Western analysts predicted a complete defeat of Britain in the war with Russia


The British military-industrial lobby came up with another option for the “correct”, in his opinion, redistribution of funds, and the local media, literally in chorus, were quick to make taxpayers happy. According to the laws of the genre, working people must first be scared, so that they can easily part with money and tighten their belts. Therefore, heavy artillery was launched, in the form of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies, RUSI - an analytical center for defense issues.


So, this structure conducted “research”, after which it prepared a report (by Jack Watling), which, by “coincidental” coincidence, was prepared just for the upcoming meeting of the leaders of the countries of the “peace-loving” military-political bloc of NATO. According to the British media, referring to the document, the British ground forces, in the event of an armed conflict with Russia in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe, will suffer a “crushing defeat”.

It turned out that the British are sorely lacking “critical” firepower, which the Russians have more than enough. For example, the British are sorely lacking in various artillery, ammunition and vehicles. So the "rejuvenation and modernization" of ground artillery is called "urgent and extremely important priority." However, according to the report, the British military, who were going to fight with someone in Eastern Europe, it turns out, is missing a lot more.

Particular attention was paid to cluster munitions. The document clearly states that if the UK wants to win over Russia, then it urgently needs to abandon the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions and begin mass production. The report says that otherwise "enemy artillery will be able to fulfill its fire missions with impunity." In this regard, the UK needs to invest in expensive high-precision weapons and revise its earlier commitments. The author clarifies that in army circles with enthusiasm they will take this initiative. Moreover, the military is interested in developing this type of weapon. At the same time, the position of the British government for the author is not yet clear, but he hopes for understanding.

The British "researcher" even analyzed military capabilities in the "unlikely" context of a "high-intensity conflict between NATO and Russia." However, the UK Defense Department treacherously did not agree with the conclusions of the RUSI expert.

The UK is not alone, but is next to its NATO allies, who work closely with each other in the air, sea, land, nuclear and cyberspace to prevent threats and respond to crises. As Europe’s largest sponsor of NATO, the British Armed Forces are well equipped to play a leading role in countering threats and ensuring the security of the British people at home and abroad.

- said in a statement by the British military.

So we will be watching with undisguised interest whether the British military-industrial lobby will succeed in realizing its plan.
  • Used photos: http://zonwar.ru/
28 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
    Pishenkov (Alexey) 27 November 2019 12: 18
    +1
    The British troops, in the event of an armed conflict with Russia in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe, will suffer a “crushing defeat”.

    - and for this it was also necessary to conduct research? Maybe the "British scientists" are better off proving the axiom about how much 2x2 will be? There, it seems to me, there will be more field for research. laughing A -

    if Great Britain wants to triumph over Russia, then it urgently needs ...

    - ... apparently, as the classic said, "prick and forget" ... that's where the British ground forces might see their long-awaited victory over Russia ... The main thing is that the dose is decent ... laughing And with this in the British Armed Forces, in my opinion, there are just no problems - the sailors out there, apparently, are already defeating everyone ... with a Coxik ... wink
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 November 2019 14: 23
      -2
      Strange are these Westerners, right? They want to defeat Russia, but at the same time they are reducing the army.
      1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
        Pishenkov (Alexey) 27 November 2019 14: 36
        +1
        ... yes they want cuts in the military-industrial complex, and not defeat Russia, which also reduces the army ... laughing Bluffing is everything. A real big war, if it starts now, it is most likely due to some kind of computer malfunction, and not because of someone's desire to defeat someone ...
        1. Arkharov Offline Arkharov
          Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 27 November 2019 17: 46
          -3
          And what, someone was going to fight?
        2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 November 2019 23: 52
          -1
          What are you saying? But how will they suit Yugoslavia in Russia? Or, at worst, Libya? How will they select our resources? Some liberal things you say.
          1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
            Pishenkov (Alexey) 28 November 2019 00: 20
            0
            ... and this is what they do best with "soft power," not military power. Military - how many times they tried, so many times they got in the face. And the "soft" one, through its own people, from within, always produced the required result. They are there, too, tea is not stupid, why should they go after us with the war in that case ... only their own dear ...
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 November 2019 00: 13
              0
              I wonder how do you understand the term "soft power"? And what result is required? Even without a war, the collapse of a country with a bunch of weapons, including nuclear, supplying a third? gas and oil to Europe, it’s still a pleasure. And refugees, if anything, are unlikely to rush to China. All the same, the army is needed. I tell you, they are strange.
              1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                Pishenkov (Alexey) 29 November 2019 00: 19
                +1
                It is much easier than explaining the term "soft power" and its various types of manifestations, one can give examples and results of its use on the example of Russia: the first is the Leninist revolution of October 1917, the second is the process from the end of "perestroika" of the 80s to the early 2000s. The result in both cases is the collapse of a country with a bunch of weapons, supplying a huge amount of raw materials to the whole world, and, of course, the aforementioned refugees, mostly not to China, although there too ...
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 November 2019 00: 03
                  0
                  In my understanding, "soft power", and it seems to me that it is closer to the truth, it is, for example, the English language, or Hollywood films, or McDonald's, or the idea of ​​liberal democracy. For us it is the Russian language in the post-Soviet space, Dostoevsky, ballet and Russian vodka.
                  I’m saying that these Westerners are strange, at 17 they brought Russia out of the war, which increased the severity of the war for themselves. Extremists have come to power, dreaming of destroying themselves.
                  In the 90s they bought gas from us, they gave loans, they sent humanitarian aid, they tried equipment.
                  After that, can they be considered smart people?
                  1. tom444 Offline tom444
                    tom444 (tom44) 30 November 2019 09: 48
                    -1
                    Quote: Oleg Rambover
                    I’m saying that these Westerners are strange, at 17 they brought Russia out of the war, which increased the severity of the war for themselves. Extremists have come to power, dreaming of destroying themselves.
                    In the 90s they bought gas from us, they gave loans, they sent humanitarian aid, they tried equipment.
                    After that, can they be considered smart people?

