Putin cornered as UK considers long-range missiles to counter Kremlin’s nuclear threat 

The Tories have been taking donations from Russian oligarchs in exchange for not increasing the UK defence budget.

Some would say that your suggestion would make him more pintid than ever. Germany and France have enough to destroy Europe themselves. I don't think Putin will use any Nukes unless he's attacked first. So lets be careful and not push him in the wrong direction. Dialogue and negotiate with him every day. Why are Western Leaders not pushing dialogue with the Russians on a daily basis. Demand for The Russians and Ukraine to sit and hammer it out until something is agreed and signed. Put something on the table to draw the Russians into negotiations. History does repeat itself.

Yes, the US has proved to be most unreliable recalcitrant "ally". Europe, united, doesn't need it.

I agree that Europe needs a stock of its own independent weapons to deter Russia. I'm not sure that *tactical* nuclear weapons - which are for the most part pretty useless on the battlefield in practice - are the way to go, though. Russia maintains a large stock of tactical nuclear weapons and a military doctrine that is based upon progressive escalation using these weapons (primarily within Europe) until the US decides its had enough because the risks of strategic nuclear war becomes a threat to the United States itself, bottles out and de-escalates by withdrawing from Europe. That's the theory of this Russian doctrine, at least. The US might be open minded to fight a tactical nuclear war on European soil. But it would NEVER entertain the idea of doing so on its own territory. Nor should Europe. We Europeans that have nuclear weapons - the French and the British - invest primarily in *strategic* nuclear weapons that are so devastating that Russia would cease to exist in practice because so much of the population - primarily in the centres of political control, such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, would be vaporised within an hour. That's the deterrence. Yes, the French have air-launched nuclear weapons (as did the British at one time with their Tornado-based delivery system) but the systems we collectively rely upon are primarily those rooted in submarine-based strategic nuclear deterrence. In other words, we don't and won't do small nuclear wars. Because Europe is so densely populated that multiple exchanges of tactical nuclear weapons on European soil - that both the US and the Russians might find viable when those exchanges are happening in other people's countries - would be devastating for us in Europe. What we in Europe need everybody to understand is that there is a very credible threat that if European countries are attacked with any type of nuclear weapon then we will end the civilisation that launched it, come what may. In other words that our continent has an effective, collective nuclear umbrella that is NOT provided by a potentially unstable country from elsewhere. Such as the United States under a Trump administration, perhaps, or a United States at war with itself - both of which are conceivable. What we probably need to do in Europe is invest in augmenting the effectiveness (and uplifting the operational capacity) of these existing platforms and the next generation of these platforms. And finding the political will to invest in making what we already have truly credible in the defence of Europe as a whole. Germans and Italians and Poles and Norwegians need to be confident that the UK and France will respond should German, Italian or Polish cities be attacked with nuclear weapons of any type. And countries like Russia need to be confident that this will happen without hesitation and that the Brits and the French don't leave every other European country to be nuclear cannon-fodder. Perhaps an additional pan-European nuclear deterrent will be necessary. Or an independent/semi-independent nuclear-armed Poland and Baltic states / Romania / Central Europe. Under the German constitution, it's difficult to see that Germany could or would operate an independent nuclear deterrent. But it may be able to contribute financially and technologically to a joint European nuclear umbrella. What we also need to do is build our conventional military capacity - especially via joint purchasing agreements and weapon system commonality (both of which would combine to lower costs) as well as investment in new technology and making our societies and infrastructure more resilient in the event of war - to make it clear that we can successfully defend ourselves, if necessary, without American help. And that such collective European defence would have the capacity to end Russia as a country, even without a nuclear exchange. Because that's the sort of credible deterrence that Russians understand. In fact, it's really the only sort of deterrence that the Russians understand: deterrence based upon the credible risk that they will lose everything, including vast tracts of their territory and the fall of Russian cities. In other words, the sort of deterrence that China now demonstrates to Russia. Because Russians respect that. And fear it. And thus this deterrence works.

well in their defense, if they did something, people would start whining about "money being spent on war"

Well i whould bet your military has a lot of things the public and news dont know about. Thats kinda how it works with weapons you wont tell the enemy exactly what you got. England europe and the u.s has lots of weapons we know nothing about = very advanced. Its a good saying that the military are 50 years ahead in technology from the public.

