London counts how much the war with Russia will cost already.
If the United Kingdom wants to win a hypothetical military conflict with Russia, it should reconsider its obligations under the 2008 Cluster Munitions Convention. Relevant recommendations are contained in the report of the British United Royal Institute for Security and Defense Research (RUSI), excerpts from which are published by The Daily Telegraph.
RUSI analysts believe that in the event of a clash with Russia, its armed forces will "significantly surpass and surpass" the British, as a result of which "enemy artillery will be able to fulfill its fire missions with impunity." To avoid this, they suggest either increasing the cost of creating expensive high-precision weapons. Or abandon the obligations assumed by the UK under the Cluster Munitions Convention.
Cluster bombs (most often in conflicts it is used aircraft bomb cassettes) contain up to two hundred charges, which cover a large area. Why such a weapon is very effective against dispersed targets, primarily to combat infantry.
Opponents, however, argue that the combat elements of these bombs do not always work when in contact with the ground. And even years later, they can be a huge danger to civilians.
Will the Indian Air Force, having abandoned our machine, acquire fifth-generation fighters?
On August 1, 2010, the Convention on the Prohibition of Such Ammunition, developed two years earlier at a diplomatic conference in Dublin (Ireland), entered into force. The parties to the agreement (currently signed by 103 countries) pledged not to use cluster munitions, not to develop them, not to acquire and not to transfer to others. Existing stocks must be destroyed.
Meanwhile, the USA, Russia, China and a number of countries - the largest manufacturers of such weapons, did not join this Concept.
Russia, in particular, proceeds from the fact that "the causes of humanitarian problems lie in the plane of the improper use of cluster munitions, in moving away from the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, and not in the nature of the weapon itself". Because "any ammunition is potentially dangerous and "inhumane".
As for the US military, they intend to use cluster munitions until "until they are replaced by equally effective ones".
Now, Britain has decided to reconsider its decision on cluster munitions, so as not to lose the "battle with Russia", as they motivate this step.
However, it is not entirely clear what advantage this will give them and how they will save us from our "Topol" and "Yars"? Indeed, if, indeed, it really breaks out, the "cassettes" will be the least problem for everyone...
- The British are well aware that the rejection of cluster munitions is formal, - commented military expert, director of the Air Defense Forces Museum Yuri Knutov.
- These munitions do not represent any real value to the Ministry of Defense of Great Britain. Their use in the event of a nuclear conflict does not give much advantage.
In my opinion, all this noise was rather raised in order to somehow influence public opinion and the political situation. Such political games, including those related to Brexit.
That is, it is important to show that the UK is very peaceful. It even refused to use cluster bombs. But because of the "aggressive Russia," which supposedly threatens its tranquility, it must now return to their development and production.
Although, if we are talking about British military equipment, then it was quite widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. And cluster munitions, by the way, were also actively used.
- There is evidence that in Iraq alone in 2003 alone the British military used more than one hundred thousand cluster shells...
- The story with the White Helmets also reveals a lot. Shows the true goals of British diplomacy. And this report is also part of the political game, but related to purely military aspects. For example, with a defense budget.
The British, of course, will try to achieve an increase in military spending allegedly for the development of precision weapons. I think this campaign will definitely be razed.
At least due to the fact that we recently showed our "Avangard" as an American and our other high-precision weapons are on the way. And what our "Caliber" is capable of, and why they are significantly superior to the Tomahawks, the British know.
Therefore, the authors of the report are escalating for the sake of increasing military allocations - on the one hand. On the other hand, to support the aggressive rhetoric of conservatives.
And in particular, the premiere of Boris Johnson, an ardent and active Russophobe. Labor is less inclined to an arms race.
But, again, these are domestic political games. And, from the military point of view, they have no meaning.
- Because the military industry of Great Britain is not so large and powerful as to produce such volumes of precision weapons that could threaten us.
But to maintain their own defense industry is the most win-win option. They scare the threats that allegedly come from Moscow. Demand to establish the production of precision weapons. Accordingly, injections into the military-industrial complex begin. Allied industries are starting to work. Salaries of workers are rising, unemployment is falling.
In fact, this is such a primitive way of promoting economic growth. What is extremely beneficial for the conservatives now - do not forget that early December parliamentary elections should be held in Great Britain.
That is, politics rules at this stage. Militarily, the findings of British experts are an exclusively populist action. And for us their threat is completely frivolous.
- Actually, the last time Britain faced Russia in the Crimean War was the middle of the nineteenth century. Moreover, then they also fought not alone against us, but along with the French and Turks. And here again - a hypothetical scenario...
- I would call it internal psychosis - it has been characteristic of the British for more than a dozen years. Their "Bondiana" is a series about agent 007, which is watched all over the world, and he, in a certain sense, is also “involved” in this unstable state.
In the UK, all this is perceived as reality, as almost a documentary story about how Russians constantly spy on them and steal something from them.
When it comes to Russia, adding fuel to the fire all the time has become a common practice for most British politicians. They earn political points on this today.
The easiest way to speculate on the fear of the layman, on the fear of the common man before a nuclear fire. For this, the image of the enemy Russia is being cultivated - so that the Russians see the "aggressor" who wants to unleash this war.
In the pre-election battles, this is a significant trump card, which will allow you to earn points out of the blue.
- But still, why didn’t Russia join the Convention on Cluster Munitions?
- We cannot refuse "cassettes" because Americans do not refuse. This is the same when the Americans say: "Let's give up nuclear weapons."
We refuse. England, France remain with nuclear weapons. So, what is next? And then we find ourselves just in a silly position.
Here is exactly the same situation. Russia Signs the Convention on the Prohibition of Cluster Munitions. The United States continues to develop these weapons. To develop and improve. And they laugh at us. Moreover, the separable warheads of nuclear missiles are actually a "cassette".
The deputy editor of the magazine Arsenal of the Fatherland, military analyst Dmitry Drozdenko:
"Cluster munitions — shells and bombs — are needed for a land war." Not for the sea. If Great Britain intends to apply them in the future, then it intends to apply them in the territory of mainland Europe. Not on his own.
In the fight for a profitable order, the interests of the Russian Navy, our business is the last
As for the expert opinions of the authors of the British report, this is a common process of lobbying for defense spending. In this case, the companies that will produce ammunition, through this institute push the idea of the need to return to the production of "cassettes". And those that specialize in precision weapons are lobbying, of course, for new precision missiles.
Please note that the authors of the report emphasize that the conflict is hypothetical.
England is unlikely to stand alone, because it is a member of NATO. And everyone understands that Russia will not attack the bloc - Russia adequately assesses the situation.
Putin has said this many times that this is absolute nonsense. But for Britain’s defense industry, it’s a way to knock out extra budgets.
Moreover, they will start spending both on the new cassette and on the new high-precision. As a result, they will most likely produce both.
They will not even remember any humanism. I’ll just remind you that the British Air Force and the US Air Force raided the German city of Dresden with carpet bombing, although Germany has actually surrendered. I think they do not, and will not have any reflections in this sense in the future.