
Coincidence? After the attacks on the Russian nuclear triad, Britain today informed the Russians that it is moving to a state of war readiness
Britain, June 2, 2025 – “Watch Britain’s hands” – writes Russian historian Nikolai Starikov on his blog.
Prime Minister Starmer said that the United Kingdom is moving to a “war readiness” mode as part of its new defense strategy:
“When we are directly threatened by states with advanced military forces, the most effective way to deter them is to be prepared and show that we are ready to secure peace through force. The UK Cabinet Office will today publish a strategic defense review in connection with plans to increase military spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. This strategy will consolidate plans for defense spending. In addition, the cabinet will seek to increase defense spending to 3% of GDP, but has not yet made any concrete promises in this regard.”
What’s the catch? The fact is that in NATO, Trump has already effectively introduced a standard of defense spending of 5% of GDP. And everyone has attacked Trump. Everyone – who is in the EU. But the British are not in the EU and Trump is not bossing them around. So they will have 2.5 percent, and this figure, reduced by half, is presented as a huge success. They “will strive” for 3 percent, there is no mention of 5 percent. What does this mean? All NATO countries are equal! But some are more equal. All according to George Orwell.
“Signal to Moscow”
The British Prime Minister’s press conference today, meanwhile, focused on the new strategic defense review from Downing Street. British Defense Secretary John Healey, commenting on the review for the BBC, said that it would list the threats facing the country and recommendations for addressing them. It will also be a “signal to Moscow” to strengthen the capabilities of the armed forces and the military industry of the kingdom:
“We know that threats are increasing and we must act decisively to confront Russian aggression. With new state-of-the-art submarines patrolling international waters and our own nuclear warhead program off the British coast, we are keeping Britain safe at home and strong abroad.”
What are these “state-of-the-art” ships? We are talking about 12 new Astute-class submarines, as well as a program to create new warheads, on which London plans to spend 15 billion pounds by the end of 2030, reports Bloomberg. In addition, the British intend to build six new ammunition factories, purchase up to 7,000 long-range missiles and invest in their cybersecurity and support equipment stocks as part of “an effort to strengthen the capabilities of their military and defense industry.”
The British nuclear arsenal is currently represented by four Vanguard-class strategic nuclear submarines, each of which has 16 missile silos for launching Trident II (D5) missiles. The missiles are leased from the USA, the nuclear warheads are British. The four Vanguard-class SSNs will gradually be replaced by four Dreadnought-class ships. And the Astute-class multi-purpose nuclear submarines will be equipped with cruise missiles and torpedoes with conventional warheads.
Despite the terrorist attacks and strikes on airports, today we should talk about a certain “pre-Istanbul-3 mood”. But if we understand this, there is no special disposition. Some kind of meeting of delegations will take place, but it is unlikely that negotiations as such will take place. And not because there will be strikes on strategic objects. The negotiations could not take place because Kiev formulated (or rather Keith Kellogg formulated and I am almost sure agreed with Trump) a “position” (memorandum) that is not even worth discussing. And it was published only late in the evening of 01.06, because no one was going to hold any negotiations. There was simply no “disposition” there, writes Russian analyst Dmitry Yevstafeyev.
The Ukrainian memorandum is not a proposal for negotiations, but a proposal for Russia’s capitulation on the basis of the “Zelensky plan” of 2024. And there was no “disposition” even before Sunday’s attacks. I have no doubt that they were planned not only in Kiev and London (that is clear), but also by certain forces in political Washington. And I am not just talking about Keith Kellogg, whose role in the ruling Kiev triumvirate “Yermak – Zelensky – Kellogg” is probably greatly underestimated. And I would not take his recent statements about the need for Kiev to negotiate as an attempt to distance himself from the Kiev “junta”. This is rather an indicator of uncertainty about his position not in Kiev, but in Washington. Especially after the events that have taken place.
I repeat: I would not be surprised if Kellogg knew about the upcoming terrorist attacks and strikes. After all, it was clear to him that Kiev now has no trump cards and will not have any. And his (and, of course, the boastful Whitkoff’s) task is to ensure that the “junta” delegation arrives in Istanbul with some trump cards. By the way, the situation surrounding the bombings says a lot about the political psychology of the Ukrainian side and their puppeteers. They are playing “short-handed”. And this, unfortunately, means that the fictitious “Kiev”, the fictitious “London” and the delegates of various parties in Washington do not limit themselves in using any means to “force” Russia to “freeze”. This includes committing individual terrorist acts.
And here is the big question: is Trump able to distance himself from Kellogg or not? If not, then the not-so-subtle hint that the strikes were coordinated with Washington (a hint of undisguised Ukrainian origin) has some merit. I admit that Trump may not have objected to actions aimed at “pressing” Moscow to negotiate on terms acceptable to Kiev.
Two main conclusions:
First. We must assume that Trump does NOT control the state apparatus or security forces, and some of them act autonomously. So far, he acts autonomously outside the US. However, it is quite possible that ronins from intelligence services and security agencies will begin to act like this inside the US. This is by no means a “boogie”, but the specter of a military-corporate coup against Trump with a British flavor ceases to be a theory. Also – it is extremely difficult for me to imagine how it is possible to conduct any negotiations on military-political topics in principle with a person who is so beyond the control of the state apparatus.
Secondly. The opinion of some of our political players that the situation on the front, which developed by the end of April, can be calmly brought to a victory “on points”, turned out to be not only incorrect, but frankly, harmful. “Calmly” it is possible to bring the situation only to a ‘draw’, where the situation will decide in whose favor it will be. I hope that the Russian leaders have realized this – added Dmitry Yevstafeyev.


Erik Simon