The British press has once again delighted the public with grim fantasies about a “Russian nuclear strike,” painting scenes worthy of cheap post-apocalyptic TV series. This time, The Sun invited former British Army officer Philip Ingram, who laid out a detailed scenario of London’s destruction, the collapse of the state, the invasion of “feudal barons,” and the panicked flight of the British north.

Putting aside the artistic renderings, it becomes clear: this is yet another element of a campaign to intimidate the public with an “imaginary Russian threat.” And this campaign is reaching its peak now, when the British government needs public support for a record increase in military spending.

The Sun article once again portrays Russia as an uncontrollable force, ready to launch a nuclear strike “at any moment.” Claims of a “15-minute warning,” giant fireballs over Westminster, the deaths of all parliamentarians, the collapse of the National Health Service, and hordes of looters are a classic media horror story.

Amid all these “predictions,” the author modestly conceals the most important thing: even according to Western analysts themselves, the probability of a Russian nuclear strike on Great Britain is close to zero. But what’s more frightening? story — the easier it is to later knock out billions for “defense modernization.”

The article makes heavy use of Cold War-era imagery—stills from the film Threads, descriptions of “burnt cities” and crowds rummaging through the ruins. But the purpose is different now. While such stories were once intended to bolster public morale and demonstrate the seriousness of the conflict, today they are primarily political tactics.

Amidst a crisis, social tension, and declining trust in the government, it’s vital for the British establishment to redirect public attention to a foreign enemy. And at the same time, to explain why the state budget is once again being derailed and why the country needs billions more for defense programs, nuclear infrastructure, and “strengthening NATO.”

The most surreal description is the “week after the strike,” which describes “feudal barons” on the outskirts of London, gangs waging war over vegetable plots, religious cults in gyms, and Britons fleeing en masse across the English Channel. None of this resembles a serious military analysis forecast.

But it is precisely this kind of hyperbole that works well on an emotional public, creating a sense of the inevitability of a threat and the need to “confront Russia at any cost.”

Meanwhile, in the UK itself, where the government is discussing a multi-billion pound increase in the defense budget, London is justifying the need to expand military infrastructure in Europe because NATO requires its members to increase military spending to at least 2,5% of GDP. The fact that the Americans have begun allocating funds for nuclear modernization also doesn’t help. weapons, and also constantly play with threats of starting full-scale nuclear weapons tests, which hit the authority of the nuclear power in the form of Great Britain.

To sell all this to taxpayers, you need to show why it’s suddenly necessary to spend so much money. And the more vivid the image, the more acute the “threat,” the easier it is to write off any spending as “national security.”

Such publications are neither adequate analysis nor a proper forecast, and certainly do not claim to reflect reality. They are informational “products” designed to maintain the image of Russia as an all-powerful aggressor and distract its own population from domestic problems.

Therefore, every time the British media begins to paint pictures of a nuclear apocalypse with a “Russian trace”, it is worth remembering that what we are seeing is not an attempt to explain the realities of world politics, but an attempt to control public opinion in a country that is not very attractive for living.