Russia is threating the UK??

[Shalcker]

The issue comes down to this: Putin cannot be seen as weak against NATO, NATO cannot be seen as weak to Putin. If Putin doesn't act strong against the West, he risks losing nationalist support. If NATO does not stand up to Russia, it will crumble. The balance is knowing how much damage Putin can suffer before he feels like he will be deposed by force, at which time he may actually use nuclear war as a bitter pill.

NATO will not crumble just from a few ships being sunk after some provocation, and (as Putin even said directly in his latest Q&A) neither will it go to war over that.

It'll add some more sanctions (maybe on a family of a guys who pressed the button! and then up his command chain) and it'll loudly protest. Maybe they'll even sink some other ship in turn if they are feeling bold!

But committing to war over it requires much higher stakes. Getting bloody nose after some posturing isn't going to be enough.

[Kellhound]

NATO will not crumble just from a few ships being sunk after some provocation, and (as Putin even said directly in his latest Q&A) neither will it go to war over that.

It'll add some more sanctions (maybe on a family of a guys who pressed the button! and then up his command chain) and it'll loudly protest. Maybe they'll even sink some other ship in turn if they are feeling bold!

But committing to war over it requires much higher stakes. Getting bloody nose after some posturing isn't going to be enough.

It would, as it would show NATO has no teeth, is afraid of Russia, and cannot protect anyone from Russia. NATO would not let that happen. Putin does not speak for NATO.

Russia does not have any ships as valuable as a Type 45 in the Black Sea, though the Moskva is at least a flag ship.

War would only come from Putin getting butt hurt that he was slapped back by NATO and decided he had to do something to show he is tough.

[Shalcker]

It would, as it would show NATO has no teeth, is afraid of Russia, and cannot protect anyone from Russia. NATO would not let that happen. Putin does not speak for NATO.

How would single ship in an obvious provocation being lost prove that to anyone?

No, not every incident warrants full response.

War would only come from Putin getting butt hurt that he was slapped back by NATO and decided he had to do something to show he is tough.

You're telling yourself that NATO just has to slap back - and so does Russia; that's recipe for infinite escalation.

In Crimean case NATO shows obvious unwillingness to fully commit unlike Russia - and thus much more likely to back away.

[Xarkan]

How would single ship in an obvious provocation being lost prove that to anyone?

No, not every incident warrants full response.

You're telling yourself that NATO just has to slap back - and so does Russia; that's recipe for infinite escalation.

In Crimean case NATO shows obvious unwillingness to fully commit unlike Russia - and thus much more likely to back away.

Well Turkey shot down a Russian plane and that worked out fine

I think Nato should just take its chances

[Shalcker]

Well Turkey shot down a Russian plane and that worked out fine

I think Nato should just take its chances

And so does Russia. Losing one ship isn't going to hurt UK that much.

[Yadryonych]

It would, as it would show NATO has no teeth, is afraid of Russia, and cannot protect anyone from Russia. NATO would not let that happen.

Has nato protected anyone from Russia so far?

[Shalcker]

Has nato protected anyone from Russia so far?

Clearly that anti-alligator amulet is working if you see no alligators around!

[Easo]

Has nato protected anyone from Russia so far?

Yes, Baltics, purely by being members, no little green men, no "Latgale/Narva "republics"". No NATO country has been attacked, therefore it works.
At least pretend to be seriously discussing this...

[Kellhound]

How would single ship in an obvious provocation being lost prove that to anyone?

No, not every incident warrants full response.

You're telling yourself that NATO just has to slap back - and so does Russia; that's recipe for infinite escalation.

In Crimean case NATO shows obvious unwillingness to fully commit unlike Russia - and thus much more likely to back away.

Because it would have been lost in an illegal action by Russia against a key NATO member.

So what you are saying is the proper response from NATO would be a decapitation strike?

- - - Updated - - -

And so does Russia. Losing one ship isn't going to hurt UK that much.

Unlike Russia, the UK actually cares about both their equipment and their men.

- - - Updated - - -

Has nato protected anyone from Russia so far?

