a drone into the side and blame it on Ukraine 🤷 seems like a win win
27
manefa 2 days ago +5
“Pirates”
5
drksdr 2 days ago +2
Japanese torpedo boats did it!
2
wrosecrans 2 days ago +31
"Ooops, sorry, a Ukrainian company working on drone development was testing in our waters. We told them we hadn't given Russia permission to operate in our waters. It would have been perfectly safe if Russia hadn't put a Russian warship in a weapons testing area without permission. These sorts of miscommunications do happen, and we continue to recommend that Russia coordinates all of their movements through official channels in the future to prevent any future accidents. The UK government and UK military takes no responsibility for what happened. Since what happened wasn't ordered by the UK, we have no way to prevent it from happening in the future. In unrelated news, we are offering an excellent tax incentive program for any other Ukrainian companies that wants to do tech R&D in the UK." Sigh, one can dream.
31
NetZeroSun 2 days ago +2
Was going to say...that ship is about to hear about a knock knock joke with a Ukrainian drone and free complimentary commission to the undersea fleet.
2
ostbollen94 2 days ago +1
It would be a shame if we Swedes accidentally tested something new in the sea 😏
1
xrunawaywolf 2 days ago -2
with our fleet of -6 ships
-2
Terrible-Group-9602 3 days ago +139
Looks like a sitting target for a Ukrainian drone ship
139
Chairmanmaozedon 3 days ago +414
Russian naval ships passing through the channel about 50 times a year on average, this story is what's known as narrative manufacturing and it's horseshit.
414
ShermanMcTank 3 days ago +115
The story here is less the frigate itself, but more so that it went through the channel along with several shadow fleet ships and no one did anything about it. Considering the UK [just announced](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shadow-fleet-set-to-be-interdicted-in-uk-waters-in-latest-blow-to-russia) that its armed forces can now board these shadow fleet ships, this isn’t really a good look.
115
DasGutYa 3 days ago +383
You're misreading it. Nobody is going to board the shadow fleet ships whilst escorted by russian warships, but that isn't the goal. The point is that Russia now has to e****** its fleet around the globe, sucking man power from its naval force and increasing the maintanence and running costs of its naval assets considerably. When those assets are depleted, which they will be at this rate of use, then they will have to either send the shadow fleet out with no e****** and watch them get interdicted, or they won't be able to send them out at all which will achieve the primary goal NATO has set out. TLDR: We want them escorted, because this rapidly accelerates the degredation of what's left of the Russian navy. Its unsustainable, they can't support it, they have no friendly ports and can't resupply or repair easily. This is the entire point.
383
Reetpigmee 3 days ago +60
Seems like the only reasonable and thought out comment. I appreciate this!
60
Wise_Mongoose_3930 2 days ago +4
It’s less reasonable when you realize people have been saying “Russia CANT keep this up for long” since the first weeks of the war in Ukraine. People create fantasies where we can just sit back and do nothing and eventually win. It’s wish-casting.
4
robreddity 2 days ago +1
Good point! That's why the entire strategy behind the cold war was doomed to fail!
1
TheJD 2 days ago +1
I don't think many, if any, people were saying that within the first weeks of the war.
1
wrosecrans 2 days ago +28
As much as we love to see explosions, yeah the "boring" stuff like imposing an X% additional cost on logistics is the long term stuff that eventually has a huge effect. An oil tanker is fairly c**** to operate. An oil tanker plus a fleet of warships really eats into the profit margin and that sort of cost can have wildly non-linear effects. Much less than a doubling in costs can do way worse than cutting profit in half.
28
IlluminatiMinion 3 days ago +24
Definitely. This is a ship that isn't available to launch missiles at Ukrainian civilians, and uses resources that aren't now available elsewhere.
24
GrynaiTaip 2 days ago +28
It wasn't able to launch missiles at Ukraine anyway. Turkey closed the Bosphorus strait to all russian military ships right when the war started.
28
ItsmeHallsy 3 days ago +9
This guy gets it.
