A British general admitted on Tuesday that the UK couldn’t handle a war with Russia for more than two months as London has significantly depleted its military stockpiles by arming Ukraine.
Lt. Gen. Robert Magowan, the deputy chief of the defense staff, made the comments during a British parliament hearing where he was urging for more military spending.
MP Mark Francois, a member of the Conservative Party, asked Magowan if it was true that the UK “couldn’t fight Putin for more than a couple of months in a full-on shooting war because we don’t have the ammunition and the reserves of equipment to do it.”
Magowan said Francois’ statement was true. British Defense Minister Grant Shapps was also at the hearing and downplayed the lack of UK military readiness, saying any war with Russia would be fought alongside NATO allies, and referred to Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty that outlines mutual defense commitments.
“For people watching, and hearing that the UK isn’t ready for war exclusively with Russia, it’s important to understand that because we are in NATO and Article 5 exists, we would never be in that situation,” Shapps said, according to The Telegraph.
The comments came after a report from the House of Commons defense committee found that the British military was “increasingly overstretched” and wasn’t ready for a war with Russia. In December, The Times of London reported that the UK had “nothing” left in its military stockpiles after sending so many weapons to Ukraine.
Despite the state of the British military, the UK is one of the NATO countries most involved in the Ukraine proxy war. A recorded conversation between two German military officers that was recently published by Russian media revealed that British soldiers are “on the ground” in Ukraine helping Ukrainian forces fire Storm Shadow missiles.
In other words, the US will be doing the fighting in the coming War with Russia…..or China……or Iran…..or
“I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again! Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign Wars!” —-FDR campaigning in Boston a few days before the Nov. 1940 election.
Indeed. The European leadership are in panic mode. They are so deluded by their own propaganda that they might as well occupy some other alternative universe in which their colonialist days have never ended. The Brit leaders who are looking for admirality on LinkedIn fancy themselves still ruling the waves. The French still think they own Africa, see them being kicked out of the continent as a temporary set back and even the Dutch who might still own a musket installed on an inflatable rubberboat send it to wage war on Yemen hiding behind the Americans. These people, spoiled brats acting out in a world that is getting impatience with their nauseating entitled buffoonery are slowly starting to suspect they are indeed not the adults they fool themselves into thinking. So they panic.
But you can take them on their word that they sure as hell count on the Americans to go save them from the trouble they’re getting themselves in. They are after all entitled to it.
“But you can take them on their word that they sure as hell count on the Americans to go save them from the trouble they’re getting themselves in.”
They do and we will.
I don’t know FDR had a leg to stand on there.
Am I sick for laughing?
They would barely make it over the Polish border …………………..
They don’t have the capacity to get troops to the front and the resources they say they have are lies they cannot admit to. NATO is a Paper Tiger and proved it when they ran out of ammo two weeks into the so-called ‘defensive’ operation in Libya. BTW, how’d that Libya thing work out for the Libyan people, huh NATO?
I mostly blame the French on that one.
Desperation makes people do irrational things. This era is incredibly menacing. How do we stop the lunatics?
You cannot. The British brought us WWI, WWII, and now WWIII. They know exactly how to do it. The entire world will pay the price for no good reason whatsoever.
Good thing Britain wouldn’t be fighting alone.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/natos-article-5-collective-defense-obligations-explained
You tankies are more and more in the weeds!
such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force
This language is relatively flexible. It permits each NATO member to decide for itself what action should be taken to address an armed attack on a NATO ally.
Not “unwavering”, “ironclad” or even “unshakable”.
“… including the use of armed force…”
Which is what would be used.
I guess you ignored the part I put in bold. Or more precisely, my point.
If Russia attacks any member of NATO, Armed force WILL be used — and you know it.
Don’t be foolish. If it attacks the UK, we will have WW3. If it attacks Lithuania, we won’t have a Lithuania anymore.
We won’t have a Russia either.
You can’t possibly think the US would risk WW3 over Lithuania.
Yeah. I do; and so would the other NATO countries — including the 2 new ones. They understand what/who Putin is.
George Kennan (in the “Long Telegram” — 1946) wrote that the Soviets were deeply suspicious of all other nations and believed that their security could only be found in “patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power.”
They were then and they are now (with the little KGB man in charge).
Then you are crazy.
Irrational Thinker believes that the Soviet Union still exists.
It would seem.
Was Putin in the Soviet KGB? You think he doesn’t long for that time? You right-wing a**hats still long for the era of the orange fascist!
I’ll jump in with this favorite quote :
“Anyone who doesn’t regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.”
