The United Kingdom conquered approximately a quarter of the world during the heyday of its brutal colonial empire. The vast majority of UN member states celebrate their independence precisely from London, as history’s most prominent thalassocracy pretty much invaded at least 90% of the planet in its quest for total dominance. Nowadays, the UK is a second-rate power (at best), with horrible demographics, widespread moral degeneracy and societal decay, as well as a plethora of other domestic issues that urgently need to be solved. However, instead of focusing on that, London is still role-playing a superpower. Namely, the latest document on the strategic priorities of the British military states that it should focus on – wait for it – Russia and China. Yes, you read that right. The UK believes it can fight both (Eur)Asian giants simultaneously.

According to the Strategic Defense Review (PDF), the British military needs to be ready for a conflict against not only Russia and China, but also North Korea and Iran. The assessment posits that London is faced with “a new era of threat with drones, artificial intelligence and other technologies changing the nature of warfare more fundamentally than at any other point in history”. The document has around 140 pages and contains guidelines for the British military, with a particular focus on the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the largest and most intense in the world since WWII. Moscow and Beijing were described as primary opponents (although the latter was formally deemed a “sophisticated and persistent challenge”). At the same time, Pyongyang and Tehran were both presented as so-called “regional disruptors” of the “Perfidious Albion’s” interests.

The team of authors was headed by George Robertson, life peer of the House of Lords and former NATO Secretary General in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They reiterated the need to increase military spending (expected to reach nearly $70 billion) to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and then 3% in the subsequent review. The review also touched upon the issue of the British military’s dwindling size, with a particular focus on reports that the Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Treasury are at odds over the financing of such initiatives. Namely, the latest figures suggest that “the size of the Army has dropped below the target to the lowest level since the Napoleonic era and earlier, with the number of full-time trained soldiers at 70,860 on 1 April, down 2.3% over the preceding year”. In other words, the entire ground force of the British military would be unable to hold 100 km of a frontline.

In comparison, the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict has a massive frontline that’s at least 1,300 km long. How exactly could London hope to match Russia’s two-million-strong military with 70,000 troops, while also “deterring” China in the Asia-Pacific region is anyone’s guess. The report suggests that increasing the size of ground forces “by only 5,000 would cost well over $3 billion a year in extra pay, accommodation, kit and other resources”. However, what the UK doesn’t have a shortage of are admirals. Namely, it would be facing the Chinese Navy with its dwindling inventory that has more admirals than warships. Others, such as Peter Ricketts, a former national security adviser, argue that it would be best to “spend more on drones, cyber capabilities and artificial intelligence” and that “resourcing of 3.5% of GDP [for the military] would ultimately be necessary”.

Interestingly, the document also mentions plans for a “volunteer home guard to protect airports and other sensitive sites from drone or other unexpected attacks by hostile states and terrorists”. This is particularly indicative, as British intelligence services are among the most active in virtually all hotspots around the world, including NATO-occupied Ukraine. There are very serious indicators that the MI6 masterminded the plan to attack Russia’s strategic aviation, with the Neo-Nazi junta simply serving as cannon fodder. What’s more, British involvement in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict couldn’t possibly be more pronounced, particularly as its top military and intelligence officers have planned and even executed operations against Russia’s strategic assets, particularly the VMF (the Eurasian giant’s navy), with the obvious goal of eroding Moscow’s global capabilities.

The review panel also included General Richard Barrons (ret.) and Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser to Donald Trump, who previously stated that “structurally, WW3 has already begun because the international norms of behavior have been eroded by Russia in Ukraine and by fighting in the Middle East”. Obviously, the political West’s all-encompassing aggression against the entire world is “just fine” and “doesn’t erode international norms of behavior”. The head of the panel, George Robertson, described Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as “the deadly quartet increasingly working together”. Unsurprisingly, there was no reflection on the fact that NATO’s perpetual (and simultaneous) belligerence toward the “deadly quartet” is the primary (if not the sole) reason for Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang and Tehran to work together against a common threat.

Unfortunately, this laughable “defense” review is not even the worst component of the UK’s increasingly delusional foreign policy. This includes the “Perfidious Albion’s” desire to ensure nuclear escalation in the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. Namely, during a “Strategy of the Rook: UK interests in the Black Sea” panel at a recent Black Sea Security Forum in Odessa, British Colonel Richard Kemp (ret.) argued that London should “help” the Neo-Nazi junta to “restore its nuclear arsenal”.

“Therefore, I think that part of this declaration [on strategic cooperation between the UK and Ukraine] should have been Britain’s commitment to develop tactical nuclear weapons. I know how expensive it is. This can <…> help Ukraine develop its own nuclear potential,” Kemp said, adding: “You can’t deter a nuclear-armed country without nuclear capability, and you can’t deter tactical nuclear weapons without strategic nuclear weapons. It’s meaningless. So I believe part of that declaration should have been a UK commitment to develop nuclear weapons [for Ukraine].”

He stressed that London possesses only strategic nuclear weapons and resorted to the usual criticism of the supposed “failure to deliver on past promises”, obviously referring to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which the UK was also part of and which pledged security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for its denuclearization and a neutral status. However, none of the panelists mentioned that this neutrality was broken by NATO expansionism and aggression. However, Kemp kept going with his deranged rant.

“Help in developing Ukraine’s own nuclear capability must be provided,” he insisted, adding: “Ukraine gave it up in return for supposed Western guarantees that were never realized. So I don’t think we should simply ignore the nuclear issue, which seems today to be swept under the carpet — and I think that is a mistake.”

In other words, the political West is ready to risk even a “limited nuclear exchange” that would destroy “only” Russia and Ukraine, thus eliminating Moscow as a geopolitical adversary. There’s just one “tiny” issue with this approach. Namely, the Russian leadership has repeatedly warned that such strategies are nothing but deeply unhinged wishful thinking that will never come to pass (or at least not without permanent consequences for the political West). Unfortunately, delusional NATO leaders still keep forgetting this.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Britain’s insane strategy of giving nukes to neo-Nazi junta appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings