Britain Prepares for War Against Russia

Donate

Written by Brian Cloughley; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org

The headline in the UK newspaper the Daily Mail on August 7 encapsulated much that is paranoid in sad modern Britain. It read “Russian warships pass through English Channel as Putin’s armed forces ratchet up pressure on the Royal Navy.”

Certainly, the United Kingdom is in a state of crisis; but it isn’t because of any sort of military threat. The vote to leave the European Union was a major slide down the greasy pole of decline and Time magazine summed up the debacle by pointing out that “At heart of this political saga is the fact that the politicians leading the Brexit “Leave” campaign — Boris Johnson chief among them — never actually explained to the British public what a vote for ‘Leave’ entailed. The promise of Brexit was all things to all people, which is how it managed its 52- to 48-percent victory over the ‘Remain’ side. Then prime minister David Cameron resigned, and it fell to his successor Theresa May to figure out what Brexit actually means.”

Britain Prepares for War Against Russia

The Brexit pantomime is taking place in an era in which it is recorded that “As benefits are cut and rents soar, Britain has seen a staggering rise in homelessness: the number of rough sleepers in England alone has more than doubled since 2010. Almost 1.2 million older people in Britain, as well as another one million disabled people, are living without the social care they need for basics such as eating, dressing and washing. It’s horrific: severely ill people forced to wait 14 hours to go to the toilet or wheelchair users who, with no assistant to help them cook, are now malnourished.”

But this dreadful state of affairs means nothing to those who lack for nothing — which includes politicians of the governing Conservative Party who demand that more taxpayers’ money must be spent on military hardware. The previous defence minister, Michael Fallon (who had to resign because he was found out to have indulged in some sexual shenanigans), told the BBC last year that “we will be adding to defence, there will be new equipment and the budget will grow every year” and the present one, Gavin Williamson (the man who said that Russia should “go away and shut up”), demanded in June that Britain increase its annual military spending by £20 billion, or about 25 billion dollars.

The strange thing about agitating to spend more money on armaments is that, apart from an indubitable terrorist menace, there is no military threat whatever to Britain. On the other hand, there is a social crisis of the most serious magnitude. As the New York Times reported in May, “the protracted campaign of budget cutting, started in 2010 by a government led by the Conservative Party, has . . . yielded a country that has grown accustomed to living with less, even as many measures of social well-being — crime rates, opioid addiction, infant mortality, childhood poverty and homelessness — point to a deteriorating quality of life.”

But the government’s answer lies in buying missiles and whooshing new aircraft, and two aircraft carriers of incalculable expense and nuclear submarines that the BBC reports are to cost “£31 bn (including inflation), with a contingency of a further £10 bn, spread over 35 years…”

Apart from terrorists, who would want to attack the United Kingdom? There are plenty of countries in the world that don’t like Britain (not as many as dislike the United States, but it’s still a depressingly large number), but can it be believed that any of them would take up arms and attack the place?

Unfortunately, as we see from the bizarre headline quoted above, claiming absurdly that “Putin’s armed forces ratchet up pressure on the Royal Navy,” there is a strong propaganda movement aimed at convincing British taxpayers that by suffering spoliation of their standard of living they are helping to defend their country against an alleged enemy who is intent on… doing what, exactly?

In its article about the passage through the English Channel of the Russian cruiser Marshal Ustinov and the destroyer Severomorsk, the Daily Mail reported that “after HMS St Albans escorted Admiral Gorshkov through the North Sea on Christmas Day last year, Defence Minister Gavin Williamson said he would ‘not hesitate in defending our waters or tolerate any form of aggression’ and that ‘Britain will never be intimidated when it comes to protecting our country, our people, and our national interests.’ “Aggression”?

This is utter garbage. The routine transit of Russian ships is being treated as a military threat requiring action by ships of the Royal Navy. And it isn’t just the Daily Mail that spouts this rubbish. The commanding officer of the destroyer HMS Diamond that was sent to “intercept” the two Russian vessels, Commander Ben Keith, declared “HMS Diamond is proud to once again be playing her part in protecting the UK by monitoring these vessels on their transit… While many families are enjoying their summer holidays, my ship’s company are working hard at sea to keep Britain safe and will continue to do so for as long as we are required. I would like to thank the families of my crew whose support is vital while we carry out our duty to the nation.”

