Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

It's as bad or worse in Germany.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit-war-decades-sluggish-german-rearmament-versus-surging-russian-defence-production

---

On the other hand, why spend their DM's on military when we send the $s and support the European defense?

---

Can't blame them as long as they don't expect us to back them up. But Americans had better understand that if Europe sends troops to Ukraine, it will be for one and only one purpose--to get the US directly involved.

---

I don't see a "unified" Europe working together whatsoever. They've been EU'd too much. Extremely poor leadership in most of the member countries. It might be a motley crew of individual nations, but nothing of consequence. However, if they keep sending bucks and military to Ukraine where it is concentrated and the warmonger Zelensky is still in charge, then Russia is going to push back VERY HARD.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Assassin said:

---

“I don’t know where all that money went…” -Zelensky to AP regarding $76 BILLION in aid…which is far less than the $177 BILLION cited by American Officials.

SPOTTED in Monaco…a convoy of Luxury Cars with Ukrainian Licence Plates. pic.twitter.com/JbtqonuubY

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) March 15, 2025

---

Nothing says billion dollar corruption like $80K cars

---

Its an massive luxury in war torn Ukraine

[Taking these factors into consideration, a person working in Ukraine annually earns around 276,000 UAH (Ukrainian Hryvnia). Based on the exchange rate in April 2023, this amounts to USD 7,500 (US Dollars) annually]

Average Ukrainian does not even make $10k a year

---

It actually is not a massive luxury at all. Income disparity is huge and there are thousands of people working for western firms that can easily afford this.

It looks like they embezzled Russian crayons to pay for those cars not billion dollar military funds.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Assassin said:

---

“I don’t know where all that money went…” -Zelensky to AP regarding $76 BILLION in aid…which is far less than the $177 BILLION cited by American Officials.

SPOTTED in Monaco…a convoy of Luxury Cars with Ukrainian Licence Plates. pic.twitter.com/JbtqonuubY

— Liz Churchill (@liz_churchill10) March 15, 2025

---

Nothing says billion dollar corruption like $80K cars

---

Its an massive luxury in war torn Ukraine

[Taking these factors into consideration, a person working in Ukraine annually earns around 276,000 UAH (Ukrainian Hryvnia). Based on the exchange rate in April 2023, this amounts to USD 7,500 (US Dollars) annually]

Average Ukrainian does not even make $10k a year

---

Damn! Guess they get used Volkswagen's

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

It's as bad or worse in Germany.

https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/fit-war-decades-sluggish-german-rearmament-versus-surging-russian-defence-production

---

On the other hand, why spend their DM's on military when we send the $s and support the European defense?

---

Can't blame them as long as they don't expect us to back them up. But Americans had better understand that if Europe sends troops to Ukraine, it will be for one and only one purpose--to get the US directly involved.

---

Sam got the talk tracks. lol.

Macron and Starmer are playing dumb. Time and again they are told that peacekeepers must be from non-NATO states. No, we will send tens of thousands – just lay it out – you want to give military aid to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. That means war with NATO. Consult with Trump, scumbags.

— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) March 16, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

They have by far the most experienced army and the most productive economy in terms of military preparedness. We can thank the neocon warmongers for that. As I've mentioned, though, Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Sorta apples & tomatoes going on there. a readiness problem is a problem, but it's one that can be fixed in short periods of time. Same for mobilization. All it takes is strokes of pens to start the process. But GDP is built over decades.

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.
A British & French force operating alongside the Ukrainian army would overwhelm Russian forces in days.
And, of course, a robust Nato response would force immediate Russian capitulation.
(which is why Trump's actions are so consequential. He's forcing European governments to start the process of rebuilding their militaries....FINALLY).

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

They have by far the most experienced army and the most productive economy in terms of military preparedness. We can thank the neocon warmongers for that. As I've mentioned, though, Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

....thanks to the strategic degradation of their manpower and materiel in Ukraine.

(you walked right into that one....)

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

lol oh man…you don't really wanna play that game do you?

