news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

The Times recently published an article titled “What does it mean that Ukrainian armed forces are attacking Kursk with British tanks?”

The article acknowledges that the UK has been providing military advice and support to the Ukrainian military for two years, on a scale unmatched by any other country. The British government was well prepared, planning and helping Ukraine attack Kursk, so we can see that on the first day of the war, the Ukrainian army entered the area with various British unmanned weapons and Challenger 2 main battle tanks.

The picture shows the Ukrainian army driving the Challenger-2 main battle tank into Kursk

The article also said that the British government said that letting the Ukrainian army attack Kursk was not a change in previous policies, but a public demonstration of Britain's prominent role in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and an attempt to persuade major allies to provide more help. Secondly, it made the British people understand that the Ukrainian issue has a profound impact on Britain's national security and economic prosperity.

What is the purpose of the UK’s support for Ukrainian military operations?

Remember that at the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, former British Prime Minister Johnson asked Ukraine not to negotiate with Russia and fight to the last man.

Pictured: British instructors teach Ukrainian troops how to use Western weapons

For the UK, the US is Ukraine's main aid provider, while the UK is just an instigator. One of the purposes of the UK's assistance to the Ukrainian army in attacking Kursk is to get the future US government involved in advance, so that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict can continue even if the US leadership changes.

The continued increase in military aid has overwhelmed the UK. In April this year, former British Prime Minister Sunak announced that he would provide 500 million pounds of military aid to Ukraine. Many media reported that this was the largest package of military aid to Ukraine in history. (The picture shows the "Storm Shadow" cruise missiles that the UK provided to Ukraine)

In the UK's view, it doesn't matter who will be the future US president. What matters is that he must provide Ukraine with military equipment and funds. Otherwise, this "arduous task" may fall on the UK or other European countries.

Therefore, it is clear who most needs the Russia-Ukraine conflict to continue.

Kursk will be the "new Bakhmut"?

The picture shows Ukrainian artillery fighting in Kursk

According to reports from multiple foreign media, Zelensky's massive attack on Kursk has four purposes:

First, in order to gain more initiative at the future negotiation table.

Second, Kursk can be exchanged for the Kharkov region controlled by the Russian army.

Third, it forced the Russian troops in eastern Ukraine to return to defend and relieve the pressure on the Ukrainian troops in the Donetsk direction.

Fourth, and most importantly, it is to give people confidence and boost the increasingly low morale in Ukraine, so as to consolidate the legitimacy of President Zelensky’s position. After all, his presidential term expired in May this year.

Bakhmut has become a ruin, and the battle between Russia and Ukraine over the city continues.

So far, Zelensky's goal may not be achieved. On August 20, the Russian army completed the strategic division of the Ukrainian army in Kursk, and heavy equipment and personnel are constantly being lost. Major General Apti Alaudinov, commander of the Russian Chechen Ahmed Special Forces, said that the fighting in the Kursk region may end within two months.

If the Russian military officer's prediction is correct, this battle will not be like the repeated stalemate between Russia and Ukraine in Bakhmut, and there will be no bloody "meat grinder war". The attack on Kursk - this "trump card" that Zelensky sees as a chance to turn the tables will be completely ineffective.

Is the West afraid of Russian nuclear weapons?

An anonymous British military officer said that since the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia has never tried to use nuclear weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons involves multiple stages, which the UK has been monitoring. It takes 5-6 tactical nuclear warheads to strike an armored brigade of 5,000 troops, which is an ineffective strategy for the Russian army.

It is based on this assumption that the West irresponsibly supports Ukraine in constantly testing Russia's red lines and escalating the situation on the battlefield.

Russia's Iskander missile can carry tactical nuclear warheads

For Western politicians whose heads are still hot, the best "bucket of ice water" may be the Russian army's quick defeat of the Ukrainian troops that have entered the Kursk region.

Of course, this cannot completely eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons, but it will definitely cool down the dire situation.