The British general commanded the Uruguayan army to sink the Russian warship, which proved that NATO was not as weak as we thought

According to German Prime Minister Olaf Scholz, a British army has arrived in Ukraine to play a role in important military posts. Coincidentally, overseas military news also pointed out that it was not the Ukrainian commander who commanded the Ukrainian army to sink the Russian warship some time ago, but the British admiral Tony Radakin who planned and implemented the whole operation. With the support of NATO electronic warfare aircraft, the whole operation was carried out smoothly, giving the Russian army a heavy blow. Of course, NATO's participation in the war has long been well known, but this time NATO put this matter on the table, apparently to pave the way for NATO's further large-scale military intervention. We have also been soberly aware from these military news that the fact has proved that NATO is not as weak as we thought.

In recent years, we have always focused on some NATO military "own dragons", such as missile miss in test firing, equipment loss due to mechanical failure and human factors, German "obesity rate", British army recruiting generals on recruitment websites, etc. These reports do exist, and objectively, the quality of these countries' military and military personnel is not as good as ours, so we have the right to laugh at and ridicule the protagonists of these news reports. However, for the Russian army, such reports are obviously "psychoactive drugs". Once paralyzed, it is easy to make wrong judgments. Although the current military production capacity of NATO Group is difficult to maintain the daily consumption of the Ukrainian army, it is even less than what the Ukrainian army needs for several days of fighting. However, we should also be soberly aware that NATO has not provided advanced and large base advanced strike weapons for the Ukrainian army, such as precision strike ammunition used by F-35 and F-16 fighters.

For us, NATO troops do not have the strength to "maneuver across continents to fight us head-on", otherwise the long supply line will drag them to death directly. However, we still need to be soberly aware that NATO's strongest military strength is no longer on paper. If we compare military strength, military production capacity and national potential, all NATO countries, including the United States, are inferior to us. However, NATO's most advanced military theory and strategic planning, that is, the tacit cooperation between think tanks and senior generals, know how to rely on existing forces to deal with a war. Take Ukraine as an example. Before the war, everyone thought that it was an inevitable defeat. However, under the intervention and leadership of NATO, through expanding the use of UAVs in the battlefield and the control of electronic warfare on the battlefield space, the "asymmetric combat mode" with the Russian army was achieved. This level of command and the ability to grasp the strategic pattern are worthy of our full study.

Due to various factors, our commanders had no chance to communicate with the elite groups of NATO. Their understanding of NATO mainly came from the joint military exercises with Russia and related reports. Many combat details are not nutritious for us, but in the eyes of professional commanders, they are all high-value information and the only way for us to intuitively contact NATO elite groups. Unfortunately, because the comprehensive quality of the Russian army is too low, it is impossible to simulate the tactical characteristics of NATO on the exercise field, so the joint exercise of our troops and the Russian army is basically that the Russian army wants to learn from us the characteristics of advanced equipment in modern war, rather than we are learning from it.