Not to mention the USA remains a hyper power…while the Russian Federation is a demographically collapsing state with weak institutions and a weak economy





PS

Not only does your list include the old Russian empire and USSR….not the current Russian Federation….but it does not even seem like you checked it for accuracy

The USSR and the Japanese empire did not fight in 1938…..in 1939 the Japanese attacked border areas in the far east and got beat in a series of border clashes. No large scale invasion of Japanese territory was conducted by the Soviets until 1945…and even then in coordination with its the USA and Britain

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

Russia has always attacked weaker nations. They generally don't attack countries capable of defeating them. Even when they provoked Japan into a war in 1904 (Japan attacked first) and lost it was they arrogantly believed in white supremacy and that they could win. Japan humiliated them.

The list is incomplete. For example, it leaves out recent attacks in Ukraine.

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

Russia has always attacked weaker nations. They generally don't attack countries capable of defeating them. Even when they provoked Japan into a war in 1904 (Japan attacked first) and lost it was they arrogantly believed in white supremacy and that they could win. Japan humiliated them.

The list is incomplete. For example, it leaves out recent attacks in Ukraine.

---

His list does not include that war….but that war was actually launched by Japan.

lol they were the aggressors!

So now you guys are blaming Russia for getting attacked by fascistic-imperialist Japanese?

[February 8, 1904, Japan launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur, Manchuria, initiating the Russo-Japanese War]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

lol oh man…you don't really wanna play that game do you?

Not to mention the USA remains a hyper power…while the Russian Federation is a demographically collapsing state with weak institutions and a weak economy





PS

Not only does your list include the old Russian empire and USSR….not the current Russian Federation….but it does not even seem like you checked it for accuracy

The USSR and the Japanese empire did not fight in 1938…..in 1939 the Japanese attacked border areas in the far east and got beat in a series of border clashes. No large scale invasion of Japanese territory was conducted by the Soviets until 1945…and even then in coordination with its the USA and Britain

---

That list is comically inaccurate … unless it's counting words instead of invasions ….

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

lol oh man…you don't really wanna play that game do you?

Not to mention the USA remains a hyper power…while the Russian Federation is a demographically collapsing state with weak institutions and a weak economy





PS

Not only does your list include the old Russian empire and USSR….not the current Russian Federation….but it does not even seem like you checked it for accuracy

The USSR and the Japanese empire did not fight in 1938…..in 1939 the Japanese attacked border areas in the far east and got beat in a series of border clashes. No large scale invasion of Japanese territory was conducted by the Soviets until 1945…and even then in coordination with its the USA and Britain

---

That list is comically inaccurate … unless it's counting words instead of invasions ….

---

If you spent one second reading it....instead of trying to dismiss it offhand....you would see its also counting regime change operations, interventions, CIA operations, etc.

China 1945 for instance is the US supporting the Nationalists vs the Communists

That is an intervention (and the correct one by the way) so that it why its on the list.

Somalia in 1992, "Operation Restore Hope", is also on there....another intervention by U.S. military forces...though one with widespread international support

Try to find one that did not happen at all and we can discuss the accuracy

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

lol oh man…you don't really wanna play that game do you?

Not to mention the USA remains a hyper power…while the Russian Federation is a demographically collapsing state with weak institutions and a weak economy





PS

Not only does your list include the old Russian empire and USSR….not the current Russian Federation….but it does not even seem like you checked it for accuracy

The USSR and the Japanese empire did not fight in 1938…..in 1939 the Japanese attacked border areas in the far east and got beat in a series of border clashes. No large scale invasion of Japanese territory was conducted by the Soviets until 1945…and even then in coordination with its the USA and Britain

---

That list is comically inaccurate … unless it's counting words instead of invasions ….

---

If you spent one second reading it....instead of trying to dismiss it offhand....you would see its also counting regime change operations, interventions, CIA operations, etc.

China 1945 for instance is the US supporting the Nationalists vs the Communists

That is an intervention (and the correct one by the way) so that it why its on the list.

Somalia in 1992, "Operation Restore Hope", is also on there....another intervention by U.S. military forces...though one with widespread international support

Try to find one that did not happen at all and we can discuss the accuracy

---

I did review it. The title is far narrower.

If it is as you describe, Russia's list would be twice as long.

And even under your standard, I work in many of those countries, and I have no idea why they are on that list.

Just a more recent example and a country I know well, Guyana?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

They have by far the most experienced army and the most productive economy in terms of military preparedness. We can thank the neocon warmongers for that. As I've mentioned, though, Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

....thanks to the strategic degradation of their manpower and materiel in Ukraine.

(you walked right into that one....)

---

No, it's because their military isn't designed for it and hasn't been since the Cold War.

Everything you say about degradation of manpower and materiel is true...it just isn't true of Russia. The West is decades behind, and it's not something that can be fixed easily or quickly.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

Russia has always attacked weaker nations. They generally don't attack countries capable of defeating them. Even when they provoked Japan into a war in 1904 (Japan attacked first) and lost it was they arrogantly believed in white supremacy and that they could win. Japan humiliated them.

The list is incomplete. For example, it leaves out recent attacks in Ukraine.

---

His list does not include that war….but that war was actually launched by Japan.

lol they were the aggressors!

So now you guys are blaming Russia for getting attacked by fascistic-imperialist Japanese?

[February 8, 1904, Japan launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur, Manchuria, initiating the Russo-Japanese War]

---

As I indicated, Japan attacked first in the Russo-Japanese War but that was after an extended period of belligerence and preparation for war by the Russians. The Japanese struck first as a way of telling the Russians to shut up. It worked & Japan win.

Historical note: Theodore Roosevelt was the first US President I win the Nobel Peace Prize because he sacred as a mediator helping to end that war. Thus the Treaty of Portsmouth (1905) was signed in Portsmouth, NH.

Also, the war was disastrous for Russia, and not for the humiliation of losing in battle, having much of their navy destroyed, and losing territory. It also sparked the Revolution of 1905 resulting in the creation of the Duma, their representative body, which Tsar Nicholas II spent the next 9 years trying to undermine & erase. In 1914, the First World War began ending the Russian Empire (among others) and the lives of the tsar and his family.

The Korean War was the US protecting an ally, South Korea, who were the victims of an invasion by the north. Later, China invaded as well. The U.S. did not invade either but was part of a multinational effort authorized by the UN for defense. After successfully liberating South Korea (after the brilliant landing at Inchon), the UN forces decided to "liberate" North Korea and were initially quite successful. That's what sparked the Chinese intervention.

My point is that it was a complicated situation and cannot simply be attributed to American aggression. That is likely true of most items in the second list. Whoever created that had an agenda.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

False dilemma.

Losing a war to Russia is not the only thing to worry about.
Having to win a war against Russia is almost as big of a concern.

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, AND to make sure Russia pays dearly for every square inch they invade on their way to your borders.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

lol oh man…you don't really wanna play that game do you?

Not to mention the USA remains a hyper power…while the Russian Federation is a demographically collapsing state with weak institutions and a weak economy





PS

Not only does your list include the old Russian empire and USSR….not the current Russian Federation….but it does not even seem like you checked it for accuracy

The USSR and the Japanese empire did not fight in 1938…..in 1939 the Japanese attacked border areas in the far east and got beat in a series of border clashes. No large scale invasion of Japanese territory was conducted by the Soviets until 1945…and even then in coordination with its the USA and Britain

---

BS, Of all the critiques levied against support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine War, that one is the most intellectually disingenuous of all.

if we apply to Russia the same standard used to compile that list, their list would be just as long, if not longer. You see, Russia was ALSO involved in the vast majority of those conflicts, too.....

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

Russia has always attacked weaker nations. They generally don't attack countries capable of defeating them. Even when they provoked Japan into a war in 1904 (Japan attacked first) and lost it was they arrogantly believed in white supremacy and that they could win. Japan humiliated them.

The list is incomplete. For example, it leaves out recent attacks in Ukraine.

---

His list does not include that war….but that war was actually launched by Japan.

lol they were the aggressors!

So now you guys are blaming Russia for getting attacked by fascistic-imperialist Japanese?

[February 8, 1904, Japan launched a surprise attack on the Russian fleet at Port Arthur, Manchuria, initiating the Russo-Japanese War]

---

As I indicated, Japan attacked first in the Russo-Japanese War but that was after an extended period of belligerence and preparation for war by the Russians. The Japanese struck first as a way of telling the Russians to shut up. It worked & Japan .

