Mangekyo:


Please go through this site to observe the detailed comparison. https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_United_Kingdom_vs_Russia
https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_United_Kingdom_vs_Russia

There's NO comparison whatsoever, Russia oneshots!

If after going through the link you still come here to argue, then I'm afraid I'll leave you to your fate

Simeonjoe1:

Don't underestimate the UK military and their war industry. While I believe Russia has a numerical advantage, the UK can also stand on its own. It has its number and technological proven weapon. Comparing weapons 1 on 1, most UK weapons are technologically superior to its Russian counter part. UK also have an effective and well trained fighting force. Forget most of those Russian weapons are old and outdated from the ussr Era, they only have limited effective ones (but they have been improving on this), even their large military combatant are less experienced and professional compare to the UK (that's why Russia is massive cutting down its active service member down to create a more robust and effective fighting force).
Guy concerning nuclear weapon you don't have to target the whole of Russia or kill every one, all you just have to do is effectively cripple your opponents(targeting strategic locations). And like I said the UK stock is enough to decimate the Russian over and over again

Kailalomo:
Na back of TV you dey watch

daddytime:


Dem dey ask your mama her name she dey explain how she no know who impregnate am to bring the bastard you to come become a nuisance factor for this world.

Ashlock

Olaolufred:


Why not say exactly what NATO and us achieved?

If Al - Assad is still the leader of Syria in 2021, NATO and US failed woefully.
That is the truth, even Obama who superitend over the arming of the rebels knew he failed.

So what story do you have from your TV?

Please, get educated about this.

Olaolufred:


Why not say exactly what NATO and us achieved?

If Al - Assad is still the leader of Syria in 2021, NATO and US failed woefully.
That is the truth, even Obama who superitend over the arming of the rebels knew he failed.

So what story do you have from your TV?

Please, get educated about this.

elganzar:



Guyy go sit down jare...
Last time you checked WHERE
Very few people know his current whereabout and we're not one of them...

Besides the point is he is currently also in hiding and not as active as before... I'm half yoruba and half igbo, I'm just catching cruise

Sometimes it takes even greater courage to retreat in face of adversity... I respect both Igboho and Ojukwu...

But I stand by my previous analogy_ (an average) yoruba people too dey do gragra

Lekison:
E pain am ....yet Igboho was pictured in his house??we Yorubas don't breed dumb folks like you. Stop claiming what you are not.

decatalyst:
Why everybody dey look for unnecessary trouble nau.


Make everybody maintain their lane now and let's maintain the relative peace.

dermmy:


Honestly I don't know why western powers always look for trouble. This same Britain forcefully took Chagos Island from Mauritius in the 60's. ICJ ruled in 2019 that Britain should vacate the Island, close the joint military base it built with U.S. there and return the Island to Mauritius but Britain has yet to obey that order it's two years since the UN ruling.

Now they are flexing muscle saying they don't recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea. They don't recognize China's artifical islands in the South China Sea. Are they not hypocrites?

Kailalomo:
Since you are educated kindly read below.. I trust you understand what non lethal assistance means?



The US, UK and France initially provided support for what they considered "moderate" rebel groups. But they have prioritised non-lethal assistance since jihadists became the dominant force in the armed opposition.

A US-led global coalition has also carried out air strikes and deployed special forces in Syria since 2014 to help an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) capture territory once held by IS militants in the north-east.

I just crop for you to read. Here is a source to check

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35806229

The Syrian opposition, politically represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. From the early stages of the conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK have provided political, military and logistic support to the opposition and its associated rebel groups in Syria.

The Syrian Democratic Forces of the Executive Council (Rojava), the government of Rojava, have received military and logistic support from some NATO countries, the US in particular.

Kailalomo:
You are just calling Nato nato. Only you know the movie where you saw Nato involvement in Syria

The Syrian opposition, politically represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. From the early stages of the conflict in Syria, major Western countries such as the U.S, France, and the UK have provided political, military and logistic support to the opposition and its associated rebel groups in Syria.

The Syrian Democratic Forces of the Executive Council (Rojava), the government of Rojava, have received military and logistic support from some NATO countries, the US in particular.

The Summary Quote is from Wikipedia.

