>Consequently, this year the UK's carrier group will be deployed to the High North and lead the new Nato mission, Arctic Sentry. Healey says this is "where it is most needed".
Almost like the threat to the UK from Russia hasn't gone away despite events in the Middle East, and perhaps deploying a Carrier Strike Group to that region instead of to the High North would actually damage the UK's security more ...
76
Gentle_Snail1 day ago
+31
The UK is the leader of JEF, the defence group responsible for northern European and artic defence, so it makes sense Britain prioritises Russia.
31
Wise_Mongoose_39301 day ago
-34
Do you really need a CSG if the farthest you’re willing escalate is saying ‘hey, cut that out please’?
-34
Wgh5551 day ago
+20
I mean you’re talking about a nuclear power fighting a nuclear power, something you really want to avoid
20
BrillsonHawk1 day ago
-28
In the north atlantic we are having to use a german ship as our flagship because we've got none available. Words are all we have left
-28
mb000131 day ago
+14
weird, i could have sworn i recently read a story about how we deployed a warship to prevent russia damaging cables in the north sea
14
Bodster881 day ago
+103
I remain more convinced by each day that passes that Trump started this war in the M.E to sucker and guilt trip us into sending a great deal of our military assets away from our territorial sphere of influence to assist his great friend Putin.
Russia. US. Hungary. Israel. The new axis of evil.
103
Greenscreener1 day ago
+10
Chuck in North Korea as well
10
surmacrew1 day ago
+3
Damn. They still around?
3
Zyqlone1 day ago
+6
No Chuck Norris died.
6
surmacrew1 day ago
+1
North-korea defeayed chuck?
1
duct_tape_jedi1 day ago
+2
Slovakia: "Am I a joke to you?"
2
nerdyPagaman1 day ago
Nah Trumps too stupid.
0
BaitmasterG1 day ago
+5
Easily manipulated. Too stupid to notice
5
BrillsonHawk1 day ago
-16
What assets? We've got 1 carrier available and 1 e***** ship if we're lucky. If Putin wanted to do something 2 ships isnt going to stop him
-16
loosepantsbigwallet1 day ago
-14
Did you watch that YouTube video about the state of the Navy? 7 ships I think. More admirals than boats.
That is so British. 😂
Edit to add https://youtu.be/Gru2EDJvj9Q
-14
MGC911 day ago
+30
But some commenters on Listnook assured me that Russia posed no threat to the UK, as we didn't have a land border with them, their navy was decrepit and the warnings by key defence personnel about their capabilities was just fear-mongering for extra money...
30
ah_harrow1 day ago
+4
They were tracked without interruption for their entire operation (basically since leaving port in Russia) and completely failed to carry out what might have been a sabotage or attempted tapping of cables.
So in so far as operating a submarine is about stealth above nearly anything else the Russians did indeed totally fail. If your submarine is tracked it's almost as good as useless for anything short of its own acoustic monitoring and sigint or perhaps as a ballistic or cruise missile platform that might get a shot or two off before it's interdicted.
I'll stop short of saying there isn't a need for the navy to get more funding (even if I think enough is spent on the UK's military as a whole) but this wasn't really a 'threat' in the sense that the UK had pretty confident fingers on triggers at basically every point and the Russians knew that so couldn't carry out what they were likely there to do.
The outcome where you see this as Russia being a 'threat' rather than the half-rate military that can't take 1/5th of Ukraine or get their subs out of port without them being tracked the entire way is really doing a disservice to the response that the UK has as well as giving Russia the leverage of being a 'peer' that they realistically don't have against most NATO countries (especially the UK at sea).
4
Wise_Mongoose_39301 day ago
Russia uses subs to map out cables and then destroys them with the anchors of commercial ships. The mapping here was likely a success, and there was ZERO negative outcome for Russia, so they’ll continue running this playbook. Worst case scenario the UK shows up and politely asks them to stop. And they do. And then come back in 3 days.
0
redsquizza1 day ago
+7
As another commentator said, those sea cables are public knowledge on charts to avoid accidental damage by dredge fishing or anchoring, they're not mapping it.
They're probably testing to see if we can track their subs and, spoiler alert, we apparently tracked them from port, to sea, to port.
7
MGC911 day ago
-5
>Read the statement: they were tracked without loss for their entire operation and completely failed to carry out what might have been a sabotage or attempted tapping of cables.
This time.
Russia only needs to get lucky once, we need to get lucky every time.
-5
ah_harrow1 day ago
+3
Ok but given they were being watched the entire time and likely had weapons trained on them for a good duration of that what else do you want? Blow them up as soon as they enter the UK's exclusive economic zone? Spend tens of billions more so you have have twice as many assets trailing them as the already selectively disclosed number were?
The UK is already one of a very short list of countries that can boast an arguable technological parity with the USN when it comes to submersibles. Does it really need to spend even more money to counter a threat that doesn't truly exist as far as submarines go?
3
MGC911 day ago
-1
>Blow them up as soon as they enter the UK's exclusive economic zone?
Did I say that?