Hmmm..... Well Russia has made no attempt to take back the Baltics, unlike their hostile actions against Ukraine.

[Specialka]

Has nato protected anyone from Russia so far?

Deterrent is also protection.

[Easo]

Let's at least have some humour in this thread - now only champagne made in Russia is allowed to be called champagne, everything imported is sparkling wine. Yes, I am serious. Hennessy is even stopping imports of champagne to Russia because of this.

Appropriate answer to the pesky Europeans and their annoying ships, I guess.

[caervek]

Hmmm..... Well Russia has made no attempt to take back the Baltics, unlike their hostile actions against Ukraine.

There is a big difference that the Baltics don't want to reunify with Russia which would make it much harder for them to attempt it. Crimea on the other hand never wanted to become part of Ukraine and had been trying to reunify with Russia ever since which made it super easy for Russia to get away with it because they had the support of the people.

It's kind of hard for NATO to justify action against Russia for annexing a former region of Russia that wanted to return, action against an invasion of the Baltics would be much simpler to justify.

[Kellhound]

There is a big difference that the Baltics don't want to reunify with Russia which would make it much harder for them to attempt it. Crimea on the other hand never wanted to become part of Ukraine and had been trying to reunify with Russia ever since which made it super easy for Russia to get away with it because they had the support of the people.

It's kind of hard for NATO to justify action against Russia for annexing a former region of Russia that wanted to return, action against an invasion of the Baltics would be much simpler to justify.

There is a very simple reason NATO would be justified in reacting violently to Russia for annexing any part of the Baltic states, they are NATO members. Had Ukraine been part of NATO, Russia would not have gone after Crimea.

[PACOX]

Let's at least have some humor in this thread - now only champagne made in Russia is allowed to be called champagne, everything imported is sparkling wine. Yes, I am serious. Hennessy is even stopping imports of champagne to Russia because of this.

Appropriate answer to the pesky Europeans and their annoying ships, I guess.

As silly as that is, don't a lot of countries have rules like that?

[Ihavewaffles]

So they sail to crimea n call it "international waters"? this is the same england that one day (2016) hit the panic button when Russian ships sailed in international waters in the english channel between england n france n decided to show how 'brave' they were by following rus ships that have passed through the channel for centuries, outside england not right into england.

The english ship that headed towards crimea, the bbc journalist onboard even said they went there specifically to provoke the Russians.

The media also tried to make it look suspect why russia wouldn't sail around uk (heading to the atlantic), a large n pointless detour. This is the same nato that complains about having free access to arctic russia..
Turkey makes less noise about russia sailing their navy right between istanbul's strait. and these two have been at war a lot longer n often..

Russian Warships in the English Channel
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...nglish+channel

No country but england made noise, every country Russia passed basically shrugged it off n didn't cry about 'protecting themselves' against ships heading to syria to bomb isis...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37725327


so the title of this thread is russia threatening england in....russia?.. I guess england is 'threatened' everywhere..
even military exercises on russian soil is a threat, while nato exercises right on russia's borders, this time crossing the actual russian borders, is considered 'normal' and in self-defense nature..

- - - Updated - - -

Has nato protected anyone from Russia so far?

Nope

Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...58T4MO20090930

[Easo]

As silly as that is, don't a lot of countries have rules like that?

AFAIK not. I mean, one can argue whether champagne is only the one made in Champagne, but...

So they sail to crimea n call it "international waters"?

Can you stop lying? Each time you get unbanned you start the same again and again.

First, English Channel is a public waterway, shadowing a fleet is not the same as telling them to leave.
Second, Crimea's waters are internationally generally recognised as Ukraine's still. Technical distinction, but distinction regardless.
Third, Georgia was not in NATO. Are you that thickheaded that you do not grasp the concept of NATO and 5th Article?

[caervek]

So they sail to crimea n call it "international waters"? this is the same england that one day (2016) hit the panic button when Russian ships sailed in international waters in the english channel

There are no international waters in the English channel, it's either French territorial waters or English territorial waters depending which coast you're closer too and military vessels are required to request/receive clearance before entering/traversing.

