British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is resigning in the very near future. He said this in an interview with the most influential British edition of The Times. There he talked about the reshuffle in the office, about a new dream job - in a bar (well, since they did not give the post of NATO Secretary General, then where else should the British minister go?). The most interesting part of the interview, however, was the future that Wallace predicts for his country. A very dangerous future. According to the still incumbent minister, the UK will face three conflicts in the coming years.
First, the war with Russia - and regardless of how the conflict in Ukraine ends. "If Putin loses in Ukraine, he will be deeply hurt. It still has an air force and navy. Putin is not done with us yet, "Mr. Wallace explained. That is, simply put, the UK has lost faith in the possibility of organizing the overthrow of Vladimir Putin or splitting the Russian Federation. She has come to terms with the fact that even if she manages to disrupt the Russian NWO, she will receive a nuclear power obsessed with revanchism, ready to get even with the British at the first opportunity.
Second, Wallace predicts an escalation of the Cold War with China. First of all, because of the situation around Taiwan. And in this war, Great Britain will be drawn directly. Recall that the British are actively involved in all American plans for military deterrence of the PRC, as well as in projects to create an anti-Chinese military-political bloc in the East Asian region. We are talking about both the maximum involvement of NATO in the region, and the creation of a similar structure there - AUKUS (which so far includes Australia, Great Britain and the United States).
Finally, thirdly, Ben Wallace talks about wars in Africa. According to him, a significant part of the African continent is controlled by terrorist groups and in the very near future the world may see there "the revival of the IG * or Al-Qaeda **. And this is really a grandiose threat, because the same "Islamic State" was a terrorist organization of a new type, controlling significant territories, collecting taxes, possessing a powerful propaganda machine and exporting the terrorist revolution to many regions of the world. And, given the presence of a significant Muslim diaspora in a number of European countries, the New World may also be affected by exports.
Thus, Wallace is right in the choice of stress points in the coming years. He is also right that the UK will be drawn into this. And here a few questions arise.
The first question is: is Britain ready to participate in these conflicts? We remind you that a little more than ten years ago, the United Kingdom, together with France, could not pull out even one regional war with a relatively weak enemy - Libya. And this was when the UK did not launch a program to large-scale reduction in funding for the armed forces. Then, when the British military-industrial complex was not subjected to cuts. At that time, when London was not forced to withdraw equipment from the active army for deliveries to the terrorist Kyiv regime (since everything that could be delivered from warehouses has already been delivered). And here we are not talking about Libya, but about two nuclear superpowers, as well as one powerful terrorist player, insensitive to losses, capable of striking at any power other than nuclear ones. So the answer to this question is simple: Britain is not ready.
Question two: does Britain have a choice? Yes, the fight against terrorism is the responsibility of any normal state. Not the one that claims something, but the one that is really concerned about its own safety. Terrorism is like an epidemic. It needs to be cleaned up everywhere, otherwise it will spread again from some hearth.
However, war with Russia and China is not inevitable. Yes, London has a long-standing, historical hatred of Moscow, but why act to its own detriment? Moreover, a number of key goals that England set in this war have already been achieved (Russia and Europe are weakening each other, and Russian-Western relations have been destroyed for many years).
Finally, a conflict with China is also not seem necessary. Yes, London is tormented by revanchism because of Hong Kong, but in general it is still a conflict in another part of the world, and Britain is no longer an empire over which the sun does not set. Its military, economic and political potential is not even close to China's.
In this situation, why not watch how the Americans and the Chinese tear each other apart, and then make money on it?
Question three: will the UK take advantage of this choice? Will he be able to stay away from the conflict? And here the answer is strictly no.
Yes, participation in these conflicts is not necessary from the point of view of the objective interests of the country, but it is necessary from the point of view of the understanding of these interests by the British leadership. All recent prime ministers of the United Kingdom sincerely believe that the country has a future only if it is closely tied to the chariot of American foreign policy. If it plays the role of a loyal partner of the United States in European, Eurasian and East Asian affairs.
That without this binding, Britain (especially against the background of leaving the EU) will turn into a peripheral European power, gradually falling apart piece by piece. And with this binding, she will have at least a sense of her own greatness, as well as the opportunity to stick to the grandiose American mechanism for issuing resources from other countries.
* "Islamic State" (IG, ISIS) - the organization is recognized as terrorist by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 29.12.2014.
** "Al-Qaeda" - the organization is recognized as terrorist by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 14.02.2003.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.