[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

If Putin decided an invasion of the British Isles, would the international community take a harder stance? Perhaps a physical course of action? Perhaps just stronger sanctions?

[Petrochemicals]

We'd die of laughter. For the USA to invade Britain from the sea is virtually impossible, it would need a land base such as Ireland or France.

[Kryptid]

We'd die of laughter. For the USA to invade Britain from the sea is virtually impossible, it would need a land base such as Ireland or France.

The USA?

[alancalverd]

Of course. Everyone knows that the supreme commander of the US military is a contractor to the Kremlin. At least the previous one was.

But seriously, there is no need for an invasion.
Scotland votes for independence,
Putin recognises the right of Scottish selfdetermination,
UK forces have to withdraw from the non-nuclear state which resiles from NATO,
a few fights break out in Glasgow (any Friday night) 
the commander of a Russian warship on a goodwill visit offers his marines to assist the police.
Someone insults the marines and the next thing you know, a battalion of heavily armoured peacekeepers is sent to defend Holyrood because the Beloved First Minister has received a threatening tweet.

If you complain, you won't get any gas. Stronger sanctions? You must be kidding. London house prices would fall, and no Tory government will allow that.

[Petrochemicals]

The USA has a substantially larger (the only 10 "nucular" super carriers beside various support carriers etc) and modern equipment etc, yet for them to float across the Atlantic and invade without a land platform nearby is unfeasible. Russia has 1 carrier I believe and it is fairly old and small.

[Petrochemicals]

London house prices would fall, and no Tory government

I'll take that.

[evan_au]

I heard an explanation that Russia has 2 vital western ports:
- St Petersburg, which gives them access to the Baltic, North Sea and North Atlantic
- Rostov-on-Don, which gives them access to the Black Sea, Mediterranean and Central Atlantic
- Russia has historically defended the line between these vital ports

The easternmost provinces of the Ukraine cross into this psychological "personal space", almost between Rostov-on-Don and Moscow; Russia does not want NATO forces over this line.

So it's not about invading the UK, but it is about "personal space"

[alancalverd]

The USA has a substantially larger (the only 10 "nucular" super carriers beside various support carriers etc) and modern equipment etc, yet for them to float across the Atlantic and invade without a land platform nearby is unfeasible.

The UK had no real carriers and damn all else, but managed to invade the Falklands with no land base. The second function of a navy is to land and support the army wherever it wants to go. Problem with eastern Ukraine is that sea access is through a very narrow strait guarded by a Russian garrison and air base, so a counterinvasion is not possible without taking Crimea en route.

Mention of the Falklands should also bring Machiavelli to mind: when unpopular at home, start a war. And the present disgrace to politics is also reminiscent of someone bravely coming to the rescue of the Sudeten Germans in 1938.

[Petrochemicals]

The USA has a substantially larger (the only 10 "nucular" super carriers beside various support carriers etc) and modern equipment etc, yet for them to float across the Atlantic and invade without a land platform nearby is unfeasible.

The UK had no real carriers and damn all else, but managed to invade the Falklands with no land base. The second function of a navy is to land and support the army wherever it wants to go. Problem with eastern Ukraine is that sea access is through a very narrow strait guarded by a Russian garrison and air base, so a counterinvasion is not possible without taking Crimea en route.

Mention of the Falklands should also bring Machiavelli to mind: when unpopular at home, start a war. And the present disgrace to politics is also reminiscent of someone bravely coming to the rescue of the Sudeten Germans in 1938.

The UK though strangely didn't invade Argentina, a country with low tech weaponry exept a few Exocets. We even had a land base there once the islands were retaken.

Putin could easily cite Kosovo or south Sudan as an example if he just supported the separatist claims, but he does need the fanfare for some reason.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Just in: high-level sources within the Kremlin report president Vladimir Putin has learned of an assassination plot against former prime minister Vladimir Putin, orchestrated by former KGB director Vladimir Putin. Putin is raging that Putin's fingerprints are all over the plan to kill Putin and has hastily signed an executive order for Putin to assassinate Putin before Putin can give Putin the go-ahead to have Putin assassinate Putin.

[alancalverd]

The UK though strangely didn't invade Argentina

No need.  The fact is that both Galtieri and Thatcher were unpopular at home and likely to be deposed.  By starting a small war, both gained a lot of immediate popularity and one was re-elected, at a huge and pointless cost to the taxpayers and soldiers of both sides. The game was over, and there was no future in trying to occupy Argentina since the natives had no vote in UK elections.

The outcome was so successful that Bush and Blair invented Weapons of Mass Destruction to get themselves re-elected a few years later, but made the mistake of trying to occupy the territory of their invented enemy. And the Afghan adventure was never really a vote winner because the USA kept changing sides.

Politics is about politics, nothing else.

[Bored chemist]

It's often said that you shouldn't change leaders during a crisis.
On the other hand, the UK doesn't have a leader- it has Boris.

[alancalverd]

Despite the assertions of sloppy journalists, the UK has not had a "leader" since Cromwell. The post of prime minister carries no authority except that of the Cabinet in emergencies and of Parliament at other times. Margaret Thatcher assumed a presidential role in the absence of any competence on her front bench, and Tony Blair, having lied to Parliament,  was allowed to declare war without the authority of the supreme commander of the armed forces, the Queen. 

What the UK does have, in large numbers, is utterly ineffective politicians.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

I understand Putin would give up his attack on Ukraine in exchange for the ability to have orgasms again.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Despite the assertions of sloppy journalists, the UK has not had a "leader" since Cromwell.

Ah yes, just when England was starting to tolerate Catholicism again, Cromwell stepped in and put a stop to it.

[DudleyC]

We'd die of laughter. For the USA to invade Britain from the sea is virtually impossible, it would need a land base such as Ireland or France.

The USA?

Yeah what happened here

[DudleyC]

If Putin decided an invasion of the British Isles, would the international community take a harder stance? Perhaps a physical course of action? Perhaps just stronger sanctions?

Short answer yes, but I never see one scenario where Russia invades British Isles, never forever..... it's logistically impossible

[HannahC]

His Ukraininan invasion failed, so I don't think that this crazy man will decide to invade British Isles.

[Petrochemicals]

We'd die of laughter. For the USA to invade Britain from the sea is virtually impossible, it would need a land base such as Ireland or France.

The USA?

Yeah what happened here

Read through the thread and gather the information already posted.
 

The USA has a substantially larger (the only 10 "nucular" super carriers beside various support carriers etc) and modern equipment etc, yet for them to float across the Atlantic and invade without a land platform nearby is unfeasible. Russia has 1 carrier I believe and it is fairly old and small.

Or read it as a reply to the op.

A  says "If Putin decided an invasion of the British Isles, would the international community take a harder stance? Perhaps a physical course of action? Perhaps just stronger sanctions?"

B says "We'd die of laughter. For the USA to invade Britain from the sea is virtually impossible, it would need a land base such as Ireland or France"