>Spend tens of billions more so you have have twice as many assets trailing them as the already selectively disclosed number were?
How many Type 23s does the UK currently have?
>The UK is already one of a very short list of countries that can boast an arguable technological parity with the USN when it comes to submersibles. Does it really need to spend even more money to counter a threat that doesn't truly exist as far as submarines go?
Yes.
-1
ledow1 day ago
+13
Russia can't win in a war against Ukraine after several years.
It stands precisely zero chance in a war against the UK.
Yeah, they can damage some cables and infrastructure in international waters. So can anyone. It's not even technically an act of war to do so (not on its own).
But fighting an actual naval battle with the UK is probably the dumbest thing they could do. And they know it.
They run their fighters past Scotland all the time. Literally every week or so. To "test response". It's not an act of war. They don't impinge on actual UK territory. It's just showboating. It's been the same showboating for DECADES now.
Russia just presents a front because it wants to save face. When it actually deploys military forces, it's basically humiliated nowadays.
Not saying people couldn't die. Not saying they couldn't do damage. But there's a big difference between messing about with our Internet cables and actually going to war, and Russia simply doesn't have the capacity to war with a nuclear-backed NATO state with its own military. Not even "win" or "lose" but just to even have such a thing.
Of course they could kill people. They're a huge country with lots of military eqiupment. But would they actually intentionally start an actual war or win if they did so? No. Even if we were distracted and dealing with a dozen other countries in the middle of some major world-war-esque escaltion, Russia wouldn't be the superpower it's always been claimed to be.
Russia do this shit all the time. It's the equivalent of a guy going "Come on then!" with his arms outstretche from the other side of the road during chucking out time from the local pub. Everyone just ignores them because until they actually cross the road, nothing's going to happen. Especially when it's EVERY NIGHT for decades and yet they never actually stand still or try to throw a punch.
13
MinorKeyEnjoyer1 day ago
+9
Russian military action against the UK won’t take the form of a declared war with pitched naval battles. it will be infrastructure attacks combined with maximum attempts to deny, confuse, misinform, and distract. the goal will be to cause chaos and disruption and raise the possibility of worse to come. they want to intimidate us. they absolutely do pose a threat
9
ledow1 day ago
+4
No that's.... just the normal state that's been in place since before the Cold War.
Any escalation would be treated differently. This is just "business as usual" - the stuff you describe, which is the stuff I describe.
You don't run armed active military jets alongside people's airspace because you're just having a bit of fun. Instead, that's exactly what you describe - attempted intimidation of both the military, the politicians AND the general populous. And they've been doing that since the 60's.
Actually posing a threat would be an entirely other matter.
4
MinorKeyEnjoyer1 day ago
it’s not “the normal state”, it’s increasing in scope and severity. 30% increase in ship incursions per the briefing today. not sure what the point of downplaying it is. Russia does indeed poses a long-term threat to British security which is increasing. they are a main adversary nation.
0
ledow1 day ago
+2
It's not "downplaying". It's nothing new. Much like a Russian war fleet - still there, but nothing new in it.
Rates are up because... the world is more tense. It's been up and down - again - for DECADES. Literally decades.
There's two things here about the word threat. Using my analogy above, I can say "Come on then!" and that's a threat. Am I actually a *threat* to you? Not if I can barely stand up, don't want to actually fight, back off, won't approach you, weigh six stone and barely come up to your knees, etc. etc. etc.
Is it technically a "threat" that we should monitor and manage? Yes. Same way that saying things to the Pope or talking about invading Greenland is a threat that someone, somewhere, in some military admin office should really run the stats on and work out what it means.
Is it actually *threatening*? Something that could justify a retaliation? Is it a bottle thrown at our heads from across the road? Something we have to actually go deal with for our own security? No. It's the same old shite. It's not an imminent danger. It's not changing anything about the current situation that we don't already know. Nobody is any more at risk of not waking up today than they were yesterday.
There are actual, real, proper THREATS out there today... things that could actively damage and hurt and kill, and in fact are literally doing that. This isn't one of them. It's little more than a distraction. That's its purpose, in fact. It could *turn into* such a thing. But it's not actively such a thing. Hasn't historically been such a thing. And such a change would drastically change the whole situation.
They are not an adversary. They're just a country. They're not even our main threat. Not even close.
e.g. An actual Russian warship going through the Channel this morning wouldn't be allowed if we actually thought it posed a threat. It's just posturing.
We sent a Type 23 frigate to watch two submarines. That's a 20-year-old boat, minimum. It's barely a miilitary craft at all. They've been used to do things like shoot down drones and light up positions for aircraft to target them.
Is it being used to make the case for more military investment? Obviously. Would that military investment be spent on stopping Russian subs running around international waters? No. It would never be.
Russia's just running some money-costing, distractive shite in every country in the world. A few years ago they LITERALLY killed and hurt innocent people on UK soil. Nothing happened. A few years before that they poisoned a spy in a London restaurant. Nothing happened. This is just background noise to make you think they're still relevant. They're not.
We're not even special in this regard. They're doing that the world over. Hell, we've merited special attention for the stuff in Ukraine, Putin called us out by name specifically and threatened us directly. Nothing happened.
