How will Poland be affected by WW3 which has now started

Maybe, on the other hand, who cares?

Exactly. People are so easily outraged these days. :)

Meanwhile, in Moscow they praise him.

Doesn't look like it does it.
NATO makes biggest move in 33 years.

msn.com/en-us/news/world/are-we-heading-for-world-war-three-nato-makes-biggest-move-in-33-years/ar-BB1hIK0E

I gather your contra has stationed some more nukes in Europe. A good move at the moment.

And of course the r*SSians are furious that some of their hacking attempts and their plans to destroy internet infrastructure have been foiled completely.

@jon357


After reading articles like this one about our NATO allie Britain, one begins to wonder just how much Britain would be in WW3.
Britain's £6billion fleet of Royal Navy destroyers have gyms where land attack missiles should be due to the weapons being too expensive to buy.

The lack of weapons on the Type 45 warships has raised concerns the Navy is falling even further behind the United States, with drastic shortages of sailors also prompting warnings.

Royal Navy 'forced to decommission' two warships due to lack of sailors

msn.com/en-us/news/world/britain-s-6bn-fleet-of-navy-destroyers-have-gyms-where-land-attack-missiles-should-be-because-the-weapons-were-too-expensive-to-buy/ar-BB1hIY8g

We sometimes say the same however you should not worry too much or rely on one source of opinion.

The article you found is lifted from a newspaper that has a military scare story every day; some of its readership are ex army officers who like to grumble about the world going to the dogs.

It's the newspaper I read each day and there's a lot of argument in the comments field. The British Armed Forces are still by far the best trained in the world and in any case you missed the article saying that talk of a world war happening soon is scaremongering.

There are probably many better sources of news.

Actually that Topic has been in many news media sources lately jon, not just one.
In fact I posted another one last week about the same thing from a different source.
I know it is embarrassing for you as a Brit, however there is no denying it as the pictures show. ✔


PROBABLY ? Then post them for us. 👀


But if they don't have ships or weapons on them, what good are they ?
All you have to do is Google: Royal Navy 'forced to decommission' two warships due to lack of sailors and you will find a ton of new articles about it from several sources.

Are they all ex -army officers grumbling and lying ? NO !
You were in denial last week about the Brits needing to start conscription when WW3 breaks out too.
jon, the British military needs personal along with weapons to supply your ships.
Time to pony up and quit relying on the Great U.S.A. to pick up your slack again.
Who are we to believe, several credible news media's or jon 357's opinion ?
Go ahead and google: Royal Navy 'forced to decommission' two warships due to lack of sailors
Those are my multiple sources, where are yours ?

You needn't concern your pretty little head with media scare stories intended to rile up the easily riled.

Perhaps worry about North Korea's new nukes that can flatten San Diego in minutes or the humiliation that will result when China reclaim Chinese Taiwan.

They are just presenting the facts jon, with pictures to confirm their story.
If they scare you they should.
Your "Perhaps" to avoid debating the Royal Navy 'forced to decommission' two warships due to lack of sailors is nothing more than your typical. "lets shame" my opponent with something "totally not relevant game" for a redirect to avoid the topic.

If you want to play that game, Russia has nuclear submarines sitting off Britain's coast that are capable of turning London into a sheet of glass in less than five minutes.

But lets stick to the subject of: Royal Navy 'forced to decommission' two warships due to lack of sailors

Opinion, actually.


And vice versa.

You can pretend to get worried by second hand news reports. The rest of us have that option and others.

I am fairly certain that Germany changed its' mind on allowing countries to export former GDR weapons within hours, if not days after the invasion. It did not prevent any other aid from reaching Ukraine.


Wishful thinking. One son of a Russian oligarch bought himself a peerage, and wealthy oligarchs used the UK as one of their favourite places to launder their ill-gotten wealth. Abromovich is just the most famous examples. Who knows what deeper inquiries may find out later after a government change. No reason to feel any kind of self-satisfaction here.


All jokes and French-bashing aside, the reality is that France has actually commited more aid to Ukraine than the UK via the EU institutions. Their military support is disappointing given then field the strongest European army, but their overall contribution is not bad at all. It is one thing to send old Soviet weapons to Ukraine while receiving reimbursements from the EU, it is another to keep the Ukrainian state financially afloat.

app.23degrees.io/view/DUeaa54W7KOQhFQD-bar-stacked-horizontal-bilateral-aid-with-eu-share

@Torq


Everything is relative. Keep in mind that the entire state budget of Ukraine in 2021 was around 35bn Dollar, so for them it means quite a lot.

theglobaleconomy.com/Ukraine/government_spending_dollars/

Furthermore there are quite a few European countries who have otherwise commited very little aid to Ukraine relative to their GDP, so for them it means a huge increase in what they contribute. Baby steps I suppose, but that is what progress often only looks like.

UK literally cant do long range operations anymore without begging for help from an ally because they just sold the last of their naval supply ships to middle eastern countries.

This means the Royal Navy has less capacity for independent action then even most 3rd world countries.
Should the Falklands v2.0 be a thing the UK would be absolutely cucked if the US tells them to just let it happen, which is what would have happened had the UK not been capable of supplying its own invasion fleet.

Actually NO jon, their pictures don't lie.
You have no pictures or sources, so it is YOU that only has secondhand opinions.
Don't worry though as you won't even see the flash.

No. It wasn't former German weapons. It was weapons sold since then. Germany blocked the weapons' owner from supplying them to Ukraine. Much discussed here at the time.