Tomahawk is a very expensive weapon and to be honest, I don't think the UK has that many. Certainly not enough to gift to Ukraine, mores the pity.

@@keithlillis7962 dont think you understand buddy. The military is 50 years ahead of the public and got lots of things that is more advanced then tomahawks. The western world is working on lazer weapons now/sound weapons (sonic)

The Tomahawks belong to US. UK is just a garage.

@@Thedrunkenswede1337 Every country has been working on laser weapons since the 60s. The running joke since then has been it is always one year away. The only one actually in military service is the Chinese Silent Hunter, which the PLA and Saudi military operate. Russians, American, Israeli, and ourselves are still testing these things. Countries have endlessly been working on lasers and railguns etc. It is all vapourware still. There are sonic weapons out there but it is more crowd control, unless you believe the Havana Syndrome nonsense of Russians frying brains around the world.

Yeah sure a load of bolloxology

Relax

Love your energy. Just want to point something out: Remember that these are percentages. The economy of russia is relatively small. It's smaller than the economy of California. Just California is economically larger than all of russia. NATO's collective economies are 20x the size of the rf's economy. That means that if every country in NATO spends 2.5% on defense (or, more accurately, if the average spend on defense is 2.5% across those countries), then NATO would be spending 50% of the ENTIRE russian economy on defense. In 2024, that number stands at 2.71%. The rf would get rinsed, and it wouldn't be close.

@@billy2807 true it's just that the British have neglected the army RAF and the royal navy for so many years we are not the fighting force we used to be I don't know what they expect our forces can do with a 2 5percent of GDP defence budget the army needs to be doubled at the least

Let me to point out one thing u are missing, its not only russia the west will end up fighting, but the whole Evil Axe: China, N.Korea, Iran, Russia, Belarus... And if u look just by human population in these countries all together, then u should understand that west population its tiny compare to these countries!

@gavinarmstrong1860 totally valid concern, and every country DOES need to hit that mark. You're not wrong, compadre. Keep up the good points! Just wanted to put it in scope for you, in case you were stressed.

But....that's old tech...... easily target for electronic counters.....even now the effectiveness of latest MLRS US systems have been vastly negated down to accuracy to less than 10 percent....don't forget that Russia has hypersonic toys now so from Russia to the UK in about 4 mins......times have changed

​@MrSlugny 😂OK Russian bot

​@@MrSlugny Nope they're advanced tech! And no it doesn't really matter about their Hype.S which would take over 20 mins hypothetically speaking to reach, as it's only a matter of distance not speed! But YT won't allow me to explain the UK's abilities to 🎯 Russ when necessary!

​@@MrSlugny🥱

@@kevinmolloy9134 always with the bot comments 😂 should add the biggest advantage of the MLRS system is that the launchers are very mobile can be hiden....not sure about the tomahawk.....draw back is only 90 or so of block 5 produced in a year.....it's going to be a numbers game...

Odds are we will not see any nuclear treaties for awhile, mainly because of China. The US really left the intermediate missile agreement with Russia because they wanted to match Chinese missiles in the Pacific who was a non-signatory. Then when it comes to a nuclear, the Chinese refuse to talk and mainly because they have fewer nuclear weapons than Russia and the US. Both roughly have 5000 each and they keep 1500-1800 deployed at all times. Chinese only have 350-500. (We have 225). So the Chinese are wanting to get up to US and Russia levels, then begin talks. Russians signed a deal with them in the last 2 years, which could be civilian use but are likely aiding them militarily in this. Any nuclear deal will now have to be between Russia, China, and the US.

😂😂😂😂😂

Checked the borders of NATO lately?

@@johnstone7697 Yes, it closely matches countries who don't want to be invaded - mostly by Russia. What's your point?

Sound is perfect on this pixel 3.

Worked fine for me.

@@adventure9606 Fine on my PC.

