The Illusion of Relevance: Why Britain’s War Rhetoric Against Russia Defies Logic or Reality

Nov 26, 2024

[British Defense Secretary John Healey dreams of fighting Russia]

“I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.” - Albert Einstein.

Greetings, dear reader. I greatly appreciate your support and feedback.

Today, we will pick up the thread of our last article, ‘On The Loathsome, Amoral, and Unethical Western Journalists.’ The vile nincompoops will not do the job they were supposed to have been trained to do. Please read it here:

We have also often wondered in this column what exactly they feed the people of the accursed island of iniquities that calls itself the United Kingdom to make them so delusional.

On November 22, 2024, UK Defence Secretary John Healey made waves with his truly bewildering remarks, suggesting that Britain must be prepared for conflict with Russia.

We looked at the Military Strategist wannabe's CV and discovered he has zero military experience. An MP since 1997, he has served as Secretary of State for Defence under a Labour government. Healey’s career began in public policy, including work in housing and social justice, before transitioning to senior political roles.

Despite his current defense portfolio, Healey does not possess direct military experience. So, we have a man with no combat or operational strategy experience waxing eloquent about fighting the nation with the world’s numero uno nuclear power.

Whichever we dice it, this statement, which has caused a domestic and international stir, is simply incredible.

Dissected against the hard facts of military capacity, geopolitical reality, and basic logic, this assertion borders on the laughably absurd. It is outright insane.

That explains why I often maintain that Western leaders are as uncultured as they are uneducated.

I do not claim to be a military expert; all I do is follow global trends, including the relative military strength of the leading nations. I faithfully read experts like Andrei Martyanov to be informed on military matters that mattered. I am a faithful devotee of Alistair Crooke and Dr. Gilbert Doctorrow when it comes to drinking from deep geopolitical fountains

To see just how patently absurd the British Minister's assertion is, we need to throw some statistics around to show the stark disparities between the British and Russian armed forces and question why a Minister would make such a reckless statement unless he were in a state of intoxication.

We also need to ask the stenographers who called themselves journalists who are supposed to hold the government in check refused to pillory him for his extremely ignorant views.

Only a country of sheepies would allow such claims to go unchallenged in political and media discourse.

Let's start with Manpower

The world now recognizes Russia as fielding the best and the most experienced military in the world.

Active personnel: Russia has approximately 1,150,000 active military personnel, second only to China. In contrast, the UK has just 150,000 active personnel—a ratio of nearly 8:1.

Reservists: Russia maintains a reserve force of over 2 million trained individuals, compared to the UK’s estimated 75,000 reservists.

Wartime mobilization: Russia’s potential mobilization capacity extends to tens of millions due to a population of 146 million and well-equipped infrastructures to train and deploy troops. The UK, with a population of 68 million, has no comparable infrastructure to train and deploy forces on a massive scale rapidly.

On weapons systems - Russia blows the UK away in every conceivable sector

Russia is the only country that has developed, tested, and used hypersonic missiles, a category of weaponry that fundamentally changes the dynamics of modern warfare. Even the Mighty US is still struggling.

The Russians recently demonstrated an entirely new category of hypersonic non-nuclear weapons that even Western military analysts agreed was a game changer. To blunt the US approval for Ukraine to strike deep into Russia, Putin ordered a strike on the Yuzhmash plant in Dnepropetrovsk by an entirely new missile he called the “Oreshnik.”

Per a report, “The plant and the workshops were hit by kinetic plasma strikes which turned everything into complete ruins, and not only their above-ground parts but also the underground structures.

The strikes were so high-energy that the concrete and brick used in their construction were simply crushed into small fractions. The depth of the damage was tens of meters.”

Still discussing weaponry, Russia is in an entirely different universe from the UK. The Kinzhal(Kh-47M2) hypersonic missile can reach Mach 10 speeds and evade all known missile defense systems, and it has already been deployed in Ukraine. Another hypersonic weapon, the Zircon(Tsirkon) missile, is specifically designed for naval warfare. It has a range of over 1,000 kilometers and the ability to strike targets in seconds. This missile single salvo can sink aircraft carriers.