[Kellhound]

So they sail to crimea n call it "international waters"? this is the same england that one day (2016) hit the panic button when Russian ships sailed in international waters in the english channel between england n france n decided to show how 'brave' they were by following rus ships that have passed through the channel for centuries, outside england not right into england.

The english ship that headed towards crimea, the bbc journalist onboard even said they went there specifically to provoke the Russians.

The media also tried to make it look suspect why russia wouldn't sail around uk (heading to the atlantic), a large n pointless detour. This is the same nato that complains about having free access to arctic russia..
Turkey makes less noise about russia sailing their navy right between istanbul's strait. and these two have been at war a lot longer n often..

Russian Warships in the English Channel
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...nglish+channel

No country but england made noise, every country Russia passed basically shrugged it off n didn't cry about 'protecting themselves' against ships heading to syria to bomb isis...

so the title of this thread is russia threatening england in....russia?.. I guess england is 'threatened' everywhere..
even military exercises on russian soil is a threat, while nato exercises right on russia's borders, this time crossing the actual russian borders, is considered 'normal' and in self-defense nature..

- - - Updated - - -



Nope

Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...58T4MO20090930

There is a significant difference between the UK shadowing a large task force transiting through its (or its fellow NATO ally's) internationally recognized territorial water and claiming to have used live ordnance in an intentional attempt to intimidate a single ship traveling through illegally occupied illegally declared territorial water.

I like how you ignored the 2nd part of the article: "but said Moscow’s military response went beyond reasonable limits and violated international law."
Also, like Ukraine, Georgia is not part of NATO but the Baltics are.

[Biglog]

This is totally for internal consumption. Russian media which is very Putin controlled is quite big on 3 things; inflating the capabilities of their military, trying to paint the West as a failure, and constantly pushing the 'tough guy' narrative of Putin/Russia.

With the UK, this tit for tat has been going on since the Sergei and Yulia Skripal poisonings. Russia didn't like that they got caught and called out on that by the UK. Even though they were totally in the wrong, since then Russia has been quick to make overly threatening statements every time against the UK every time they can. Just 2 years ago Russia made a comment (around the Skripal incident) that Russia has enough nukes to easily cover every square inch of the English isle with nuclear strikes. That's FAR more inflammatory in my opinion that threatening to bomb a ship. The tough guy narrative gets really over the top gopnik-style sometimes. But it's important to keep in mind that it's all about maintaining his popularity domestically.

As for Crimea, this is going to continue to be an issue with the West until/unless Crimea is recognized as Russian territory. Ownership is 9/10ths of the law as they say, and Russia definitely isn't leaving Crimea. It's kind of an odd stance to take to be honest, because I do think the people of Crimea legitimately wanted to join Russia. It's a no brainer for the financial benefits, Ukraine hasn't been governing anywhere well for quite a while. So you could make the argument that Crimea joining Russia was a democratic outcome. It would have been looked at a lot more credibly without the Russian soldiers (minus flag patches btw) in Crimea before the vote though. As a side-note, Russia didn't help themselves on this front by claiming long-term extended territory in the sea around Crimea off-limits for much of 2021 (early 2021 until October) for 'military training'. That's common for exercises in an area for a few weeks typically. The US doesn't say the Gulf of Mexico is off-limits to any other country since we'll be using it for military training for the next 9 months, and if any other country enters they might get bombed accidentally during our 'training exercises'. That's basically what Russia quietly did around Crimea, and this event with Russia and the UK was the result. It was the UK sending the message to Russia that they're going to ignore the claim of extended military training for 9 months to effectively grab territory for themselves in international waters.

[Shalcker]

This is totally for internal consumption. Russian media which is very Putin controlled is quite big on 3 things; inflating the capabilities of their military, trying to paint the West as a failure, and constantly pushing the 'tough guy' narrative of Putin/Russia.

Russia is still world #2 military though, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Certainly well above UK level.

Area around Crimea is blocked exactly because of NATO exercises and to reduce potential for provocative maneuvers like this one.