But she is sitting on toilet

Somewhat. UK and France always keep one nuclear submarine out. If a nuclear war occured, we could fire 16 missiles carrying multiple warheads as anything else would be destroyed. Guess the US and Russians have limited ICBM interceptors but we would get a few through. For good reason as they are expensive as they are basically are the size and cost of what you need to launch something into space. To my knowledge China or anyone else doesn't have anything equivalent to American Interceptors (40 or so) or the Russian A-135/235 (60 or so) . We don't need to or really should aspire operate to reach the level of the big boys, I think our 225 warheads and 16 missiles always ready are enough. Don't see the need to be like the US and Russia, who have 5000 warheads and probably 2000 missiles ready to fire. Those two clowns risk wiping out all human life and we should not aspire to such things. It is not dignified.

Heavy missiles get to target faster when launched closer.

Russia already nearly is an uninhabitable wasteland, certainly outside of the two main cities :-)

She is.

It's not Putin who is the madman it's the Western leaders mainly the US and UK who are behind all this...

Exactly right! Putler have caused a huge black hole for Russia due to his own bloated ego!

Im guessing china and/or Iran would be more than willing to invest in ukrain and gain a foot hold on the border of Europe. So while succsess might come at the expense and prove to be loose loose situation One thing's for sure. He definitely cant afford not not to win

Putin doesn't seem to learn from their enemies mistakes. The US learned that painful lesson long time ago: never stay and try to rebuild the country.

@@xantiom: The USA rebuilt Germany, Italy and Japan after WW2, and South Korea after the Korean War. That turned out really well. But the US should never have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.

You don't see the worldwide impact of using any size nuclear weapon? Sheesh. Get a clue.

Don't worry. Scotland is already on Russia's list of nuclear targets because that is where the UK's nuclear missile subs are based, not to mention a large proportion of the Royal Navy surface fleet.

Batshit take.

So what would you suggest? Surrender to ruSSreich?

Yes.

I know I don't know how we would fare against Putin's troops on their Golf carts with cope cages😮😮😮😮❤

And a second division one at that!

Here's 50 cents wumao 😂

And Putin's fits in a cemetery .

​@@truth-lg7xylol 😂

And the best way to prevent it is to make it very clear that whilst there will be no first use, the response will be far greater than the aggressor's action.

I know. ...

I know ... 🤔

explain.

@@AFCBFAN1 uk is run by foreigners and the woke homosexuals i dont think uk is going to survive from its own issues leave alone foreign wars.

@@AFCBFAN1 currently as we speak saxons are minority tribe in Britain

Best defense against nuclear weapons is the lack of maintenance in Ruzzian nuclear sector.

If they can be intercepted before MIRV seperation then this has already been proven in the US, also with the latest developments in Laser wepaons there is no reason these cannot target inbound before re-entry phase.

Are we making botski nuclear war threats yet again? Ha ha ha 😂 🤣 😆 😄 😀

I expect they mean employing longer-range conventional weapons to take out the launch sites of lower-yield tactical nukes.

For the record the British had once defeated Russia on its own turf, despite having inferior army size! And no the UK had fought wars in other continents as well e.g Europe, the Americas and Asia.

😂😂😂

The Crimean War...?

Your definition of "defeating" is very different from what it says in the dictionary.

And you can't speak English.

You´re living in a paralell reality mate....

Wasn't Russia going to win in just three days, as Russia 1 tv promised everyone? Ha ha ha 😂 🤣 😆 😄 😀 😜

@@boink800 Now it´s almost 30 months, what an overrated Army.....

​@@paraguard60We had no idea that any army could be this incompetent. Ha ha 😂 🤣 😆 😄 😅

Kiev in threeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee days 😂😂😂

Here's 50 cents wumao 😂

@@joelturley4847 Why don't they report on the front lines? They were all over it 14 months ago and then abruptly shut up about it a few weeks later 😄😅😂🤣

If you haven`t noticed, putin`s 3 day war isn`t exactly going according to the plan...

Fact free nonsense.

It should especially with it's d.....d forecasted to reach 1 million fallen Ru22ian troops by 2025! Terrifying figures!

Try to stop posting silly comments.

You really believe Russia to reach 1 million falling soilders? Well that must mean Ukraine is winning!or as usual times radio/telegraph are talking total b/s!