Thoughts? The British military has been cut to hell recently...

>but would increasing to 3% of GDP make them a more credible force?
Depends on how it's spent, but that's a lot for developed countries that aren't really waging wars.

Merkel will keep gaping Germany's asshole to Russia to avoid having to spend on the military and upset her leftists.

It's hilarious how hard she'll go on Trump, but is weak as shit on Putting even as he supports her far right opposition and undermines her migrant policy in Eastern Europe. But Trump is the dangerous racist one...

Trump isn't the one who can shut off a major source of Germany's energy.

niggers

I'd really, really like the British military to have another golden age.

They absolutely are, but I didn't want to start listing and start any fights over who got included.

Attached: Leclerc-openphotonet_PICT6015.jpg (1280x851, 212K)

Wait for fear to become more real, and the logic of self defense to swing back on the opinion pendulum.

Also, a lot leftists are legit scared of Russia in a way that many European rightists often aren't. One of those areas where the other side actually has it right, Putin doesn't give a fuck about the welfare of anything but himself, and by extension Russia.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily think than France is on the same level as the UK, but compared to Germany they're significant.

>2 super carriers
>best special forces on the planet
>have been fighting on multiple different deployments, on multiple continents
>have ride or die allies everywhere
>worlds best secret service

The trouble is that as concerned as they may be they're almost exclusively anti military pacifists, so increasing the defense budget won't appeal to those voters.

>England
>UK Armed Forces
Pick only one

Statistically speaking, the UK is England though.

Attached: this is INGERLUUUND.png (734x229, 21K)

You're a fucking dumbass.

Statically speaking the majority of people are retarded. Are you?

>statically

Well shit, now I look like a retard

>Statically speaking the majority of people are retarded.
lol, statisticlet

With retarded being relative, at most 50% of people can be retarded, not a majority.

Generals just want more money. Conventional means aren't what Russia is afraid of, its economic. Even if Britain cuts a further 50% of its military, it won't change a thing. But hit Russia where it will hurt them most, moral high ground. Britain has higher acceptance of gays and immigrants from the Middle East, this gives Britain the leverage to castigate Russia on these social means. Russia will feel bad and that will be a win for Britain.

Putin pls

No you just train units that can decisively attack those locations, such as powerplants.

How much does an extra 1% translate to in terms of equipment? New tanks? Ships? Planes?

They spent £35.3bn last year, so it would be getting up to £50bn+. With that money they could afford whatever they want.

British military is a mess. The army barracks are decaying ratholes, the pay for squaddies is shit and moral non-existent.
We also lack any credible force projection, we have everything we need on paper but we lack the ability to do sustained damage, we don't have the infrastructure or supplies to continue after the first strike.
Which makes sense because the British military is primarily a political tool to make us feel like a major power. This is why we have 'everything' instead of focusing on areas which would actually benefit us.
The only way to fix the British military is to stop pretending to be a super power and focus on our actual security needs.
Russia isn't a threat to the UK, we have no conflicting spheres of interest. The only credible threats to the UK are Argentina and (ironically) Spain and the EU.

>Russia isn't a threat to the UK, we have no conflicting spheres of interest. The only credible threats to the UK are Argentina and (ironically) Spain and the EU.

Hello Mr Vatnik.

>The only credible threats to the UK are Argentina and (ironically) Spain and the EU.

That's utter shit. Argentina are actually warming a lot, especially after the submarine disaster. The idea that we're going to war with the EU is laughable.

>have brexit
>increase defense spending

But why

If you haven't figured it out yet, no one at the top really knows what's going on. It's chaos. With any luck at all the system breaks down after brexit and county's take back self rule.

>what is NATO

> stop throwing billions down the bottomless hole that is the EU
> reduce unimpeded movement of people that lets people fly to London, walk straight into a hospital and use the NHS for free
> suddenly got bucketloads more cash

Kinda straightforward desu

>UK couldnt beat Russia
Of course not but war would harm russia a lot more.

British political system is a fucking mess currently. The people in charge are ones who were stupid enough to get roped into the position in the first place

Probably just a halt to cuts first and foremost, Prince of Wales will probably be put into full operational rotation rather than be mothballed/sold as was on the cards a while back.

>Russia isn't a threat to the UK, we have no conflicting spheres of interest.
Russia wants a weak and divided europe who will buy their petrochemicals and not question the oppressive oligarchy thing they have going on. Britain needs a strong, open and well developed EU that will back them up on trade internationally and high tech manufactured goods and services. It's why Brexit was such a massive strategic level victory for russia, it's driven a wedge between the UK and the EU, severely weakening both.

