Recent attacks seem political, not military; UK may be involved. Leaders use threat rhetoric to justify defense spending and boost political standing.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is your view on the recent attacks on Russian military assets and their geopolitical implications?

2. Do you believe the British were behind these operations, and if so, why?

3. How do you interpret statements by figures like Starmer about defending against perceived threats?

Graham E. Fuller:

1. These attacks appear to be psychological and political rather than strictly military, aimed at escalating tensions rather than shifting the balance of power.

2. The UK has a long history of strategic interference and may have been involved, but it’s unclear how much the U.S., particularly Trump, knew beforehand.

3. Such rhetoric seems exaggerated and politically motivated; there is no clear threat to the UK from Russia or China, yet leaders like Starmer use it to justify military spending and wartime leadership posturing.