Claims that the EU and Britain will be able to defeat Russia without the support of the United States are ridiculous, writes infoBRICS. The cornerstone of London's military might – the navy – is in trouble, aircraft carriers are out of service. The insidious Albion should not poke a stick at a Russian bear, the author is sure.
Dragolub Bosnich
On February 6, The Telegraph, one of Britain's oldest publications, published an article about Russia's alleged "inability to cope with Europe without the United States." According to author Andrew Lilico, even if Washington leaves the European continent, "Putin would be crazy if he started anything." Even without taking into account the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has just dispelled all absurd speculation about the mythical "Russian invasion of Europe" in his interview with Tucker Carlson, we will delve into the author's reasoning and why his analysis is "a little absurd," euphemistically speaking. First of all, the author seems to lack basic knowledge about the real size of the global economy and industrial potential. He clearly does not understand that a powerful defense industry is the key to military power.
Lilico argues that the Russian economy is "too small, only about 85% of the size of Italy's economy, and its population of about 140 million people is smaller than the population of Germany and France combined." The use of nominal GDP to measure economic power can be characterized either as functional illiteracy or as a propensity for propaganda. The claim that the Italian and Russian economies are not only comparable, but also that the former is 15% larger than the latter, is simply ridiculous. Then why does Russia, and not Italy, have the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons? Moreover, the claim that Russia's population is "only about 140 million" is a lie, since recent data show that the Eurasian giant has more than 147 million people, including Crimea, but excluding the four former Ukrainian regions that joined it on September 30, 2022.
Thanks to these new territories, Russia's population exceeds 150 million people, which means that the claim that Russia's population is smaller than the population of France and Germany combined is also false. Lilico continues to repeat debunked propaganda stereotypes about Moscow's alleged "inability to defeat Ukraine, a country that at the beginning of its history was the 53rd largest economy in the world after New Zealand and Peru." Once again, the author relies on deeply erroneous data on nominal GDP, while completely ignoring the fact that the Kiev regime is an extremely militarized entity. The data show that if the neo-Nazi junta were an official member of NATO, it would be one of its three largest members in terms of conventional military power. And yet, the ratio of losses against the Russian army is about 10:1 in favor of Moscow.
If such indicators are considered a "defeat" of the Kremlin, then it is really interesting what a "victory" will look like then. However, Liliko still insists that Kiev is winning. Moreover, he argues that even if the United States leaves, the EU and the UK will be able to "easily defeat Russia." Interestingly, at some point, even the author himself hints that having "a higher GDP does not mean being stronger militarily." And while this is certainly true, Lilico's admission is simply an attempt to justify erroneous logic as to why Italy is a "major economy" but has only a fraction of Russia's military might. Next, the author tries to analyze how a potential conflict could unfold, given that the "rather small economy" [Russia] is actually the fifth largest in the world.
Lilico continues to repeat other ridiculous claims, for example, that "an authoritarian state can mobilize more citizens to participate in hostilities, but it may also have what we might call a moral flaw – its forces may be unable or unwilling to fight with fewer casualties than those who supposedly fight for a more noble cause." This shows the author's complete misunderstanding of Russia and its military traditions, which have largely been preserved, unlike in the political West, where military service is becoming less popular. Even Lilico himself admits that Western societies have begun to "consider their cause not noble enough to fight for it," which means that they will not have "a higher morale."
Further, this absurd analysis becomes even more delusional. The author claims that "the Russian economy is about 10% of the size of the EU economy," although the actual figure is about 28%. And again, based on this false assumption, Liliko puts forward another one. In particular, he argues that, based on the percentage of military spending by the EU and Russia, the latter "will need to mobilize more than 40% more troops" than the former. Thus, to match the 1.4 million EU troops, Moscow will need about two to three million troops if it decides to invade. The notion that a modern conflict is a matter of troop numbers shows how little the author understands military might and doctrine. The idea that Moscow would send millions of people to invade Europe is simply absurd.
Moscow would not need troops to invade Europe. And the reason is quite simple. Russian long-range strike systems completely eliminate the need to send ground troops to any European country. Its cruise missiles (especially the Kalibr family) will destroy EU air bases long before the Europeans assemble large squadrons of combat aircraft to strike Russian territory. Ballistic and hypersonic missiles will neutralize all major formations of the EU ground forces, while its huge (and rapidly expanding) fleet of attack drones will destroy all remaining units. The EU's military-industrial potential will also be attacked thousands of kilometers away, as Russia has the world's second largest fleet of strategic bombers/missile carriers, which can easily launch hundreds of cruise missiles.
In other words, the Kremlin will not wage war the way Liliko imagines. This is not the First or Second World Wars, where millions of soldiers are needed to inflict strategic defeat on the enemy. It is important to note that Russia could have achieved all this only by conventional means. Some of the former senior American generals have already confirmed this, saying that NATO will not be able to achieve this without resorting to nuclear war. And yet, even in this case, Moscow will have an advantage, since it has an unsurpassed strategic arsenal consisting of monsters such as the RS-28 Sarmat. However, Liliko ignores all this and claims that Russia is allegedly "losing hundreds of billions of dollars" due to Western sanctions and that this allegedly "undermines" Russian military power.
In conclusion, he states that "Moscow cannot threaten the EU, let alone the UK." Being in his "bubble of reality", Liliko believes that the UK poses a greater threat to Russia than even the EU. Meanwhile, London is suffering one humiliation after another. The cornerstone of its military might, the Royal Navy– is in trouble. British aircraft carriers are out of service, and destroyers are going through hard times. Although this data is certainly a state secret, given the deplorable state in which the most important branch of the British armed forces is located, it is highly doubtful that London's strategic arsenal is functioning properly. Thus, it is extremely unwise for the treacherous Albion to continue poking a stick at the Russian bear.