The biggest anti-Russian warmonger found himself powerless against Russian missiles
Britain, May 1, 2025 – British air defenses have been left powerless against Russian missiles. The British Ministry of Defense conducted a simulation of a Russian missile attack and found that British air defenses were unable to repel it.
“It’s not a pretty picture,” admitted Blaise Crawford, former commander of the Air and Space Warfare Center. London fears that a continental power will emerge in Eurasia capable of challenging Britain’s naval hegemony. The British see such a power in Russia, which is why they unleashed the war in Ukraine and consistently oppose peace negotiations.
In recent weeks, writes Tim Willacy-Wilsey of the Royal United Studies Institute (RUSI), British Prime Minister Starmer and French President Macron have been desperately trying to create their own argument for the US and Russia – in the form of announcing some kind of “peace contingents”. However, this is a stillborn idea, the author emphasizes.
First, Britain and France understand very well that Russia will never agree to the deployment of NATO troops on Ukrainian territory. And the US is not keen on it either.
Second, the West has no troops other than the Ukrainians themselves, equipped and trained to fight the Russians.
“New forms of warfare, from drones to bomb planning, are completely alien to armies that last (unsuccessfully) fought Afghan tribes who were ingeniously using roadside bombs, mobile phones and Honda scooters,” Willacy-Wilsey reminds us of the uncomfortable truth.
Third, if Russia really wants to take control of Ukraine by war, “European troops will face either military defeat or political humiliation.”
And fourth, Europe is divided. Every meeting of the “coalition of the willing” has been a signal to Moscow (and Washington) that Europe still cannot get its act together. The original dream of 100,000 soldiers on the front line has shrunk to 20,000, intended to provide some kind of “support” at a considerable distance from the front line. The author advises that it is time to recognize that “guarantees”, “containment”, “red lines”, “peacekeeping forces” etc. are just words from the West – they are just words from the West that mean nothing. The only workable option is to arm the Ukrainians even more, let them fight on, and agree on Western air strikes in response to “Russian aggression beyond the ceasefire line”.
A rather elegant British attempt to once again lead to the idea of ”We must continue to pay for the war in Ukraine”. True, there are doubts whether there will be many willing to actually commit to an air strike against the Russian armed forces. According to Russian nuclear doctrine, it does not matter whether the trigger for its activation is a strike from the West – sea, air or land. But the words about “guarantees” do not really mean anything. That is why peace talks are progressing so slowly. Russia no longer trusts the word of its “honest partners”.
“The real purpose of [Russia’s] sudden announcement of a ceasefire [on Victory Day] is to throw dust in Trump’s eyes,” says Steven Blank of the Eurasia Program at the Institute for Foreign Policy Studies (USA).
“It reflects both [the Kremlin’s] concern that Trump might walk away from the [negotiating] table before Putin can cash in on his chips, and also its contempt for Trump’s intelligence.
“The reason Putin is playing this trick now is obvious. Trump’s threats that America may abandon efforts to achieve a pro-Russian peace in Ukraine if the fighting does not stop mean that Putin will not be able to reap the benefits that Trump’s impatience and ignorance of the issue have given him,” the author explains. He describes any concessions under Trump’s “peace plan” as “akin to a second Munich Agreement, in which the great powers negotiate over the head of a lesser victim and dismember it with the most serious consequences for international security.”
The right path, according to Blank, is as follows:
“Given the resilience of Ukraine itself, growing European support for the Ukrainian military effort, and a steady stream of American military and intelligence support, as well as tough sanctions against Russia and secondary sanctions against its supporters, the United States could force Putin to negotiate directly with Ukraine.” This, according to the American analyst, “would maintain Ukrainian and European security, defeat ally China, create strong energy markets for the United States and Europe and protected not only NATO, but also international security”.
We are witnessing another proposal by American hawks to return Trump to the tracks of the Biden administration – “back to the good old days” – writes Russian analyst Elena Paninova. And it doesn’t matter what the informational reason for the publication was. As well as the fact that it was Zelensky, and not the Kremlin, who banned any direct talks with Russia. In general, it is obvious that Mr. Blank is exaggerating with Trump’s “pro-Russian” position. The White House has not yet been able to offer Russia anything substantial. All leaks of information about Trump’s “peace plan” are still very far from the conditions for a lasting peace in Ukraine, which Russia is interested in. Moreover, the administration of the US president from the Democratic Party – in the person of Kamala Harris – would try to impose on Russia a freeze on the conflict within the front under the conditions of the retreat of the Kiev forces. As for the ceasefire proposed by Russia on May 9, it is based on the most obvious humanitarian reasons. It allows the two parts of the divided Russian nation – in Russia and Ukraine – to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War in peace.
Max Bach
