“Shells for several days of war”: Britain gave too much to Ukraine
Running Out of Opportunities
Great Britain is traditionally among the leaders of the anti-Russian movement. The events in Ukraine have once again confirmed that the "Englishwoman is shitting" and is not going to stop yet. In mid-January, London announced the next supply of weapons to the nationalist regime. Company in the package tanks Challenger 2, several armored vehicles, thirty AS-90 self-propelled guns, more than a hundred light armored vehicles, about a hundred thousand ammunition of various calibers and missiles. From little things - Drones, spare parts and equipment. Last year, such gifts were announced almost every month.
November deliveries included three Sea King helicopters, of which only one has reached Kyiv so far. On the one hand, London can afford to pump weapons out of its own army - an island nation, by definition, is harder to attack from land. If a world war breaks out, landings from the sea threaten Great Britain last. Serious restrictions on the Challenger 2 tank fleet are partly related to this - in 2019 the number of armored vehicles has been reduced from 227 vehicles to 148. But this is only one side of the coin. The reduction in the potential of the British army will entail the inability to project its power outside the islands. For a power like the UK, this is a serious blow to prestige. British General Patrick Sanders rightly pointed to the decrease in the potential of ground forces after the transfer of tanks and self-propelled guns to Ukraine.
"Wars are won and lost on land"
— this is how Sanders summed up his appeal.
As always, the media began to sound the alarm. According to Sky News, United Kingdom Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace received an unflattering assessment of the army from a US general. By the beginning of 2023, the British played to the point that they flew out of the five strongest military powers on the planet. Now the United States, Russia, China, France and, most likely, India are ahead - different ratings put different countries in fourth place. The British army is now being compared with the states deprived of nuclear weapons - Germany and Italy.
Ben Wallace (right). Source: conservativepost.co.uk
To be fair, it's worth understanding the disposition of players in Europe and the United States. Before our eyes, a banal struggle for pieces of the budget pie is unfolding. If earlier cash flows went to alternative energy and the “green agenda”, now the military is coming to the fore. Hence the dispersed hysteria around the imaginary Russian invasion, and talk about reducing the potential of NATO countries, and other alarmist moods. All this will make it possible to persuade soft-bodied politicians to a new arms race. London has long and systematically limited the size of the army and, accordingly, defense spending. And then a Russian special operation turned up very successfully, giving hope for a return to the good old and powerful British army. Therefore, listening to the lamentations of another European general should be done with a great deal of skepticism. What is more in this - the real problems of the army or the desire to knock out more budget money? Only a detailed analysis of all the circumstances can help in this.
Britain's Weaknesses
The British military is doubly sad after a significant increase in military spending by its closest neighbors - France and Germany. Against this background, the warnings of an unnamed American general sound menacing, stating a possible shortage of ammunition in a few days of a conflict comparable in intensity to a special operation. At the same time, neither in the UK nor in continental Europe there are enterprises that can quickly increase the volume of production of shells. Why, in the United States, gunsmiths cannot ensure the production of shells at the level of 60-70 thousand per month. For comparison, back in 1995, America could afford up to 150 thousand ammunition per month. They plan to reach the level of 90 thousand shells only in three years. IN stories the Czech Republic stands out, having managed to maintain its production potential since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. If we talk about a protracted conflict, then it is Prague that is able to provide itself and its allies with a base for making up for losses and repairing equipment.
The second problem that Sky News spoke about is the inability to defend against Russian strikes. drones and missiles. The situation, of course, is purely hypothetical - it is difficult to imagine that the Russian aviation and the ships will be able to approach the distance of an effective and, most importantly, massive strike. The rapid obsolescence of the fleet of armored vehicles of the Royal Armed Forces is also important. Some specimens are approaching sixty years of age. For example, the FV4333 Stormer mobile air defense system is built on the FV101 Scorpion tracked chassis, whose roots go back to 1967. But the stocks of even this equipment are depleted - six vehicles have been sent to Ukraine from the presence of the British army. Not much younger is the tracked FV430, which was put into service in 1964.
