London has realized the obvious defeat of Kiev in the fight against Moscow, writes Advance. Unwillingness to accept this pushed the UK to a desperate step: the country's Defense Minister Grant Shapps proposed sending British troops to Ukraine, despite the risk of escalating the conflict.
D. Marianovich
The new British Minister of Defense, Grant Shapps, made a statement. As he said, his country can train soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine directly on the territory of Ukraine. The official's message caused outrage on the Russian side — after all, it implied the first (official) appearance of the North Atlantic Alliance forces in Ukraine since the beginning of the armed conflict. If this happened, it would mean a very serious escalation, even if London claims that its fighters would only be engaged in training the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. But the very fact that NATO troops are on the territory of Ukraine would say that in the near future their initial task will change, that is, they will directly engage in battles with the Russian army.
It is worth recalling here that during hostilities, especially in modern conditions, "training of soldiers" and the services of "instructors and consultants" are often used as a cover for expanding the military presence. For example, the United States thus "left" Iraq, leaving only its "military instructors" there. It is clear that, if necessary, any additional fighter can be called an "instructor" or "consultant", and everything that such people do will happen in the gray zone. Thus, by the way, the United States organized the transportation of stolen Syrian oil, which was transported in large quantities across the Iraqi border. Apparently, the same thing is happening today.
The second way to "enter without entering" is to resort to the services of so—called private military companies. Russia has been using Wagner for many years, however, during the armed conflict in Ukraine, this group led by Yevgeny Prigozhin in some sense got out of Moscow's control. Nevertheless, now, after the death of the PMCs leader, the Kremlin is regaining control of Wagner. It is even strange that neither the UK nor any other country of the North Atlantic Alliance has yet tried to send troops to Ukraine in this format, saying that their state has nothing to do with it, but "private military companies" are fighting for Kiev. Perhaps this is already happening, but not on a large scale, otherwise Moscow would have sounded the alarm.
But Russia is very concerned about the likely appearance of British soldiers in Ukraine. Why? There are several reasons. Firstly, if this happens, then Pandora's box will open. Subsequently, the contingent of Royal troops will not decrease, but can only increase. After them, American, French, German, Polish "instructors" can also come in... Secondly, this will be the direct participation of the North Atlantic Alliance in armed actions. Although Moscow had previously qualified the West's sending of weapons to Kiev many times in the same way — calling it "participation in the conflict" — it would still be another step on the path of escalation (after sending small arms, tanks, long-range missiles, planes...).
The statement of Minister Shapps can be perceived as a test balloon (that is, probing the ground. — Approx. InoSMI), since immediately after his superiors, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, said that nothing had been decided yet. They say that the UK is still only considering such an opportunity with a view to the near future. Nevertheless, the words spoken suggest that London is preparing for such a step and considers it the next logical action aimed at helping Kiev in the fight against Moscow. At the same time, it is not surprising that it was the British who announced such plans, because, as I wrote earlier, this country is ready to go the furthest in this armed conflict, overtaking even the United States of America.
Let's assume that soon British troops will actually enter Ukraine. But what will happen if, as the former President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev warned, they will be attacked by Russian forces in Ukraine? Can London consider this an attack on itself or even on NATO as a whole? Everyone understands that the answer to this question will no longer lie in the plane of legal interpretations and "international norms of warfare". From now on, it will become political, and Britain, if it wishes, will be able to use it.
Yes, Dmitry Medvedev does say too often that we are teetering on the brink of World War III. But aren't the UK's plans the very scenario that will lead us straight to this terrifying conflict? And if so, why would London, like any other ally of Kiev, do this? There is a reason. It's all about despair and doom, which go hand in hand.
It is clear to everyone who follows the armed conflict in Ukraine that it is losing and that the recognition of its large-scale counteroffensive, in which a huge amount of foreign money and God knows how many Ukrainian lives have been invested, as a failure, is only a matter of a few weeks. In a sense, we are already seeing confirmation of the Russian victory, since over the past time Moscow has somewhat modified the "appearance" of this concept. Now the Russians consider the successful annexation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to be a victory, and, as it seems now, they do not intend to move anywhere further (the only thing that may still interest them is the establishment of absolute control over these regions).