Putin in the New York Times 20 February 2000; a similar remark was attributed to General Alexander Lebed in St Petersburg Times (Florida) 28 June 1996.
So, your answer from The Man Himself.
Well, you added a lot to your original comment with your edit, but you are still crazy. Or you don’t think the US/NATO cares about WW3 going nuclear. Because if you think that we wouldn’t find out if Russia’s nukes work or not before Russia is destroyed for attacking Lithuania, then you are doubly crazy. No way the US/NATO risk that over Lithuania.
The other Baltic states and Poland will make sure NATO engages and defeats Russia. If Russia decides to send nukes it’ll lead to their total destruction. I’m thinking the Russian oligarchs will remove Putin before that happens. They like their money and foreign properties too much.
The other Baltic states and Poland will make sure NATO engages and defeats Russia.
That makes no sense. They aren’t going to force anyone to come to their defense.
And I didn’t say anything about nukes other than if Russia was on the verge of being destroyed for attacking Lithuania. Russia could annihilate Lithuania with conventional weapons. And why do you think NATO won’t get directly involved if it isn’t about Russia’s nukes?
There you go again with Putin not being the all-powerful dictator. You really should make up your mind. If the oligarchs are in control of Putin, then they must condone what he’s doing.
NATO will engage militarily if any member is attacked. They will never want to be seen as useless. What would the point be for the alliance?
Russia can’t defeat Ukraine conventionally. What makes you think they can start another war and win THAT one conventionally?
I’ve never said he was or wasn’t an “all powerful” dictator. He is allowed to stay because he’s good for the oligarchs. When he threatens their existence, he’s be deposed or worse.
No, they won’t. You’re dreaming. And the point of the alliance is money. You should know that.
Do you actually think Lithuania is comparable to Ukraine? We were talking about Lithuania.
A dictator by definition is all powerful. If the oligarchs control him, he isn’t a dictator.
The point of the alliance is to defend against Russia (and formerly the USSR).
Lithuania is MORE likely to cause NATO reaction because they are a member.
A dictator is “all powerful” until they’re not. Have you ever heard of fella named Mussolini?
The US/NATO will not go to war to defend Lithuania for the same reason the US/NATO won’t go to war with Russia to defend Ukraine. Their obligation to defend either is the same. There is NO guarantee that a NATO member will go to war for another NATO member. Reread Article 5.
A person ruling absolutely is the definition of a dictator. If the oligarchs control Putin, then Putin is not a dictator.
There’s no GUARANTEE but they will.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mussolini-falls-from-power
I think Ukraine is vastly more important to the US/NATO than Lithuania, regardless of whether they are in NATO, and the US/NATO is making sure there will be no direct war with Russia there. You can keep thinking the US/NATO would take that risk over a country with a population of 2.8 million, but you’d still be thinking wrong.
So, are you telling me Mussolini wasn’t a dictator either? You can give all the examples you want, if Putin is answering to someone, he’s not a dictator.
NATO will respond if one of its members is attacked. (You can keep saying x-million people don’t count but it’s not the number of citizens that matters.)
HISTORY says Mussolini was a dictator and he was removed. (I don’t write history.)
I keep saying Article 5 DOESN’T guarantee that NATO counties will come to the defense of other NATO countries. You ignore that. And given the US’ history of abandoning those they use, it’s ridiculous for you to think the US would risk nuclear war over a pissant country like Lithuania. Especially after they proved they don’t give a fuck about Ukraine, (or their 40 million people) a country vastly more important from the US’ perspective compared to Lithuania.
Putin isn’t a dictator. He answers to the oligarchs. You said that also.
[obligatory complaint about ‘ta**ie’ racial slur]
Tankie is as tankie does.
Seriously put any racial slur in that statement in place of “ta**ie” and see if them pants don’t fit f’r length & waist.
Tankie is not a racial slur. It’s an ideological term, just like “Zionist” or “neocon.”
Tankie is a pejorative, while people self identify as neoconservative or Zionist.
You act like “pejorative” and “thing people self identify as” are necessarily antonyms. They’re not.
And even if they were, “tankie” isn’t a racial pejorative as specified in Uncle Sapien’s complaint. Nor is it among the other categories of slurs (ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity) forbidden by the site’s guidelines.
I mentioned site guidelines where?
I said it is a pejorative, which it is.
The fact is no one identifies as a tankie, because it doesn’t exist as an ideology since there is no Soviet Union and communism. It’s a lazy insult from limited intellectual ability to put forth a cogent argument.
I’m not asking for a referee penalty here; simply I’d like some people’s discourse to veer off the racist DMZ a bit.