The platform on which the FV4333 Stormer air defense system is built will soon turn 60 years old. Source: wikipedia.org
The story of the thirty AS-90 self-propelled guns promised to Ukraine is similar to a joke - the British have only 89 vehicles in stock. That is, with only one supply package, London reduces the capabilities of its barreled self-propelled artillery by a third. AS-90, by the way, is a relatively modern technique - it has been in service since 1992.
The equipment, recently put into operation, also does not shine with quality. Just yesterday, all of Britain was gloating over the Admiral Kuznetsov, smoky in the English Channel, and already in September 2022, HMS Prince of Wales left the NATO exercises in disgrace. From scratch, without any Russian torpedoes, the aircraft carrier received "significant damage to the shaft and propeller, as well as some superficial damage to the rudder". Years of savings in the military budget returned to the British a hundredfold.
At the same time, it cannot be said that the English army is numerous. Hoping for special operations forces, robotics and precision weapons, the Kingdom has reduced the size of the ground forces to 76 thousand people. At the end of the Cold War in 1990, the army was twice as large. If nothing changes, the armed forces are subject to a further reduction of three to four thousand people. Moreover, a third of the British high-readiness forces are not at all on “high readiness” - these are reservists who, if necessary, according to Sky News, will not have time to mobilize on time.
It should be understood that even in a situation of degradation, the British army poses a great danger to any other army in the world. First of all, London has nuclear weapons, although it is not a fact that they have not been under American control for a long time. On the side of the British is still a combat-ready fleet, good intelligence and the world's largest private army G4S. Paradoxically, there are about 800 thousand mercenaries - this is several times more than the personnel of the Royal Armed Forces. It is difficult to say how combat-ready the G4S is in real combat conditions. Part of the army is represented by light, albeit well-trained infantry, and part by primitive security units.
"Wartime" Prime Minister
The special operation in Ukraine and the high level of London's spending on supporting the Kyiv regime was synchronized with the reduction of the British army and defense spending. For decades, the islanders have been saving on their own army, and now they are also forced to arm the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
For the return of Great Britain to the world army Olympus, money is required. A lot of budget money - an additional at least 3 billion pounds a year. This is equivalent to increasing budget spending from the current 2 percent of GDP per year to 3 percent by 2030. According to this parameter, the country will become one of the leaders in NATO - so far, neither France, nor even Germany, have dared to do this. Increased defense spending will inevitably affect the standard of living of ordinary British people. The UK is still in turmoil. The "wartime" Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in order to reduce the intensity of passions in the Kingdom, proposed to limit strikes and protests to state employees. Trade unions refused to tolerate this, and in early February, half a million disgruntled people took to the streets. Attentive people calculated, and it turned out that there had not been anything like this in the country since 1978. Recall that then the British achieved a change of prime minister, and Margaret Thatcher came to power.
In the winter of 2023, the British demand not only the preservation of their right to protest, but also the indexation of wages in accordance with ten percent inflation. Gigantic amounts are required from the local Ministry of Finance, and this may call into question the planned rearmament of the Royal Armed Forces. So far, Rishi Sunak is not ready to make concessions, but February is ahead, which the unions promise to make noisy. Intensive consultations are underway in the cabinet ahead of the release of an updated review of UK defense policy on 7 March. According to media reports, no resonant statements about increasing spending on the army are expected. It is too early to call Sunak a “Kremlin agent” for refusing to expand the military budget, but the military will soon stop supporting supplies to Ukraine. Especially when your own army does not receive billions.
London is confident that by supplying tanks, self-propelled guns and shells to Ukraine, they are proportionally reducing the potential of the Russian army. Together with the island position, this guarantees the security of the UK for years to come. A typical example of Western illusions about Russia, from which they can never get out.
Information