12.06.2021 Author: Valery Kulikov

Who is Britain’s “War Grin” Aimed At?

BRS994521

In its vassal state allegiance to Washington, London has increasingly tried to show a “war grin” to Russia and China in the hope of showing its “remnants of imperial grandeur.”

Nostalgic for Churchill’s unrealized post-World War II Operation Unthinkable, a massive land, air, and naval offensive against the Soviet Union after the Red Army took Berlin, Britain’s current military and political elite have recently been actively working on a similar “crushing blow to Russia” plan. And while London doesn’t reveal the archives on the details of the preparations for Operation Unthinkable, nor on the true purpose of the arrival of Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess in the United Kingdom back in May 1941, London clearly tries to avoid responsibility for the German attack on the USSR and for planning subsequent aggression against Moscow, its current public rhetoric can hardly disguise the true face of Britain.

To cover up and camouflage his openly hostile intentions towards Moscow, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab presented a “list of violations” to NATO allies on June 2, allegedly stating bad behavior in Russia by claiming an increase in Moscow’s military presence in western Russia. Raab is deliberately silent to the fact that this “increase in Russia’s military presence on its Western frontiers” is, first of all, taking place on Russia’s own territory, where it has every right to do whatever it needs to do to protect its security, and certainly without asking for permission from London to do so. And secondly, that it is not Moscow that has directly approached the borders of Western Europe over the last thirty years, but NATO, which is building up and constantly demonstrating an external military threat to Russia, contrary to earlier agreements between NATO and Moscow, reached in the 1990s.

London has not even begun to hide its military threats to Russia from the public for a long time. And this, in particular, is directly declared in the report by Daily Express about directing The Commander Littoral Response Group consisting of more than a thousand sailors, marines, and the HMS Albion amphibious transport dock by the Royal British Navy in the Baltic Sea “to counteract Russia”! Under similar “intimidating to Moscow” headlines The Times also reported on the direction to the Black Sea of the strike group led by Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier.

True, it would be much better for London to refrain from sending British warships to the Black Sea, saving money. If only to raise the wages of British health workers and thereby prevent a wave of voluntary resignations. After all, these are the kinds of payments that NHS executives in Britain are calling for, as the Independent writes, in a wave of exhaustion for most British doctors and nurses by unpaid overwork.

In addition, according to a Daily Express poll, 73% of respondents opposed London’s actions against Russia. Most Britons remember that previous military interventions cost the country many lives and money. As for the readers of the British Daily Mail, they openly laugh at the dispatch of the Royal Navy warship HMS Trent to the Black Sea to “ensure security and stability”: “Let him better protect us from the flow of migrants from France. And guard our herring!“, “And that’s all the Royal Navy found alive?” they write.

There is also no “frightening effect for Moscow” in such a call by British ships in the waters bordering Russia. This might be repeated by the publicly shameful expulsion by Russia’s navy and air force of the British destroyer D35 Dragon from Russian territorial waters near Crimea in October 2020, which was recently announced by Vladimir Kulishov, First Deputy Director of the FSB security service and Director of the Border Service.

And the withdrawal of the present British fleet to the outer waters is perceived in the world today only with a sarcastic smile. Suffice it to say that, in the two years since being commissioned, the newest Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales, sank twice in 2020 (after flooding the crew area in May and getting water in the engine room in October), spent only 87 days at sea, as The Daily Telegraph wrote.

Another UK aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, which was about to embark on a 28-week cruise, suddenly returned to her homeport in May “due to expected bad weather conditions,” according to the Press Association. In these circumstances, no one can guarantee today whether this “British strike force” will be able to pass painlessly and without losses at least part of the route of the 26,000 nautical miles planned by London: from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, from the Gulf of Aden to the Arabian Sea and from the Indian Ocean to the Philippine Sea. Besides, the world learned about another fiasco from the message of the UK Defence Journal on June 2 this year about the loss of one of its F-35 fighters on board the British aircraft carrier.

But it is not only the “intimidating grin of the kingdom’s naval forces” being openly laughed at in Britain today. UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace allegedly stated that almost a hundred and fifty upgraded Challenger 3 tanks “will outgun Russian tanks.” However, not all Britons share Ben Wallace’s optimistic attitude and the high-profile statements of the press. Many readers openly doubted that the Challenger 3 tank would succeed and that Britain’s army armed with such tanks would defeat Russia. Besides, on June 2, The Daily Telegraph, citing a government report that came into its possession, reported that the tanks, purchased for the needs of the British Army for £ 3.5 billion ($ 5 billion), could not move faster than 20 miles (32 km) per hour without risking the safety of the crew.

The British public is also critical of another expected “novelty” of the British Army – the testing by the British Marines in cooperation with Gravity Industries of a jetpack, which allegedly can be used to board enemy ships using a flying “miracle.” However, even the author of the article in New Atlas doubts the effectiveness of using means for such purposes.

What external experts do not doubt, however, is the “fighting spirit” of British soldiers on the female front. This, in particular, was confirmed during the latest NATO exercises, when on May 18 in the Estonian town of Tapa, a fight between the British military and local residents over a woman occurred, colorfully reflected in the Estonian media.

Also, no one doubts now that Britain has “close business ties” with the leaders of terrorists in Syria, establishing direct contacts with international terrorist groups operating in Syria, as reported by a diplomatic source in Moscow.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the British reacted sarcastically to UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace’s recent statement that Russia “is threat number one” and how London would use its naval power. Thus, the readers of Daily Mail do not believe him for many reasons. Some are ironic. Others are much harsher: “Instead of the rabble that comes from France, I’d rather have the Russians!” And some people about Russia’s “threat number one” say bluntly: I’m more scared of those who run our country!

But it is not only the Britons themselves who openly condemn the attempts of the kingdom’s current military and political elite to show Russia and China a “battle grin.” Two authors close to the European Union, from the European Council on Foreign Policy,  in the American magazine Foreign Affairs recommend that Boris Johnson, fascinated by the London-Washington alliance, not to follow all of US policy. In particular, they directly ask the British Prime Minister a question: Why would Britain send its Navy to the Taiwan Strait because of the conflict between the US and China? After all, Britain has long had no colonies there, and now is the time to think about patching up the budget and other holes left in the kingdom after Brexit…

 Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 


×
Please select digest to download:
×