100
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
100 points (98.1% liked)
United Kingdom
4889 readers
331 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
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
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.