In 36 years wearing the uniform of Her Majesty the Queen I heard some stupid things said by officers of all three services, and indeed said a few myself. But in all my time I never heard such a preposterous and barmy public utterance as that load of drivel.

Commander Keith can’t really believe that he was “protecting the UK” by cruising beside a couple of ships transiting the Channel. He can’t truly credit that his sailors were “proud to be protecting the UK” by having a pleasant couple of days in the sunshine sailing alongside a couple of ships passing through international waters. Or can he?

If he does believe this, then I weep for the Royal Navy, because if the days of sailors preferring to be at sea rather than ashore are over, then heaven help it. What do they join for?

But the supposed Russian “threat” is not confined to a few of its ships moving through international waters like so many hundreds of others every day. In the air, too, the striking might of Russia has to be countered at all costs.

On August 15 the Mail rejoiced that the British Royal Air Force (RAF) “intercepted six Russian bombers flying close to NATO airspace over the Black Sea and forced them to turn back.”

Turn back from what? The official announcement was that “the operation was in accordance with the NATO Enhanced Air Policing mission with NATO ally Romania. RAF jets helped deter Russian aggression, reassure our friends in Romania, and assure NATO allies of our commitment to collective defence.” “Aggression” yet again.

In fact all that this silly little aerial fandango achieved was a headline in a drivelling — but very popular — newspaper. Over a million Brits read the garbage it prints and many appear to believe that Russia is a military threat.

The Mail and most British news outlets (except the BBC and a couple of others which are objective), continue to push the line that the United Kingdom must spend more and more money on military gadgets and junkets.

So on August 18 the UK’s Daily Express newspaper, a sad wreck of its former self, and now competing with the Daily Mail in publicising ‘celebs’ and headlining articles of ultra-nationalist tripe, ran a piece headlined “Royal Navy’s £3bn warship launches to tackle ‘frightening’ Russians.” Just how it’s going to deter anyone is not explained, because it hasn’t any aircraft and won’t be operational until 2021. It cost over 4 billion dollars and its yet-to-arrive 36 F-35 aircraft will cost a minimum of 90 million dollars each. This is in a country where the Joseph Rowntree Foundation records that some 14 million people live in poverty – more than one in five of the population.

The sick farce of Britain’s preparation for war against Russia is shown to be even more absurd by the plain facts of comparative expenditure. It is never mentioned by Britain’s defence ministers or the compliant media (from which are excluded the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent) that in 2017, as reported by IHS Jane’s, Russia’s defence expenditure for 2017-2018 was approved at $51.35 billion while that of the UK was some $57 billion. Indeed, the annual military expenditure of NATO’s European members is $254 billion, or about five times that of Russia, and they spend a lot of it deploying forces ever closer to Russia’s borders. Aggression, anyone?

Britain would be a much better place if it acknowledged that there is no threat whatever from Russia — why on earth would Russia even want to begin to consider attacking Britain, or any NATO country, for that matter? — and that the billions being wasted on weapons would be better directed at improving the country’s infrastructure and social development. The terrorist danger will always remain, but the allegations by politicians and the press that vast spending is justified by “aggression” on the part of Russia are irresponsible and unworthy of a nation that could once again be great, if only it sorted out its priorities.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • hhabana

    Leaving the EU was the smartest thing the voters did.

    • neil barron

      And this article is nothing but propaganda Shit.

    • putinbeater

      The Continents thanks you for this step. Such is released the anchor, which slowed down us.

  • peter

    Britains are very simply people , but if they wants war ,can this try !

    • FlorianGeyer

      Britain’s who watch TV too much are getting simpler by the day.

  • Jamie9260

    The UK. must have a external threat right now for a number of reasons a couple of which are quite obvious, Coupled with now leaving the EU. and being on there own they are extremely weak right now and are working tersely to gain support from the US. at all costs.

  • zman

    How succinctly this article puts in perspective the real cost of the world-wide MIC. Too bad people won’t all wake up to the reality of this, instead of falling for the bluster.

  • frankly

    When people with 36 years in the British military write an article that makes so many lucid points, it’s time to give yourself a slap and find a better way! While England may have used a lot of fake news to get to this point, using the same device to escape is just making you look weaker yet. Do something real!