---

So Japan did to Russia..what they later did to the USA

Launched a surprised attack against ships at harbor

[The Russo-Japanese War began with a surprise attack by Japan on the Russian Pacific Fleet at Port Arthur on February 8, 1904, before a formal declaration of war.]

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

And it never will

Unless Russia can get rid of its endemic corruption problems and triple its population…oh and completely renovate its resource extraction economy

Russia is a threat to the EU in the same way Mexico is a threat to the USA

---

For a Country that is not a threat they sure invade a lot of Nations... But, I know it was not their fault.

---

lol oh man…you don't really wanna play that game do you?

Not to mention the USA remains a hyper power…while the Russian Federation is a demographically collapsing state with weak institutions and a weak economy





PS

Not only does your list include the old Russian empire and USSR….not the current Russian Federation….but it does not even seem like you checked it for accuracy

The USSR and the Japanese empire did not fight in 1938…..in 1939 the Japanese attacked border areas in the far east and got beat in a series of border clashes. No large scale invasion of Japanese territory was conducted by the Soviets until 1945…and even then in coordination with its the USA and Britain

---

Funny, you must not know the meaning of the word INVASION, do you want to put up every Nation Russia has advisors?

Sure, how many have we stayed and ran for our Nation's gain? You are really saying that an intervention and leaving is the same as what Russia has done since forever? Putin has the best interest of those Nations at heart.

So, yeah I will play. "I take the US has left more Nations better when we intervened, than Russia".

Let's compare -

Here you go.

We have to keep them as far away as possible by pushing as close to them as possible.

War Is Peace.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

As of today, Russia is a huge threat to Europe. Russia is in a war economy and has the most seasoned Army due to Ukraine experience.

---

They have by far the most experienced army and the most productive economy in terms of military preparedness. We can thank the neocon warmongers for that. As I've mentioned, though, Russia does not have its army on a footing to attack Europe in the near future.

---

....thanks to the strategic degradation of their manpower and materiel in Ukraine.

(you walked right into that one....)

---

No, it's because their military isn't designed for it and hasn't been since the Cold War.

Everything you say about degradation of manpower and materiel is true...it just isn't true of Russia. The West is decades behind, and it's not something that can be fixed easily or quickly.

---

Decades behind what....soldiers having to steal or buy donkeys to carry ammo from one trench to another??? You are an absolute imbecile. The US could have sent an army the size of the Ukraine's to fight the war and Russia would've been completely annihilated and overwhelmed. The only thing Russia had more than us is 120mm rounds. And we would have shot every one of their planes out of the sky in 2 weeks, so we wouldn't need 120mm rounds.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity. Russia resets its demographic problem by century if/when it subsumes Ukraine back into the Russian state. Indeed, every action taken by Russia since the fall of the USSR has been aimed at rebuilding the Russian control or influence over the former USSR and Warsaw Pact footprints. No state in its right mind would stand by and let that happen without response. Yet here you are making the argument that if we just let them have it all back, the world will be at peace.

Sam Lowry said:

---

We have to keep them as far away as possible by pushing as close to them as possible.

War Is Peace.

---

Says the guy whom has repeatedly argued "invasion is defense"

Putin and Trump spoke for an hour and half this morning. no info yet on what took place other than it was constructive

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

My Gosh man....Russia is a threat when its gaining in power...its a threat when its declining in power...its a threat when it sits on the toilet and takes a crap

(the toilet being an outhouse because at least 30% of russian houses don't have indoor plumbing)

Its russia! russia! russia! with you guys nonstop

The place is a corrupt basket case that can't even successfully invade a neighbor and its got a declining population......yet you guys are pissing in your ****ing panties

My God....Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

🚨🇬🇧 “Britain will now move into an operational phase”

Today Kier Starmer spoke again about boots on the ground & planes in the air.