Mangekyo:


BTW, you're wrong and somewhat right too.
If both nations go all out in a nuclear battle, then both of them are getting decimated. There may be survivors in the side of Russia but definitely not UK since their land isn't that large. Nuclear weapons are so dangerous. A single drop can destroy a full city, reason why countries like Nigeria aren't allowed to have them. Also, Russia and USA are reducing the number of nuclear weapon the possess. Russia formally had upto 50k nuclear warheads. They've reduced them to about approximately 7k now, same with the USA. I think they do because it's too dangerous to possess them. Also, countries like China, North Korea, France, UK keep adding more to their Arsenal and are still nowhere near Russia and USA who are reducing theirs. See those two are boss! You think UK really stands a chance, I'll let you be. Maybe one day we'll get to see them in action

emmyileri:

Russia are just modernizing their aging arsenal while UK arsenals are advanced and well modernized, UK is a nuclear power too. You see Military might is not making noise. Russia is powerful but if war break out God forbid, no one will win, it will be a mutual destruction.

emmyileri:

Russia are just modernizing their aging arsenal while UK arsenals are advanced and well modernized, UK is a nuclear power too. You see Military might is not making noise. Russia is powerful but if war break out God forbid, no one will win, it will be a mutual destruction.

MUTUAL DESTRUCTION

Olaolufred:


QUESTION: When you armed people against government, what was your aim?
ANSWER: To remove that Government.
QUESTION: Was the government almost removed by the Rebels?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: When did the dynamic changed?
ANSWER: As soon as Russia stepped in.
QUESTION: Why couldn't the US and NATO challenged Russia?
ANSWER: It comes at a cost.

Obama Armed these Rebels and eventually left them for the dead when Russia began killing them with no mercy shown.

Why did USA and NATO armed them when they knew they wouldn't stand by them till the end?

Do you know that negotiation that US and NATO could not go into with ASSAD before the death of almost 500,000 citizens (mostly innocent women and Children) was what Russia forced UN into when the US / NATO end has glaringly failed the people they armed?

I am not here for child talk.

US / NATO failed themselves and the Syrian people.



The Summary Quote is from Wikipedia.

Kailalomo:
Since you are not here for child talk, I have nothing to prove to you. You have failed to understand what non lethal assistance is. There was never a time when US UK or France took their advance weapon to Syria. Where is your prove that they armed the rebel against the govt? The same govt that was suffering his people and they revolt and all you all do is blame it on US. Any small thing you people will blame it on US. It's very clear you are quoting with sentiment.

Mangekyo:
Someone should tell Britain to be careful, because if they successfully get on the nerve of Putin (The real nigggaa), Britain would be history. Same with the US!

Kailalomo:
Since you are not here for child talk, I have nothing to prove to you. You have failed to understand what non lethal assistance is. There was never a time when US UK or France took their advance weapon to Syria. Where is your prove that they armed the rebel against the govt? The same govt that was suffering his people and they revolt and all you all do is blame it on US. Any small thing you people will blame it on US. It's very clear you are quoting with sentiment.

FoolishBoy419:



Has USA proven her own might in modern warfare? The last major power it fought was during WW2 (and China faced them shortly afterwards in the Korean war). Fighting mushroom countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc and even LOSING to Vietnam is not a real test. These are countries that any decent superpower can beat.

Olaolufred:


US is already on it's way out as World power.

A mistake is all remaining for China to take over.

If they go military way with Russia, the power change will be faster.

That is why US thinks China everyday.

The glory has departed.

Only borrowed glory is remaining.

FoolishBoy419:


There are so many factors you are not putting into consideration. Both UK and Russia have good missile defense systems which can intercept those missiles so UK will have even less chances of winning.

In fact, a lot of those missiles don't have perfect precision. I remember how More than 50% of US Tomahawk missiles failed to hit their targets when Trump fired at Assad's forces.

Simeonjoe1:
..
Missile defense does not have 100% effectiveness, even boosting 60% will be a success especially against ICBM. Most nuclear warhead will slip through those defenses. That's why I said it's a no win situation for both sides.
Concerning the US tomahawk missile I believe that's not true, well its based on the news you chose to believe cause there's proprrgander and others around. That's normal as different people will want to promote or degrade your weapon system.

FoolishBoy419:


Since reports from BBC, Aljazeera, and Even pro-Trump Fox News were false, can you kindly give us your own source?

Both sides will suffer but it is very naive to think it would be a close battle. The size of Russia alone is a big factor.

goodheart02:
For those typing rubbish here without full knowledge of the US military, know that The US has 5,000 military bases and installations and over 800 of these bases are abroad and well equipped both Nuclear and non nuclear to wage an onslaught from any point of the world. The US can fight u from anywhere.

Active Military Personnel 1,385,400 officers and 845,234 on reserve

71 nuclear capable submarines and the highest number in the world

480 war ships and their Nimitz class is the biggest in the wolrd

Over 5,404 war jets

8700 war tanks (China and Russia surpassed them in this aspect)

Over 6,000 war helicopters. And together,the army, navy and Air Force operates a total of 13,000 aircrafts in total

Let me just stop here. You're all can research on the rest.

Flynnthekidd:



This goes to show you also don't know sh*t...UK has 2 aircraft carriers