Probably a lot like the Setif and Guelma massacres in Algeria, My Trach in Vietnam, Leopold II cleansing of the Congo, Aushwitz, Lidice, Oradour sur Glane, the Incas........ I could go on.

My point was that pushing around smaller countries is not a uniquely UK or US action, as was suggested. The Europeans have quietly airbrushed out the bits of their history they don't like.

Russian forces massing on border with Ukraine - UK Defence Journal

You may be interested in these comments about the Moscow worldview - from here.

A short and not exclusive summary of the “Muscovite Mentality”.

1. For a Muscovite it is inconceivable that state power is not concentrated at the apex of the pyramid. In Muscovy, this is at the Kremlin and usually rests in one man or a small cabal. No important decision can be made by any other organ. A Muscovite genuinely believes that all political and economic power in the West, is ultimately controlled from Washington - just as Moscow strives to control all political and economic power in as large an area as it can, so does Washington. Multiple power centres cannot be allowed to exist within a political entity, as this undermines the power of the centre.

2. A Muscovite sees world affairs as a giant “zero-sum game” with the strings being pulled by the major power centres. For a Muscovite the “Main Adversary” remains the USA. So anything which a Muscovite perceives as detrimental to Muscovy is advantageous to the USA. An independent Ukraine is detrimental to Muscovy, therefore the USA must be causing the independence movement there. For a Muscovite independent NGOs undermine the power of the State, therefore they must be operating under the aegis of Washington. Any citizen of Russia that protests against the Kremlin, is perceived by a Muscovite to be weakening the State, therefore they are being supported by Washington and can be considered traitors.

3. The concept of “Rule of Law” is totally alien to a Muscovite. A Muscovite firmly believes that “the law” is just a tool to serve the ruler in order to make the State strong. It is for the ruler to make the law and to apply it or change it as required.

4. The concept of “Separation of Powers” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The “Executive” is the only Power. The “Legislative” and the “Judicial” are mere [often cosmetic] appendages to facilitate the rule of the “Executive”.

5. The concept of “Separation of Church and State” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The Church serves the State and it is inconceivable that the Church can be regarded as a separate power base.

6. The concept of an empowered “Civil Society” is totally alien to a Muscovite. There can be no organisations which are not answerable to the State. The citizen is there to serve the State. The State is not there to serve the citizen, but to use him/her as it sees fit.

7. The concept of a “Free Press” is totally alien to a Muscovite. The media is there to serve the State. The media must reflect the State position. If independent media offer a different point of view, then they are attacking the State and are seen as traitorous. Of course as this is seen as detrimental to the State, it therefore must have the backing of Washington.

8. The Muscovite sees the world from this point of view and naturally assumes that the rest of the world must have a similar viewpoint [for a Muscovite any different viewpoint is obviously unnatural]. As Muscovy sees all other political entities as competitors in a “zero-sum game”, therefore they all must view Muscovy in the same way. As Muscovy is therefore constantly under threat, it must defend itself. Attack is the best form of defence, therefore Muscovite aggression is logically defensive in nature and thus Muscovy pursues a “peace-loving” policy [even when invading other countries]. There is no contradiction in the “Muscovite mindset”.

9. Muscovy currently feels extremely threatened. Not from without, but from within. The peoples of “all the Russias” are finally, slowly but surely realising that there is a truth in the world that is not the “truth” of the Kremlin. That there is another way of organising a society than that which has been forced upon them by Muscovy for centuries. The countries and nations that had been subjugated to the “Muscovite Yoke” are incrementally breaking away and making it successfully in the modern “free” world. That Ukraine, the seat of the original great principality of Kievan Rus [the legacy of which was stolen and warped by Muscovy] was moving away from Muscovite control, precipitated a crisis. If the so called “Little Russians” can embrace change in the organisation of their society - what will stop the so called “Great Russians” from following suit? [Incidentally the Muscovites coined the terms “Little and Great Russians”. The inhabitants of Ukraine and Belarus were originally called “Rusi” or “Ruthenes” as opposed to the “Rossiyani” further east in the Principalities of Pskov, Novgorod, Muscovy etc.]

10. The "Muscovite mindset" also appears to be quite racist. This explains the pre-occupation with the West and particularly the USA as the "Main Adversary"; whereas a more logical conclusion would be that the primary threat to Russia, in terms of sovereignty (economic and political) is from China. But the Muscovite tends to look down arrogantly on non-Europeans (conveniently forgetting his own historic tutelage at the hands of the Mongols). However, it is because of this that the "Muscovite mindset" views the Chinese political system as similar to its own and thus not a threat in the way the Western political system is, in its potential to undermine the control of the Kremlin through its (perceived insidious) appeal to the masses.

