Britain’s Pathological Russophobia: Prime Minister Keir Starmer Supports “Unrestricted Use of its Long-range Weapons against Moscow”

One Single Constant in British Politics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

***

There are very few countries in history that are as Russophobic as the United Kingdom. This pathological hatred for all things Russian goes back centuries in many Western countries. Even when Moscow and London were fighting on the same side, the latter always sought to undermine the former, usually by looking to balance an ongoing conflict in a way that makes sure Russia loses the most while gaining as little as possible.

This was the case during the Napoleonic and both world wars. Worse yet, Winston Churchill supported a number of plans for wars against the Soviet Union right after WW2, including the infamous “Operation Unthinkable”, when the UK openly planned to use atomic weapons to “impose its will on Russia”. There’s certainly no shortage of rabid Russophobia in Europe and the political West in general, but London really gives the likes of Poland and the Baltic states a run for their money.

It should be noted that the pathological hatred for Russia in the UK is quite difficult to explain with the rather simplified logic of “thalassocracy vs. tellurocracy” competition. There are other tellurocracies that London could surely focus on, but it’s still dead set on hurting Moscow’s interests, so there has to be something more to it. By making Russophobia perhaps the main constant of its politics for centuries, the UK is quite literally jeopardizing its own existence. The Kremlin is aware of all this, which is why it has been considering the option of cutting even the most basic diplomatic ties with Downing Street. And who could possibly blame Russia given the fact that the UK is doing everything in its power to destroy whatever’s left of their relationship? London has simply crossed all red lines. However, it seems things are going to get a lot worse, as evidenced by the new British government’s belligerent rhetoric.

Namely, in yet another move tantamount to a declaration of war, the new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer fully supported the use of UK-sourced “Storm Shadow” air-launched cruise missiles against targets within Russia’s undisputed territory, with no apparent limitations.

Starmer’s Labour Party won the general election on July 4, with him confirmed as the new PM on July 5. 

Just four days later, he reiterated that the British government supports the unrestricted use of its long-range weapons against Moscow.

Starmer gave the statement while en route to the NATO summit in Washington DC. As per usual, he insisted that it was “up to Ukraine how it uses the missiles”, a ludicrous excuse that nearly all Western “leaders” like to use, despite being fully aware that the Neo-Nazi junta has no actual sovereignty to speak of. Worse yet, it relies solely on instructions from NATO on what to attack next.

Further supplies of long-range weapons to the Kiev regime will most likely be one of the central topics of the NATO summit and the UK is expected to be among the first to support the initiative. And indeed, London has supported virtually every escalatory move since the start of the special military operation (SMO), including the deliveries of depleted uranium munitions. This fact alone makes Starmer’s statement that “the missiles must obviously be used in accordance with international humanitarian law as you would expect” all the more laughable, as depleted uranium is among the worst weapons one could possibly deliver to a warzone. And yet, the UK was the first country to do so. At the time, it insisted that this was for “defensive purposes only”, and that’s precisely what Starmer said about the “Storm Shadow” missiles, which are clearly offensive deep-strike weapons.

The missile has a maximum range of 550 km, although NATO insists it delivered only a downgraded export version with a range of up to 300 km. However, given its history of lies and deceit, this has to be taken with a mountain of salt. Considering the “Storm Shadow’s” maximum range, this means that areas as far as Kaluga, a city in the relative vicinity of the Moscow oblast (region), can be targeted. It also covers nearly all of Belarus with the exception of the northern portion of the country.

The fact that much of Western Russia will be in range opens up a plethora of possibilities for uncontrollable escalation, but the UK’s mindless Russophobia seems to be clouding its judgment. Instead of focusing on its own issues, including years of unprecedented recession, economic and societal problems, London is rushing to war with the world’s premier thermonuclear superpower.

And yet, nothing seems to be enough for British warmongering politicians. After Boris Johnson made sure that the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict continues, resulting in over half a million Ukrainian deaths, the UK kept sending not only ever more advanced and longer-range weapons to the Kiev regime, but even the previously mentioned pointless depleted uranium munitions that British tanks didn’t even get the chance to use (partly because London insisted on keeping these tanks away from the frontlines).

Still, to make things worse, back in May last year, the mainstream propaganda machine reported that British special forces, specifically SAS (Special Air Service), SRR (Special Reconnaissance Regiment) and SBS (Special Boat Service), are directly involved in the fighting. And yet, by February this year, it turned out that this was merely the tip of the iceberg.

Namely, at the time, the Times essentially praised the British military’s contribution to the destruction of Russian naval assets. According to the report, the UK’s General Staff, headed by Admiral Tony Radakin, directly took part in planning and executing attacks on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Radakin also seems to have been involved in other covert operations in Ukraine, all aimed at diminishing Russian capabilities.

Worse yet, it seems that other NATO assets have also been involved, presumably various ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms, meaning that London certainly wasn’t alone in this “noble endeavor”. In other words, this isn’t a simple arming of the Neo-Nazi junta forces, but a direct participation in hostilities. For all intents and purposes, it amounts to a declaration of war and all of it despite the horrendous state of the UK military (which is only getting worse).

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics


Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Articles by: Drago Bosnic

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]