9
thewizord 3 days ago +3
Great perspective on what's going on
3
Magical_Pretzel 3 days ago +23
The reason the UK isn't seizing tankers isn't that they're scared of the Russian navy, it's actually even stupider. Nobody in the government wants to pay to berth the seized ships. > However, no operations have taken place due to a dispute in government over where the vessels should be held and which department will pay for them. The Department for Transport has been accused of “dragging its feet”. > Officials have highlighted the case of a Panamanian-registered ship called the MV Matthew, which was seized by the Irish authorities in September 2023. More than 2.2 tonnes of cocaine worth €157 million was on board. Maintenance, security and berthing of the vessel has so far cost more than £10 million. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/royal-navy-seizing-sanctioned-russian-tankers-6vz053hqx
23
what-brisbane 2 days ago +3
I’d be happy to hang on to that one, for free!
3
NeoThermic 2 days ago +2
How weird that it only had 2 tonnes of cocaine when it finally got docked.
2
what-brisbane 2 days ago +1
Charter boat, what charter boat?
1
WarOnFlesh 2 days ago +3
What do you seriously think will happen if the UK boards an illegally registered merchant vessel while in UK waters, right in front of a Russian ship? Do you think the Russians would shoot at the British?
3
aaaaaaaarrrrrgh 2 days ago +1
> no one did anything about it. Under innocent passage / transit passage (not sure what applies here), there isn't much to do about it.
1
Bruvvimir 3 days ago +12
Just look at the comments here. It works.
12
urbanmark 3 days ago +2
It wasn’t the channel. It was off of Essex?
2
Chairmanmaozedon 3 days ago +6
Yeah they're coming down from the Baltic sea, they can't teleport into the channel, they have to sail down the coast.
6
Heathcote_Pursuit 3 days ago -2
Tragically effective. Everyone turns into a righteous warrior of patriotism.
-2
Wonderful_Bet_1541 2 days ago
I mean I feel like the fact that the Russian Navy can still access the channel without impunity or even a warning is a story in itself. Don’t really get how it’s “narrative manufacturing” when it really is something people should be knowing about. What do you propose instead? That people don’t know at all about the extent to how freely the Russian navy can access the straight? Obviously I’m not calling for the British to open fire, but it’s still an important story to keep the public informed.
0
Chairmanmaozedon 2 days ago +6
They get permission, we're not at war with Russia, we have no basis for refusing permission to access the channel. They pass through the channel regularly, but lately our newspapers have taken to printing it as news as if it's an act of war, whereas it's part of normal patterns of traffic established over decades. The narrative being established is that Russia is a threat and they're testing the boundaries of our territory as an act of provocation, whereas in truth this has happened hundreds of times without incident over decades.
6
Wonderful_Bet_1541 2 days ago
Yes it has happened for decades, but what has also happened is Russia actually attacking a European country. (Yes 2014 was the real beginning, but the 2022 invasion was on a full scale one with a much larger global pushback) Don’t you think that times have changed, and thus public sentiment has changed as well? We don’t need the narrative to tell us that Russia is a threat, they have pretty much told us directly themselves. I don’t think that the fact that Russia has done this regularly in the past is really a reason to not be a bit alarmist, considering the Russia 10-20 years ago is very different from the Russia it is now. What I’m trying to say is, I do think that there is a bit of fearmongering in the news, I agree with that, but at the same time, in light of recent actions, I do think that it is time to possibly review whether Britain should just allow Russian naval ships to pass through with impunity, not even a warning. Yes, I know that there is no formal declaration of war, but considering Russia is literally waging hybrid warfare on half of Europe, I think it’s valid to start questioning the fact that they are operating in Britains backyard. Hell, if we look at the US Iran conflict, Spain refused to allow US aircraft participating in the bombing campaign access to their airfields. Does this mean that Spain formally declared war on the US, or is involved in the Iran war, or is even being directly affected by the whole fiasco? No, it would have been much easier for them to roll over and allow access, but they had a principle and stood by it. All this being said, the commenter just below seems to have layed out a pretty reasonable take, that having to use e****** to protect their shadow fleet forces Russia to divert some of their military assets away from the Ukrainian war. I honestly agree with this approach, and is much cleaner and less costlier than a possible incursion involving the Royal navy.
