Cross-post from https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/32163743
Britain needs to re-arm and build reserves through a form of national service to defend against Vladimir Putin’s hopes to dominate eastern Europe and undermine the west, the former head of MI6 has warned.
Sir Alex Younger said people in the UK must realise that the threat from Russia - and its closeness to the US - is real, adding: “Putin and Trump together have done their best to persuade us that the rules have changed”.
[…]
Reflecting on whether Britain has the mettle for a full-scale war, he [said]: “We have, for many years, been completely free of any form of existential threat […] We’ve unforgivably… launched a set of wars of choice, which have imposed sacrifice needlessly on young people and there’s great cynicism about this idea of collective effort to defend your country.”
[…]
Discussing what need to be done to prepare, Sir Alex, known as “C” during his time as spy chief, added: “You’d have to ask a soldier about the actual efficacy of things like conscription. I have no idea… I know that it just needs to be a more integrated feature of everyday life."
[…]
“In a sense, that’s not the point [whether or not Trump is a Russian agent]. The point is he agrees with Vladimir Putin. He agrees that big countries get additional rights over small countries, particularly in their own backyard.”
[…]
“It really depends on how close to Moscow you are. I think in Finland it’s well understood [that there is a threat of Russia attacking othrr European countries] and there’s a properly integrated resilient culture where everyone is accustomed to playing their part. I think we go to Portugal at the other end that’s just not true - and in a sense that’s understandable."
[…]
[Dr Rachel] Ellehuus, [an American, former US defence secretary’s envoy to Nato, and now head of the the Royal United Services Institute, Britain’s leading security thinktank], said that while the threat posed by the Kremlin had been persistent, it has been the dramatic shift in Washington that has been the greatest strategic shock [and argued that] a hybrid war with Russia - where disinformation, cyberattacks and economic pressure are equally important - is already underway.
[…]
This threat has intensified following the sudden change in strategic ideology in Washington under Trump [according to Ellehuus].
[…]
“The galvanizing moment for Europe? Yes. Take a look at the Trump-Putin relationship or the Trump/MAGA-Putin relationship,” she said.
[…]
"Am I saying he’s going to invade the Baltic states or Poland tomorrow? I’m not. But he is going to test the boundaries of what we call Article 5, which is the commitment that an attack against one Nato ally is an attack against all of them.
“He’s already been pushing the boundaries of that through below-the-threshold activities that aren’t conventional attacks.”
[…]
According to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, there was a 300 per cent increase in unconventional attacks on Europe by Russia last year, 2023-2024.
“Roughly 27 percent of the attacks were against transportation targets (such as trains, vehicles, and airplanes), another 27 per cent were against government targets (such as military bases and officials), 21 percent were against critical infrastructure targets (such as pipelines, undersea fiber-optic cables, and the electricity grid), and 21 percent were against industry (such as defense companies),” the CSIS said in a report last month.
[…]
Sir Alex Younger’s call to action is a stark wake-up call. The idea of Britain needing to rearm and possibly bring back some form of national service feels like a throwback, but with Putin’s actions in Ukraine and hybrid threats escalating, it’s hard to argue against the urgency. The real question is whether the UK—or Europe as a whole—has the political will and resources to shift gears this dramatically. Trump’s wavering on NATO only makes it more critical for Europe to stand on its own. Thoughts on how feasible this is given current economic and social realities?
21 percent were against critical infrastructure targets (such as pipelines,
Reminder the u.s. blew up the nordstream pipeline
It’s cool remembering stuff like that, that the u.s. military is the world’s largest carbon emitter, and then reading some hate mongering rage bait about how china is driving recent global warming (burying the lede that its due to restricting smog causing a reduction in apparent cooling due to aerosols, not china doing more pollution)
It’s important to give us more money, says head of genocidal money sink
Insane and dangerous Cold War drivel. The UK has escalated the conflict at every step.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS lists major funding from defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon Company and General Atomics. [Wikipedia]
“Weapons salesmen says more weapons are desperately needed.”
