This has been bothering me recently with respect to the actual competence, ability and quality of the supposed "feared" Russian armed forces. If we actually look at the numbers:
Russian military spending - approx. USD 62bn per year. 4% of its GDP. As well as funding all the conventional armed forces this includes having to maintain in a launch-ready state approx 1,500 deployed nuclear warheads, on land, at sea and air-launched/dropped . Not a cheap exercise by any stretch of the imagination.
In comparison UK spending alone (if we ignore the other 29 members) is USD 72bn. Included in this amount is the maintenance of only 225 nuclear warheads. All sea-based.
The UK economy is nearly twice the size of Russia on a GDP basis - and yet, even with spending more on our armed forces in absolute terms we have difficulty in paying for a sixth of the Nuclear capability Russia is maintaining.
And yet we still cling to the Cold-War fear of the mighty Russian Bear. If you look at the numbers there is no way on God's Earth that Russian military capability can be any where near the combined resources of 30 NATO nations. With respect to Nuclear weapons (and although I wouldn't want to test the hypothesis) - are we really saying the Russian nuclear "deterrent" is in any way as fearsome as they make out considering the considerable resources necessary to ensure they actually work when needed??
I think that Johnson will ride out the Lebedev issues. He will keep saying that the security services never issued any meaningful warnings about him. I still haven't seen any significant evidence that Lebedev is a malign influence, other than he had a line to Putin - not unexpected for someone in his position. How Lebedev got to be where he is, and where all his money came from, is an interesting question; but Boris Johnson cannot be blamed for that.
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
LOL. The French number is only so low as they ended up with only shitty colonies ...
I imagine these figures are well-known in the PB community, but still, quite notable. Kinda see Trump's point. And why UK, doesn't have too much to be ashamed of. I mean, Italy, having a laugh.
Here are the 10 countries with the most NATO spending:
United States ($6.85 Tn) United Kingdom ($655.27 Bn) Germany ($491.32 Bn) France ($477.05 Bn) Italy ($232.81 Bn) Canada ($212.77 Bn) Turkey ($180.00 Bn) Spain ($123.36 Bn) Poland ($113.76 Bn) Netherlands ($113.60 Bn)
The UK clearly already spending enough on defence, as are the UK. It is other nations in Europe who need to spend more, as does Canada
“Clearly already spending enough”? Why? What’s clear? Nothing from these figures certainly, as they seem to be ten year projections of cash amounts. They tell you nothing about capability delivered or relative “bang for buck”.
In terms of percentage spent on defence of gdp, of the 30 member states of NATO, only 7, the USA, UK, Poland, Greece, Romania, Latvia and Estonia have been spending at least the recommended 2%.
Sigh….. You don’t measure military capability by percentage of GDP. You certainly don’t measure based on spending more or less than others. You measure it by the effect you desire and whether or not you can achieve it. Your Government cannot achieve its desired effects (the IR) and address the emerging threats, spending what we spend. Change spending or change the level of ambition. There is a choice.
You do measure it compared to others as our defence spending and ambition is entirely dependent on our commitments required via our NATO membership or through the UN.
The only military action we would ever take on our own outside NATO, the UN or following the lead of the USA is to defend the Falklands from Argentina or Gibraltar from Spain and we still spend significantly more on defence than Spain and Argentina do
You don’t win a war with top trumps defence budgets.
And as I keep telling you, the amount spent isn’t the whole story or even the main part of it. Why do Tories grasp this for everything but defence?
Since Spain would never invade and the garrison could defend the FI, I take it from this that you only ever want to act with the US. Fine, though that isn’t your Government’s policy. If you want that we should follow the Israeli model and buy the last 10-20% of every US production run, and use them for maintenance.
It is the government's polcy. We only ever act militarily with NATO, the UN or US, we only ever would act on our own to defend the few remaining British overseas territories that is it.
From your Government’s Defence Command Paper:
“The 1st (UK) Division will be capable of operating independently or as part of multilateral deployments”.
Would you like me to explain what “independently” means?
