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/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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 (Alexey) 27 November 2019 12: 18
    +1
    • 2
    • 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 at proving an axiom about how much 2x2 will be? There, it seems to me, there will be a larger 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” ... maybe there, the British ground forces will see their so long-awaited victory over Russia ... The main thing is that the dose be 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) 27 November 2019 14: 23
      -2
      • 0
      • 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 (Alexey) 27 November 2019 14: 36
        +1
        • 2
        • 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 (Grigory Arkharov) 27 November 2019 17: 46
          -3
          • 0
          • 3
          And what, someone was going to fight?
        2. Oleg Rambover Offline
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 27 November 2019 23: 52
          -1
          • 0
          • 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 (Alexey) 28 November 2019 00: 20
            0
            • 1
            • 1
            ... and this is just what they do best with “soft power,” not military. Military - how many times they tried, so many times in the face received. And “soft”, through its own, from the inside - the required result always came out. Well, they are there too, tea is not fools, so what to climb on us and the war in this case ... only to yourself more expensive ...
            1. Oleg Rambover Offline
              Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 29 November 2019 00: 13
              0
              • 0
              • 0
              Interestingly, how do you understand the term "soft power"? And what result is required? Even without war, the collapse of a country with a bunch of weapons, including nuclear, supplying a third? gas and oil to Europe is still a pleasure. And refugees, if anything, are unlikely to break into China. All the same, an army is needed. I say they are strange.
              1. Pishenkov Offline
                Pishenkov (Alexey) 29 November 2019 00: 19
                +1
                • 1
                • 0
                It is much simpler than explaining the term "soft power" and various types of its manifestations. Examples and results of using it with Russia can be given: the first is the Leninist revolution of October 1917, the second is the process from the end of the "perestroika" of the 80s to the beginning of the 2000s. The result in both cases is the collapse of the country with a bunch of weapons that supply a huge amount of raw materials to the whole world, and, of course, the refugees mentioned, for the most part not to China, although there too ...
                1. Oleg Rambover Offline
                  Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 30 November 2019 00: 03
                  0
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  In my understanding, "soft power", and it seems to me that it is closer to the truth, is, for example, English, or Hollywood films, or McDonald's, or the idea of ​​liberal democracy. For us, this 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 (tom44) 30 November 2019 09: 48
                    -1
                    • 0
                    • 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. 321 Offline
                      321 (321) 30 November 2019 12: 20
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      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 (Jamsut) 30 November 2019 13: 09
                        -4
                        • 0
                        • 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 fight for them. This time it would be Germans, Japanese, French, and a little later "grateful" Poles with Hungarians. And another trifle of 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. 321 Offline
                        321 (321) 30 November 2019 13: 18
                        +1
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        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 (Alexey) 2 December 2019 00: 33
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  In my understanding, “soft power” is any non-military one –– and what you mentioned, but also political corruption, propaganda, cultivation of an active internal anti-state force, etc. etc.
                  In 1917, the main business partner of Lenin in the coup was the Germans, they had the goal of leading 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 soldering in a concentration camp - first they would put a person in there, and then they would give a hawk so that he would not die right away or rebel, but also work, that’s such a humanitarian component ... They then, you see, they themselves got over what they had done. And they quickly realized that if in a huge country with a huge amount of weapons, including nuclear weapons, everything suddenly went to hell, starvation and the like started, then it would not be good for everyone, and the West in particular ...
                  1. Ravshan Offline
                    Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 09: 22
                    -4
                    • 0
                    • 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 rations in a concentration camp - at first they would put a person in there, and then they would give a hawk so that he would not die right away or rebel, but also work, that’s 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. 321 Offline
                      321 (321) 2 December 2019 09: 36
                      +1
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      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 a “economist” like you doesn’t have enough to understand that when they take it away, then the person who takes it after that gets the money for it, then how can one help such a “specialist economist”? 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 that’s not even the point - you write about your breed, you don’t have a clue about ours, although you regularly try to puff out your cheeks and then the whistle blower seems to “work” - this is not yours, it’s bad for you, it’s boring and monotonous ...
                    2. Ravshan Offline
                      Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 13: 34
                      -2
                      • 0
                      • 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. 321 Offline
                      321 (321) 2 December 2019 13: 54
                      0
                      • 0
                      • 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 (Alexey) 2 December 2019 11: 05
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  laughing Well noticed. laughing That's exactly the way they helped us, as

                  wise elderly woman hat.
                4. Ravshan Offline
                  Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 13: 36
                  -3
                  • 0
                  • 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 (Alexey) 2 December 2019 14: 06
                  +2
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  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 relations of the West with those whom they regularly, throughout history, "carried the light of civilization", and simply colonized, also, apparently, were built only on humanism ... hence millions of killed or tortured Chinese, Indians, Negroes, Indians, and the same Russian ... Shove yourself such a "humanism" in one place ...
                6. Ravshan Offline
                  Ravshan (Jamsut) 2 December 2019 14: 28
                  -5
                  • 0
                  • 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
                  Put yourself such a "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) 3 December 2019 23: 49
          0
          • 0
          • 0
          Quote: Pyshenkov
          In my understanding, “soft power” is any non-military

          Still, in the classical sense, “soft power” implies voluntary action, based on sympathy and attractiveness. Hard power implies coercion against the will. So hard power is all that you have listed, not just military.
          In February 17, Lenin and his Bolsheviks were nobody and there was no way to call them. In October 17, too, one should not overestimate the role of the Bolsheviks, and especially German money, in those days the power was lying on the street and Lenin picked it up. And actually, 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 soldering in a concentration camp - first they would put a person in there, and then they would give a hawk so that he would not die right away or rebel, but also work, that’s such a humanitarian component ... They then, you see, they themselves got over what they had done. And they quickly realized that if in a huge country with a huge amount of weapons, including nuclear weapons, everything suddenly went to hell, starvation and the like started, then it would not be good for everyone, and 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 (Grigory Arkharov) 27 November 2019 19: 20
    -3
    • 0
    • 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 (Alexey) 27 November 2019 20: 04
      +1
      • 2
      • 1
      ... yes, but it's not you ... wink
  • Sergey Latyshev Offline
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 27 November 2019 21: 34
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    Ah, the same with us.
    We are in the trench, and around the enemies ... and the shells are dumb ...
  • tom44 Offline
    tom44 (tom44) 28 November 2019 16: 00
    -2
    • 0
    • 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 technically can such a "war" be waged?
    1. Pishenkov Offline
      Pishenkov (Alexey) 2 December 2019 11: 08
      +1
      • 1
      • 0
      Of course nonsense! And how technically you can wage such a war, you ask the "Western analysts", they are doing it ... laughing In the Russian Federation, they do not even count the war with Britain ... especially on land. laughing