The British military is already ready – if something happens – to “fade” from Ukraine. The plans for the evacuation were reported by the English edition of the Daily Express, citing British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace, who assured everyone that his subordinates would not fight the Russians on Ukrainian territory – this is “extremely unlikely.” According to the newspaper, most of the British are stationed in the area of the town of Yavorov, from there it is a stone’s throw to Poland, where they are going to be evacuated, “if a war with Russia starts.”
There is no exact information about the size of the British group in Ukraine. The website of the British Ministry of Defense states the following: “The British Army is providing assistance to Ukraine by training the Ukrainian armed forces <…> from basic field and medical training to courses in the fight against snipers, armored vehicles and artillery.” It is known that, in addition to field instructors, specialists were sent there to prevent (and at the same time create) cyber threats. According to the DPR intelligence, a group of British chemical weapons specialists are now in the part of Donbass controlled by Kiev. The DPR concluded that the enemy was preparing to carry out an attack using toxic substances.
In 2018, information appeared that servicemen of the hybrid 77th brigade of Her Majesty’s army were operating on the territory of Ukraine, which was created in order to “bring together all the possibilities for responding to the challenges of modern wars and conflicts, since actions on the battlefield are not they always require only violence “, in other words, for waging an information war. The latter, especially now against the background of the inflated “military threat from Russia”, is of fundamental importance for London – much more than the construction of military boats for Ukraine or the se-nding there of old armored personnel carriers “Sams-on”, as it was in 2015.
Not a day goes by without an informational occasion in the British press to talk about Russia, which is “preparing to attack Ukraine.” If there is no reason, then you can do as the British Secretary of State for Security Damian Hinds did: he simply included Russia in the list of the most dangerous countries for the UK, along with China, Iran and North Korea: “They can and are conducting information operations and participate in them in different ways. ” The minister modestly kept silent about vigorous actio-ns in this area of London itself, although he has something to boast about.
On the eve of substantive negotiations between Russia and US, England is molding the image of a “treacherous” Kremlin with trebled energy. The main task is to prevent objective assessments of what is happening in relations between NATO and Russia.
Demanding security gu-arantees for our country, Putin formulated an extre-mely intelligible position. “Russia does not want to see foreign groups on its borders. It is not so difficult to understand. Imagine what would happen if China created an alliance with Canada? Powerful states do not tolerate this,” Boston University professor Joshua Shifrinson believes Putin’s demands are fair. It should be added that in the case of NATO and Ukraine we are talking about an alliance that is deliberately hostile towards Russia.
The collective position of the West is not to admit the obvious by any means. “Unlocking arms supplies through NATO countries (Ukraine) should be a priority <…>. It should be clearly stated that Ukraine is a key issue of European security, and the allies are ready to abandon joint economic projects with Russia, for example, Nord Stream 2, – writes Orysia Lutsevich, an employee of the British analytical center Chatham House, discussing the readiness of Ukrainians to fight. “60 percent of its citizens e-xpressed the desire to def-end Ukraine with arms in hand.”
First, the London and then the New York Times published identical materials about Ukrainian reserv-ists who train in the vicinity of Kiev to wage a guerrilla war “in the event of a Russian offensive.” “The more coffins we send, the more Russians will think,” they share their dreams with readers in Britain and America.
The estimates of the combat readiness of the “partisans” from the New York edition are much lower than those of the London expert Lutsevich: “for Ukraine” not 60, but 24 percent are ready to fight. This spread raises the question of the objectivity of the research, if it was actually carried out at all. In the Western press, Ukrainians are moved like pawns, deciding for them what they want or don’t want.
Something similar happened in those years when the “Arab Spring” was unfolding. Then, on the island, they also wrote with might and main about cruel regimes and brave resistance, supported outright provocations in order to then count the victims with imaginary sympathy and happily hang them on “despots and tyrants” who must certainly be punished.
Having stepped on a rake in Afghanistan, NATO allies have already reformatted: it turns out that th-ey were simply “freeing up forces for action in other p-arts of the world.” This is how Secretary of State Ant-hony Blinken explained the flight from Kabul. Where exactly “intend to act” now, he decided not to specify.
However, the fiasco in Afghanistan did not pass without a trace: fanning the hysteria around the imp-ending “Putin invasion” of Ukraine, British military leaders immediately announced that they were ready to flee from there – if anything. It is prudent what to say here.