Would you like me to explain what multilateral means?'Agreed upon or participated in by three or more parties, especially the governments of different countries' is the dictionary definition.
1 Division is also more than enough to defend the Falklands or Gibraltar if needed
The Brits who wish we still had the Empire - these will be the same 20% or so who polled as "like Donald Trump" and also as supporters of a rock-hard "WTO" No Deal Brexit.
The Brits who wish we still had the Empire - these will be the same 20% or so who polled as "like Donald Trump" and also as supporters of a rock-hard "WTO" No Deal Brexit.
All the same folk.
And at least half of them voted UKIP in 2015 and virtually all of them voted Leave in 2016
The Brits who wish we still had the Empire - these will be the same 20% or so who polled as "like Donald Trump" and also as supporters of a rock-hard "WTO" No Deal Brexit.
All the same folk.
And at least half of them voted UKIP in 2015 and virtually all of them voted Leave in 2016
For the first time in years I bought a Sunday Times to see just what it had on the Lebedev connection. It was damning. If there were not a war on Boris would be out pronto just on the evidence of that one edition.
He will certainly have to go before the next election. Never mind the text, some of the pictures were lethal. Labour and the LibDems would only have to keep reprinting them in leaflet after leaflet to torpedo the Tory campaign below the water line. The Tories simply cannot go into battle with him as leader. This is not the USA, and he is not Trump. The voters won't back him blind, whatever success he may have in the war or esewhere.
So if he's toast, when does he actually pop out of the toaster?
His MPs clearly think 'not now - the war you know.' They can maybe get away with that a bit but it's not a great look. Then there's the locals. 'Wait for them' is another excuse for inaction. What then? 'Takes a while to change a leader, and he was a winner'. Not sure that will suffice for very long.
Regrdless of the odds, I would say some time this year seems most likely by a long way, but he could get lucky with the war if that drags on. So maybe Mike is right, and at the odds 2023 looks decent enough value for the momnet.
The people that matter in this, Tory MPs, members and even voters don't seem to care.
Virtually none of the Tory posters on here who weren't already critics of the PM when he was first elected will engage with issues of standards, whether about lying, finances, cronyism or security risks.
The responses are a mix of "all politicians are thieving nasty liars regardless", "what about Corbyn", "other things are more important", or "if he helps bring a blue win then anything goes".
He is staying on until he loses an election or it is blatantly clear he will lose the next one.
Couldn’t agree more. The silence is deafening. It’s fine that Russian money and bot farms helped to deliver Brexit, it’s no problem that Russian money has financed the Tory Party and it’s client media for decades. The end justifies the means.
The aims of the right chime with those of Putin, in as much as they both get hard for a strong, nationalist agenda, a return of Empire, of power, of prestige perceived to have been lost. Not collaboration with a weak, Woke, green EU. Fellow travellers on the anti-climate change bandwagon, for whom the profit available from digging up and burning fossil fuels is more important than the long-term health of the planet.
The right can’t face up to this yet. Perhaps with time they will do.
It’s only people on the left whoever mention the Empire…
But if the left suggests that the Empire might not have been an alloyed good, it always gets the right flocking. Just the BE of course, other empires were nasty, foreign muck.
That’s a straw man. Of course there were lots of bad things done as part of the empire (although relative to other empires the Anglo-Scottish empire scored ok).
But the usual accusation is those on the right want the empire to return. I’ve never seen anyone seriously express that view.
A quarter of Brits wish we still had an empire according to yougov 2019. It isn't that rare a desire.
LOL. The French number is only so low as they ended up with only shitty colonies ...
Comments
Unlike the Ukraine, this thread has been overrun
Seriously, people still lust after empire? Wow!
Would you like me to explain what multilateral means?'Agreed upon or participated in by three or more parties, especially the governments of different countries' is the dictionary definition.
1 Division is also more than enough to defend the Falklands or Gibraltar if needed
All the same folk.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1503365400939147273?t=2Wcr8qZkwZyRl999gH0OPg&s=19