                    I would also add the period from 1949 to 1962. During this period, the United States could, with impunity, force the USSR to abandon nuclear weapons (or destroy them). In this case, to this day they would have possessed it individually.
                    But that did not happen.
                    This is democracy. The system of government, very perfect in a peaceful and relaxed time. And very inefficient during the period of force majeure.
                    At the same time, not all the mistakes of democracy during periods of force majeure can then be corrected.
                    1. plabu Offline plabu
                      plabu 30 November 2019 12: 20
                      +1
                      Quote: tom444
                      ... I would also add the period from 1949 to 1962. During this period, the United States could, with impunity, force the USSR to abandon nuclear weapons (or destroy them). In this case, to this day they would have possessed it individually.
                      But that did not happen.
                      This is democracy. The system of government, very perfect in a peaceful and relaxed time. And very inefficient during the period of force majeure.
                      At the same time, not all the mistakes of democracy during periods of force majeure can then be corrected.

                      Personally, you can sing the praises of democracy further, but to the fact that in the period you indicated the United States could get a monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons or even destroy the USSR, this has a very indirect relation - in my posts I wrote about this before, but let's try to state once again - the total US losses in WWII are slightly less than half a million, and now the question is - what would the Americans do with a politician who tried to destroy the USSR, but in return the USA would receive losses in excess of losses in WWII?
                      So, without a guarantee that this will not happen, and did not try, in fact, of course, we mean nuclear weapons, conventional weapons are different ...
                      And later, the delivery vehicles arrived, those that were guaranteed to raise the level of losses, and in addition to everything on the territory of the United States.
                      1. Ravshan Offline Ravshan
                        Ravshan (Jamsut) 30 November 2019 13: 09
                        -4
                        Quote: 321
                        ... and now the question is - what would Americans do with a politician who would try to destroy the USSR, but in return for the United States would receive losses in excess of losses in WWII?

                        You have not written in a short guide?
                        Then I will write about this to you.
                        The Americans would not have suffered any losses at all. Their next hirelings would have fought for them. This time it would be Germans, Japanese, French, and a little later "grateful" Poles with Hungarians. And other little things in Europe.
                        But the mercenaries would not have to fight for a long time. Without supplies of military equipment and food from the USA, the USSR would have lasted a maximum of six months. Not more. And most likely, several months.
                      2. plabu Offline plabu
                        plabu 30 November 2019 13: 18
                        +1
                        Your manual, alas, was not able to understand WHAT WRITTEN ABOUT - so first try to understand the meaning of what was written, and only then you are welcome to comment))
                        PS Even today, the US has not yet mastered the function of instantaneous movement in space, then all the more so)))
                2. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                  Pishenkov (Alexey) 2 December 2019 00: 33
                  +2
                  In my understanding, "soft power" is any non-military one - and what you mentioned, but also political corruption, propaganda, the cultivation of an active internal anti-state force, etc. etc.
                  In 1917, the main business partner of Lenin in the coup d'etat was the Germans, they had the goal of bringing Russia out of the war, and they achieved this ... The Entente was quite happy with the "Provisional Government" ...