The UK PM Is either lying, totally insane or completely delusional if he thinks Russia will allow this. pic.twitter.com/9DWPJVolbU

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) March 15, 2025

---

of course they'll "allow" it. They can't do anything about it. At minimum, a direct attack on Nato peace-keeping troops would galvanize Europe to rearm even faster. At worst, it would motivate even more Nato states to respond via Article 5 - most likely from the Baltic tier of states (which would include France). As a general rule, the closer one is to Russia, the more hawkish one tends to be on Russia .

it'd be one of the most important things that could happen - render moot prior Russian calculations about the effects of Article 5. Russia has heretofore determined (not entirely incorrectly) that Article 5 would basically make it impossible for a Nato state to move unilaterally to counter Russian moves without galvanizing the rest of Europe against it (thereby dividing Nato). That significantly freed the Russian hand to move as it wished, so long as it did not actually attack Nato itself. (Ironically making Article 5 a brake on Nato actions against Russia.) Deployment of British (and/or French or Nordic) troops would show that calculation to be invalid, going forward. Specifically, it would have the effect of complicating Russian calculations about its moves westward (toward the rest of Ukraine and Moldova) in all post-war scenarios.

Russia has been stopped in its tracks with negligible gains (it already had Donbas and Crimea....) by Nato soft power support for Ukraine. Adding hard Nato power to the equation is strategic deterioration in the Russian position which would take decades to to undo (if ever, in a meaningful timeframe). For that reason, Starmer's moves should be correctly viewed as pressure on Russia to make a deal for peace - to lock in its gains now rather than risk further deterioration.

Never underestimate Russian ability to miscalculate.

---

My question is what will the Brits do? They have no "peace keeping" type capabilities. They have small elite forces such as SAS, Royal Marines and such. But enough troops to make a difference? Can they even field an Armored Combat Brigade?

---

No, it's sheer fantasy. It's not the Russians but the Europeans whose military forces are in drastic decay. The British army in Ukraine would last about a week.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/british-army-troops-ukraine-defence-b2701635.html

---

Wow. Didnt realize it was that bad in the UK

---

Britain has half the people but almost twice the GDP of Russia.
France has half the people but 50% more GDP than Russia.

A British force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A French force in Ukraine would be a peer competitor for Russia.
A joint deployment of British & French forces would significantly outclass Russia.

---

The terrifying existential threat that is russia...

I am shaking and vomiting right now thinking of russian troops eating croissants on the seine river in Paris.

God help us!

---

The best way to avoid a war with Russia is to keep Russian armies as far away as possible, .

---

Is that not why we have the massive 30 plus nation and 700 million person NATO alliance?

---

This argument disproves your assertion that Russia is no threat to anyone.

Every one of those countries which joined Nato, democracies all, joined Nato precisely because they have determined that Russia is the primary threat Europe faces, with broad, usually supermajority support of the populace.

Meanwhile, here you come, posting mostly Russian propaganda.

---

I didn't say it was "not threat"
Stop it with the motte & bailey nonsense. Your entire argument is premised on the notion that Russian ambitions in Belarus and Ukraine are reasonable and will sate their appetite for expansion....that they will pose no threat to anyone else if we merely let them have what they believe they are entitled to have. History scoffs at such.

I said it was not an existential threat and said it was laughable that russia could conquer anyone in NATO….or somehow conquer Berlin or Paris.
Fools argument. Britain "won" WWII. And it hastened the end of their empire.....arguably an example of Pyrrhic victory. Avoiding hot wars wherever possible is an important part of statecraft. Either victory or defeat can slow or stall a rising power. Either victory or defeat can hasten the demise of a declining power.

The kind of low level stupid propaganda you see neo-cons and liberal interventionists pushing all the time.
The irony here is rich.

Russia is beyond a doubt a declining power
And what does Thucydides say about declining powers?

---

It's just astounding how hard you hold on to such shallow reasoning. Russia is a threat to Europe precisely because it is a declining power attempting to offset its mounting problems by adding territory to its polity.

---

My Gosh man....Russia is a threat when its gaining in power...its a threat when its declining in power...its a threat when it sits on the toilet and takes a crap

(the toilet being an outhouse because at least 30% of russian houses don't have indoor plumbing)

Its russia! russia! russia! with you guys nonstop

The place is a corrupt basket case that can't even successfully invade a neighbor and its got a declining population......yet you guys are pissing in your ****ing panties

My God....Just come out and say you will never be happy until we invade Russia and install a new regime in Moscow

At least then we could drop the disingenuous BS excuses

---

Just come out and say you are jealous the Ukrainians can afford a 2014 Mercedes and you can't