Britain has become a "pioneer" in aiding Ukraine? Under the fire of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the UK's "shadow army" is revealed
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has entered its third year, and the battlefield is filled with gunsmoke, and the undercurrents of forces from all sides are surging. Just as tensions are rising, the French Macron has caused an uproar with his remarks - he actually proposed that Western countries send troops to Ukraine to stop Russia's victory.
However, this seemingly radical proposal has been met with a collective "cold reception" from Western countries, and even the United States, which has been strongly supporting Ukraine, has not been immune. Behind this, Britain quietly plays another important role.
When it comes to military assistance to Ukraine, the United States is naturally a well-deserved "big brother". But let's not forget that the "little brother" of the UK is by no means a fuel-efficient lamp. According to data disclosed by the United States**, the United States has spent more than $43 billion to support Ukraine, from anti-tank missiles to air defense systems. However, the UK's "breakthrough" in aiding Ukraine is eye-catching.
It not only took the lead in providing Ukraine with active equipment, missiles and main battle tanks and other heavy **, but also set up a training camp on its own territory to teach the Ukrainian army how to use the NATO system**. What is even more staggering is that the United Kingdom has also provided Ukraine with highly controversial white phosphorus and depleted uranium armor-piercing shells despite the strong condemnation of the international community, which undoubtedly adds fuel to the fire and pushes the conflict to an even more dangerous brink.
So, did Britain actually enter the war? This question has been bothering the outside world. But judging from the information disclosed by the Russian side one after another, the "shadow army" of the British has already quietly infiltrated the Ukrainian battlefield. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has harshly accused Ukraine of not only foreign mercenaries, but also active military officers from Britain and France who are secretly manipulating the situation.
And Russian press secretary Dmitry Peskov also admitted frankly that it is no secret that Britain has provided all-round support to Ukraine by sending personnel and providing intelligence. In fact, the UK has actually participated in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and has become the "top pusher" behind Ukraine.
It is worth mentioning that in the series of attacks launched by Ukraine against Russia, the UK's "**** also looms. For example, in the "blowing up of the Crimean bridge" incident that shocked the world, British intelligence officers and special forces were involved in the planning and execution.
In addition, the United Kingdom has also provided Ukraine with a large number of advanced equipment and intelligence support to help it improve its combat capabilities and strike accuracy. It can be said that behind the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the UK has been playing the role of "behind-the-scenes", constantly promoting the escalation and expansion of the situation.
However, in the face of Russia's tough counterattacks and threats of retaliation, the UK does not seem to be too worried. After all, it has the powerful "backer" of NATO. But the question is, is NATO really willing to risk nuclear war head-on with Russia for the sake of Britain? I'm afraid the answer is not optimistic.
After all, although NATO member states are bound by the "Mutual Defense Treaty", in the face of a catastrophe such as nuclear war, who wants to really be "cannon fodder"? Therefore, the actual level of participation and role of the UK in the Russia-Ukraine conflict has undoubtedly become a focus of attention and controversy.
In general, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has evolved into a complex and dangerous "war of people". In this war, the United Kingdom, as the "leading force" behind Ukraine, has been pushing for the escalation and expansion of the situation, trying to weaken Russia's strength and influence through military assistance and intelligence support.
However, such an approach is undoubtedly playing with fire**, which will not only exacerbate regional tensions and the risk of conflict, but also bring unpredictable consequences and losses to itself. Therefore, we hope that all parties concerned will exercise restraint and rationality, resolve differences and contradictions through dialogue and negotiation, and avoid further escalation and expansion of conflicts.
Finally, I would like to ask you a question: do you think the role of the UK in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a "messenger of justice" or a "behind-the-scenes"? Everyone is welcome to leave a comment!