London vs Moscow?
British Prime Minister David Cameron is extremely dissatisfied with Russia's "behavior" in the Middle East. According to him, Russia's military intervention in Syria helps support the "butcher" Assad and "worsens the situation." Meanwhile, military experts and officers in the UK have begun to speculate about heightening tensions between Russia and NATO and the need to “modernize Tanks».
According to British Prime Minister David Cameron, quoted as saying "BBC"The Russian military sees no difference in Syria between Islamist and opposition militants fighting against Syrian President Assad. Mr. Cameron said this at a speech in Oxfordshire.
In his opinion, Russia's military intervention "actually made the situation even worse." D. Cameron called Syrian President B. Assad a "butcher", his rule was a "regime" and said: the Arab world is right, "condemning Russia for its deeds."
British newspaper "Express" published an article on its pages under the heading "UK must prepare for WAR with Russia: Army calls for fleet of battle tanks to take on Putin". This means that Great Britain should prepare for war with Russia, and this preparation must begin with tanks.
Britain should invest in modernizing its main battle tanks as the threat of a land war with Russia grows, the newspaper notes.
This "threat" is reported by British officers. It is expressed in the form of tension in relations between the NATO states and Moscow. In addition, the Russians threaten "nuclear countermeasures" in connection with the news about nuclear facilities in Germany.
David Cameron, continues the publication, is trying to find a "compromise" with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the fight against the terrorist group "IS" in Syria, however "Super Tank" led senior British Army officers to realize that the prospects for traditional ground warfare in Eastern Europe can no longer be ignored. "
The British Army currently has 227 Challenger 2 main battle tanks. This is a real force, but "they are in dire need of modernization."
Last year, the British army took part in a NATO exercise in Poland with more than a hundred armored vehicles. Operation Black Eagle highlighted the ability of the British army to "deploy an armored battle formation at short notice anywhere in the world in support of the Allies."
But the newspaper Express got wind of the fact that native Great Britain (unlike the aforementioned NATO allies) is not able to deploy a full tank squadron (14 tanks plus two in reserve) in thirty days.
It took more than three months to train some of the tanks! It took so long to prepare them because the cars were in storage or needed to be replaced.
General Nick Carter, head of the British Army, said that the future of the Challenger 2 tanks is being decided at the highest level. He confirmed there was a problem with the tanks. According to him, if nothing is done, then there will be more problems.
Meanwhile, "sources" (senior officers in the British army) confirmed to the newspaper that military experts think a lot about "the development of the new Russian main battle tank T-14, presented at the Moscow Victory Parade in May. Britain's "leading minds" are completely "focused" on this issue.
The “Focused” think, among other things, that the Russian army expects to receive as many as 2020 vehicles by 2300, representing a new generation.
Another challenge that has occupied "minds" is Moscow's recent announcement that it will be forced to retaliate in order to "restore the balance of power" in Europe if the US does indeed renew its nuclear presence in Germany and deploy twenty B61-12 bombs there. (at Büchel airbase in 2015).
Retired Major General Patrick Cordingly, who commanded the 7th Armored Brigade Desert Rats and led British forces to victory over Iraqi forces in 1991, said 100 countries in the world have battle tanks for good reason. ... And for Britain, not investing in its main battle tank would be "going against logic."
“A tank is more than a weapon system,” said the retired military man. - This is a way to make a statement about yourself. If you are trying to rule in another country, he (the tank) helps to fulfill your intention. "
But what is the state of affairs with the British armored heavyweights?
In 2010, most of the British tanks were put into storage. At the time, London strategists focused on the "asymmetric war" in Afghanistan. In 2012, it was even decided to sell the tank building base in Newcastle. The UK base in Germany is also due to close (by 2019).
As the newspaper points out, the events that have taken place since then, "including the Russian invasion of Crimea," have shown that Britain and the rest of NATO "must be prepared to consider Cold War scenarios, which include a conventional, symmetrical war in Eastern Europe. ". The "source" told the newspaper about this at night.
As follows from the material "Express", the British military were afraid of a "symmetrical war" with Russia. With tanks.
But the British Foreign Office is afraid of an "asymmetric" war.
In an interview with Reuters, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond called Russia's actions in Syria "a classic of Russian asymmetric warfare."
“A strong propaganda message is being offered stating that something is being done when in reality something completely different is happening. And if you show evidence, everything is flatly denied, "- quotes the words of the head of the British Foreign Ministry "Deutsche Welle".
Hammond believes that Russia today poses a threat to the international system: it shows disrespect for diplomatic norms (as an example, the "annexation" of Crimea is called). Nevertheless, the role of Russia in the Middle East is important: "It would not be in our interests to refuse to negotiate with the Russians on the situation in Syria due to the fact that we are strict in our assessments of what they have done in Ukraine."
However, Mr. Hammond immediately noted that attempts to negotiate with representatives of Moscow come to a standstill: "You try to talk to the Russians, and they just repeat their position."
However, Hammond does not deny that a transitional period is needed to end the civil war in Syria. President Assad could remain in power for “three days, three weeks, three years or even longer” (provided he does not participate in future elections). However, so far, the minister noted, "there are no agreements with either the Russians or the Iranians about the transition period."
It would be rather difficult to come to such agreements, we add. While Western "partners" divide terrorists into good and bad, into "moderate" and "extremists", Moscow is waging a real fight against the evil in the form of "IS" and that bearded mercenary rabble that "IS" complements. And the results of the struggle begun are already there: according to media reports, more than three thousand Islamist militants fled from Syria to Jordan. Russian blows aviation frightened all the warriors of Allah - from the "IS", "Jabhat al-Nusra" and "Jaysh al-Yarmuk" groups. The American coalition has not been able to achieve such effectiveness of strikes for many months.