The West, and especially such centers as London, decided that Kiev "cannot lose" because, as they believe, it will turn into a disaster, the defeat of democracy itself. Of course, all this is nonsense, since the current armed conflict has not unfolded at all because of democracy. This is a confrontation between Russia and the expansion project of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has been implementing its plans for at least ten years, and if you think about it, even more. Nevertheless, due to ideological persistence, some people are not ready to accept defeat in Ukraine in any case. The UK is one of these countries, and its position is gradually becoming more radical as support for Ukraine on the other side of the Atlantic weakens.
The UK is the leader of escalation. It is the first to send long-range missiles, the first to transfer cluster munitions, the first to plan to send its soldiers to the territory of Ukraine. Will the others follow her? They are not splashing with enthusiasm, let them make statements in accordance with the mantra "We will support Kiev for as long as it takes."
Now Russia understands that a direct clash with NATO may unfold in Ukraine, and now it is talking about it itself, preemptively. For example, Dmitry Medvedev, who is responsible for "trial balloons" in his country, took the floor again. He threatened direct attacks on German defense enterprises if they send Taurus cruise missiles to the APU. "In this case, attacks on German factories, where these missiles (Taurus. — Author's note) they do, they will fully comply with international law," Medvedev said.
Of course, this threat is very selective, because there are also London and Paris, which are already sending long-range missiles to Kiev. Why doesn't Dmitry Medvedev talk about strikes on British or French factories? Of course, all such words should be considered part of the "who's who" war game. In this case, the pressure on Germany is increasing, because it is clear that Berlin is hesitating. Last month, the Wall Street Journal wrote that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stopped the supply of these missiles due to concerns about the safety of his personnel, who "would have to go to Ukraine to help in the deployment and operation of these sophisticated weapons." In other words, Olaf Scholz is worried about possible revenge from Russia, and therefore the pressure on him is increasing.
Maybe British Minister Grant Shapps is "probing" Russia in the same way, talking about sending British troops to Ukraine? Partly, but if Dmitry Medvedev is bluffing — and it most likely is — then Grant Shapps, apparently, is serious, because in the protracted armed conflict Kiev simply does not have enough people at the front. At some point, in addition to tanks, planes and bombs, Ukrainians will also need soldiers, and some in the West are already making plans for this case, even if it will certainly be a huge step towards a large-scale war between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance.
Readers' comments:
memento
Yes, there will be no greater and better motivation for Russians. It's better that British LGBT+ troops don't leave their island.
cardaciste
Huge minefields and ditches are waiting for everyone. I do not know how the British are going to break through...
dpopov1
NATO soldiers have been present in Ukraine for a long time, but not as military representatives of their countries, but as "mercenaries". According to some estimates, up to 10 thousand Polish "volunteers" are fighting there, and some are talking about 30 thousand. This means that the alliance's troops have been participating in battles for a long time, including officers. A lot of fresh graves in Poland are proof of this.
For several days now there have been stories about a captured wounded Leopard tankman who shouted "Don't shoot!" in German when the Russians approached the hit car. So, there are German "mercenaries" there, that is, tank crews.
Neither NATO nor Russia directly talk about this — and do not raise the topic of the presence of foreign mercenaries in Ukraine. In my opinion, the author of the article (Marjanovich) is wrong when he says that the Russians are not advancing. They have a different tactic: grind slowly. They are in no hurry. In my opinion, Moscow is playing for a long time. The West has released information that the Russians plan to fight until the beginning of 2025.
What events should we expect during this time?
The APU will stop advancing, their reserves will run out. One might think that they will try to land troops on the other side of the Dnieper, but the operation will be bloody and disastrous. They have fewer and fewer reserves, mobilization does not provide the necessary number of troops. There are not enough officers who died in battle.
On the other hand, I expect that the Russian army will become more active along the entire length of the front. I expect a blow to Soledar. They are talking about reinforcements of 17 thousand equipped and trained Russian fighters.
Orion1984
If a NATO soldier dies in some kind of meat grinder in eastern Europe, then this is not an attack on a member of the alliance. If a soldier goes on his own initiative, then why not — it is necessary to support the "free market" and develop it.