Nobody can 'buy themselves' a place in the upper house; they are given on merit or due to specific skills. Roman Abramovich is sanctioned currently. He's also quite popular due to his philanthropy and his involvement with football.


Probably nothing to find, however hopefully the incoming government willI hope be forthcoming on whatever intelligence they have about r*SSian influence around Europe.


No, they haven't.

There is a lot to come out about Micron and his closet support for r*SSia, and on mainland Europe in general. His rival Le Pen has even admitted to accepting loans from them.

They said that last time. Yet the world was speechless at the efficiency.

Never try to predict the UK's actions or analyse anything there. It invariably doesn't work.

Lets point fingers then.
Explosive accusations that Latvian member of European Parliament, Tatjana Ždanoka, has been working as a Russian spy for some 13 years are roiling lawmakers across the continent.

Sounds like the European Parliament is a bit sketchy to say the least.

Which weapons are you talking about?


Not directly, but this and other articles sure make it look suspicious.

thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnsons-russian-crony-evgeny-lebedev-got-peerage-after-spies-dropped-warning-3dp6sw29x

Wealthy Russians certainly integrated themselves well in British (high) society. Yeah they were sanctioned later (the same as in Germany and other countries) but claiming the UK was less susceptible to Russian corruption when London openly attracted oligarchs is absurd.


I provided you with a source that proves the opposite. That number will further increase by the French contribution to the 50bn from the EU to Ukraine (one estimate I've read it was 9bn).

It proves nothing.


In your mind; all peerages are scrutinised, whether or not any given journalist approves or disapproves of a government decision.

Yup, it's time they spend some money on weapons and start recruiting soldiers.
Britain's game of charades is over.
Britain is are more than a paper tiger against Russia.

Here is another news article for you jon, where is your defense besides your personal opinion of, "No it's not."

msn.com/en-us/news/world/british-army-would-only-last-a-couple-of-months-against-russia-damning-report-claims/ar-BB1hKXqG

British army would only last a 'couple of months' against Russia.
Quote:
Britain is dangerously unprepared to defend itself from onslaught in the event of an all-out war with Russia, a damning government report has found.
General Nick Carter, a former army officer and ex-Chief of Defence Staff, told The Sun that armed forces would likely 'exhaust their chief capabilities after the first couple of months of engagement', commenting on recent findings by the Commons Defence Select Committee.

After a year compiling its assessment of the British Army's current capacity, the parliamentary group said that for one thing, ammunition supplies are 'far below the level required to counter with certainty a threat from the Russian army.'

And your source that you base your, "No it's not" opinion on is ?

For once I agree with you "Jailhouse Jim"..... but we still spend more than our "European Partners" on defence and I read that The USA pays for 68% of NATO..... that is unacceptable and Europeans need to address this..... now!

Well thank you Pee Pee Pants.
Have you heard the latest about Britain's flagship aircraft carrier ?
The UK Royal Navy's fleet flagship had to withdraw from a major NATO exercise at the last minute.
HMS Queen Elizabeth had issues with its starboard propeller shaft.
In 2019, HMS Queen Elizabeth was left without propulsion for days and flooded.
HMS Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Navy's flagship, had to pull out of its role leading the largest NATO exercise since the Cold War at the last minute, the Royal Navy reports.

Routine pre-sailing checks identified an issue with a coupling on the 65,000-ton warship's starboard propeller shaft, preventing it from sailing on Sunday.

Far more, and we also allow things like retired staff encouraging extra funding or teething troubles with new shops to reach the media; something which other European countries (and the Americans) don't.

Meanwhile the German army use broom handles on exercises due to lack of guns,

The relatively strong Luftwaffe, guns are not that vital nowadays and are easy to master, not sure about their artillery strength but I guess is not that bad either.

At least they have tanks to practice with. Can one really say the same about the British army on a larger scale? The best they could do is field a small expeditionary force.

The only army somewhat prepared to fight a serious war right now in Europe is the French army. Hopefully Poland will have one soon too.


Can't say much about that aside from the new F-35 ordered. But we should have the best mid and close-range anti-aircraft and anti-drone units within the next few years with the Skyranger and Iris-T.

What do you need those tanks for? Planning something stupid that involves Russia or just France?

Yes, some very nice ones and nukes too.


One of your countrymen, Wilhelm Hohenzollern, said almost exactly the same in 1914. He lived to regret his words. There were similar foolish underestimations from
your government in the late 30s too, and of course the Argies made the same mistake later.

Never try to analyse why Britain can or will do; nobody has yet made any sort of negative analysis or prediction that has ever been remotely accurate.


At least their tanks have a reverse gear; they always need one.

Worth remembering that their only naval victory in history was the sinking of an unarmed Greenpeace ship n harbour in New Zealand.

It is not one my countrymen saying that, but one of your top generals as quoted above.


They also won the battle of Capes and thus effectively, the war of American independence. Who were they fighting against, again?

All historical jokes aside, it is simply a matter of fact that the French have only European army that can be taken seriously to some degree. They have experience, training and crucially, the numbers (at least relatively).

Poland started WWII, CIA blew up Nord Stream: Putin bombshell claims
Interesting read:

msn.com/en-us/news/world/poland-started-wwii-cia-blew-up-nord-stream-putin-bombshell-claims/ss-BB1i1nho

The United States saves Europe again.
Russian drones would be in Europe if not for the USA

msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-drones-would-be-in-europe-if-not-for-us-pentagon/ar-BB1i1yaD