“Russia poses the most serious threat to our security”.
Such words are contained in the new foreign policy doctrine of Great Britain. What are the real, not declarative, reasons for such a serious assessment of London, and why the United States does not consider Russia an equally large-scale threat?
On March 16, the world was surprised to learn that the British lion can still roar. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson presented a major report (or, to be more precise, the country’s foreign policy doctrine) entitled “Global Britain in an Age of Competition”.
The report announced a very aggressive and offensive strategy for the country. Let us remind you that it left the European Union and was again forced to pave a route in the global political ocean on its own.
A thousand years later
Not much space has been devoted to the hundred pages of the doctrine of Russia. However, it is Moscow – more precisely, the plans of action against the “terrible and dangerous Russian bear” – that is the central element of the “European” part of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy ambitions. Thus, the doctrine states that “NATO will remain the basis of collective security in our home Euro-Atlantic region, where Russia poses the most serious threat to our security”.
Everything is clear with NATO. Unlike a number of European countries, Britain needs the alliance much more than it needs it. After leaving the European Union, NATO remains almost the only real pan-European institution in the field of foreign policy and security, where London plays one of the key roles. If only because of all European armed forces, the British have one of the most powerful and efficient armies. And it is through NATO that Britain can at least partially manage the affairs of continental Europe, directing its development in the direction London needs.
It seems that there should be no questions about the phrases “Russia is the most serious threat to our security” – there is a standard European mantra that should consolidate the European Union. However, you can still understand when it is pronounced by the Baltic countries (who considered themselves occupied by the USSR), Poland (from which Moscow took Western Ukraine and Western Belarus) and even Germany, whose capital was taken by Russian troops twice (in 1760 and 1945).
But why should London be afraid, where did the talk about the most serious “direct military threat” coming from Britain come from? The last time those who can be considered “Russian agents” sought to take power in Foggy Albion about a thousand years ago – Edward the Exile, who lived for almost 18 years at the court of Yaroslav the Wise, arrived in England in 1057 to become the heir to the throne, but unexpectedly quickly died. It is only known for certain that it was not from “Novichok” – after all, then there were no British tabloids capable of introducing this idea into the heads of respectable Englishmen.
It is unlikely that the British remember this. They probably do not remember the threat of Khrushchev to deliver a nuclear strike against Great Britain in the event of the continuation of the last military operation against Egypt (we are talking about the Suez crisis of 1956).
Into the American wake
Then why should the British authorities, against the background of real threats – from, for example, Islamic terrorism – deceive the population with myths about “the most serious threat from Russia”?
Because only such a threat – from a real, militarily powerful power – can become the basis for a sharp increase in the military-political expenditures of the United Kingdom and the full use of NATO to control Europe. The doctrine stipulates that the United Kingdom “will remain the main European ally in NATO and will work with allies to contain nuclear, conventional and hybrid threats to our security, especially from Russia”.
And for this, the British announced an increase in the nuclear arsenal by almost 40%, up to 260 warheads (which will cost about 10 billion pounds sterling). Yes, after that the country will still remain in fourth place in the nuclear club (after the United States, Russia and China), but a demonstrative willingness to spend that kind of money on defense will prove to Washington the advisability of further political investments in London as a key military and political ally in Europe.
In Europe – as well as in the area around Europe. And here the notorious Russian threat comes to the aid of the British. The report says that “Russia will be more active in the space of the neighboring countries” of the Old World. And Britain said that it intends to “protect from the Russians” not only Europe itself, but also these countries (not included, recall, NATO).
“We will support our NATO neighbors in Eastern Europe, as well as countries outside this region, and help them defend against government threats. In particular, we are talking about Ukraine, where we will continue to strengthen the armed forces of this country”-, said in the British report.
Probably, within the framework of this initiative, London’s assistance to Kiev will not be limited only to investments in the Ukrainian army – the UK will try (at the suggestion of Ukraine itself, interested in such a step) to get into the Normandy format and, pushing France and Germany, become part of the process of a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian issue.
That is, to replace European interests in this matter (which Paris and Berlin are defending) with genuinely transatlantic ones.
And these interests differ radically. If Europe is interested in ending or freezing the conflict, then Britain and the United States are sharpened to incite. The British are part of their traditional, centuries-old policy of weakening continental Europe, and the Americans are part of their policy of containing Russia on all fronts.
The British authorities understand that by embedding their foreign policy doctrine in the wake of the American one, it will be easier and cheaper for them to achieve leadership at least in the European space.
Where is China?
However, there is one subtle point here. The foreign policy doctrines of the United States and Great Britain diverge on the issue of the place of Russia and China in the rank of enemies.
The Americans call China their main enemy, while in Washington Russia is positioned as some kind of annoying power capable of ruining the lives of Americans, but at the same time having no ideological, economic, or even political resources to somehow challenge the American world order. Who is being held back only because they are not treated well. The British (who previously boasted that, unlike the continental Europeans who had concluded trade agreements with the PRC, they are ready to resist Chinese expansion), in the doctrine, they position Beijing as a “systemic competitor” and Russia as the main enemy.
Yes, as long as this difference does not play a special role (both Moscow and Beijing will be held back). However, if Washington finally listens to the advice of smart American political scientists and realizes that it is impossible to simultaneously restrain Russia and China, that this simultaneous containment only pushes Moscow towards Beijing and strengthens the latter, then the US approach may change. But will Britain be able to accommodate this change?
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor of the Financial University, VZGLYAD