0
EnoughPrimary6700 2 days ago +9
"Russian frigate spotted in UK waters" may give a false impression that the frigate appeared suddenly out of thin air to everyone's surprise. Actually, it was tracked every day by Royal Navy, because it was on an escorting mission: >"The vessel, which **had been tracked** by Britain’s Royal Navy every day last month as it sailed from the Atlantic to the North Sea, passed through the English Channel unchallenged, **along with seven sanctioned vessels** suspected of fueling Russia’s war with Ukraine. This is despite the UK threatening to target ships within Russia’s so-called shadow fleet." \[...\] >"Vladimir Putin has long relied on an **illicit network of tankers** to trade and transport clandestine oil shipments around the world. As European nations have threatened to seize them, and allies across the Continent have conducted forced boardings, **a trend of naval e****** of important shipments** across European waters has increased." >“We see a trend of **Russian Federation Navy ships escorting sanctioned vessels** through these waterways,” a Nato official said. “These escorting activities take up valuable days at sea for the Russian navy, and it places a strain on their ability to generate naval forces for other missions.”
9
showmethemundy 3 days ago +37
Fuckin sink it
37
benign-affair 3 days ago +27
Where's the tugboat?
27
LahmiaTheVampire 3 days ago +10
Ah, the tractors of the sea. Russia's nemesis.
10
Unfair_Bluejay_9687 3 days ago +21
What this picture is not showing is the British submarine that is tailing the Russians. It’s a game that’s been played for the last 60 years that I know of.
21
Hyrikul 2 days ago +4
And perhaps a French one too. As long they don't bonk each other once again..
4
Common-Ad6470 2 days ago +4
Ukrainians should expand their hunter sea drones to sort these…👌
4
MusicFilmandGameguy 3 days ago +3
Nobody gives a f*** about the Russian surface fleet since like 1905
3
Sethoria34 3 days ago +13
dident we just send our own ship to the gulf? XD I think its time to repurpose our old trawler fleet with surplus munitions from ww2 and whatever b&q have on sale.
13
Nightcat666 2 days ago +2
Wouldn't be the first time the Russians got in a shooting match with a British trawler fleet.
2
shgrizz2 3 days ago +10
It's just a war, we've been in it for decades, the fascist voters are complicit in enabling it and we need to start calling it what it is and uniting against it. Europe is being eroded according to Putins plan.
10
DaNuker2 2 days ago +2
Russia exploiting the weird obsession with race in western countries.
2
shgrizz2 2 days ago
True enough, and turns out it's f****** easy to exploit, too. Russia is naturally immune I guess, being made up from a billion different ethnic groups.
0
True-Host-7475 3 days ago +7
I'm honestly just impressed it made it all the way to UK waters without spontaneously catching fire or needing a tugboat.
7
ithorc 3 days ago +3
News on Russia is a bit wild today. Failing in Ukraine. Failing in Africa. Appearing in UK.
3
NoDiscount6470 2 days ago +3
They aren't safe anymore in the black sea that's why
3
DeadJango 3 days ago +4
As far as Putin is concerned he is at war with the world and the world is at war with him. This won't stop until we take that seriously. Calling it a grey war is just giving him more breathing room.
4
KeithHanlan 3 days ago +3
I'm sure he feels that this is a much safer place than the [Black Sea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Moskva) or the [Mediterranean](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx217expnvvo). Or the Baltic for that matter.
3
Johndough99999 3 days ago +5
Be awesome if the west created the nerf dye torpedo. Shoots just like a real one. Sonar can hear it, leaves the trail.... but when it hits just a big bang and a cloud of environmentally safe dye. A fun warning shot.
5
billy1928 2 days ago +4
If sonar picks it up, ASW torpedoes are going to be sent down the line of bearing before anyone gets to find out it's just a training round.
4
Johndough99999 2 days ago +1
mostly a joke. They would also have confirmation a sub was there and would be using all the data to better track the subs. Would never break silence for this. But it would be funny to hear the hailer calling for clean up on the poopdeck
1
Kind-Measurement-127 2 days ago +2
The Russians know our only boat is heading to be sunk by their allies in Hormuz area.
2
BingBing- 2 days ago +2
Brits, vote reform and have russian frigates parading up the Thames river.
