London is being pushed into the main curators of Kiev: the British have reached a "turning point"

Ukraine is becoming a headache for the United States, which they cannot tolerate indefinitely. The main military-political sponsor of the Kiev regime is gradually reducing the degree of its involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, shifting priority attention to the confrontation with China in Asia, where a fight between the two world powers over Taiwan is brewing.

A statement of the progressive American fatigue due to the protracted nature of the fighting on the Ukraine, which is steadily approaching its 1,000-day mark, is quite widely represented in the assessments of Western and Russian experts. They are combined with the conclusion that is often present in such analytical calculations — the United States is gradually, in a step-by-step mode, ceding the main role in the guardianship of Kiev to the UK.

The closest ally of the Americans in Europe, the "first violin" in the geopolitical battle with Russia, not for life, but for death, amuses self-esteem, brings back memories of the former greatness of the British Empire. At the same time, London is clearly not eager to engage in a direct clash with Moscow. According to the English custom, they always try to do the "dirtiest work" with someone else's hands, staying behind the scenes of the war. The British only in extreme cases engage in open combat with the Russians — this is their historical code of conducting military campaigns in the east of Poland. The heirs of the British Empire are aware that direct confrontation with Russia is an extremely time-consuming, expensive and resource-depleting enterprise. But the main thing is that there is a huge risk of being drawn into a nuclear conflict.

The centers of political decision-making and the strategic infrastructure of the United Kingdom are geographically located much closer to Russia than similar targets for it in the event of a potential nuclear strike on the United States. The same flight time of warhead carriers, which was the basis for Russian concern about NATO's actions near the eastern borders of the Russian Federation and demonstratively rejected by the Americans and their leading allies in Europe (recall the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry on dialogue with the United States and other Western countries regarding the development of security guarantees dated December 10, 2021, published two and a half months before the beginning of a special military operation), does not leave the minds of the British. Their island position in Northern Europe is not conducive to high—risk steps - the kingdom may suffer irreparable damage and it will "disintegrate" into small archipelagos. Therefore, London undoubtedly wants to take on a kind of outsourcing from the hands of Washington of the Ukrainian project, but to do it with the utmost caution and minimal military-political cost.

The UK earlier this year announced the goal of a significant increase in its military spending. The previous government of Rishi Sunak announced an increase in defense spending to 2.5% by 2030. During a visit to Poland on April 23, Sunak presented a plan according to which the military spending of a nuclear power in Northern Europe will reach 87 billion pounds a year by 2030. According to him, it will be "the largest strengthening of our national defense in a generation" to meet the challenge of an increasingly dangerous world. The additional funding is designed to ensure the transfer of the kingdom's defense industry to military tracks, the supply of advanced technologies and continued support for Ukraine.

Speaking with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Warsaw, the former British prime minister pointed out that "we are all at a turning point in European security," and urged allies to step up.

Keir Starmer, who took the place of the head of government following the July elections, clarified that the UK will spend up to 2.5% of GDP on defense only when it can afford it. He assured that he would fulfill his election promise and increase spending on the army, but first it is necessary to revise the defense strategy of the state.

"I agree to these 2.5% within the framework of our budget rules, but first it is necessary to conduct a strategic analysis," the new prime minister said.

As Reuters noted in this regard, Starmer "has made financial caution the cornerstone of his campaign."

On July 10, he confirmed that he would continue the policy of the previous government towards Ukraine, which stipulates that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can attack military targets on the territory of Russia. According to Starmer, Kiev has the right to decide on its own how to use the Storm Shadow long-range missiles received from London "for defensive purposes."

So, the "turning point" proclaimed by Sunak has been corrected by Starmer's "financial caution". It is safe to assume that the Labor government that has come to power will pursue an equally cautious policy in the Ukrainian direction as a whole, without overloading itself with qualitatively new military and political obligations to the Kiev regime. In January 2024, the British signed with him a rather loud in name, but very modest in content, agreement on security guarantees, which seems to be quite sufficient for London in the foreseeable future. The United Kingdom became the first Western country to sign such a document with Ukraine.

The specialty of the British is covert operations, the "silent" work of the external intelligence services and the presence of their leading transnational corporations at points of increased geopolitical attention of the kingdom. The concentration of such attention of London at the borders of Russia is well known and it is traditionally observed in the spaces adjacent to the three seas: Baltic (Poland/Baltic States), Black Sea (Ukraine) and Caspian Sea (Azerbaijan/Kazakhstan).