                  In the 90s, they bought oil from us, bought gas, gave loans, sent humanitarian aid, and tried equipment.

                  - this is just not necessary ... Oil and gas, and a lot of other things they bought BEFORE, and AFTER the 90s, and will be for a long time, because they need it from us. And everything else in the 90s was in order not to buy all this, but just to TAKE away as a result ... It did not work out, thank God ...
                  And the so-called "humanitarian aid" - it was something like a ration in a concentration camp - first they would put a person in there, and then they would give a hawk so that they would not die right away or rebel, but would also work, this is such a humanitarian component ... you see, they themselves have managed from what they have done. And they quickly realized that if in a huge country with a huge number of weapons, including nuclear weapons, everything suddenly goes to hell, famine begins, etc., then it will be unpleasant for everyone in general, and for the West in particular ...
                  1. Ravshan Offline Ravshan
                    Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 09: 22
                    -4
                    Quote: Pyshenkov
                    And everything else in the 90s was not to buy all this, but just to TAKE away, as a result ...

                    Are you so preoccupied? Do you even have a drop of that oil?
                    And then, what for to take it, if the aborigines themselves from the permafrost (bitten by a vulture) pump it out and deliver a small amount of money to the West?

                    Quote: Pyshenkov
                    And the so-called "humanitarian aid" - it was something like a ration in a concentration camp - first they would put a person in there, and then they would give a hawk so that they would not die right away or rebel, but would also work, this is such a humanitarian component ...

                    Still, the right was a wise elderly woman Shapoklyak.

                    Who helps people spends time in vain.
                    Good deeds cannot be made famous.


                    You were saved from starvation and mass cannibalism in the 30s.
                    You were saved from starvation and mass cannibalism during the years of WW2.
                    You were saved just from hunger and starvation in the 90s.
                    But thanks from you did not wait.
                    Because you have such a breed.
                    Ungrateful.
                    1. plabu Offline plabu
                      plabu 2 December 2019 09: 36
                      +1
                      Quote: Ravshan
                      ... And then, what for to take her, if the aborigines themselves from the permafrost (bitten by a vulture) deflate it and deliver a small amount of money to the West? ...

                      If an "economist" like you lacks something to understand that when they take it away, then the person who takes it himself gets the money for it, then how can such a "specialist-economist" be helped? hi

                      Quote: Ravshan
                      ... You were saved from starvation and mass cannibalism in the 30s.
                      You were saved from starvation and mass cannibalism during the years of WW2.
                      You were saved just from hunger and starvation in the 90s.
                      But thanks from you did not wait.
                      Because you have such a breed.
                      Ungrateful
                      .

                      Whistle, please, however, you do not get used to it - gratitude was, is and will continue to be - within reasonable limits, NOT a deification, as you.
                      But this is NOT even the point - you write about your breed, you have no idea about ours, although you regularly try to puff out your cheeks and then as a whistle-blower like "work" - this is not your thing, you do it badly, boring and monotonous ...
                    2. Ravshan Offline Ravshan
                      Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 13: 34
                      -2
                      Quote: 321
                      ... when they take it away, then the person who takes it after that receives the money for it.

                      And oil, she herself is drilling a hole, she is swinging herself and flows through her laid pipelines?
                      Or is it still necessary to do something for this?
                      Listen, you would be silent about the economy, or something. By God, tired of their denseness.

                      Quote: 321
                      ... you have no idea about ours.

                      To my great regret, I am more than closely acquainted with your breed.
                    3. plabu Offline plabu
                      plabu 2 December 2019 13: 54
                      0
                      Quote: Ravshan
                      And oil, she herself is drilling a hole, she is swinging herself and flows through her laid pipelines?
                      Or is it still necessary to do something for this?
                      Listen, you would be silent about the economy, whether. By God, tired of their denseness ...

                      You’re not even dense, it’s just a complete absence of the most basic knowledge - and on this subject, and not only, but first shut your mouth to yourself - how the environment will be cleaned, after your silence bully

                      Quote: Ravshan
                      ... To my great regret, I am more than closely acquainted with your breed.

