They don´t need to have the bombs in the UK, and they don´t need the B52 to deliver them. The Generic "dial a yield" B61´s fit on the hard points of the Tornado and the Eurofighter just fine.
Thing is MAD no longer applies when both or all sides consider a limited exchange viable and NATO has no policy of "no first use" also the B61 is not the earth ending megaton nuke, that alone makes it´s use likely when the conflict starts to go badly.

"aggressive NAto expansion"?
Since 2009 NATO only added two tiny countries that are a long way from Russia and both parts of the former Yugoslavia, what definition of aggressive are you using?

Has anyone asked Ukraine if they want to join NATO?

Maybe we should start from there, don't you think?

Since they got burned in 2014 they want security guarantees from other part than Russia and they made it very clear.

Why not respect that?

Seriously, everyone can say whatever they want and believe whatever fake news they like, but if any of you can offer a reasonable explanation for why a nation of 42 million who feeds another 150 million cannot decide they own things such as security etc I am willing to reconsider my position. I say reasonable.

Wagenknecht has always been and still is playing into Russia's strategy of undermining German public support for NATO and promoting a naive dream of "neutrality" for Germany. The Soviet Union has been trying that since the 1950s, I believe.

That said, the cardinal mistake of the NATO in the Russia relations was the 2008 offering of NATO membership (without timeline) for Ukraine and Georgia. Bush went actually against the advise of his own experts on this (or at least this is what those experts say now).

Now of course, as there is no real prospect for UA to join NATO (and has not been for a long time), Russia is not threatened at all. But - as we can also witness in this thread - it skillfully manipulates the opinions in the West. The core of the problem in my view is that Russia has never really accepted the independence of Ukraine (and possibly others).

Yes, this is a fact, but this has more to do with the reality on the ground that the nuclear power stations in Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech republic were all built in the 80s (the exception is Bulgaria which had it's in the 70s) and were built by the USSR, so the maintenance of the current reactors is naturally done by Rosatom.

Indeed, that's path dependency....and great political leverage.

But, right now Hungary is on the plan to buy 2 new reactors from Russia for 10 billion. If war happens there will be pressure from EU to break the deal. Mr. Orban will complain about EU not respecting Hungary's sovereignty. Well, it's in the hands of people in Hungary to decide if they want to depend on Russia for their electricity production for the next 50 or so years. Or, if they break the deal and buy reactors from other suppliers.

Since the Maidan revolution it has been Ukraine policy to join NATO, also the US backed the regime change from a Russia centric one to one favoring the US with five billion USD

	Quote:
	It’s then that the theories of U.S. meddling in Ukraine started to gain traction. The British journalist Ian Traynor claimed in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian that the Yushchenko campaign was an American plot, citing as evidence American payments to train election observers and protest groups, as well as American financed polls designed to back up accusations of Mr. Yanukovych’s vote fraud. Not many believe Mr. Traynor’s theory, but one person who does is the respected Professor John Mearsheimer, who teaches political science at the University of Chicago. He says that Washington continues to try to influence Ukraine even a decade after the Orange Revolution. He’s convinced that the Maidan protests – eventually responsible for the ousting of Mr. Yanukovych on February 22, 2014 – were several years in the making and backed by American cash. A putsch. "America wanted a change, because it wanted to gain influence over Ukraine," Prof. Mearsheimer says.

Now imagine how the US would react if Russia or indeed China were to cozy up to Canada or Mexico, we know how Washington went into hysterics when the Russians sent TU160´s to Venezuela.
So in light of a more than likely US meddling in Ukraine affairs, how then should Russia react? Also at one point in the early nineties Putin was looking for closer ties and a Pan European security solution, but that would have been opposite to a US hegemony as NATO would, like the Warschau Pakt, be redundant.

__________________
Back in Bavaria, god´s own belly button.

Totally. Where is the tolerance in laughing at someone who shows real concern for what is happening currently and being separated from family?

Thank you Slammer- excellent post and spot on.

Yes, it is widely known that both Mexico and Canada are intrigued about entering military alliances with China and Russia. Mostly because they feel threatened by the US and Western democracies.

That is (of course) just a little imagination crutch, a little "What if?" Besides the US would never allow it to happen.

And more fear-mongering again. I would understand if you had family in Ukraine, but in the UK? C'mon, be realistic. We're nowhere near a nuclear Armageddon that you seem to be worried about. Putin leads you by 10 points already if you're so worried, this is precisely what he wants.

Do you realize that Russia already borders the US, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Norway?

Maybe Russia is just too big a country

''The UK currently has about 195 nuclear warheads, of which 120 are operational, according to an estimate by researchers at the Federation of American Scientists. The UK deploys its entire nuclear arsenal aboard four Vanguard-class submarines, each of which is armed with Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. At least one submarine is always at sea on deterrence patrol. London maintains that a submarine on patrol would require several days’ notice to launch a missile.

The integrated review attributed the change in the warhead stockpile to “the evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threats” and cited “risks to the UK from major nuclear armed states, emerging nuclear states, and state-sponsored nuclear terrorism.” But the document did not provide further detail about these threats.

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab justified the plan to increase the warhead stockpile as “the ultimate insurance policy against the worst threat from hostile states” in an interview with the BBC.

UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace told the BBC on March 21 that the change is a response to what “the Russians and others have been up to in the last few years,” specifically citing Russian investments in ballistic missile defense and new offensive capabilities.

The integrated review also states that the UK will “no longer give public figures for our operational stockpile, deployed warhead or deployed missile numbers” as such “ambiguity complicates the calculations of potential aggressors, reduces the risk of deliberate nuclear use by those seeking a first-strike advantage, and contributes to strategic stability.”


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021...head-stockpile


Anyone who is not concerned about possible and very quick escalation is just delusional.

Russia is too big a country, perhaps that is why the Americans want to break it up.
However as we know since Napoleon, you don´t poke the bear.

Looks to me like the bear is poking the deer.

I don't recall the origin but there are reports that Russian nuclear artillery units have been moved to Ukraine border.

Over half of Russia`s military capability has been moved to the western borders. It seems to be an almost insane amount of military capability to invade only Ukraine. I have no idea what is going to happen in the next days but almost nothing would surprise me.

Russia has also had a very active cyber warfare program. It possible that this conflict will develop into something and use elements that have never been seen before. Perhaps large scale extended power and internet outages. Drones and loitering munitions on a massive scale. And there is always the China decides to take advantage and involve Taiwan.

It should be a very interesting week.

I am willing to bet an expensive bottle of wine with you that there will be NO nuclear escalation of any sort from the current Ukraine crisis. Let's settle on a budget of CHF 100? Happy to up if you're not satisfied with CHF 100. Are you on?

Unfair. If she wins, nobody gets any wine or money.

It is not fair only because it will be like stealing from a baby

You know perfectly well that this is meant as an scenario. Trying to claim that it's meant literally, and refusing it on that basis, is nothing but a rhetoric manoeuvre to avoid a real answer.

As for falling victim to propaganda, check your own positions folks. If you still believe that there's no US propaganda you need have your sanity checked.