2
No_Self_1156 3 days ago +5
they're just delivering the payout to their agent who just suceeded in elections, nothing to see here
5
BaitmasterG 3 days ago +5
Lol, Russia still has a frigate?! This piece of shit is f*** all threat to the UK, no story here
5
SavageRabbitX 3 days ago +3
Sink it
3
ShaggyCan 3 days ago
Or surround it and send it back to Polyarny
0
ScopeLogic 3 days ago +2
Grey defeat. They are worthless. 
2
cyberianscribe 3 days ago +2
Maybe the sailors are trying to defect, but they a bit shy.
2
Effective_Quail_3946 3 days ago +1
Sink it.
1
AiMwithoutBoT 3 days ago +2
Just sink it already. What’s Russia gonna do? Start another war they can’t finish and lose more people?
2
[deleted] 3 days ago +1
[removed]
1
theipaper 3 days ago +4
The repair ship’s presence was so close to critical UK infrastructure on Tuesday – the second month in a row that it has been observed at the same location – that it sparked a Nato monitoring operation involving a Dutch Royal Navy vessel, the *DSS Galatea*. The increased presence shows Russia’s maritime threat to the UK and its European allies is growing as Putin steps up his [**“grey war” with the West**](https://inews.co.uk/news/world/all-ways-russia-waging-grey-war-4089156?srsltid=AfmBOopsFS50LZqERnWiPR86RrLMNvoe8Edvs80zq-emnAKpePRtgCqV&ico=in-line_link), brazenly sailing sanctioned “shadow fleet” ships through UK waters, increasing fears they are interfering with vital undersea cables in the Baltic and Atlantic seas. The UK has some 45 undersea cables connecting Britain to other countries that carry essential power supplies and vast quantities of data, including financial information. Armed Forces minister Al Carns said: “As Russian warships continue to operate near our shores, our Armed Forces are there every day: watching, tracking and ready. “This round-the-clock operation sends a clear message: UK waters are protected, our sailors and aircrew are alert, and we will always defend our nation and its vital infrastructure.” # Putin steps up ‘grey war’ Last month, the head of the Royal Navy, First Sea Lord General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, warned that Britain and its allies needed the “collective combat power necessary” to deter Moscow at sea or risk a direct military confrontation. In January, the UK strengthened its legal position to detain sanctioned Russian ships near its waters and on 25 March, Starmer [**authorised military personnel to carry out forced boardings**](https://inews.co.uk/news/special-forces-seize-putins-tankers-uk-waters-4317844?ico=in-line_link). Keir Starmer said he was going after Putin’s shadow fleet “even harder”, and that Moscow “should be in no doubt” the UK will fight against Moscow’s illicit network of tankers. Since then, no ships have been seized, while hundreds of sanctioned tankers – an average of at least four a day – have sailed through the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone, according to data provided by Starboard Maritime Intelligence. European allies are stepping up. Sweden seized a suspected shadow fleet tanker in the Baltic Sea on Sunday, the fifth such action this year. The Syrian-flagged *Jin Hui* was boarded while it traversed Swedish territorial waters after an investigation into its lack of seaworthiness, the country’s coast guard said in a statement. “The coast guard suspects that the ship is sailing under a false flag, given there are a number of irregularities concerning its flag status, and therefore does not meet demands for seaworthiness as set out in international regulations and agreements,” it said. The MoD has repeatedly said: “The UK keeps maritime activity in the Channel under constant review. Any enforcement action is considered on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with international law and domestic legislation. “We will not provide a running commentary or get into details of our decision-making process as this could compromise our ability to successfully take action against sanctioned ships, only benefitting our adversaries.”
4
fury420 3 days ago +1
I think your initial comment was removed?
1
DaNuker2 2 days ago +1
Uhh maybe send that Ukrainian boat they found near Greece
1
Smooth_Staff_3831 2 days ago +1
Isn't this international waters ?
1
KinkyAndMonogamous 2 days ago +1
Oh noooo, those Russian ships "accidentally" strayed into our torpedo testing area and joined our deliberate submarines by becoming "accidental" submarines 😉😉
1
Feniks_Gaming 2 days ago +1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
joaoricrd2 2 days ago +1
Is it sunk yet?
