97
UK to build 12 nuclear submarines in preparation for potential war with Russia
(www.pravda.com.ua)
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
97 points (99.0% liked)
United Kingdom
5278 readers
183 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it usually takes 10 years to build a nuclear submarine. 5 to 7 years just for construction. Putin is building to attack in less than 4.
Someone needs a time machine.
Does he have a robot army I'm unaware of? Where is he getting the troops for an attack in 4 years?
They are effectively already at war with NATO and they're getting their asses handed to them, a direct full-scale no holds-barred conflict would not end well for them.
I'm not saying he'll win by any means. That's what he thinks he's building up for though. Putin seems of the opinion if he can slowly bleed Ukraine then if/when he pushes into NATO, they'll be tapped out, and he can win with meat grinder tactics, as long as the US doesn't show up. Which is possible with Trump knee capping our military, and bringing in a lot of meat shields from North Korea, and maybe a bunch of Chinese that Xi doesn't like.
What I don't think he gets, is that Poland alone could very likely erase Russia, right now. And they would very much not be alone. And they're backed stopped with French and UK nukes. So there's a hard limit to how far he's going to get. Although I think the world will be a much worse place if France has to use their nuclear warning shot doctrine.
They're not "getting their asses handed to them", lots of the latest negotiations (with the US) seem to involve Russia gaining territory in any peace agreement. And they're switching over to a fully wartime economy, so they're in it for the long haul.
Don't underestimate Russia's ability to play the long game in a war. I know western media likes to give us stories like "Russia is running out of Russians" or whatever but that stuff is just propaganda imo. Ukraine, even with all the western weapons, is treading water.
EDIT: Just to demonstrate what I mean, the estimated military casualties for the Soviet Union in WW2 was around 8.6 million. And then they won. Russia ain't running out of Russians any time soon.
Oh God there are so many problems with your response where do I even start?
That's just Trump doing Trump things, it's got no basis in reality. You cannot have a negotiation where one of the parties is not present. Anything agreed with Russia will not be enforced by the international community. This has already been condemned by pretty much everyone else in the western world so I don't know why you brought it up.
So? They are at war so obviously they are switching over to a wartime economy. That doesn't indicate any intention to attack NATO.
They are hardly getting given the latest stuff. Meanwhile Russia is Fielding Soviet era tanks. I think will be okay.
Firstly that was 60 years ago and wasn't under the auspices of Putin. Who is widely regarded as a nut case. Secondly they wouldn't have won had it not been for the allied forces having already severely hammered the Nazis.
Throwing meat into the grinder is not a tactic, it's just desperation.
Trump is the president of the most powerful country in the world, for the next 3 years. His team will be doing the negotiating, so he has a lot of power here.
Tell that to Palestine, or literally any country in Africa. Negotiations between superpowers don't take into account the needs of the proxy countries.
It doesn't need to be enforced by the international community. If Trump hands the Donbas to Russia, the various other NATO members aren't going to do shit.
I don't really want to get into the points about equipment because that's well outside my wheelhouse, but I've heard all sorts of conflicting stuff about that.
You don't switch over to a wartime economy for a limited military operation. You do it because you think the war is going to last a long time, just like the UK seems to think in this article.
I disagree, the Nazis had taken the whole of Western Europe by that point, then the Battle of Stalingrad meant that they had to divert a load of forces from the West, making a push from the West possible.
Please stop okay it's dunning-kruger at its finest.
Any agreement of a ceasefire has to be ratified by NATO if it isn't ratified by NATO then it doesn't happen. So Trump and Putin can have their little play acting session but it's not going to result in anything because no one will ratify it if Ukraine isn't part of the negotiations. America been big is irrelevant.
What's America going to do to enforce their version of the ceasefire, if Ukraine disagrees with it if the rest of NATO disagree with it? NATO will continue to supply Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine will continue to use those weapons. And Trump will do what?
Says the person who just confidently stated that the Nazis were losing in Western Europe before the Soviet counteroffensive.
To state the obvious, the US has an outsized influence in NATO. Yes, there's a legal mechanism where other NATO countries could continue sending weapons to Ukraine after a US-brokered ceasefire. But in practice this will never happen. I challenge you to name one time that all the non-US NATO members voted in favour of a war that the US was against.