>Prince of Wales will probably be put into full operational rotation
She's already planned to be part of the operational rotation, just not concurrently with Lizz.

>Don't send EU £40Bn over the next 15 years
>Projected drop in GDP from tarriffs and flight of manufacturing and services £120Bn
>UK Govt has to borrow £80Bn more than they otherwise would have
FUGG :DDDD

>EU and Spain being "credible threads to Brittain"

I don't even...

I'm 90% sure he's a kremlinbot

You know that Obama set forth goals for nato to reach 2-3% GDP spending so we wouldn't have to subsidise their military anymore right? And for years only Poland was meeting thsoe goals.

Isn't the UK the second biggest nato member for funding?

>And for years only Poland was meeting thsoe goals.
That's entirely wrong and is a fact of public record.

Yes.

> £40bn over 15 years
> when its actually £19bn per year or £350m per week
Your maths aint so good bud. Also citation needed.

Why increase it then

Because it still isn't enough to match what the wants/requires to do.

The US should liberate the UK and execute high ranking British intelligence as well as a bunch of politicians.

If you read the recommendation it's genuinely comparing the UK's warfighting capacity with Russia's. It seems crazy that we're at that point.

Obama took it like a bitch and never noted NATO's total lack of effort on their militaries (with the exception of the UK, Poland)

2bh we should just let people keep using the NHS so it collapses faster then we can have a decent private system

>independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-leaked-impact-assessment-economy-gdp-north-east-west-midlands-a8199746.html

... Said nobody in Britain ever. Americas system is an expensive mess with shitty outcomes.

wouldn't be the first time.

also that £350m a week thing was proved a lie during the campaign. Turns out people will believe anything if you write it on the side of a bus. This country is doomed, but it's not because of DA MOOSLEMS or DA JOOS or any ethnic boogeyman, it's because people are incapable of actually reading and forming a political opinion based on anything but emotion, hence our shitty gun law.

Off-topic. Please keep it related to defence.

Why wouldn't they? Russia is the most significant threat.

>independent

They're literally fake news at this point. They create clickbait articles with no fact checking whatsoever.

Gibraltar is a major territorial dispute between Spain and the UK. Northern Ireland is another territorial dispute between Ireland and the UK. With us leaving the EU in is natural that the EU will start to side more strongly with Spain and Ireland.
After Brexit the UK will be surrounded by the EU and we will have two fairly substantial territorial disputes with them. While we are friendly at the moment the EU will instantly become the only credible threat to the UK mainland as any other power would have to go through them to get to us. An EU war or blockade is unlikely but having the resources to deal with one is essential even if it just for negotiating purposes.

>Russia wants a weak and divided europe who will buy their petrochemicals and not question the oppressive oligarchy thing they have going on

We have no territorial disputes with Russia or any real trade with them at all. The UK isn't dependant on Russian energy either. We have no reason to get dragged into a EU/Russia dispute.

The fact that you are implying Spain would invade Gibraltar as Russia invaded crimea says a lot about your fame of mind.

>I'm 90% sure he's a kremlinbot

How delusional do you have to be to think that everyone who disagrees with you is being paid to do so by a foreign government?

Not very when it's genuinely the case.

It wouldn't just be Spain as the EU is now in the process of creating a unified EU military force. And they don't have to invade it, they just have to blockade it, which Spain has done that plenty of times in the past.
It doesn't matter if it is likely or not, I agree that it is unlikely right now. The point is that the UK only has 4 actual threats.

1. Invasion of UK mainland.
2. Territory dispute of Northern Ireland.
3. Territory dispute of Gibraltar
4. Territory dispute of the Falklands

1, 2 and 3 all come from the EU or EU member states. 4 is Argentina. If our military is to be fit for purpose then it has to be capable of dealing with these threats.

There is zero risk to our overseas territories. All current focus is on the idea of conflict with Russia in North Western Europe.

>I agree that it is unlikely right now.
Unlikely is a total understatement. The possibility is so remote is doesn't even warrant discussion.

I think it has a bit more to do with mutti merkels decision to scrap nuclear energy, which seemed smart until they realized they had to guzzle coal and lots of it, but more importantly russian gas as well.

>It doesn't matter if it is likely or not

When we're discussing defence spending yes it fucking does.

