AlexLaw76

Europe has, on paper, air superiority over Russia. This is however, very much dependant on the USA still. Without them, there would be massive logistical, integration, command and control gaps when even attempting to maintain high-intensity warfare. Everything changes with the USA. But they have long been weary of paying for the defence of Europe (whilst, with this administration, getting shit whilst doing so).

when you say NATO, you mean the USA.... Without the USA, we aint doing anything to anyone.

but we don;t have a choice of Jesse Marsch, do we.

Is Jesse Marsch the manger of the Canada team? absolutely not chance of him leaving that...

Oh they were highly equipped (and trained). And rapidly given significant kit, which was expedited when Germany allowed air lanes over their country for the UK and US to ship 'stuff' into the country

Lowly Ukraine? They have probably the most highly equipped armed forces in the world outside of the USA.

The point about us being able to 'take on' Russia used for a comparison WRT a country with the 3rd or 4th largest defence budget in the world v a country that does not (historically) spend as much. Mere of a piece of self-reflection about a country on a 'WAR FOOTING'. We, the UK, with our horrifically hollowed out forces are the leading the defence in Estonia and committed to deploying a Division sized contingent within 10 days of an invasion. That is simply well out of our grasp, both from a capability PoV and a financial one. And we are one of the leading nations within NATO. This Just highlights the pitiful capability across the European contingent, which is due to sub-contracting out our defence to the USA for decades. We better hope Ukraine can drive Russia out, or Russia down tools and walk away, as the resources currently given Ukraine would be dwarfed by their begging bowl to rebuild the south-eastern part of the country.

I am not sure any country, bar possibly the USA, could "take" Ukraine given the incredible amount of high quality equipment, money, ISTAR, Command and Control it has been given.

Russia now launches / fires c5000 drones a month into Ukraine, as they slowly continue their advance. going to run out of weaponry any day now, right? those sort of figures would be devastating against our own, embarrassingly equipped ground forces. in a peer-to-peer conventional dust up, Russia would have us done over a weekend. Our forces are in a terrible state as the cuts to our equipment and capability continue.

When will it be cheaper?

Jason Mule had some shockers when here

Sir, look no further. This man is adaptable and not fixated on formations

So what?

Bravo. Brilliantly put

No idea where the data is drawn from? But hard to disagree

Netflix takes a bashing in this scenario

A/S/L

It does not matter if what they did was related to his intentions. They consciously gave us untruths on their premier current affairs show., stuff old Vlad would do to us during an election, if he could. considering the BBC tells us daily they are searching for the truth, throw in the telly tax, throw in the other crap stuck to them, amazed they are still going in the current form

Only 1 man can save the BBC

Fair point. I pit that to the dire opposition was faced, which was a bit like Swansea. Weds still had nearly 60% of the ball and 1 less shot that is, but never looked like winning to be fair. my point about the claim Eckart has “done what he needed to do”… is that I am not sure he has done much / anything other than being in the building for these fixtures. Against 2 poor sides, we faced as many shots as we did against Blackburn and Preston, with an almost identical expected goals. difference here, Leo scored a worldly and the weds keeper / defender threw one in. good to win 2 on the bounce but this is unfair to suggest Eckart is turning it around.

Eckert has done little other than being in the building. I would have expected Will Still to have beaten Weds, who are pretty woeful.

Remove the license fee, then it can adapt to what ever it likes (within the bounds of the law and regulation). Doing nothing, or trimming around the edges, will allow for its slow demise to continue. The funding model is not sustainable given so many opt-out of paying for it every year. If there was a move to change the wording around the collection of funds from the population, ie, everyone with a portable electronic device must pay (or else), it would expedite its journey to oblivion. Obviously much of the grief it gets is largely from its news pillar, but there is little/no appetite to separate that from the BBC itself. Ignoring the heat around Bashir, Rolf Harris and Saville… there seems to be no end to high profile shit from the BBC, some of which is due to the higher standard the public places on it (because of the fee in the main).

Every chance (hopefully) in the neari-ish future the license fee will be binned, the the BBC will be free from the shackles and scrutiny that come with it

Does he play 3 at the back?