  • You can call me Al

    Sometimes SF, I think you should post things that you know about and stop posting absolute drivel – like this article.

    1. We voted for Brexit to get away from the costly stupidity of the EU and dump many of it’s rules that are shear madness.

    2. We voted for Brexit to stop the invasion of the gimps, due to free movement within the bloc.

    3. We voted for Brexit to stop wasting tens of billions on payments, where we get little in return.

    4. We voted for Brexit because we are Britain / UK and we shall not take orders from people we were at war with 80 years ago, especially the French and Germans.

    5. We voted Brexit.

    As for the rest of it regards the numpties in parliament and the senior members of the military – you are absolutely correct.

    PS. Countries do not hate the UK, they hate the bastards in charge of the UK, as we do……. I would be intrigued for a list of Countries that hate us though.

    • Bob Starsky

      then expalin u moron why brits voted for brexit but you have elected only parties who are against brexit? this is definition of insanity. world hate uk for slavery, for concentraion campos, for genocides, for serving stalin, for crimes against humanity, for support for terror and british war crimes.

      • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

        And a Brexit that is supposed to be delivered by a Remainer PM May and a parliament stuffed full of EU plants!
        No wonder the country is in such a mess.

        • You can call me Al

          I agree with that.

        • kostas4X4

          Smells like Greece (aka ignoring the referendum result)

          • Jens Holm

            Hardly. Britts can go down without going down.

            But true it look like chaos.

      • You can call me Al

        The sitting government was the Tories when the vote went through, you arrogant POS. The PM David Cameron resigned and left some sort of vote for someone to take over the PM position. Not our decision.

        Slavery, what, we created it did we ?, you sad, pathetic arse-hole. WE STOPPED IT.

        As for your other comments, you are so stupid, I will not response, now FO.

      • Jens Holm

        I agree in that. Erdogan would be proud.

      • viktor ziv

        Oh man… Please explain “parties” – there are only two parties, also explain “serving Stalin”, explain “concentraion campos”… Calling people names?!!! Go to Your parents and slap them in the face, because they failed in providing education and culture.

    • VeeNarian (Yerevan)

      No 1 on the hate list would be the EU commission.

      • You can call me Al

        Fair play.

      • HighLord Gaz

        EU Commission aka the Euro-Soviet politburo.

      • kostas4X4

        They hate anyone that does not blindly obey them.

    • Tommy Jensen

      You British cant just put a straw in the continent and suck. You entered a contract and you must fulfill it or pay the price to get out of it.
      You English snobbing crybabies that have been along with all atrocities in ME since 2001 as the closest brother in crime and now want to run and leave the bill to others.

      • kostas4X4

        There is no contract validated by the people with free referendum across EU member states.
        The union started as an economic community and converted with undemocratic methods to an imperial superstate governed by unelected bureaucracy build upon lies.
        All Europeans must leave this monstrosity and leave the bill to its creators.

        • Jens Holm

          So We should take Sibiria in stead.

          One of the most undemocratic elections methods in Europe is Your own winner takes all.

          • FlorianGeyer

            I am sure a room in Siberia could be arranged for you Jens.

          • Jens Holm

            So far they have free parking spaces. I might. You might know, how it is…

          • FlorianGeyer

            I suspect your journey there would be by train , with the advantage that it would tick all the ‘Green Boxes ‘ Jens :) There are a few Tsarist era establishments there with nice thick walls that are very secure as well Jens.

    • Barba_Papa

      >>1. We voted for Brexit to get away from the costly stupidity of the EU and dump many of it’s rules that are shear madness.<>2. We voted for Brexit to stop the invasion of the gimps, due to free movement within the bloc.<>3. We voted for Brexit to stop wasting tens of billions on payments, where we get little in return.<>4. We voted for Brexit because we are Britain / UK and we shall not take
      orders from people we were at war with 80 years ago, especially the
      French and Germans.<<

      Who the fuck cares who you were at war with 80 years ago? Everyone has been at war with someone. So you'd rather take orders from Washington instead and become the 51st state instead? Smart move! You could have been leaders in Europe, now you're just Sancho Pancho to whichever Don Quixote rules in Washington.