According to British Prime Minister David Cameron, quoted as saying "BBC"The Russian military sees no difference in Syria between Islamist and opposition militants fighting against Syrian President Assad. Mr. Cameron said this at a speech in Oxfordshire.
In his opinion, Russia's military intervention "actually made the situation even worse." D. Cameron called Syrian President B. Assad a "butcher", his rule was a "regime" and said: the Arab world is right, "condemning Russia for its deeds."
British newspaper "Express" published an article on its pages under the heading "UK must prepare for WAR with Russia: Army calls for fleet of battle tanks to take on Putin". This means that Great Britain should prepare for war with Russia, and this preparation must begin with tanks.
Britain should invest in modernizing its main battle tanks as the threat of a land war with Russia grows, the newspaper notes.
This "threat" is reported by British officers. It is expressed in the form of tension in relations between the NATO states and Moscow. In addition, the Russians threaten "nuclear countermeasures" in connection with the news about nuclear facilities in Germany.
David Cameron, continues the publication, is trying to find a "compromise" with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the fight against the terrorist group "IS" in Syria, however "Super Tank" led senior British Army officers to realize that the prospects for traditional ground warfare in Eastern Europe can no longer be ignored. "
The British Army currently has 227 Challenger 2 main battle tanks. This is a real force, but "they are in dire need of modernization."
Last year, the British army took part in a NATO exercise in Poland with more than a hundred armored vehicles. Operation Black Eagle highlighted the ability of the British army to "deploy an armored battle formation at short notice anywhere in the world in support of the Allies."
But the newspaper Express got wind of the fact that native Great Britain (unlike the aforementioned NATO allies) is not able to deploy a full tank squadron (14 tanks plus two in reserve) in thirty days.
It took more than three months to train some of the tanks! It took so long to prepare them because the cars were in storage or needed to be replaced.
General Nick Carter, head of the British Army, said that the future of the Challenger 2 tanks is being decided at the highest level. He confirmed there was a problem with the tanks. According to him, if nothing is done, then there will be more problems.
Meanwhile, "sources" (senior officers in the British army) confirmed to the newspaper that military experts think a lot about "the development of the new Russian main battle tank T-14, presented at the Moscow Victory Parade in May. Britain's "leading minds" are completely "focused" on this issue.
The “Focused” think, among other things, that the Russian army expects to receive as many as 2020 vehicles by 2300, representing a new generation.
Another challenge that has occupied "minds" is Moscow's recent announcement that it will be forced to retaliate in order to "restore the balance of power" in Europe if the US does indeed renew its nuclear presence in Germany and deploy twenty B61-12 bombs there. (at Büchel airbase in 2015).
Retired Major General Patrick Cordingly, who commanded the 7th Armored Brigade Desert Rats and led British forces to victory over Iraqi forces in 1991, said 100 countries in the world have battle tanks for good reason. ... And for Britain, not investing in its main battle tank would be "going against logic."
“A tank is more than a weapon system,” said the retired military man. - This is a way to make a statement about yourself. If you are trying to rule in another country, he (the tank) helps to fulfill your intention. "
But what is the state of affairs with the British armored heavyweights?
In 2010, most of the British tanks were put into storage. At the time, London strategists focused on the "asymmetric war" in Afghanistan. In 2012, it was even decided to sell the tank building base in Newcastle. The UK base in Germany is also due to close (by 2019).
As the newspaper points out, the events that have taken place since then, "including the Russian invasion of Crimea," have shown that Britain and the rest of NATO "must be prepared to consider Cold War scenarios, which include a conventional, symmetrical war in Eastern Europe. ". The "source" told the newspaper about this at night.
As follows from the material "Express", the British military were afraid of a "symmetrical war" with Russia. With tanks.
But the British Foreign Office is afraid of an "asymmetric" war.
In an interview with Reuters, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond called Russia's actions in Syria "a classic of Russian asymmetric warfare."
“A strong propaganda message is being offered stating that something is being done when in reality something completely different is happening. And if you show evidence, everything is flatly denied, "- quotes the words of the head of the British Foreign Ministry "Deutsche Welle".
Hammond believes that Russia today poses a threat to the international system: it shows disrespect for diplomatic norms (as an example, the "annexation" of Crimea is called). Nevertheless, the role of Russia in the Middle East is important: "It would not be in our interests to refuse to negotiate with the Russians on the situation in Syria due to the fact that we are strict in our assessments of what they have done in Ukraine."
However, Mr. Hammond immediately noted that attempts to negotiate with representatives of Moscow come to a standstill: "You try to talk to the Russians, and they just repeat their position."
However, Hammond does not deny that a transitional period is needed to end the civil war in Syria. President Assad could remain in power for “three days, three weeks, three years or even longer” (provided he does not participate in future elections). However, so far, the minister noted, "there are no agreements with either the Russians or the Iranians about the transition period."
It would be rather difficult to come to such agreements, we add. While Western "partners" divide terrorists into good and bad, into "moderate" and "extremists", Moscow is waging a real fight against the evil in the form of "IS" and that bearded mercenary rabble that "IS" complements. And the results of the struggle begun are already there: according to media reports, more than three thousand Islamist militants fled from Syria to Jordan. Russian blows aviation frightened all the warriors of Allah - from the "IS", "Jabhat al-Nusra" and "Jaysh al-Yarmuk" groups. The American coalition has not been able to achieve such effectiveness of strikes for many months.
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information