United Kingdom: The UK pales in comparison. It does not currently possess any hypersonic missiles. It relies on older missile systems like the Storm Shadow and Tomahawk, which they built with American help and parts.

Naval Power

Russia’s world’s second-largest navy comprises over 600 vessels, including nuclear submarines, missile cruisers, and destroyers. Its Borei-class submarines are equipped with the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, which can carry multiple nuclear warheads.

The UK Royal Navy is a shadow of its former self when Britain rules the world. Its six submarines and two aircraft carriers are both a joke and an embarrassment. The UK’s puny nuclear arsenal comprises approximately 225 warheads, which are deployed primarily on Trident II missiles aboard its Vanguard-class submarines. Granted, they can do significant damage, but they are minuscule compared to Russia’s.

We should remember that, unlike France, which has an Independent Nuclear policy, the UK depends on the US. It is doubtful if the Americans will grant the British the right to drag them into Armageddon.

May the Heavens forbid it that we will witness a nuclear exchange, but Ministers like this British miscreant need their heads examined when they suggest pitting their country’s puny nuclear arsenal against a Superpower like Russia with an arsenal of over 5,889 nuclear warheads (the largest in the world). Russia can annihilate any opponent multiple times over. Its latest ICBMs, such as the RS-28 Sarmat (“Satan II”), can carry up to 15 warheads and strike targets anywhere on Earth with near-total accuracy. A single Sarmat missile could obliterate all the major cities in the UK in one strike.

The war in Ukraine has demonstrated Russia’s ability to adapt, innovate, and maintain high-intensity operations over prolonged periods. Examples include:

We should not even bother to go into Drone, Electronic, and Artillery Warfare systems in which the Russians have demonstrated that they are world leaders.

Given these sobering realities and the vast disparity between the two countries’s militaries, it is unbelievable that any British official who dreams about launching a war on Russia is not immediately put in a straitjacket.

The question here is why do British journalists, like their counterparts in Western media outlets, allow their political leaders to get away with insanely belligerent statements without challenging them?

This raises fundamental questions about the media’s role in scrutinizing those in power.

I am not a journalist, but I have enough brain cells to formulate questions that would have stopped ministers from blustering us with their lack of sanity and exhibiting their poor judgment.

I would have asked some basic questions that could have exposed the absurdity of his statement:

1. Manpower: “How does the UK plan to match Russia’s military size, given that they outnumber us by nearly 8:1 in active personnel?”

2. Resources: “Given the UK’s smaller defense budget and limited equipment, how can we sustain a prolonged conflict against Russia?”

3. Nuclear Reality: “Considering Russia’s overwhelming nuclear advantage, isn’t it reckless to discuss war without acknowledging the potential for mutual destruction? Is it not just insane to talk about going to war with a nuclear-armed state?”

4. Alliances: “Are you suggesting the UK could engage Russia without NATO’s full support? If not, isn’t this rhetoric misleading?”

5. Weaponry: “Russia has demonstrated advanced hypersonic missile capabilities. How does the UK plan to counter weapons we don’t even possess?”

Any claim that the UK is “ready for a war with Russia” is not only patently ludicrous but outrightly dangerous. It not only misrepresents the UK’s capabilities, but it underestimated the catastrophic consequences of such a conflict and risks inflaming tensions with a nuclear-armed superpower, most especially at these tense times.

How does one get it across to Western political leaders that they must resist the temptation to indulge in empty rhetoric and to the stenographers who call themselves journalists that they must hold their politicians accountable by asking hard-hitting, reality-based questions?

(Farmer, Writer, Published Author, Essayist, and Social Commentator.)

My latest book, From Stamp to Click (it’s still a hello) is published and is available online at:

https://www.africanbookscollective.com/books/from-stamp-to-click-its-still-hello

How to order it: https://www.africanbookscollective.com/how-to-order

My book, “Africa: A Continent on Bended Knees,” is available on:

• Amazon

• Booknook.store

My other books on Amazon:

• Africa: it shall be well (Get a FREE Chapter Here)

• Africa: Destroyed by the gods (Get a FREE Chapter Here)

You can follow me on:

X (Twitter): @PANAFDigest