Since 2015, London has been aiding the Kiev regime more than any other NATO country, and tens of British officers have been in Ukraine training local units and planning operations.
Some days ago the British press wrote that London has since 2015 been providing more aid to the Kiev regime than any other NATO country, and this includes tens of officers that were stationed in Ukraine, training local units, planning operations and so forth. British generals even mediated between Washington and Kiev when disagreements arose.
This is London’s way of fighting for peace. In reality – and even the press has noted this – the British prime minister is doing his utmost to secure a spot at the negotiation table and is offended that neither the US nor Russia are planning on inviting him.
Whatever the Brits might do, one idea, one goal remains at the centre: spreading enmity in its surroundings. The path of cooperation, if even conditional, is a concept unknown to them. The current authorities are following the established tradition of always impeding any tendency towards a political settlement.
London has always oriented itself towards Washington. While the useless Democrats were in power, the Brits felt rather confident. British politicians tried their best to use the topic of Ukraine, and the press exploited the population’s fear of Russia and inflated it. Even their limited capabilities were sufficient to provide various types of aid to the Kiev regime.
Russophobia: a permanent feature of British policy
In wanting to ignore their own mistakes and not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, the British authorities are turning to their favourite tactic: blaming Russians for everything.
Despite its weakness, the UK was settling into the role of a mediator between the US and EU, however now the situation has changed; in the US, the new figures that came to power are not in need of any mediators. This February, Starmer was in the Oval Office, crouching in front of Trump and trying his best to get on the US president’s good side. After all, he handed him an invitation from King Charles III, which Matthew Parris, journalist and former assistant of Thatcher, called a “cheap, embarrassing and degrading stunt, undoubtedly painful for the king”.
Currently, the Brits already have enough on their plate domestically and lack the resources to put on a front of self-confidence. In the last weeks, London has undertaken a number of steps aimed at showcasing that the UK, too, has a role to play in international affairs. There have been many proposals concerning sending European ‘peacekeepers’ to the territory of Ukraine. Such an idea seems impossible considering Russia’s position on the matter, i.e. a categorical rejection of such a scenario. However, an absent taste of reality has never before been an issue for British politicians; for more than two months they have discussing the details of this unattainable project.
British politicians just cannot seem to understand that the times when Great Britain was the ‘Mistress of the Seas’ are long gone. It is no coincidence that the US press is now calling London the “Singapore of the Atlantic”.
In the last three years the UK has seen a number of governments and prime ministers come and go, with each prime minister being weaker than his predecessor (both politically and intellectually). Previously, this could be interpreted as senior politicians simply not wanting to take responsibility in difficult times. However, today many observers are increasingly growing suspicious of there simply not being any such figure and that there is nobody to pick from. It is no coincidence that the current prime minister is called uneducated and has little support from the population.
At the same time, it cannot be denied the English have for decades excelled in organising provocations, sabotaging agreements and engaging in conspiracies, amongst other things.
In this context, the confession of Stella Rimington, who was the director general of the MI5 in the late 90s, is quite symbolic. In her book, published in 2001, she wrote: “We were, indeed, working on a plan to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi. But one must keep in mind that we were considering assassinating all other leaders in the world as well. These plans were ‘just in case’, exploring the possibilities of making an assassination attempt, which allowed us to be one step ahead of other ‘players’ in case we suddenly needed to destroy one of the leaders. We even developed assassination scenarios for ‘our own’ — Thatcher, Bush, Reagan and others, partly as mental gymnastics, and partly to strengthen our own security measures. I don’t think it has never been said that the assassination attempt on Reagan, where he was wounded, was actually organised by the CIA. It was an attempt to test the degree of protection of the president, which ended unsuccessfully. Yes, yes, his own people shot at him! However, it is characteristic of the incompetent American that they could not kill him. You may ask why I was allowed to publish such a sensitive fact in this book, which has passed through censorship. The answer, of course, is that we never miss an opportunity to embarrass the Americans, the most despotic of our allies…”
This shows that one should not expect the UK to play a positive role in international affairs. The current authorities’ attention is directed towards sabotaging planned agreements and disrupting the constructive efforts of other countries.
Vladimir Mashin, political observer, Candidate of Historical Sciences
