Should the UK go to war with Russia ?

[DimPrawn]

It's a pity we can't get a regime change here. Come on Russia, come on over and protect the British people from our own government. Think of the cheap oil and gas we would get too.

[BrilloPad]

It's a pity we can't get a regime change here. Come on Russia, come on over and protect the British people from our own government. Think of the cheap oil and gas we would get too.

What would Russia posibly want with a third rate country like the UK? Are they short of chavs in Russia?

[GreenerGrass]

It's a pity we can't get a regime change here. Come on Russia, come on over and protect the British people from our own government. Think of the cheap oil and gas we would get too.

[Nicky G]

World War 3 coming up. Russian (and Chinese) commies in control. This is the first of many incursions designed to test the West. You think it's all over - to quote Randy Bachman, you ain't seen nowt yet.

[DimPrawn]

World War 3 coming up. Russian (and Chinese) commies in control. This is the first of many incursions designed to test the West. You think it's all over - to quote Randy Bachman, you ain't seen nowt yet.

I lived through the 70's with the Protect and Survive leaflets to keep me company. I ain't scared in the least.

[Bob Dalek]

I lived through the 70's with the Protect and Survive leaflets to keep me company. I ain't scared in the least.

Agreed! The bloody public information films were infinitely more scary than the Ruskies.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Again, utter nonsense. Do you realize how many ICBM's Russia has? How many it has that are most likely undeclared? Do you realize that any first strike would come from submarines? That before that there would be a little “diversion” in the form of an “Islamic” terror strike where US leadership is decapitated?

Au contraire Nicky G , one needs only to recall the Cuban Missile crises to learn that Russian and America are very sensitive indeed to any nuclear missile build near their respective borders.

Furthermore , as you mentioned , if it is just a question of firing ICBMs from submarines then why should NATO bother with their aggressive policy ?

NATO's provocative policy surely has now to be reviewed accordingly.

[DodgyAgent]

I'm not disputing some of the above may be true, but you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

You underestimate the dangers of having a single dominant superpower dictating it's terms to every other state, controlling their governments through bribery, controlling the world's energy resources and bleeding them dry. Barring any large change in US foreign policy (who knows, maybe the Democrats will be better) there has to be a counter balance.

As for "democratically elected", it doesn't make a huge difference to me personally whether the president of Georgia is a US puppet or a Russian puppet.

Thank god for Hitler in WW2 then, without him there would have been a serious imbalance in the balance of power

[DodgyAgent]

Au contraire Nicky G , one needs only to recall the Cuban Missile crises to learn that Russian and America are very sensitive indeed to any nuclear missile build near their respective borders.

Furthermore , as you mentioned , if it is just a question of firing ICBMs from submarines then why should NATO bother with their aggressive policy ?

NATO's provocative policy surely has now to be reviewed accordingly.

That is a bit like saying that the Poles provoked the Nazis into invading them in WW2

[bored]

Georgia and Russia agree on truce:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7557457.stm

"Georgian troops return to their places of permanent deployment. Russian troops return to pre-conflict positions."

Just as I predicted, all Russia wanted was a return to the pre-conflict state (along with an opportunity to do as much damage to the Georgian military while they could get away with it).

Still no clue though what the Georgian president was thinking when he ordered the attack on South Ossetia, did he really expect Russia to not intervene?