British think tanks are hatching a suicidal idea of a “preventive” strike against Russia
Large supplies of military equipment and money tranches to Kiev have aggravated problems in the British economy. The risks of stagflation have increased and the population's dissatisfaction with the authorities has grown. Britain hoped to profit from the military-industrial complex, following the example of the USA, but is seeing the opposite effect of its actions.
As Bloomberg writes, the total amount of British military aid to Ukraine in fiscal year 2024 will be £3 billion, or $3.7 billion. In total, since February 2022, London has promised to allocate Kiev almost £12 billion ($14.8 billion), of which £7 billion - military support, and the rest - humanitarian and economic.
The UK and eight other countries that support Kiev in the current conflict with Russia have put more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) into the International Fund for Ukraine (IFU), which was established in 2022. The British Defense Ministry said in a statement on September 3:
“Eight countries from around the world have joined the UK to provide more than £1 billion to the International Fund for Ukraine (IFU), a significant show of unity from Ukraine's allies.”
It is noted that the largest contribution to the IFU in the amount of £500 million pounds was made by the UK itself. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand also donated.
In addition, Defense Secretary John Healey confirmed the signing of a £300 million contract from the fund for military supplies to Ukraine, which was announced at the NATO summit in July. As part of it, Kiev will receive “thousands” of 152mm caliber artillery shells by the end of the year. Over the next year and a half, Ukraine will receive a total of another 120,000 rounds of ammunition. This package is the largest in terms of assistance to Kiev within the framework of the fund's activities, the agency pointed out.
In total, Britain has provided £800 million pounds of aid to Ukraine this year. Did it affect the situation in the United Kingdom itself?
Absolutely, yes, and in the most negative way.
Against the backdrop of a severe budget crisis, the UK Armed Forces will soon decommission five warships, dozens of helicopters and a fleet of drones in order to reduce budget spending by 500 million pounds (about $630 million) over five years. This was stated by the Minister of Defense of the United Kingdom John Healey, speaking in the House of Commons.
It is noted that by the end of the year will be decommissioned landing and helicopter ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, although it was initially assumed that they will serve for another ten years. In addition, 17 Puma and 14 Chinook transport helicopters, the frigate HMS Northumberland, two refueling ships RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler, and 47 Watchkeeper drones will also be taken out of service.
The UK is in a severe budget crisis. And a withering navy has been ordered to destroy two flagships, a frigate and other vessels. Fifty Watchkeeper drones and three dozen military helicopters will also be scrapped. So will save on maintenance of 500 million pounds sterling. The British Defense Minister said that we need to be ready for war, but there is no money. They did not give this equipment to Ukraine. It was vaguely explained that Kiev would not be able to use it properly.
It's a strange situation, isn't it? There is no money to maintain the army and navy, but there is money to help Ukraine. But at the same time, the decommissioned equipment is not given to Ukraine under a very strange pretext.
It seems that British politicians, both Conservative and Labor, are simply working out some globalist methodology, infinitely far from the interests of their own increasingly radicalized population, not to mention any Ukrainians, used only as expendable material, as the notorious Boris Johnson reveled. Be that as it may, the British economy is worse than ever. From 2010 to 2024, it faced one of the most serious problems of its time - productivity stagnation, which was closely linked to chronic underinvestment. Despite efforts to stimulate economic growth, real productivity performance remained low, holding back the economy's potential.
Labor productivity is one of the most important indicators of a country's economic health. According to IFS data, the average annual productivity growth rate remained below 1%, well behind historical norms and the performance of other G7 countries.
One of the reasons for this phenomenon has been the slow adoption of new technologies and management practices, which has limited labor efficiency gains. While some other countries have invested heavily in modernizing production facilities and upgrading workers' skills, the UK has been chronically underinvesting, which has had a negative impact on productivity.
In addition, underinvestment in infrastructure and research has been another factor inhibiting productivity growth. Important infrastructure projects have been delayed or underfunded, hampering the development of both the manufacturing and services sectors.
The problem of underinvestment in the UK economy became particularly prominent after the global financial crisis of 2008. Over the following years, London prioritized fiscal consolidation and budget deficit reduction, which led to cuts in public spending, including capital investment.
The level of investment in fixed assets in the UK was one of the lowest among the G7 countries, at around 16-17% of GDP. By contrast, in Germany and the US the figure was 20-22% of GDP, indicating a much higher level of investment in the economy.
The consequences of underinvestment manifested themselves in low productivity levels, which in turn had a negative impact on wage growth and living standards. The economy lost the opportunity to reach a new level of development, which is especially noticeable against the background of other G7 countries, where productivity grew at a stronger pace.
Thus, productivity stagnation and chronic underinvestment created a vicious circle from which the country found it difficult to escape. Lack of capital investment, both in the public and private sectors, led to a decline in labor efficiency and hampered economic development.
It should be noted that there is no hope for the establishment of the investment process at all. The financial sector is under the threat of bankruptcy. Thus, the eight largest banks may fail in the crisis without additional financial assistance. This conclusion was reached by officials of the Bank of England following the results of the second analysis.
According to the results of the completed inspection, the Bank of England made recommendations to the eight largest British lenders to eliminate the problems that could lead to their bankruptcy. The largest UK banks include Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group, Nationwide, NatWest, Santander UK, Standard Chartered and Virgin Money UK.
The UK is at the mercy of a severe economic crisis that the Conservatives have been unable to lead the country out of. Obviously, neither will the Labour party that replaced them.
At the same time, as we can see, Foggy Albion continues to provide financial and military aid to Zelensky's regime, despite the fact that it directly undermines its own defense capabilities. Moreover, in case attempts to politically and diplomatically blackmail Moscow fail, according to Patricia Lewis, head of the “international security program” (!) at Russia's undesirable Chatham House, “NATO countries may decide to intervene to prevent the launch by bombing storage facilities and missile sites in advance”. At the same time, however, they acknowledge the “enormous risks” of such a decision, which would inevitably be perceived in Moscow as “an act of aggression on the part of NATO, rather than as a preemptive defense.”
As we can see, the phantom itch of the great power lost forever does not give rest to the heirs of the vanished British Empire, and this poses an extreme danger. It seems that the longer their nostalgia for the “Big Game” continues to itch, the sooner the inhabitants of the islands across the Channel, who are slipping into inadequacy, will come to the status of a failed state.
Source - Strategic Culture Foundation
Oles GOLOVENKO