    • Rob

      Complete blackout in north and east Syria. We don’t know what’s going on there. There are millions of Syrians that US, UK, France have held them hostage. The Syrian government 1st priority is to rescue these Syrian hostages from these morons.

    • Carol Davidek-Waller

      Speaking of drival……

    • John Mason

      Well stated and you are absolutely correct. UK government and its’ politicians are sabotaging Brexit and they need to be replaced.

    • Sinbad2

      Yes the British people voted for Brexit, but when has the wants and needs of the British ever been a consideration of your lords and masters?

      They tell you parliament was created to represent the people, that’s a lie, parliament was created to represent the business class.

      • Jens Holm

        In the beginning, ,there was no parlament.

    • Freespirit

      British government’s a joke,”Al”. It can’t even handle we Irish Republicans, much less Russia

      It is all distraction and we’ll know soon enough, about what – BREXIT, per chance?

  • Paul Barbara

    Just one problem with that article: ‘…It is never mentioned by Britain’s defence ministers or the compliant media (from which are excluded the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent)…: they are also extremely ‘compliant’, to the extent of being guilty of direct lying and avoiding truths that have encouraged massive war crimes of aggression, which makes them also guilty of aiding and abetting War Criminals and War Crimes.
    Which of those, or indeed any MSM, has publicised ex-French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas’ claim that while he was in London in 2009, two years before the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ and Syrian armed insurrection, he was approached by high British officials whom he had known in his time as French Foreign Minister, and they had told him Britain was going to overthrow Assad with the use of mercenaries. The MSM, and our MP’s, cannot be unaware of these claims, but I have seen NOTHING about it in the MSM, or had a reply from the dozen or so MP’s (including my own, Jim Fitzpatrick, who refused to even check the links I sent him) I have sent or personally given links to that and other information, such as Wesley Clark’s ‘US going to overthrow 7 governments in 5 years’, told to him by a 3* serving General on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2001 (he named the 7 countries – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran’.

  • Pave Way IV

    This struck me as the oddest statement in the article:

    “…It is never mentioned by Britain’s defence ministers or the compliant media (from which are excluded the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent)…”

    WTF? The BBC, Guardian and Independent are rouge, non-government-compliant alt-media outlets? Sorry, but – from this side of the pond – I don’t see how the UK’s guardedly-left-leaning-yet-not-totally-Kool-Aid-drinking-neocon-whore mainstream media outlets cited above are much better that the neocon ones. While they might oppose increased UK defense spending, they seem perfectly willing to push the anti-Russia (and anti-Iran) message day after day. Isn’t that kind of ‘compliant’ with the UK government position?

    And I’m totally missing whatever point Cloughley tries to make with brexit or how it’s associated with social programs unless it was Decline of Britain => Decay of Social Programs. And that seems a rather odd segue into his objections to increased defense spending because nobody is threatening Britain. So if they don’t increase useless defense spending, then that imaginary money will somehow find its way to the poor? Via honest politicians, the magnanimous British parliament and efficient bureaucracy? Jesus… this sounds just like American politicians’ obtuse thinking.

    • Sinbad2

      The Guardian is owned by Rothschild, The Independent is owned by Alexander Lebedev a Russian Jew, who stole billions from Russia, and is wanted in Russia for his crimes. He is also a contributor to Chatham House.

  • Ma_Laoshi

    What’s up with the zeal to let the BBC, Guardian, and Independent off the hook? McCarthyite propaganda is a lot more effective if it comes wrapped in the prestige of “liberal, quality journalism”–almost as if the author has an agenda. And when the author admits that this war propaganda is actually popular, it points to the fact that the British people can’t be let off the hook either. Behind their kindly façade, they’re nostalgic for the days when Britain actually had the power to terrorize the lower races; if they can’t get the real thing back, they’ll go for the simulacrum. Not so different from their brethren on the continent. But when the migrant crisis presented a golden (and probably the last) opportunity to leave the sinking ship of the EU, the British alone acted on it–bravo!

  • Carol Davidek-Waller

    A flea shaking a stick at an elephant? If belonging to NATO results in this kind of irrational behavior, perhaps it’s time for Nexit.

