【Wen/Observer Net, Liu Bai】"The Royal Navy of the UK is reducing its training scale in the vicinity of China." The report by the UK's Daily Telegraph on December 9 revealed the curtain of the declining strength of the British military.

According to the report, the Royal Navy plans to reduce overseas training in the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, shifting its focus to cooperation with NATO, and concentrate on "home defense" in the Atlantic, Arctic, and European waters to address the threat posed by Russian warships. The Conservative Party accused the Labour government of this move as an "invisible cut" to cover up the Ministry of Defence's overspending, which not only weakens Britain's ability to counter China but also hinders the improvement of combat readiness, leading to the loss of global military advantages and damaging the reputation among allies.

The Labour Party's minister for armed forces affairs, Al Khan, announced this plan. He stated that the decision aims to strengthen "home defense" by focusing on actions with NATO in the Atlantic, Arctic, and European waters, regions increasingly threatened by Russian warships.

However, James Cartledge, the Conservative Party's shadow minister for defence, believes the real reason for the Labour Party's significant reduction in overseas military training is "cost-saving". He cited a previous exposé from the Daily Telegraph, stating that the Ministry of Defence has a funding gap of £260 million this fiscal year.

Aside from the funding gap, the Daily Telegraph also reported that the Royal Navy's capability to conduct missions at sea has been continuously declining for at least a decade.

A report by the UK Ministry of Defence showed that the number of "readiness days" (days when ships are available for deployment) has dropped sharply from 16,630 days in 2014 to 12,433 days in 2024, setting a ten-year low.

August 13, Busan, South Korea: The British frigate "Richmond" and the fleet oiler "Tidespring" docked at the Busan Naval Base. IC Photo

At the same time, the overall size of the Royal Navy has also been reduced.

The report stated that in 2014, the Royal Navy had 65 vessels, including 13 Type 23 frigates, 6 Type 45 destroyers, 4 amphibious assault ships, and 11 submarines. Now, the fleet has only 51 warships and 10 submarines, with many of these vessels having been moored in ports for years.

After the retirement of the "Lancaster" frigate last week, only seven old frigates remain in service.

Retired Royal Navy Rear Admiral Bob Culkin said that the current measures to cut training may have serious consequences.

"I understand the pressures we are facing and the need to strengthen deterrence in the areas adjacent to NATO, but the fact is, we are losing or sacrificing our advantage as a global military power," Culkin said regretfully. "If we now have to use almost 100% of our assets focused on home waters and the Atlantic, it would be a very sad situation. I can even say it's a dangerous one."

Culkin added that for centuries, the UK has successfully defended its home waters and deployed forces abroad, and cutting back on overseas training will seriously affect its reputation among allies.

"We will pay the price for the shrinking navy. This means less connection with global partners, less influence over trade partners, and weakened deterrent capability for military deployments abroad... We will lose a lot if we no longer act as a true global entity."

Ryan Ramsey, a retired submarine captain, believes that given the shrinking naval strength and the "threat" posed by Russia in British waters, this move is a "wise" decision. However, he added, "we must not underestimate the role of soft power... once lost, it takes time to restore. It's a risk."

It is worth noting that some views suggest that the UK government's force reduction is intended to align with the US's new national security strategy.

On December 4, the White House quietly released the National Security Strategy report for President Trump's second term.

This 33-page document unusually articulated the foreign policy worldview of the Trump administration. The report was harsh towards Europe, implying that Europe is in a decline of civilization, and paid little attention to the Middle East and Africa. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post noted that while the Indo-Pacific region occupied a significant position in the document, the Western Hemisphere and domestic security were the White House's primary concerns.

An independent website covering Royal Navy news and commentary, "Navy Lookout", previously published a report that before the upcoming mid-year defense assessment report, the Royal Navy would retire more ships.

UK Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed on November 20 in Parliament that, as part of a cost-saving measure, five naval vessels would be retired. Healey stated that the decision was based on common sense, responding to current financial pressures, and as part of a package of measures, the retirement of these naval ships would save the Ministry of Defence about £500 million over the next five years.

August 28, Tokyo, Japan: The Royal Navy's Prince of Wales aircraft carrier arrived at the Tokyo Port International Cruise Terminal. IC Photo

Despite the significant reduction in naval strength, British politicians still frequently travel to the Asia-Pacific region to show their presence in recent years.

For example, in the second half of last year, the British military participated in a series of large-scale joint exercises, including the "Rim of the Pacific 2024" multinational maritime exercise, claiming to demonstrate the UK's commitment to supporting security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, the British "Prince of Wales" carrier also deployed to the Indo-Pacific.

China has repeatedly warned that it firmly opposes any external country coming far away to the Asia-Pacific to showcase military might and meddle in regional affairs. If such actions are implemented, strategically, they will be unhelpful to regional peace and stability, and tactically, they will produce no practical effect. China demands that the UK should not use various pretexts to show "presence" or unnecessarily provoke confrontation.

Now, with the news of the Royal Navy's withdrawal from the Asia-Pacific, British netizens have also started to mock the situation.

"Why did they rush there in the first place? A single hypersonic missile from China would take down the carrier. This government is really playing with fire. Shouldn't they learn from the lessons of Ukraine? The UK is now a military underdog, pure ridicule."

"We can't even defend our own borders, why waste money going on wild adventures?"

"Do you really think a country without an industrial-military complex and with fewer resources than China could pose any major threat to China?"

"America thinks the EU and the UK are no longer allies, so we need to look more toward China. Goodbye, America; welcome, China."

"The Royal Navy is no longer what it used to be, becoming a shadow of itself, unable to even protect Britain and the North Atlantic, let alone the Far East or the Pacific."

"Naval strength has been greatly weakened, making patrols in any area difficult. 'Britannia rules the waves'? Hah, don't even dream about it. Another fall from grace."

"We are not a global power, and if we consider ourselves to be, that's self-deception..."

"Our navy is exhausted, and the top priority should be protecting the country from imminent threats, not pretending to challenge China on the global stage. The era of empire is long gone."

This article is exclusive to Observer Net. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7582879727095071242/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the official stance of the platform.