It's all just bollocks, until something actually happens, and then Russia won't come out of that well. They know this. They're the toddler testing their boundaries to the limit to see what they can get away with, and be the main character. Militarily, these kinds of actions are largely irrelevant.
2
MinorKeyEnjoyer1 day ago
-3
of course it’s downplaying. not reading all that
-3
Moeen_Ali1 day ago
+1
Russia has the intent to cause harm and that still makes them dangerous regardless of the fact that it is indeed a bit of a laughable shambles of a country. You can't say that any country willing to do what Russia does is simply to be ignored.
1
ledow1 day ago
+1
We've been ignoring the exact same actions for the last 6 decades. In fact, they've done far worse historically and we ignored that too.
Again, this is just posturing bullshit. It's the guy kicked out from the pub. Except it's been EVERY DAY since the 60's.
If we walk over and smack him in the face, he's won... and he can do what he likes in return.
Any sensible person? Just ignores him and walks away.
Again - literally nobody has been harmed here. Not even the undersea cable. Nobody was harmed by them escorting a ship through the Channel this morning.
It's not a threat. It's just posturing. Because an actual threat would be acted upon, by us as well as them, and they know it.
1
Bvenged1 day ago
You are right about Russia's testing but I don't agree about your assessment regarding the UK's capability to protect itself. Russia's capability to wage conventional warfare could out-sustain the UK beyond the Navy. Highly recommend giving the podcast Wargames by Sky News a listen on this point.
The sum of it is that we have very little capability to defend against ballistic missile strikes on UK territory, of which the damage to our international standing and economy could be significant. While the royal navy can pack a punch, it has limited armaments, limited ability to restock quickly, and is also quite vulnerable to being dealt a knockout blow due to too few ships, spread too thin. It can't fulfil the role of an iron dome.
Our leverage is through our military technology, joint alliances and intelligence sharing alongside our overseas reach through expeditionary forces and SBAs, and nuclear deterrent. However, our national defence strategy is sorely lacking, under funded and under prepared with lots of cold war plans and preparations now long forgotten and military spending is a fraction of what it was in 1990. The threat of attack from Russia which the UK isn't able to deter is real. It's not a matter of if they can or can't hurt the UK. If the Kremlin thinks it can achieve harm and get away with it for little cost, they will.
0
Tremours1 day ago
+1
Some commenters on Listnook assure me that drinking my piss will activate my pineal gland too, this kind of post that homogenises a massive community is genuinely worthless white noise.
1
MGC911 day ago
-1
Then there's no need for you to comment any further is there.
Goodbye.
-1
Thurak01 day ago
+10
They might have just mapped the cables for freighters to drag their anchors over them.
But well, at least for now no damage was done and that is good.
10
meisangry21 day ago
+14
The exact locations of undersea cables are well known and public information. They even appear on navigation charts around costal areas.
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
In the event that there are “secret” cables, the ships laying and repairing these cables are huge, slow and easily identifiable, and probably tracked.
14
zerginc1 day ago
+2
Next time just shoot them down
2
ionised1 day ago
+1
Brave of them to try the sea.
(Alternative pun ending: Brave of them to test the waters.)
1
TheSkepticOwl1 day ago
+1
"UK deployed military"
What military does the UK even have at this point? They've been fiddling with their thumbs while a war was and still is raging in their backyard for four years. Why did it take Trump getting elected for them to actually realize having a weak fighting force is a bad thing?
1
Warblade211 day ago
-3
The UK has more admirals than ships. Any ship they send anywhere breaks down anyways.
-3
DarK-ForcE1 day ago
-7
Doesn’t the UK barely have a navy now?
-7
OldLondon1 day ago
+1
It’s a bit shit as the previous govt fucked funding for the military over 14 years.
1
Boys4Ever1 day ago
-4
What if America and Russia joined forced to take over the world? Glad I'm in America because this won't be a happy world and may be no world left eventually. Both seem to be overly aggressive about conquering new and old lands.
-4
Complex-Figment21121 day ago
+1
California's GDP alone is almost twice that or Russia. Putin has nukes, oil and good spies, that's about it.
Edit:Clarity
1
Boys4Ever1 day ago
+1
Russia has ambition. You forget to add that. So do we.
1
Curse061 day ago
-3
Yeaaaaaaah come on be real lol. The more likely scenerio is if UK gets into some shit with Russia we are not going to back them at all. They will get 0 US support. Thats what its looking like and why you see this report. Russia probably knows we wont help the UK.
-3
OldLondon1 day ago
+2
Everyone knows the US won’t back anyone. Except maybe Russia, those days are loooooong gone.
2
Curse061 day ago
-11
Yeaaaaaaaah the UK shouldnt be doing anything. They have no US backing. Under this current administration we ain't helping them so if anything they should be avoiding conflict at all costs.
-11
OldLondon1 day ago
+7
We’re part of NATO, it’s all good. We dont need the US - there’s only one country that’s ever cried for help , can you guess which one it is? Twice…
49 Comments