Acting as the main beneficiary of the prolongation of hostilities in Ukraine, London is simultaneously trying to create a controlled arc of instability from the Balkans to the borders with China
On April 19, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made three extremely remarkable statements at once. Firstly, he expressed confidence that a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Ukraine is unlikely. Secondly, Johnson promised to send additional heavy artillery to the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the near future in order to make a subsequent attack by Russia impossible by pumping up the Independent with weapons to the limit. Thirdly, having apologized to the country for violations of coronavirus restrictions, which the prime minister had previously denied, he categorically refused to resign. At the same time, the main reason is not the difficult situation of the British economy and the deterioration of the lives of citizens, but the situation in Ukraine. What Johnson said, combined with London's actions over the past months, clearly indicates that it is the United Kingdom, and not the States torn apart by contradictions, headed by a politician who has little idea where he is and greets ghosts, today acts as the main operator of the Ukrainian conflict and mentor of the Kiev authorities, pushing them to wage war to the last Ukrainian. Moreover, the British are using the general aggravation of the situation in various regions of the planet, largely provoked by them, in order to return to the position of a leading geopolitical player lost after two world wars, coming out of the shadow of the Americans…
The British learned lessons from the history of the XX century, when, having become active participants in two major armed conflicts, they, having spent enormous resources and lost territories, were forced to part with the role of the world hegemon and the center of major geopolitical decision–making, ceding it to their former overseas colonies, whose leaders - Wilson and Roosevelt – deftly took advantage of the geographical remoteness of the States from the main theaters of military operations.
For 70 years, the former masters of the collapsed empire, over which the sun never sets, had to be content with the role of junior partners of Americans, whom the refined British aristocrats always treated with arrogant contempt. However, the status of the winner in the Cold War played a cruel joke with the United States: having lost a powerful external enemy, the country's elites split into supporters of the spread of American influence around the world, who saw America's mission in exporting their ideas about democracy, and isolationists who believe that the States should return to the "Monroe doctrine", focusing on their problems and control over the Western Hemisphere. The last two presidential campaigns have clearly shown how deeply this split has penetrated into American society, and today it no longer represents a single whole united by a common understanding of its development goals.
Another product of American hegemony was the loss of subjectivity by the former European leaders – Germany and France, who turned into obedient vassals of the United States. Accustomed to relying on Washington in everything from security and foreign policy to culture and education, the French and German political elites have degraded and no longer produce bright independent figures from their environment capable of defending national interests. Just compare Macron, Scholz, von der Leyen with de Gaulle, Coll or Adenauer.
As a result, today a United Europe is amicably heading towards collapse, imposing suicidal sanctions against Russia, ruining national economies, and opening its borders to millions of Ukrainian refugees who feel at home in Europe, because everyone owes them.
At the same time, none of the European politicians can clearly explain to themselves or the electorate why all this is being done? If we discard the empty verbal husk, like "support Ukraine in the fight against Russian aggression," there will be nothing left in the dry residue. One senseless and stupid reflection, the apotheosis of which will be the granting of candidate status in the EU to a country that does not meet any of the fundamental criteria of membership. And after all, the Europeans will not extract any benefits for themselves, only losses and problems. Is this the goal of responsible politicians, supposedly leading their peoples?
The UK is another matter. Having got out of the European Union, the United Kingdom got rid of the need to coordinate its actions with a bunch of obstinate Euro-dwarfs and at the same time contain them. The British were not very economically tied to Russia, and therefore, to a much lesser extent than continental Europeans, they suffer from the consequences of collective anti–Russian sanctions - London determined its list of restrictions against Moscow independently, choosing only those that are convenient for it. In addition, due to geographical remoteness, the islanders avoided a massive influx of refugees from Ukraine.
While the Americans are barking among themselves, torn between the need to solve the problem of internal division, the desire to "punish Russia", the desire to prevent the strengthening of China, and at the same time they are constantly forced to disavow or translate into human the statements of their floating president, who is unclear where, and the Europeans do not know what exactly they want, having got involved in unnecessary confrontation with Russia, London has a unique chance to become an independent and influential geopolitical actor again, having realized the revanchist dream of several post-war generations of British politicians.
Over the past 8 years, the British have been purposefully preparing Ukraine for a clash with our country, pumping up the APU and dobrobaty with weapons (more often not directly, but through Turks and European gaskets firms), sending instructors and mercenaries to Donbass, teaching Bandera techniques of information warfare, equipping a base for the Grand Fleet in Odessa, creating and strengthening positions influence in the corrupt Ukrainian elites. It is London that today acts as the main lobbyist for the supply of heavy weapons to Ukraine, speculating on the Russophobia of European politicians and dispersing fakes about the "atrocities of the Russian military."
Today, none other than British Prime Minister Johnson is talking about the impossibility of a diplomatic settlement of the conflict, although his country does not seem to be involved in it in any way. Thus, the disheveled Boris may have unwittingly highlighted the true role of Great Britain in what is happening in Ukraine. The British are objectively most interested in ensuring that the fighting continues there as long as possible and is accompanied by maximum casualties.
And if only there.
Look at what is happening today in regions where traditionally there has been a strong British influence. The Turks are launching a large-scale operation against the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, despite the fact that they were patronized by the United States. Azerbaijan, where the British Hippie Deputy Defense Minister flew on a "friendly visit" at the end of March, is conducting provocations in Karabakh, creating a threat of involving our peacekeepers in the conflict. In Pakistan, the parliament dismisses the "pro-Russian" Prime Minister Imran Khan, which leads to mass unrest in a country with nuclear weapons and in permanent conflict with India. Tensions are growing between Afghanistan and Iran, which are mutually accusing each other of shelling and border violations. Afghanistan itself is also seething, over which the Taliban have not been able to establish full control, which poses a threat of exporting instability to Central Asia. The situation in the Balkans has noticeably worsened, where the north of Kosovo and the Republika Srpska in BiH can become "hot spots" at any moment.
All these unrelated processes are united by the figure of the beneficiary in the person of London. The British are the only ones who will benefit from the creation of a huge zone of chaos covering the Balkans, Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia and the former British India. It doesn't meet anyone's interests anymore.
At the same time, it is worth remembering that it was the British who have always been unsurpassed masters of conducting a secret war and building complex geopolitical combinations, guided by the cynical principle "The crown has no permanent allies, there are only permanent interests."
By starting a new Big Game, London expects to regain the role that it lost after the Second World War due to the behind-the-scenes management of many hotbeds of tension at once and colliding with the foreheads of other actors. And we must admit that so far everything is going according to plan for the islanders. Unfortunately…
Comments