Here’s a bit on the racist content of the term “tankie”:
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
That’s fine. If the Pandemic taught me anything (besides the fact that the Authoritarian Left is exactly as scummy as the Authoritarian Right), it’s that The Powers That Be get to decide what’s racist and what “isn’t”.
Tell me then – is “ta**ie fine yet a reference to D&D / LOTR Orcs in reference to same group autoflagged ?
Tho I’ll get an answer the moment I hit “Comment”…
Oh ! My genuine mistake !
I don’t recall that “orcs” is “auto-flagged.” But since it’s clearly and unambiguously a collective ethnic slur, it violates our guidelines.
Sigh.
Have I mentioned that Joseph Heller’s classic novel “Catch-22” is probably my favorite book ?
I read it ~25 years ago at a time when my life was chock-a-block full of absurdities (and this was BEFORE 9/11 and Bush II going Nineteen Eight-Four on society, mind you !!) and, even now, when inane nonsense like this pops up (fantasy creature = racist slur, ta**ie = Just Fine), it STILL helps me cope.
Yossarian lives.
Wrong. If it came to nukes, no one is helping the UK and esp. not the US.
UK would be on its own.
Not true at all.
I love it when I watch a British show or movie where they complain about terrible wars, while totally ignoring the fact that they started them. They show their brothers, fathers, husbands dying like that was a wonderful sacrifice. We’re worse because we always go along with their warmongering like the biggest idiots ever.
Seems the complaining is usually when the British Empire’s preferred cannon fodder (the Newfoundlanders, the Oyresh, the Indians…) start to run low and the fine lads of Manchester and Birmingham start to die.
Recognizing your own limitations is good and indeed healthy.
;-}
Thucydides trap with nuclear armed psychopaths in charge. God help us.
You wouldn’t think the British general would be giving away information about their military capabilities when the crazed lunatic Putin is plotting to take over the entirety of Europe. Sometimes these turd blossoms forget their own propaganda.
“…couldn’t fight Putin for more than a couple of months in a full-on shooting war…”
MP Francois, some awkward news here for ya – if it became a “full-on shooting war” between the UK / NATO and the Russian Federation, that ‘war’ would last exactly as long as it took for RF nuclear missiles to reach every major city in Britain (plus other NATO cronies).
They will see it as an existential threat and respond nuclear; they have not neen vague on this.
And vice versa as far as nukes hitting every major city in Russia. In other words, the world ends.
With Russia’s air defenses, there’s a good chance Russia would survive, albeit losing some millions of people.
The UK wouldn’t. Neither would any other EU country.
The US would lose probably over half the population in the top 50 Major Metropolitan Statistical Areas. According to one source I found:
Highly doubt the UK would even be able to launch any nukes. Even if the UK did launch, it’s slow ballistic missiles would be easy targets for Russian AD.
If it comes to nules etc, the Americans won’t help the UK. No chance. America isn’t going to risk being annihilated for the pipsqueak UK.
Again, the US is not a trustworthy friend or ally. Ultimately, all US allies are dispensable, including the UK. Losing such a loyal poodle would be painful, but compared to being annihilated it’s an easy choice for DC.
Washington DC would quietly let the Russians know that they have no intention of entering the fight, and let the UK burn.
Oh bullshit. I’m so fucking tired about the insane talk that there is such a thing as a winnable nuclear war. We’re all dead.
Actually you are wrong.
The UK wouldn’t survive the first wave if hypersonic nukes. All command and control would be annihilated,as would the UK itself.
UK Vanguard subs are crap. They’d all likely be destroyed within minutes. Even then, because of command/control being annihilated, there would be no one left to approve launch of nukes.
Even if someone senior enough in the UK was alive to order launch, the time to give the order would be extended from the present ~5/6 minutes to at least 10 ++ minutes. By then, it would be too late.
UK nukes are slow and travel on a ballistic trajectory. Even if a Vanguard sub was able to launch a salvo of nukes at Russia, Russian AD defences (which can destroy objects travelling at hypersonic speeds) would easily ID them & take them out.
‘But the US would step in and help UK!’ – if you believe that,.I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The US will stand by and do nothing. It’s not going to destroy itself for the UK or Europe.
And you’re crazy.
Nope. Just stating facts. Keep crying
You gave an opinion. Nothing more. Christ, countries have thousands of “tactical nukes” that are 15 times more powerful than the A-bombs dropped on Japan. But somehow, someway Russia will be able to destroy EVERYONES nukes and remain unscathed.
And what the fuck does “keep crying” mean?
Ah, so you were ahead of me on the CnC targeting ! Cool.