  • putinbeater

    I think, GB prepares for war against Russia/USSR/Russia for last 300 years. :) Nothing new under foggy, dusty, smokey englesh Sun. :))

    • Sinbad2

      As you stated, the British have been trying to colonize Russia for a long time.
      2 Sarmat missiles would end their ambitions permanently, and send a strong message to the Americans.

    • Jens Holm

      No, they hardly have not. Russia always has been a big and important trade partner for GB.

      At the end of WW1 brits could have removed the Bolsjevics but said, it was important and better to buy and sell with winners of the russian civile war then make unpeace.

      300 years are totaly wrong. There are ups and downs incl important family relations in the kingand Queen level.

      • FlorianGeyer

        Are you now reading History books written in the USA Jens :)

        The UK rather blotted her copy book with the Jewish controlled Soviets when they sent a military expedition to support the Tsar.

  • enriqueferro

    The BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, objective? Give me a break!

    • 42 degrees south

      yip, all have shown their libtarded, remainer, globalist scum, criminal supporting credentials since forever. Youd get more facts from a bloke sitting in the pub down the road.

  • RichardD

    The British have probably invaded more countries than anyone else in human history, with the possible exception of the US, depending on how you want to look at US base expansion. The Russians are capable of defeating NATO on NATO territory, which includes the UK. Getting out of the EU was a step in the right direction. Not getting involved in a NATO conflict with Russia is in everyone’s best interest.

    The whole Jew world order anti Russian charade is doing the UNSC Jew 3 of the US, France and the UK a lot more damage on the world stage than it is Russia. The UK should dejudify like everyone else should. And start behaving in a rational responsible manner. Because right now all that they’re doing is ruining their image with their anti Russian misbehavior and false flag scamming.

    • Jens Holm

      Russia cant defeat Nato now. They could before USSR collapsed.

      • chris chuba

        In Germany, you are correct. In Crimea or Belarus, I bet they can. Remember the parable of the Tiger vs. the Shark, it depends where you fight.

        • Jens Holm

          Somerhing like that.

    • FlorianGeyer
      • RichardD

        And there are other s that have been invaded on top of that.

        • FlorianGeyer

          There are indeed Richard.
          England controlled much of Northern France at one time.

  • russ

    It sure is a good thing the commander Keith was there to protect an escort those Russian ships. If it hadn’t been for that the vacationing British people probably would have came home and found the Russians living in their houses.

  • russ

    We Americans hope that if War comes with Russia that the UK can last longer than Georgia did. We hope they can slow the Russians down for at least a week.

    • FlorianGeyer

      If war comes with Russia it will be over in a flash and Britain will have room for a few tens of millions of African immigrants :)

  • marcusbond

    Rich & Powerful around the globe squabbling over maintaining, and/or increasing, their wealth and power.

    But the U.K. is in a hard place, under the current system it has to import less and export more, it’s citizens standard of living has to fall in respect of countries like China whose standard of living has to rise. We can’t have any more domestic driven recoveries, and any bubbles need nipping in the bud quickly. It’s also challenged by massive growth of the elderly, dwindling domestic energy supplies, and an IT & Communications revolution which is causing widespread disruption to its economy and its control over information.

    Just looking at the massive rise of the elderly… Over 50% of the NHS total annual budget goes on servicing the costs of caring for people in the last 6 months of their life. Yet we’re one of just a handful of countries who legislated to make assisisted suicide illegal. U.K. citizens who want the choice to end their suffering have to travel abroad, to more forward thinking countries, to end their life.

    Big challenges ahead for the U.K…

  • chris chuba

    It looks like the Russians discovered a cost effective way to bankrupt both the U.S. and U.K. Just slightly increase some long range patrols of either submarines or ships kind of near both countries and let them overreact. Use inexpensive ships that ‘look like’ expensive surveillance vessels or military ships but are more like decoys, it will drive us crazy. We will get even more nervous and our Intel agencies will call it maskirovka.

  • gustavo

    British people have not had yet the experience that France and German (and collaborators) have had trying to attack and invade Russia, and they were able to survive this experience. I do not think British people will survive its experience of attacking Russia.

    • FlorianGeyer

      Britain tried in in the Crimea once. That ended well :)
      We all came home quite quickly .