                      Again you have been maliciously deceived - well, about the fact that you know each other. hi
                3. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                  Pishenkov (Alexey) 2 December 2019 11: 05
                  +2
                  laughing Well noticed. laughing That's exactly the way they helped us, as

                  wise elderly woman hat.
                4. Ravshan Offline Ravshan
                  Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 13: 36
                  -3
                  Quote: Pyshenkov
                  that's exactly the way they helped us, as

                  And you, no matter how you help, gratitude still can not wait.
                  Therefore, it would be most correct not to help.
                  But the West cannot do that.
                  In the West, "humanism".
                  Perhaps, in the end, the Roman Empire died. From excess humanism. Cruel, uncivilized and absolutely non-humane barbarians in the end turned out to be more viable.
                5. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
                  Pishenkov (Alexey) 2 December 2019 14: 06
                  +2
                  In the West, "humanism".

                  - Yes, yes ... I really didn’t think that the Roman Empire died because of its own humanism. laughing Yes, and all the most terrible ways of destroying people, that one by one, which is massive, also all invented in the West - this is from an overabundance of humanism, probably. They used all this, and always the first.
                  And the attitude of the West to those whom they regularly, throughout history, "brought the light of civilization", and simply colonized, also, apparently, were built only on humanism ... hence the millions of killed or tortured Chinese, Indians, Negroes, Indians, and the same Russians ... Shove yourself such "humanism" in one place ...
                6. Ravshan Offline Ravshan
                  Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 14: 28
                  -5
                  Quote: Pyshenkov
                  hence millions of killed or tortured Chinese, Indians, Negroes, Indians, and the same Russians ...

                  Green snot is now not in price.
                  Therefore, do not generate them.
                  Especially inventing fairy tales about how the West spread rot on Russians and Soviet citizens.

                  Quote: Pyshenkov
                  Shove yourself such "humanism" in one place ...

                  It is understandable, humanism and Soviet citizens, these are incompatible concepts. During the period of power of rogue Bolsheviks in Russia, this was proved more than clearly.
        3. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 3 December 2019 23: 49
          0
          Quote: Pyshenkov
          In my understanding, "soft power" is any non-military

          Still, in the classical sense, "soft power" implies the voluntariness of actions, based on sympathy and attractiveness. Hard power implies compulsion against will. So hard power is everything you listed, not just military power.
          In February 17, Lenin and his Bolsheviks were nobody and there was no way to call them. In October 17, it is also not necessary to overestimate the role of the Bolsheviks, and even more so of German money, in those days power was lying on the street and Lenin picked it up. And in fact, Germany in those years was not the "West", but opposed it.

          Quote: Pyshenkov
          - this is just not necessary ... Oil and gas, and a lot of other things they bought BEFORE, and AFTER the 90s, and will be for a long time, because they need it from us. And everything else in the 90s was in order not to buy all this, but just to TAKE away as a result ... It did not work out, thank God ...
          And the so-called "humanitarian aid" - it was something like a ration in a concentration camp - first they would put a person in there, and then they would give a hawk so that they would not die right away or rebel, but would also work, this is such a humanitarian component ... you see, they themselves have managed from what they have done. And they quickly realized that if in a huge country with a huge number of weapons, including nuclear weapons, everything suddenly goes to hell, famine begins, etc., then it will be unpleasant for everyone in general, and for the West in particular ...

          I’m saying these are strange Westerners. First they want to destroy Russia, then they change their minds, then they want to again. They want to take oil from a country with a second world army and nuclear weapons, but for some reason they ignore the weak Nigeria with almost the same oil reserves as Russia. Do you know why the big frontal wars stopped? They became disastrously unfavorable even for the winner.
  • Arkharov Offline Arkharov
    Arkharov (Grigory Arkharov) 27 November 2019 19: 20
    -3
    Strange are these Westerners, right? They want to defeat Russia, but at the same time they are reducing the army.

    - at least someone tried to think logically.
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 27 November 2019 20: 04
      +1
      ... yes, but it's not you ... wink
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 27 November 2019 21: 34
    0
    Ah, the same with us.
    We are in the trench, and around the enemies ... and the shells are dumb ...
  • tom44 Offline tom44
    tom44 (tom44) 28 November 2019 16: 00
    -2
    Western analysts predicted a complete defeat of Britain in the war with Russia

    To delirium!
    Why on earth would Britain go to war with Russia?
    How can such a "war" be waged technically?
    1. Pishenkov Offline Pishenkov
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 2 December 2019 11: 08
      +1
      Of course nonsense! And how technically it is possible to wage such a war, you ask the "Western analysts", they are doing this ... laughing In the Russian Federation, they do not even count the war with Britain ... especially on land. laughing