Russia can’t even keep its premiere fighter jets in the air!
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-03-28/russian-military-plane-crashes-in-sea-off-crimea-local-governor
Whoops!
This happens all the time in every military across the globe. What’s your point?
Does THIS happen all the time in every military across the globe?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/28/the-russian-air-forces-old-su-27-fighters-had-a-lucky-war-until-this-week/?sh=35d031e23fbe
You’re using an article from Forbes. Too funny.
So, the jet WASN’T shot down?
Hey man. Steve Forbes ran for President! Yeah doesn’t mean his mag is worthwhile – just that only top-notch candidates make a try for the Oval Office!
70% of F-35 are not combat ready, so?
How many have been shot down by our own air defense?
Admire that the F-35 “Lightning II” is not permitted to fly in thunderstorm weather…
New report today say they now can. I’ll wait for further confirmation.
Correct.
If Russia decides it’s an existential situation, UK ceases to exist within minutes.
If Russia uses subs (eg Belgorod/Poseidon), UK ceases to exist in ~5/6 minutes although if the sub is close enough, it could be all over in ~3 mins.
If Russia uses Sarmat/Avangard (mach 27) and depending on range, it would take about ~8-10 minutes to reach UK. Sarmat carries 12 Avangard HGVs.
All UK Vanguard subs would be destroyed in the process. In fact, they probably wouldn’t even be able to launch their nukes – it takes at least 5-6 minutes for the protocols to be approved/orders relayed – and
the Russians would destroy all UK command & control first.
So, UK ceases to exist in ~3-10 mins.
“So, UK ceases to exist in ~3-10 mins.”
So a couple of minutes before Russia also ceases to exist.
Doesn’t seem like a very good outcome for anyone.
No. That’s the point. Russia survives, because it has overcome MAD.
You’re obviously unaware of the fact that the Russian S550 ‘Prometheus’ AD system can intercept all incoming ballistic missiles (inc nukes) 550 km from the Prometheus battery, including ballistic missiles travelling at hypersonic speed.
Ergo no ballistic missile can get through.
All well and good, except that I live in the real world, not your fantasy “Russia is all-powerful and impervious to all things” universe.
I think their anti ballistic shields will be QUITE op-er-ational when the UK / NATO’s atomic friends arrive…
Very good assessment; and along the lines of what I’d read.
There is suspicion, too, that the RF might launch an initial command & control decapitation strike, taking out leadership plus retalitory capabilities – leaving population centers as follow-up targets if the remaining command does not surrender immediately.
That said – the timelines we agree on STILL don’t leave time enough for civilians to get anywhere safe.
Question for Shapps… let’s say a NATO country gets invaded. What is actually obligating anybody to honor article 5?
All that Article 5 says is that if a NATO country gets invaded, other NATO countries are obligated to do … whatever they feel like doing … about it.
LOL Now that’s really being delusional! Two months? Try a hour before London vanishes. Russians don’t fight wars at far remove from their enemies’ HQ any more.
Even if Russia didn’t bother with London, Britain’s 70,000 troops wouldn’t last long on the ground. Ukraine is losing 50-100,000 a month, and that’s mostly front-line troops with a hefty back-end as well the Russians don’t even count. Britain’s 70,000 wouldn’t make it to six weeks.
As for “NATO allies”, none of them can produce more than one brigade of troops – and zero logistical support because it will be disrupted by stand-off weapons as it is in Ukraine.
I hope Andrei Martyanov sees this, he’s going to have a major chuckle.
Can a country provide both “Guns and Butter”?
Remember “Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.”
The British have neglected their military as most European countries have. They each expect America to fight their battles for them while they provide social benefits for their citizens.
NATO is a crutch which has seduced the Europeans into complacency.
Two months? More 10-20 minutes.
If the UK attacked Russia, the UK would cease to exist as a nation state within minutes, after being hit with a barrage of nuclear tipped hypersonic missiles / Poseidon torpedoes.
And no – the UK wouldn’t be able to hit Russia with nukes, either. Any crappy Vanguard sub within range would be sunk.
If the UK and Russian militaries came into conflict on a conventional (non-nuclear level), the UK military would be lucky to last 2 weeks. Their pipsqueak toy army would be wiped out faster than their ammo.
Russian art of war w/ Jacques Baud
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIzKxXR5pvA
Interesting perspective from retired Swiss Intelligence and past NATO officer. Comparing and contrasting western culture, western military approach and thinking v Russia’s.
If you’re in a hole… Stop digging…!
His book is available for free download here:
https://annas-archive.org/md5/3c700b3f8b2198ce06e040586b0ba92f
TY