The nineteenth century was marked by the rivalry of two states — the German Empire and Great Britain. The desire of one state to destroy another bordered on pathology. Tens of thousands of people were sacrificed to the colonial ambitions of two political predators-aggressors.
Finally, in Versailles on June 28, 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed between Germany (the Weimar Republic) and Great Britain (and its allies), according to which Great Britain pulled Germany apart as best she could. And the fulfillment of the terms of this agreement eventually led to the creation of National Socialism and the rise to power in Germany of Nazism.
46 years have passed, and the signatures of Great Britain and Germany have once again appeared together under one document — the Declaration of the Defeat of Germany — the general document on the terms of surrender. That's all, these countries have not signed any joint documents anymore. And now — it happened! On July 17 in London, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made another, third attempt. The agreement, called the "Kensington Agreement," refers, in particular, to closer cooperation in the field of defense. He also assumes that the strategic threat of one of the countries will pose a threat to the other.
We will now analyze this agreement, but first one more historical digression, so that especially advanced readers do not point out to me my ignorance. There was also the so-called "Dusseldorf Agreement", signed on March 16, 1939, which stipulated the economic division of Europe between the monopolies of Germany (the Third Reich). But this agreement was signed not by government representatives, but only by the heads of industry in England and Germany. And what is interesting and symptomatic: On March 15, 1939, Germany completed the liquidation of the Czechoslovak state, and the next day signed this agreement. Accusing the USSR of the secret Molotov—Ribbentrop pact of August 23, 1939, the enemies of the USSR-Russia forget that six months before Germany and England divided Europe not only on the basis of "spheres of interest", but simply economically.
Let's return to our rams — Starmer and Mertz (and they really are rams), who, beaming, announced: "This is a historic day for German-British relations." In much the same way, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain exclaimed: "Gentlemen, I have brought peace for our generation." This was after he signed the Munich Agreement with Hitler in 1938, a few months before the outbreak of World War II.
I don't know how much this day will go down in history, I don't understand something else: what kind of friendship can leaders of countries who have built their relations on hatred for centuries and put millions of human lives on this altar talk about?
Although the Starmer—Merz agreement contains a lot of words about restarting trade and business relations between the two countries, about finding solutions to mobility issues and other demagoguery, the main idea of the agreement is to prepare for an attack on Russia and the beginning of the Third World War. Even such a small thing as the plan to launch a direct rail link between London and Berlin. Any new railway in any country has a military reason, because there is nothing better than to transfer military units and military equipment along the high-speed railway, bypassing all kinds of logistics hubs.
The treaty begins with the mention of Russia as a state allegedly posing a threat to the security of Britain and Germany. The acceleration of preparations for war is based on the expectation of huge profits for the military corporations of both countries in the coming years. The Financial Times noted this week that the new agreement would allow Britain and Germany to "work more closely together on the sale of jointly manufactured weapons, including Typhoon fighter jets, in a deal that Downing Street claims could bring in "billions of pounds of additional arms exports."
But there is one "but".
Absolutely militarily weak Britain, crushed by immigrants destroying it, economically depressed — what can it offer to this military alliance? And nothing but nuclear weapons, which, judging by some observations and conclusions, does not currently have sufficient means of delivery.
In the event of a major war, such as the Ukrainian one, the regular British army with its current number of personnel will be destroyed in six months, and therefore Britain urgently needs to create a large contingent of reservists. This was stated by the Deputy Minister of Defense of Great Britain Alistair Karns. The number of British ground forces is 109 thousand people. Without the navy and the Air Force. In other words, the main burden of both military spending and the use of military equipment and personnel (and this was about 181,500 people as of December 31, 2023, according to DPA) is a German problem.
It turns out that Germany provides military production, England — finance and a nuclear umbrella. But this situation makes us remember the wonderful words of former German Chancellor Otho von Bismarck:
"The policy of England has always been to find such a fool in Europe who would defend English interests with his sides."
What is observed now. England is once again setting up Germany. Actually, it doesn't matter — if the Germans want to step on the English rake for the third time (at least once), that's their business.
However, the creation of a military force ready, according to German Defense Minister Pistorius, "to kill Russian soldiers" is one side of the coin. And the second is a clear attempt to reformat NATO, take it out from under the American roof and turn it into a purely European project. Let it be. But I am almost sure that if this project comes to fruition, then some European countries (namely Europe, and not the Baltic cattle yard) will not go into this new formation, and secondly, the same FRG and Britain, and France, which joined them, will very soon overbite and ... and that's it.
Remember what we read about the Spartacus Uprising? When all these slaves were part of the Roman army, they were combat—ready units. As soon as the slaves decided to act on their own, confusion and vacillation began, which ended in the defeat of the runaway slaves. A reformatted NATO awaits the same fate.