Which is a problem for the EU not the UK.

>The possibility is so remote is doesn't even warrant discussion.

If you take that logic to its conclusion then you may as well just abolish all of the armed forces entirely.

That is an incredibly simplistic view of foreign affairs user, none of those are credible threats right now.

The UK's strategic interest is in maintaining the economic health and stability of it's trade partners i.e. the rest of the world and that means defending their territorial integrity. Hence NATO and hence Russia as the major adversary here because it's in their strategic interests to destabilise europe and keep them reliant on russian petrochem (it doesn't have to be, but that's what Putin has chosen to do to look strong at home)

The reasoning for successive defense cuts over the previous decades was because there was literally no threat worth thinking about, now with Russia taking an aggressive posture and the US executive body working to undermine the alliance at every turn the UK needs to take a larger role in the defense of northeastern europe. It also helps that being a defense keystone pretty much guarantees an easier time during the Brexit process.

What threat does Russia current pose to the UK that we need to increase spending to match it?

>best secret service

Cambridge 5 )))))))))))))))

t. not Ivan

>If you take that logic to its conclusion then you may as well just abolish all of the armed forces entirely.
Uh, no not at all.

>best special forces on the planet
That would be the SASR, from Australia, although in a war between Britain and Russia they'd be on the ground fighting for the British anyway, so I guess its a moot point.

>thinking the acceptance of gays and Muslims is worth anything
No one outside of western political arenas care, and even that number is in decline. Putin, and Eastern Europe as a whole, whether aligned with him or not, don’t want either.

Not that user, but besides Poland I believe like Estonia and Denmark were also the only ones (too lazy to look it up, but I know it was only 3 total). Regardless, the fact that only 4 countries in total (counting the US) abide by NATO’s terms and those who don’t still expect the same treatment is laughable.

Holy fuck you people are so deep in denial. Consider for a second that the poison wasn't a false flag thing wouldn't it be perfectly logical for tensions to escalate with Russia and for British military spending to increase?

> SASR is better than the SAS
> SASRs only real experience is LRRPs in Vietnam and recce ops in Afghanistan

> in recent years, SAS has been in/is still in Mali, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc...

Part of SASRs training is literally not offending other peoples cultures. Seriously. They are effectively just Green Berets.

You'd be surprised how many in the military are Irish and Scottish mate, the UK armed forces is the UK armed forces, kys

>look at all the parallels between Germany before WW2 and todays Russia
>get genuine concerned
No, i dont call Putin Hitler.
No, that doesnt make russians nazis.
No, stuff that doesnt is comparable make all the other stuff that is invalid.

Why do i even have to write those 3 things? Because it is always the same bullshit with people like you.

A society with a very clearly defined economic hierarchy with limited or no social mobility is never going to have a credible military force. What are they going to do, hire soccer hooligans? They're going to treat their lower class like trash, putting them on a pay roll isn't going to change that. Small place, small population. Just throwing more expensive gear at it isn't going to fix it. If they're part of a coalition it'd probably be an improvement but it's always going to lag behind others.

I don't understand what you're saying

Nigga what you talking about.
> clearly defined economic heirarchy
You mean the same one that is much less in western countries than in poor as shit countries with a few corrupt billionaires?
> no social mobility
Except the middle class has grown from being less than 20% in the 1900s to well over 70% now. On top of that, multiple studies show that if you finish high school, get a job and dont have a teenage pregnancy youll end up in the middle class 95% of the time. Some of the richest people in the West started out poor as fuck. I call that pretty good social mobility
> never have a credible armed forces
Nigga you gone full crazy. Britain has always been a formidable and professional military power, even now it is the best military in europe in terms of experience and capabilities: no other military in europe (including Russia) can mount or sustain amphibious deployments at brigade level, or sustain deployments at division level or higher (UK had 53,000 in Iraq, 11,000 in Afghan).

this desu, there doesn't have to be ideological parralels but Russia keeps taking chunks out of it's neighbours which is a pretty major fucking red flag.

It's like being at a party and there's a weird guy with a lazy eye going through people's coat pockets in the side room. Noone really wants to confront him about it or call the police because it'll crash the mood (global economy) completely but they need to be prepared to if he doesn't quit it & in the meantime he's still bringing the mood down a bit. It's a shame because everyone knows he's had a shit time the last few years and want him to do well, it even looked like he was going to turn it around for a bit but he's insisting on being a weird little goblin right now. Everyone's pretty sure he spiked Britain's drink as well, the creep.

