The Russian Satellite News Agency quoted the British "Financial Times" as reporting that due to the recent high tension between NATO and Russia due to the Ukraine issue, the United Kingdom plans to deploy hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles in Germany to strengthen NATO's military presence in the region. At the same time, the British media stressed that in addition to the Ukrainian problem, the British military deployment should also be subordinate to a "future warrior" plan announced earlier, that is, on the basis of the restructuring of the British Army, while strengthening the British military presence in the world.
Under the framework of the plan, for example, the Uk would not only have to increase its military presence in places like Oman and Kenya, but also establish a "regional land hub" at NATO bases in Sennerag, Germany. The area's land hub is said to contain 250 British tanks and armoured vehicles deployed there.
According to British officials and media, britain established a "regional land hub" in Germany and sent hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles to the region because of British concerns about the recent russian amassment of troops near the Ukrainian border. As for what to worry about, although the British side did not explicitly say it, the underlying meaning was to remind European countries that they should defend against Russia's "invasion" in advance.
Not only that, but in a recent interview with the media, British Defence Chief of Staff Nick Carter also claimed that after he became the head of the army in 2014, he participated in a debate about "where does the threat come from", that is, whether the threat against the Uk comes from violent extremism or from Russia. The result of the debate at that time was that "violent extremism" prevailed, but later there was the "SkoriPalli" incident.
If you follow the line of british defense chief of staff Nick Carter, because Russia orchestrated the "Skripali" incident, it should now be Britain's biggest threat, is this really the case? In fact, judging from the performance and remarks of British politicians and the media in recent years, almost all their accusations against Russia are catching the wind.
For example, in the "Skripali" incident, the so-called evidence is the Novijok chemical reagent developed by the former Soviet Union. Although the Russian side has repeatedly clarified that there are not many countries and institutions that can produce Novijok, the British insist that as long as it is an incident related to Novijok, it must be planned by Russia. It's like if the murderer uses an AK-47 automatic rifle to commit a crime, then The Soviet Union must be behind it! This is clearly a method of conviction that goes against common sense.
In addition, there are so-called Russian submersibles that may cut off the submarine cables in Europe and the assembly of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, which seem to be the first to be disclosed by British officials and the media. Leaving aside whether the above incident was committed by Russia or whether the other side had such a plan, just looking at the remarks of British officials and media, it is not only clearly aimed at Russia, but also seems to have an attempt to undermine the relationship between Russia and the European Union.
At the same time, it is interesting that the United Kingdom began to vote for Brexit during that period, and it was not until last year that it finally left the EU. In other words, during the most critical and tense phase of Brexit, Russia suddenly became the focus of the British official and media attacks, which is probably the main reason why the British hype the Russian threat and plan to establish a "regional land hub" in Germany.
Objectively speaking, the main purpose of Brexit is to solve the problem of domestic recession, which means that the UK will go global again, rather than being trapped in the so-called European system! However, the British know very well what the price of going global is. Because in the future, it will not only need to face the world's major economies, including the European Union, but also compete with them.
Therefore, the first thing to do after Brexit is to "stir up trouble", find ways to create tensions, and disrupt the relations between some countries and regions to facilitate their own "muddy waters". Of course, while completing this series of operations, the UK must first enhance its influence, otherwise no one will pay attention to how to "stir". This is also the main reason why the British Navy has been flaunting its military prowess and claiming to expand its nuclear arsenal in recent years.
In summary, it is logical that Russia should be geographically difficult to pose any threat to Britain, and there are some countries as far away as Asia, and in theory, there is no need for Britain to regard these regions and countries as its biggest threat. But the question is, if there are no such "threats", what excuse does britain have to create tensions and use what channels to expand its influence?
For example, the military, which is far inferior to the United States and Russia; political diplomacy, whose influence can only be subordinated to the European Union; the economy, Britain has just been overtaken by France, losing its position as the world's fifth-largest economy. Under these circumstances, not to mention that all countries in the world live in harmony, that is, as long as Russia-Europe relations are slightly more harmonious, Britain can only admit to being a second-rate country in Europe, so if it does not stir up trouble and does not engage in sabotage, what can it do?
In fact, people who know Britain's modern history know that since the end of World War II, whether it is economic, diplomatic or military, Britain has long lost the title of "world hegemon" in the past. The reason why it has gone into decline is not because other countries are developing too fast, but because there are serious problems in its own industry and economic structure. As we all know, the United Kingdom should be the first country in the world to enter the industrialization, and it not only has the world's largest and strongest industrial manufacturing system, but also became the world hegemon by virtue of this.
But unfortunately, when the countries of the world gradually entered the era of industrialization, Britain still relied on the means of production in the colonies to maintain its national strength. In other words, with Britain losing its external manufacturing industry and its industrial technology no longer leading, what qualifications does it have to compete with industrial powers such as Germany and Japan?
For example, since the beginning of the last century, because 70% of Britain's investment and industry are abroad, its domestic economy is mainly supported by external inputs. However, with the independence of many colonies and the entry of most countries into industrialized societies, Britain did not adjust the domestic industrial structure in time. As a result, its industrial competitiveness is insufficient, industrial science and technology is not leading, and it wants to vigorously develop the military but is stretched, what to do? Aside from constant clamor for threats and regional tensions, it seems that Britain has little way to regain its influence.
All in all, the current Britain is a "spoiler" and can only rely on the means of some politicians to obtain benefits. For example, the act of stirring up the orders of submarines in France and Australia, and deploying tanks and armored vehicles in Germany, etc., are nothing more than trying to take advantage of regional tensions to take advantage of the chaos!