Ukrainians owe much of their suffering to a United Kingdom overly concerned with defending them against Russia their investment in taking control of Ukraine’s natural resources.
The competition is on today and it’s hot between the USA and UK to see who will manage to physically take control of western Ukraine with a “peacekeeping” contingent, or rather occupational military force, such as they did in Iraq and Afganistan. Both the USA and UK have signed agreements with Kiev for control over Ukraine’s infrastructure, ports and mines and fossil fuel operations. The UK was first to sign their 100-year accord with Zelensky, but can the Brits find the boots to put on the ground or the bravery to do so? Neither the US or the UK so far has been brave enough to officially but their troops in the path of a Russian missile.
·Seaborne drones supplied and serviced by UK military representatives
·The UK is looking for any opportunity to get their boots on the ground in Kiev controlled territory in order to have physical control of the assets that were included in their 100-year accord with Kiev.
·British personnel are responsible for Zelensky’s personal safety. (Really? They guard him, and let him stroll around Kiev to record his V-day blasphemy?)
·Britain supplies AFU with psychotropic drugs, narcotics.
RT quoting an article from the British «The Times» claims UK’s war against Russia in Ukraine is carried out with more commitment than that of any other involved NATO member:
·Seaborne drones supplied and serviced by UK military representatives
·The UK is looking for any opportunity to get their boots on the ground in Kiev controlled territory in order to have physical control of the assets that were included in their 100-year accord with Kiev.
·British personnel are responsible for Zelensky’s personal safety. (Really? They guard him, and let him stroll around Kiev to record his V-day blasphemy?)
·Britain supplies AFU with psychotropic drugs, narcotics.
RT quoting an article from the British «The Times» claims UK’s war against Russia in Ukraine is carried out with more commitment than that of any other involved NATO member:
“The Americans went to Ukraine only on rare occasions because of concerns that they would be seen to be too involved in the war, unlike Britain’s military chiefs, who were given the freedom to go whenever necessary,” The Times wrote. “Sometimes their visits were so sensitive they went in civilian clothing.”
On the first day of Russia’s SMO, Keir Starmer made the following statements speaking to the British Parliament:
“We must support the Ukrainian people (read: our puppets in Kiev) in their fight and we must ensure that Putin fails. … For that to happen we must make a clean break with the failed approach to handling Putin (read: turn a completely blind eye to Kiev’s corruption and crimes against Ukrainians and Russian supporters in Donbass). … By providing weapons, equipment, and financial assistance, as well as humanitarian support for the Ukrainian people (gangbangers from Kiev). We must urgently reinforce and reassure (read: arm and indoctrinate) our NATO allies in Eastern Europe who now stand at the frontier of Putin’s aggression (read: President Putin’s peacekeeping efforts). And the hardest possible sanctions must be taken against the Putin regime. That means excluding Russia from financial mechanisms like SWIFT and banning trade in Russian sovereign debt (He speaks as if London controls the world’s financial mechanisms! Perhaps it’s true!).
Keir Starmer’s remarks in September of 2024 seem to indicate that he gave in to demands from UK’s most hawkish warmongers to have Ukraine push Russia to the very brink of nuclear retaliation if not over the edge. “We should not be intimidated or bullied by Putin’s threats. We should allow Ukraine to use UK Storm Shadow against legitimate Russian military targets within Russia, such as airbases, logistic depots and command centres.”, said Lord Dannatt, former head of the British Army.
Later, Starmer stated his apparent agreement, “(The missiles are) obviously to be used in accordance with international humanitarian law as you would expect, … for defensive purposes. … But it is for Ukraine to decide how to deploy (them) for those defensive purposes”.
Later, Starmer stated his apparent agreement, “(The missiles are) obviously to be used in accordance with international humanitarian law as you would expect, … for defensive purposes. … But it is for Ukraine to decide how to deploy (them) for those defensive purposes”.