>Former worldpower loses (cold) war
>great loss of colonies, puppet states
>downfall loss is exused by betray from within, mostly aimed at people who where just trying to make the unavoidable crash not so bad
>change of government type to democracy and rough start with it
>bad economical times go along that
>lot of infighting and government changing
>this time will be used as a scarecrow in the future
>new "strong" leader emerges and gets voted into power in a time where economical situation gets better (worldwide)
>the new "strong" leader is said to behind it all, while he just got lucky
>new leader is busy taking over the country in every aspect including taking over industry and media, while giving it to owners that are loyal to the "strong" leader
>propaganda everywhere: we didnd du nuffin, everyone else is at fault, we got betrayed, we stronk, we demand respect, you are with us or a traitor, world prace yourself for our new power, everyone wants our throat,...
>Every own fuck up and mismanagement is either a conspiracy or forgein influence
>state critical media, literaly under fire, must fear for their life
>minorities in other countries are used as an exuse to anex or interfere within other countries (Sudetenland incident, Crimea, Georgia,...)
>country isolates itself further and further
>...

I could go on and on.

I agree that this is a problem for the EU.
You have not offered any reason why this is a threat to the UK. If Russia attacks its neighbours that will not harm the UK, if Russia gets into a trade war with us it wont harm us because we barely have any trade with Russia, if Russia cuts its energy supplies it wont harm us because we are not energy dependant on Russia.

From what basis do you assert those three claims from?

And what threat does Russia pose to the UK? To given examples, the Strategic Defence And Security Review 2015 mentions Russia 96 times and the most recent defence committee report from last week mentions Russia 50 times! - none of these mentions are in a positive light.

Please elaborate how it can be a problem for the EU, but never a problem for the UK, with NATO in mind? Did you forgot about that? Or intentionally missed left that out?

Your whole mindset is so crucked, it simply doesnt make any sense beside the premise that you got a strong flavouring bias for Russia and want to play right into their hands, which is double treacherous when you take history into account, with Russias parallels to Germany.

We are an island physically but not economically. The EU is our largest trade partner. If they suffer, we suffer. Things like world class healthcare, electronics, services are all heavily enabled by international trade and so Russia/EU spats would directly harm our quality of life in the form of increased cost and lower quality goods and services.

Territory is ultimately meaningless and has been for almost a century. Falklands, Gibraltar do not matter in the slightest for anything but an emotive political response. Preserving access to resources i.e. freedom of the seas is what our military has been for since the act of union. Today is no different. To pretend we can sit on our island and ignore the rest of the world is incredibly naive.

>none of these mentions are in a positive light.

Russia is a threat to its immediate neighbours and the EU. It isn't a threat to the UK and they are outside our sphere of interest.
Why should the UK prepare our military to defend Eastern Europe and the EU from Russia? Why does the EU need us to do this? Why should the UK fight the EU's battles for it?

>we
>us
Woop a doo, would you look at that, another thread with critical notion towards Russia and POOF along comes a "native" from the nation and declares how there is no reason whatsoever to do something against or because of Russia. And always the same patterned arguements and questions.

Shame be to him who thinks evil of it

Read Command Athority by Tom Clancy. It's basically what will happen if the EU doesn't bow down to Putin, but has some names changed

>Russia is a threat to its immediate neighbours and the EU. It isn't a threat to the UK and they are outside our sphere of interest.
In your opinion.
Nobody else.
Keep in mind that the US also defines Russia as a threat.
>Why should the UK prepare our military to defend Eastern Europe and the EU from Russia? Why does the EU need us to do this? Why should the UK fight the EU's battles for it?
Question it if you want, but the fact of that matter is that the UK operates to defends itself and others from Russia.

>We are an island physically but not economically. The EU is our largest trade partner. If they suffer, we suffer.

It may have escaped your notice but the EU is currently preparing to exclude the UK from trade due to Brexit. They have every right to do this but why should Britain then be expected to fight the EU's battles for it?

>Preserving access to resources i.e. freedom of the seas is what our military has been for since the act of union.

No one is arguing against that and the Royal Navy does need more funding. My argument is that the Navy should be concerned with protecting Britain and our trade rather than contesting Russia which is a land based power with a tiny navy.

>In your opinion.
>Nobody else.
Says the one who is alone with that opinion and has ton of objecting posts answering to him.

Attached: xTiTnIilwuFFFpf2Cc.gif (250x140, 1.26M)