1
Sunsetmargaritas 1 day ago +1
You'd think the UK would open a temporary Ukranian drone testing base someplace off the coast where sponsored testing occurs. You know, just to be helpful.
1
Dark1000 3 days ago +1
Maybe it's time to think outside the box. Take a book out of the Chinese fishing fleet school.
1
Technical-Motor3546 3 days ago +1
Well if they put all their military stuff near Ukraine it just gets blown up.
1
Groentekroket 2 days ago +1
Thanks America. The world is really happy that your f****** president started an idiotic war resulting in higher oil prices and thus helping the master of your orange idiot. 
1
SmartaHari 3 days ago +1
Hand me my kaftan, wristband and my all inclusive cocktail menu and let’s see if I can drop some Hantavirus on those fuckers whilst I maintain I’m confused as to whether this is a TUI cruise or nyet.
1
AloneChapter 3 days ago +1
Pootin knows nothing will happen but mouth flapping. Maybe even a large finger wag.
1
kristospherein 2 days ago +1
They still have a navy?
1
mekilat 2 days ago +1
This is an us problem. We could deal with it and don’t.
1
Western-Corner-431 2 days ago +1
Blast it
1
Impossible_Ruin268 3 days ago -5
The British military leadership and the British MI6 are heavily involved in the Ukraine war, and Britain sanctioned Russia in every possible way. I'm surprised it took so long for Putin to give a strong hint. I expected him to do something like this years ago.
-5
Unlikely_Villain 3 days ago +13
Oh no, they're about to launch the nuclear armed penquin super soldiers on us, or was it dolphins. Like it matters. Biggest paper tiger on the planet.
13
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago +5
I don't know man, Russia has been wildly successful in the UK. And I mean wildly. The UK's military strength is a fraction of what it used to be and the Royal Navy is in shambles. Add in Brexit, and the Russian money machine funding all of that has been undeniably extremely effective.
5
ccblr06 3 days ago +7
Yea, its pretty scary that the damn United Kingdom is hard pressed to push a ship out. In my opinion they should have remained a formidable naval power, but….i guess not.
7
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago +5
As of this moment the UK would be combat ineffective in any true large scale engagement, which is crazy to me. They'd be hard pressed to even control their own territorial waters around the Islands if shit really did kick off in Europe. IMHO it's one of the greatest achievements in political sabotage in history. And it's going to take decades to fix, if they even can, and cost exponentially more money than if they had just maintained what they had. It's truly a shit sandwich, and the worst part is it was all the UK's own politicians who did it.
5
OttersWithPens 3 days ago +4
The British navy has an incredible nuclear deterrent, that’s good food for thought. They also have Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow. They’ll figure it out boyo
4
ezekiellake 3 days ago -5
They have a nuclear deterrent that is dependant on the US and whether the US permits them to use it. They’re effectively an orphaned client state.
-5
OttersWithPens 3 days ago +4
No, the UK vanguard class nuclear armed submarine deterrent is first class. (CASD)
4
Terrible-Group-9602 3 days ago +1
One UK aircraft carrier and it's F35-B fighters could take out the whole of what's left of the Russian navy.
1
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago -5
And one $5000 drone can send that carrier to the bottom of the f****** ocean. As of now, today, right now, only 19% of the Royal Navy's surface combatants are even f****** deployable. Yep, let's float an 80,000 ton aircraft carrier around when it lacks the proper screening elements and protections that those ships require to effectively operate. That sounds like a great plan!
-5
Terrible-Group-9602 3 days ago +2
Even a destroyer can shoot down multiple swarms of drones, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Aircraft carriers never travel on their own, they'll have e***** and an astute class sub lurking under the waves. Try f****** around with that and see what happens.
2
ccblr06 3 days ago +1
I think his argument is that if they are struggling to deploy their carrier, the UK is also likely to struggle to deploy the ships that support its carrier strike group as well.
1
Terrible-Group-9602 3 days ago +3
There is always one operational carrier with 24 F-35B jets. Currently HMS Prince of Wales Currently 5 Type 23 frigates, extremely fearsome capabilities. Astute class subs undetectable underwater.
