I have complained to the chancellor about that and will continue to do so. But they do provide Taurus to allies who in turn send their stock of older but similarly capable systems to Ukraine such as storm shadow.

Still, it's silly and our weapons are only for defense against Russia anyway. We will only need Taurus ourselves if Ukraine loses. Might as well put them to use.

These days Russia mainly strikes with misinformation campaigns and hacking attacks. Sometimes they even sabotage underseas infrastructure.

You’d* better watch out

Yeah but how do you check?

A 99% failure rate would still leave them capable of MAD. That they don’t have that capability is a dangerous pipe dream, which I see nowhere except Lemmy and Reddit comment sections.

Russia has already been “appeased” multiple times.

Allow me to rephrase: We’re not going to involve our troops first. NATO territory is a total red line that would lead to direct conflict, and there’s been specific, limited consequences set for their use of various non-conventional weapons. All conventional weapons are now being given to Ukraine, to match the ones Russia is bringing to bear.

Because of that, I don’t worry too much about appeasement of Russia specifically at this point. I do worry about appeasement policies in general, though. Specifically towards various factions within the West.

I was wondering if that would get brought up. It’s sure ballsy on the UK’s part. The deniability is the thing that makes it different, though. Russia doesn’t have to respond to a few spies the same way as they would to an open confrontation. The reports also suggest it’s very small numbers of people.

To add some icing, the phrase was originally Russian and was a household joke in Russia for decades. Russians (and Vlad Puta) know very well how unserious and comical numerous “final warnings” are.

yes that could be true…but in the end I welcome all support for Ukraine.

It genuinely baffles me how the conservative parties of more than a few western countries went from the hawkish party during the Cold War to Russian apologists today. The mental gymnastics are truly astounding.

What I like about this is that in order to appeal to right wing fascism the Tories must oppose the poster-boy for right wing fascism.

I’d say that we’re frequently doing something right. Unfortunately, we’re also frequently doing other things wrong.

They did that because they needed a reason for their forces to be near the border (Of course it wouldn’t fool a concussed chipmunk, but that’s not relevant). This is why historically Russian military exercises often get up NATO’s nose, because Russia does this a lot, it claims " training exercises" as an excuse for its forces to be in NATO waters.

But simulating a nuclear strike doesn’t require forces to be in NATO territory or anywhere near the UK.

It’s not the exercises itself that’s the problem, it’s the fact that Russia often uses them as justification for moving forces around.

If Russia simulates a nuclear strike against London for example, how will anyone in London even notice. They’re just going to say they did it. It won’t actually involve doing anything.

I’m going to nuke Moscow. Done.

So true. By this point, Russia is already using everything it can, short of an actual, hot war with the west. And their military is stretched to the limit already without that.

I think this sabre rattling is still useful to them as a one-two-tactic:

1. Public threat from Russia, mentioning but not directly threatening nukes (the “push” side)
2. Russia-aligned media in the west publish articles saying “Putin’s threat should be taken seriously,” Russia-aligned western politicians smearing their opponents as “irresponsible war mongers”, followed by pushing for existing sanctions to be lifted, etc. (the “pull” side via stooges/crooked politicians)

SIEZE RUSSIAN MONEY!

This is exactly what they should do. But they won’t, because most of it is held in the City of London’s offshore boltholes. Seizing anything from them would scare the shit out of every big-time capitalist and corrupt politician on the planet. Would be good for us though.

Yeah if we’d done this in Vietnam it wouldn’t be great because Ho Chi Minh was the elected leader of Vietnam, but the Vietnam war wouldn’t’ve been the absolute shit show it was. Frankly most of our wars should’ve been this

The US is fighting dirty in every country but Ukraine?

They’re still following their WWII and czarist military doctrine of “we have more people and resources than you”. It’s a shame that Russian military leadership will forever be associated with this instead of having a second chance to demonstrate the actual might and strategy of Trotsky’s red army.

It sometimes seems like being in power in Russia destroys your ability to have sensible military strategy

now, to be very upfront about this: I do NOT want to fuck around and find out, but…

it wouldn’t surprise me if Russia’s entire nuclear arsenal is in a similar state of repair.

Because it’s a fucking bluff dude.