A superpower being big is never irrelevant. That's why history is shaped by their actions.
All is a very big stretch. They have been fighting with ours and others leftovers.
Modern fully equipped trained NATO force using combined arms and manover warfare would annihilate any Russian setup.
1980s missiles with a understrength Ukraine force and static defenses will take a beating from lots of Russian arty and bombs. But still they have not given in!
I'll have to trust you on that, I don't know anything about weapons systems.
What I do know is that Russia has never lost a war due to lack of manpower.
The negotiations outlook is because the US capitulated to Russia, not because it is based in reality. They have already emptied villages, hospitals, schools and prisons to feed the frontline and have gained about 20% of a neighbouring landmass with wherein they had strong network of subterfuge for years previous. They do not have the capability to wage a war with the UK right now, unfortunately the UK dont have the capabikity to defend very well either.
Ukraine was handicapped by poor allies and is now handicapped by a handicap in the US. They are struggling no doubt, war isnt nice but so too are Russia. I personally think if the US election had gone in a different direction, to someone with a spine, the war would be ending and Russia in collapse.
I agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the US election went to Donald Trump, who has no interest in curbing Russia's imperial ambitions.
Agreed, even though it goes against his own plans for China. The US will become less relevant, and one would hope the reaction to the markets would be to end the loyalism.
Let's hope so. Europe's reliance on the US for security has paved the way for this.
Absolutely, I have never liked the US presence in Europe but it did fill a need that Europe wasn't. Unfortuneately for the US though it filled a need for them too and becoming less focused, more aggressive and divisive will create space for closer ties between the EU and most likely China, but definitely other economic trading blocks.
How many potential military men are there in Russia?
140 million people? Half male? Half of that the right age? 70% of that military capable? What are we at? 25 million?
Minus the million he has burned so far I guess.
How quickly or effectively could those 24 million be mobilized?
Remember too that pulling these men into the military reduces Russia’s industrial output which also has military consequences.
How big is the Russian military right now? 1.5 million active and maybe a million contract? That allows them to deploy how many in theatre (as opposed to defence and operations at home)? 500,000 maybe?
Can Putin take Europe with a pool of 20 million men where maybe 20% that number are active at a time? He seems to be having quite a time taking Ukraine.
The Russian population gets older every day. There is an excellent argument to be made that Putin attacked when he did because his draft pool will be way too small in 10 years. By that logic, unless Putin wins convincingly in Ukraine soon, it will be generations before he has a large enough army to raise any credible challenge to Europe.
Equipment wise, I do not think they are even keeping inventory constant. The number of planes, tanks, ships, and missiles goes down every day. They are maybe increasing their capability with drones.
Overall, Russia will be older, smaller, poorer, and less well equipped in 4 years.
Defeating Russia in Ukraine means taking Russia off the board for the foreseeable future (nukes aside).
Russia wont have enough planes or armor in 4.
I sincerely hope you are correct, but they're on a full war time economy and building flat out. The real question is if Ukraine can disrupt manufacturing supply lines enough to make a difference. Hitting the bombers helps now, they need to hit the factories making engines for the bombers of tomorrow.
How many potential military men are there in Russia?
140 million people? Half male? Half of that the right age? 70% of that military capable? What are we at? 25 million?
Minus the million he has burned so far I guess.
How quickly or effectively could those 24 million be mobilized?
Remember too that pulling these men into the military reduces Russia’s industrial output which also has military consequences.
How big is the Russian military right now? 1.5 million active and maybe a million contract? That allows them to deploy how many in theatre (as opposed to defence and operations at home)? 500,000 maybe?
Can Putin take Europe with a pool of 20 million men where maybe 20% that number are active at a time? He seems to be having quite a time taking Ukraine.
The Russian population gets older every day. There is an excellent argument to be made that Putin attacked when he did because his draft pool will be way too small in 10 years. By that logic, unless Putin wins convincingly in Ukraine soon, it will be generations before he has a large enough army to raise any credible challenge to Europe.
Equipment wise, I do not think they are even keeping inventory constant. The number of planes, tanks, ships, and missiles goes down every day. They are maybe increasing their capability with drones.
Overall, Russia will be older, smaller, poorer, and less well equipped in 4 years.
Defeating Russia in Ukraine means taking Russia off the board for the foreseeable future (nukes aside).