Also see this article from the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute: Delivering Global Britain - A Naval Perspective

The arrival of Admiral Tony Radakin as First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff in 2019 saw the release of a new vision for the Royal Navy that focuses on five main parts: (1) greater investment in the North Atlantic for the security of the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent; (2) delivery of the U.K.’s carrier strike capability; (3) delivery of the future commando force; (4) forward presence; and (5) increased use of technology and innovation. The North Atlantic is the main arterial lifeline to the United Kingdom, as well as the hiding place for its nuclear deterrent, and therefore will always be of the highest importance to the Royal Navy.

Carriers

In support of all five globally deployed OPVs and HMS Montrose in the Gulf, the First Sea Lord’s plan is to operate at least one carrier strike group (CSG) out of the United Kingdom. This will surge as required to deliver the higher-level capabilities that may be needed anywhere in the world, but basing in the United Kingdom underlines its commitment to NATO and the Atlantic.

Amphibious capabilities

In addition to the carrier strike group, future commando force will deliver a littoral strike capability. This is likely to be delivered through two littoral response groups (LRGs). The first will be based out of the United Kingdom to support the Northern Flank and European interests.....

As offered by some guy writing as 'Condottiere' in some blog.
Not sure I'd take that as gospel

he'd previously posted in arsse................

Regardless of how much of it applies to Russia and the Putin regime, it demonstrates how what we term as 'The West' is not defined by Geography, skin colour, or faith, but by societal and constitutional things. These include things such as limits on political power, separation of executive and judicial powers, the rule of law, a free media, and things like that.

The Kremlin is intimidating Europe with a military threat and at the same time is stepping up anti-European propaganda. This is clearly seen in the narratives of pro-Kremlin media in Ukraine, the main direction of which is now set by the statements of Russian top officials.

From On the brink of a new Cold War.

Is that news????

This is a reminder that NATO relies on being able to move equipment by sea, even within the European theatre:

Twitter

https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...-indo-pacific/

Europe’s strategic long-shot: More warships in the Indo-Pacific

Naval ambitions come as part of EU’s strategy to extend its Asian reach and counter the rise of China

We seem to be diverting into ships, with little or no aviation connection.

We are discussing two very different theatres of operation. We are equipping ourselves for Northern Europe/North Atlantic ops. A couple of carriers and a handful of F-35s does not make us a global super-power. The very idea of this would mean stretching ourselves way too far.

It would take SEATO II to do that.

Aircraft (to include rotary wing aircraft) fly from Royal Navy ships, do they not? :ok: The observation that you make in your follow on post, in terms of overreach, are hard to disagree with.

T28

You're the admin, so you get to set the rules, I respect that. Isn’t there a danger however of limiting a conversation strictly to aviation content while ignoring content that composes other facets of the situation?

Of the balloon flies, it’ll circle back to all kinds of aviation content.

We could just remove the "Avaition" from the threads title? To be serious ll military operations are interconnected these days - its many many years since you silo the issues I'm afraid

Some news stories that hint at things in UK home waters, Northern Europe and the North Atlantic:

Westminster sees out winter with a ranging patrol

HMS Westminster returned home yesterday following a highly successful 15-week deployment protecting the UK’s interests in home waters, North Atlantic and Northern Europe.

Rear Admiral Simon Asquith OBE, the Royal Navy’s Commander Operations, embarked during the morning to welcome the frigate back to her base port at the conclusion of this patrol.

It took her from the Baltic to the Channel Islands, including monitoring a passing Russian submarine. Deployment also took in various trials, training and exercises, including working with the RAF’s new P8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Royal Navy tracks eight warships through UK waters

The Royal Navy has kept close watch on seven warships and one submarine passing in opposite directions through the Channel.

Three British patrol ships – Portsmouth-based sisters HMS Tyne, Severn and Mersey – have been called upon to monitor the presence of seven Russian Federation Navy vessels plus an Algerian submarine as they sailed past the British Isles.

For the UK and Europe, the Atlantic and Mediterranean represent the gateway to the Indo-Pacific.

Truly a long corridor beyond that 'gateway'.
The few hulls that can be sent far from home have no local Indo-Pacific sustaining infrastructure, so they come to the fight late and exhausted from a very long patrol.
At best they serve as tripwires, something that will surely impact morale.
I honestly don't understand how such as disjointed policy can pass muster. Admittedly, coherence is apparently not a requirement in the Pacific Theater either.

"so they come to the fight late and exhausted from a very long patrol."

And we all know how that turns out when the opposition have a few weeks to prepare..

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f596e0cda6.jpg