The UK hasn’t been a major power in like at least 2 decades. If you mean NATO then Russia isn’t really a major power in comparison to NATO. Not that it’s important, Russia isn’t stupid enough to pick a fight with NATO.

It would be really bad for a small group of people and would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of others. Say Putin does strike Britain. A bunch of people die in the initial strike. Then Britain, America, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, France, Canada, and probably a handful of others all collectively turn the Kremlin into glass and dust in a retaliatory strike. China and North Korea both rattle their sabers about it but neither of them wants to throw down with the Allies 2.0 because it doesn’t matter who you are, going to outright war with a world cooperative force is a capital-letters Bad Idea.

Otherwise Putin continues to slowly grind his way across Eurasia for the next decade while every other country’s politicians hem and haw about who they want to help and how much. Meanwhile thousands of people die daily as the Russian meat wave slides its way down toward the central EU.

There’s a very good reason that Putin has been performing military ops in Ukraine and only vaguely threatening everyone else that got involved. He knows that if he manages to actually draw the ire of the full Allied military might the remaining lifespan of his army and capitol will be measured in minutes.

If this were just a straight up shooting war it would have been done and dusted two years ago. Instead it’s a political war, and that’s stopping a bunch of politicians from actually making a move on it. Nobody wants to be the guy that started World War 3, and Putin is leveraging that to enormous effect.

It wouldn’t, but Russia is basically saying that’s a perfectly valid reason to do it.

US assessment is that China is providing the majority of what Russia needs to make those weapons, which is critical to russias ability to maintain their offensive.

theguardian.com/…/china-supporting-russia-in-mass…

They’re using loopholes to bypass sanctions by posing as civilian gear.

Ukraine is also finding critical Chinese parts on captured gear that used to be from other countries honoring those sanctions.

“Our view is that one of the most gamechanging moves available to us at this time to support Ukraine is to persuade the PRC [People’s Republic of China] to stop helping Russia reconstitute its military industrial base,” the official said.

they’ve already exhausted the stupid. There is only cowardly left. Russia bombing the UK, and inadvertently, technically the EU would almost certainly result in US retaliation, let alone the nuclear submarines that britain has. And probably the rest of the EU.

Hmm. I wonder where it came from. Might have been German.

goes to check etymonline

Gives the date of first-known use, but not where. I assume that that means that this was in English, since normally they list the origin language.

www.etymonline.com/search?q=saber+rattling

saber (n.)

type of heavy, single-edged sword, usually slightly curved, 1670s, from French sabre “heavy, curved sword” (17c.), alteration of sable (1630s), from German Sabel, Säbel, which probably is ultimately from Hungarian szablya “saber,” literally “tool to cut with,” from szabni “to cut.” The Balto-Slavic words (Russian sablya, Polish szabla “sword, saber,” Lithuanian šoblė) perhaps also are via German, but Italian sciabla seems to be directly from Hungarian. Saber-rattling “militarism” is attested from 1922. Saber-toothed cat (originally tiger) is attested from 1849, so named for the long upper canine teeth.

EDIT: Oooh, etymonline is wrong (or at least not complete). Mirriam-Webster has earlier known uses, says that it was used in the UK first, around the late 1870s.

merriam-webster.com/…/saber-rattling-word-history

There is no unanimity of opinion on why we came to refer to this kind of behavior as saber-rattling. Some think that it comes from the practice of 18th-century Hungarian cavalry units had of brandishing their sabers at opponents prior to charging. Others have said that it comes from the habit that military officers had in the early 20th century of ominously shaking their scabbard when issuing orders to subordinates. Our records indicate that the two words began seeing use in fixed fashion around 1880, making it unlikely that it was directly related to either of the causes given above.

Of late it has been in some quarters impossible to mention the word patriotism without having the taunt of being a sabre-rattling BOBADIL thrown in one’s face.

— The Standard (London, Eng.), 19 Feb. 1879

The “Sabre Rattling” of M. Coumoundouros, especially his assertion that by the coming spring he will have 86,000 men in the field, and that this number of troops will have been got together by the 10th of December.

— The Leeds Mercury (Leeds, Eng.), 3 Nov. 1880

The word appears to have begun in the press in the United Kingdom first, and by the early 20th century had spread to newspapers in the United States.