Britain faces its “greatest risk” of war in decades as Russia continues to test NATO defences, Defence Secretary Wes Streeting has warned, as the government prepares to make the case for a sustained increase in military spending.
Streeting described Russia and Vladimir Putin as the “biggest threat” facing Britain, arguing that the war in Ukraine and Moscow’s broader military posture had fundamentally altered the security environment facing the UK.
“Without a shadow of a doubt, the biggest threat facing Britain is Russia and President Putin,” said Streeting.
“We’ve got war in our continent. We’ve got a Russian president who has imperialist ambitions, who is constantly testing Britain’s defences, NATO defences and testing the strength of our alliances.
“And so, the sobering reality is that we face a greater risk of war than we’ve done at any point in my lifetime.”
…
i bet they said the same thing about Iraq in 2002. to the shock of everyone, the politician in charge of profitting from war wants to convince us to go to war
I don’t think Streeting wants the UK to go to war. I think he’s saying that the UK should invest more in defence.
Think about this: why did Russia invade Ukraine instead of the Baltics? Probably because the Baltics are in NATO, so Putin knows it would be much more difficult to annex Baltic land, because the whole of NATO would potentially defend the Baltics.
Better defence doesn’t start war; it deters war.
Shareholders in the arms companies are feeling a bit hard up and not able to afford their fifth homes, new SUVs, Olympic-sized swimming pools and for the VAT on their kids’ private education. Gotta risk nuclear annihilation for those poor guys.
Russian arms company oligarchs love their swimming pools and yachts, too.
Russia cannot even handle the Ukraine. How do they want to handle NATO? Drones and sabotage I see, they’re doing that already. But all out war?
Capitalism leads to war
Comments here are interesting. I came expecting to see pro Ukraine sentiment (good), but instead got cynicism towards the military industrial complex (also good).
…But these are at odds with each other.
One can support Ukraine militarily, which absolutely requires economic sacrifices, if not humans ones. Or one can not, or something in between. But it’s a spectrum of tradeoffs.
I think there was a precedent for this risk in living memory. I think there was even a term for it… some kind of “war” that wasn’t “hot”…
But anyway it would be better if politicians talked about the way in which Russian aggression is already here (“hybrid warfare”) because it simultaneously supports how this is not just scaremongering but something that is already happening, and modulates the risk under discussion. It’s very unlikely that Russia would open a new front given that it can’t make progress on the actual battlefield in Ukraine and is having manpower issues. But could it step up undersea cable sabotage, drone overflights, parcel bombs, terrorist attacks, assassinations, airspace incursions, etc? Absolutely.
And the thing is, those tactics are attractive to Russia because they’re asymmetric: a parcel bomb in Russia does not cause the same level of public outcry when the president can bomb a few apartment buildings and get away with it, due to restricted media.
Right, what are they actually warning us about here?
Nukes hitting us? Conscripted youth sent off to sibera to fight? The army being deployed in poland? Missile strikes and drone bombings? Daily sabotage of trains and warehouses? Irregular sabotage and drone flybys that could be more if they wanted? Murdering ex russian spies and oligarchs?
Its so vague and unactionable its worthless.
I think the aim is to cement a more nebulous idea that Russia is an enemy, and maybe to more concretely prepare for more sabotage. But it’s done in an unfocused way.
Just let them have their way with Britain. It worked so well for us with Israel