Quick reminder that it is Russia that started the war and invaded Ukraine, and that Russia officially spends 40% of its budget for military, that’s ~10% of its GDP (for comparison: the GDP rate in western Europe is around 2%).
[Edit typo.]
Quick reminder that the situation in ukraine didn’t start with the Russian invasion, liberal
I like how china has anti terrorist re education camps and you libs go omg genocide. Then ten years later go omg cultural genocide when it’s obvious there isn’t a fucking genocide going on. But ah hm the Uighers still speak their own language and practice their own religion. How many mosques has china torn down?
but Ukrainian nazis run a literal derussification campaign while breaking peace agreements, bombing the Donbas, denying pensions and government services to their own citizens who lived there
And they literally call it a derussification campaign btw. What do you think that means?
But the same liberals who are like “china should be nuked for culturally genociding te uighers” are all Slava Ukraini for the fascists in charge there. The war started when the evil Vladoldomort Putler invaded the Ukraine for No Reason whatsoever other than being Evil.
Give me a ffucking break
P.s. liberals, this post isn’t an endorsement of Russia, it’s to remind you that the conflict there isn’t good versus evil, it’s evil versus evil, stop supporting evil you fuckin morons. Brinksmanship over this shit is going to kill us all, and you clapping seals will cheer as the missiles launch
Russia officially spends 40% of its budget for military, that ~10% of its GDP (for comparison: the GDP rate in the western Europe is around 2%
Now do america lol
@WizardOfLoneliness
The U.S. spends ~3.4% of its GDP for military.
The United States Spends More on Defense than the Next 9 Countries Combined
What ghoulish propaganda.
Interesting paper on the topic by Estonia’s International.Centre For Defense And Security (download on the linked page):
Russia’s Hybrid Attacks in Europe: From Deterrence to Attribution to Response
Russia is not unique in using hybrid methods, so their effects and our response are closely followed by other actors, first and foremost China. Autocratic regimes favour hybrid warfare precisely because democratic states struggle with responding directly and proportionally. Hybrid attacks are usually deliberately designed to complicate detection, evade accountability, and hinder decisive responses. Additionally, the targeted nations may lack the capability or the political will to respond effectively.
Russia is not unique in using hybrid methods, so their effects and our response are closely followed by other actors, first and foremost China. Autocratic regimes favour hybrid warfare precisely because democratic states struggle with responding directly and proportionally
Lol, what? Are they including the USA as an autocratic regime? Because no country is a greater purveyor of hybrid warfare than the United States and its empire’s appendages like NATO. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the CIA and state department’s history and strategy understands this. Recent examples include the Nordstream bombing, the Maidan coup, grooming and installing al-Julani in Syria, and propaganda like MI6 using Russia panic to try to scare up some consent for mass militarization of the UK and EU, or hell, even this white paper from Estonia.
It’s mainly the world’s hegemon that uses hybrid strategies precisely because its targeted nations struggle to respond “directly and proportionally.” Would Israel and the US have been so “brave” to proliferate the explosive pagers throughout Lebanon if Hezbollah were able to strike back directly and proportionally? Also, what’s “direct and proportional” about using Israel as a proxy to perpetuate a decades-long regime of destabilization in West Asia, including the most egregious and blatant genocide in my lifetime on the Palestinians? Believing Russia or China are anywhere near being world leaders in hybrid warfare is utterly farcical clown shit, what a joke.
How many years has Russia been bogged down in Ukraine now?
Removed by mod
Restore this post.
There was no promise of NATO expansion. Gorbachev himself had said there was no such promise.
Countries previously occupied by the soviets didn’t want a repeat and sought security guarantees by joining NATO, something that they’re entitled to do.
The people got rid of a president who was once looking for closer ties to the EU, then visits Putin and suddenly wanted to get cosier with Russia, doing a complete 180. Let’s also conveniently forget Russia poisoning of the pro-west presidential candidate in 2007. Was that the fault of the west too?
Your comment reeks of Russian propaganda.
Absolutely juvenile hawkish commentary from soldier boy, with not a shred of evidence offered . As per.
