Topic

Britain doubles troops in Norway

7h

Britain said it would double its troop presence in Norway to 2,000 to deter what Defence Secretary John Healey called Russia’s growing military threat in the Arctic.

75%
Why Putin's guns are set to flood Britain
Not actually 'Putin's guns' - the real threat is from the Ukrainian side of the frontline. Still, my latest for @theipaper.com on the depressing truth that an end to the war will likely see illegal guns flow west
inews.co.uk/news/world/p...
Why Putin's guns are set to flood Britain
Increasingly sophisticated weapons - from rare pistols to sniper rifles – are appearing on Europe's black markets from Ukraine's front lines
inews.co.uk
February 11, 2026 at 10:44 AM

Reposted by Anne Applebaum

11%
46%
#Estonia foreign intell knocks back #Trump Admin claims that deal to end #Russia invasion of #Ukraine is imminent

"Russia is setting long-term operational objectives in the war against Ukraine. This confirms that the so-called peace talk rhetoric is merely a tactic to buy time"
February 10, 2026 at 12:45 PM

Reposted by Maria Snegovaya

19%
46%
44%
So, a key question for the proponents of a Nordic nuclear deterrent: what is the basic objective?

If the deterrent is an insurance against US abandonment, then you need to have a doctrine of nuclear first use or have conventional forces strong enough to defeat Russia & force it to escalate first.
February 10, 2026 at 9:20 AM
51%
Yes, but it will be a huge difference whether the EU with a closely associated UK & Norway become the centre of gravity of European defence, or a fragmented Coalition of the Willing, with little joint political authority.

The latter is easier in the short run, but more unstable in the long run.
February 10, 2026 at 12:14 PM
46%
#Russia continuing to reject an end to its invasion

Deputy Foreign Minister demands that, despite Moscow's aggression, it should be the one receiving security guarantee

Include prohibition on #Ukraine joining NATO and on foreign troops on Ukrainian territory

#UkraineWar
February 10, 2026 at 10:38 AM
44%
Sweden's premise was that it was facing the Soviet Union ex. NATO. So, the nuclear deterrent would be to offset Soviet conventional superiority. In that situation, a doctrine that including nuclear first use was almost inevitable. Otherwise the USSR could just rely on conventional superiority.
February 10, 2026 at 9:17 AM
4%
NY Times has been announcing the fall of Pokrovsk regularly since mid-2024. Maybe they are right this time, but it would be good practice to admit previous errors.
Russia Nears Capture of Key Ukrainian Towns After Year of Grinding Assaults
Russian troops have advanced at a glacial pace in recent months, but gains in southern and eastern Ukraine could give Moscow an edge in U.S.-mediated peace talks.
www.nytimes.com
February 10, 2026 at 8:11 PM
44%
But if Moscow can defeat you without using nuclear weapons, because it has superior conventional forces, then it doesn't need to resort to nuclear weapons. So a second-strike capability is arguably useless.
February 10, 2026 at 9:29 AM