3
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago
Correct.
0
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago
I spent 10 years in the actual military. I know exactly what I'm taking about. As I said in another comment, only 19% of the entirety of the Royal Navy's surface combatants are deployable. 19%! In any kind of operational tempo the Royal Navy as a whole is combat ineffective. This is just a fact, feel free to look it up. They don't even have the sailors to adequately man all of their ships.
0
Terrible-Group-9602 3 days ago +1
Military of Monaco? Which country?
1
chief_blunt9 3 days ago +1
A $5000 drone is not sinking a carrier. I swear some of you people don’t realize how big these ships are.
1
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago +1
I've physically stood on the deck of 2 different carriers in Norfolk and kayaked around the mothballed fleet, also at Norfolk. I swear, some of you people greatly underestimate the combat effectiveness of modern naval drone warfare. It's not 1996.
1
chief_blunt9 3 days ago +2
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/did-you-know-that-it-took-four-weeks-to-scuttle-uss-america-the-only-supercarrier-ever-sunk-heres-why/amp/ What kind of drone is doing that much damage? You’re saying an Iranian drone can take out a super carrier?? You’re huffing glue
2
ccblr06 3 days ago
Hell IMO an even harder part is convincing the public to even care enough about it to vote for people who will focus on fixing the damn issue. And that includes large parts of the rest of Europe.
0
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago +1
Absolutely, and that's the genius of what Russia has accomplished. They convinced an entire country to disarm themselves, no wars required.
1
Remote_Reality_6235 3 days ago +2
The Russian money machine with the same gdp as Italy?
2
CasanovaJones82 3 days ago +3
Ummm, yes? Politicians are f****** c****. Real talk. It's the same issue in the US, so it's not even something unique to the UK. This isn't conjecture. Russia has had their hands in all of this far-right bullshit from the jump. And they've been, again, wildly successful. Who do you think has been funding all that Brexit bullshit? They even wrote a book about it lol, it's not some f****** secret.
3
Mewhomewhy 3 days ago +9
Putin is sitting in a bunker shitting himself.
9
MuthaPlucka 3 days ago +3
At least metaphorically, and hopefully in actuality soon.
3
Terrible-Group-9602 3 days ago +3
Hint of what?
3
lebennaia 2 days ago +1
Maybe if he hadn't done things like use nerve agents in a British country town then the UK wouldn't have taken such a firm line against him. As it is, payback for Salisbury continues.
1
Wilhelm57 2 days ago
Sadly, at this moment in history Putin is looking human and mentally stable if we compare him to the great leader wannabe.
0
trisul-108 3 days ago -2
This is completely OK because the UK does not dare assert sovereignty. They tried this off Ukraine and Ukrainians sank them. Same with fighter jets over Turkey, they shot them down. The UK does not dare do it. The moment they, this practice will stop.
-2
SoCal_GlacierR1T 2 days ago
Just one frigate in someone else's back yard? "Go ahead and my day, punk". It'd be sunk in seconds.
0
Appropriate-Ball293 3 days ago -10
It's such a shame for Europe. If there was a Churchill, they would have sunk the entire Russian fleet long ago.
-10
KorkeastaRuohikosta 3 days ago +5
Clearly you don't know anything about Churchill. Nor do you understand the European strategy in regards of the floating russian rust buckets.
5
Relnor 3 days ago +6
He famously didn't even though there were very similar or worse tensions during the early Cold War. Churchill was Prime Minister during the Berlin Blockade when a conventional war with the Soviets wasn't all that unlikely and somehow he didn't go blowing shit up, it was resolved diplomatically and the world might be very different if it wasn't. Maybe I'm not very happy with all of the decisions our leaders around Europe have taken regarding the war, but this "Just sink it, it's what Churchill would've done!" isn't great either.
6
lebennaia 2 days ago +1
Minor nitpick, Churchill wasn't PM during the Berlin Blockade, Attlee was. Churchill wouldn't be back in power until 1951. I totally agree with your point though, while Churchill could be exceptionally ruthless, he didn't go in for starting wars unnecessarily.
1
← Back to Board