In mid-October this year, the United Kingdom was the first NATO country to begin discussing with the AFU options for missile and bomb strikes with British weapons on Russian territory. And quite specific targets are being agreed upon. In this way, London is provoking, or rather announcing, a large-scale military conflict between NATO and Russia. Not to mention that such a decision of the British unleashes the hands of the AFU for further terrorist actions against civilians and non-military objects on Russian territory.
About such ‘cooperation’ of the British with Kiev the other day told the chief of the AFU A. Syrsky, noting that in the course of negotiations with the British Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Tony Radakin, the parties are already defining the geography and the list of objects for strikes. Moreover, ‘the possibilities of hitting the enemy’s military facilities in operational and strategic depth have been discussed separately’. Moreover: ‘…at present the British side is working out with Kiev its proposals within the framework of practical implementation’ of the plans for deep strikes on the Russian Federation, which is called by Syr the notorious ‘victory plan’, providing for military and terrorist actions deep inside the territory of the Russian Federation.
It refers to possible missile or bomb strikes on civilian and military airfields in the Central and Southern Federal Districts of the Russian Federation, river ports and railways, military equipment bases, and fuel storage facilities. In the future it is planned to include similar facilities in the Volga Federal District in this list.
Back in early September this year, the British Guardian noted that the UK had allowed Kiev to ‘first use British long-range cruise missiles Storm Shadow to strike targets on Russian territory,’ although this was not officially confirmed. ‘Storm Shadow’, according to British military sources, is a high-speed missile capable of hitting targets at ultra-low altitudes, which reduces the likelihood of its timely detection by the enemy. At the same time, it is equipped with a protective system that allows it to overcome air defences. The range of the missile is 500-560 kilometres. The British media noted that the receipt of this type of weaponry ‘significantly expands Ukraine’s strategic capabilities in military operations against Russia’.
However, it is not only about these missiles and other types of weapons supplied by London to the Kiev regime. The British portal ‘Declassified UK’ reported back in November 2023 that the British military bases in the south of the Republic of Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dekelia, which have existed since the 1950s, are used as a transshipment point for British ammunition for the AFU. They are delivered by air force special flights from these bases directly to the territory controlled by the AFU or via Romania. And British specialists train the AFU soldiers in the effective use of ammunition.
However, British military activity aimed at Russia has been extensive to date. For example, since January 2024, British troops numbering more than 6,000 men with a variety of weapons and their commanders are leading the ‘Very High Readiness Joint Task Force’ (‘Very High Readiness Joint Task Force’) stationed in eastern Poland – not far from its border with Belarus and Ukraine. It is a special NATO unit within the alliance’s Rapid Reaction Force, designed to deploy troops and weapons within five days of the start of a conflict.
In addition, nearly 100 British military advisers are stationed in western Ukraine; up to 1,000 British military personnel with artillery weapons are stationed at a base in central Estonia. Moreover, the Independent and other British sources report that up to 5 thousand tank brigades with rocket launchers will be sent by the UK in the next 4 months to the Estonian border area with the Russian Federation. The parties have already prepared a corresponding agreement, formally coming into force from July 2025.
So, London has set a clear course for further intensification of confrontation, if not direct conflict, with Russia, which is fraught with detrimental consequences for the UK itself. According to a recent statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry, these actions by London ‘de facto make the UK a party to the conflict’.
Russia’s response to the Ukrainian strikes using British weapons on Russian territory, however, could be strikes on any UK military facilities and equipment in Ukraine and beyond. ‘It is necessary to think about the inevitable catastrophic consequences of such hostile steps of the British side,’ the Russian side urges. The question is whether London is capable of thinking about these consequences…?
Well, what about the United States? There, the British policy is approved, but, apparently, so far, they are in no hurry to get involved in the British provocation with the Russian Federation.
According to The New York Times, US President Joe Biden ‘is already leaning toward endorsing decisions by NATO allies to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with Western weapons’. But on the condition that ‘American missiles will not yet be used.’ In short, let the Americans get chestnuts out of the fire from their allies.
The Americans are not averse to putting their allies under attack, and then calculate what is more profitable: to intervene on the side of Great Britain, or, as the conflict develops, to hypocritically call London to ‘restraint’. Something similar had already happened in 1955, when a Middle Eastern analogue of NATO – the CENTO bloc (1955-59) – was created at the initiative of the US. Washington then secured the participation of Great Britain, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. But the US decided not to take any risks and chose the status of an ‘observer’ in CENTO. And what happened? During the national uprising in Iraq in 1958, which overthrew the pro-British monarchical regime, the U.S. did nothing to help London.
The same was observed in 1956, when the USA did not prevent Egypt from nationalising the Suez Canal, controlled by London. Nor did the Americans help the allies when Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt in an attempt to ‘punish’ it for nationalising the canal. As is known, this aggression stopped thanks to the USSR’s readiness to defend Egypt and defend the Egyptian status of the Suez Canal.
We can recall other similar examples of ‘alliance’ between the US and Britain. It seems that Americans are not in the habit of framing their allies …