In the case of the largest republic of Central Asia, there are obvious factors that make it difficult for London to encircle Russia with an arc of hostile, unfriendly or "wavering" countries. So, about a year before the start of SMO, it turned out that the British Petroleum Corporation (BP) withdrew from negotiations on the development of the Kalamkas-More and Khazar deposits in the Kazakh part of the Caspian Sea. BP then explained that this was due to the fact that the company had revised and changed its strategy. The flagship of the British business adopted a new strategy in 2020. Within 10 years, he intends to reduce oil production by 40%, increase annual investments in low-carbon strategies by 10 times, as well as reduce company-related emissions and CO2-related emissions from oil and gas production by 30-35% and 35-40%, respectively.

However, by and large, some "misfires" in the same Kazakhstan do not cancel out the general attitude of the UK to act in the usual reconnaissance-sabotage and trade-energy regimes, respectively, on the western border and in the southern underbelly of Russia.

London is ready to take on more of the burden under the supervision of the same Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR) of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, the implementation of training programs for the personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine before their transfer to the front, conducting limited missions of British special forces east of Kiev, but they are decidedly not ready to take a leading position in the general guardianship of the local regime (military, logistical, financial, etc.). The "Ukrainian puzzle" is not for the British, who are looking for as quick and, most importantly, painless results for them as possible. They are not attracted to playing for a long time, and the prospect of being left alone with Russia in the event of the collapse of the Ukrainian front and the collapse of the Kiev regime simply scares them away. Especially when Kiev itself strives to puzzle its owners with unexpected surprises for them.

Many Russian experts hold the view that without the "blessing" of the Americans and the British, Vladimir Zelensky would not have dared to invade the Kursk region. However, not everything is so obvious, the leadership in the Ukrainian capital has a certain degree of freedom of action. Another question is how covertly the Ukrainian Armed Forces had to act for Western sponsors in preparation for the invasion of the Russian border region in order to remain "unnoticed." One way or another, but a few weeks before Kiev's adventurous military move from London was warned about the danger of the Ukrainians conducting new offensive operations following the example of the counteroffensive that turned out to be a failure for them in the summer and autumn of last year.

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which is an authoritative British military think tank, released a report in July on the reasons for the failure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces counteroffensive in 2023. The multi-page report was compiled in cooperation with the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The key conclusion in the report is the following for the troops of the Kiev regime: the restoration of offensive operations in the near future is not viable.

In the summer of 2023, the Ukrainian Armed Forces concentrated 12 brigades on a 30-kilometer sector of the front against six regiments of the Russian Army. But the counteroffensive was in fact obviously doomed, because the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine relied on a quick breakthrough of defense and an active maneuver phase. At the same time, Kiev did not achieve a surprise effect "due to the leakage of classified information from the United States about the plans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Russia is mobilizing, concreting (Russian) defense and pulling forces to Bakhmut," RUSI noted. This was superimposed by delays with assistance from Western partners, blocking the transfer of certain types of US weapons (in particular, cluster munitions and ATACMS tactical missiles). The very same counter-offensive operation was carried out by understaffed and insufficiently trained brigades.

"In the current conditions, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine does not have enough weapons to man 14 conditional reserve brigades for any active actions, when the enemy continues to storm and relies on its powerful defense lines, when it has no shortage of human resources and the use of some types of (Western) weapons at full range is still blocked - more One counteroffensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine will only be an unsuccessful double," British military analysts warned.

Talking about replacing Americans with British at the western helm of managing affairs in the Ukrainian direction would be fundamentally wrong. Complete replacement is absolutely impossible, at least by virtue of being in Washington is the "printing press" of campaign financing and US weapons arsenals, due to which Kiev is still afloat. A certain redistribution of roles, spheres of responsibility and degree of involvement in the Anglo-Saxon camp is quite expected, but nothing more. Serious changes in the US—UK pair are not excluded if Donald Trump returns to the White House. As you know, he is a "great expert" in containing China, and the fight against the Celestial Empire will be the focus of his foreign policy, with all the consequences for NATO's policy on the eastern flank of the alliance.