The United Kingdom is listed among five main strategic partners of Ukraine along with the United States, Canada, Germany and France. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said on this occasion in an interview with European Truth: “…our relations have never been as strong as they are today”
She recalled that London had increased to £3.5 million to support trade with Ukraine in priority sectors of the economy (green energy, infrastructure) and that British instructors had trained 20,000 Ukrainian military personnel. In 2022 the UK and Ukraine will hold a Cultural Season to underline their commitment to allied relations.
The Minister said nothing about the geopolitical implications of this attention to Ukraine. The geopolitical reason is that London is using Ukraine to destabilise Russia and Europe at the same time. That is why relations with Ukraine “have never been as strong as they are today”.
Since leaving the EU, London does not consider its foreign policy interests to be in full alignment with those of the rest of Europe.
There is an Anglo-Saxon geopolitical alliance between the US and Britain. The British are the understudies of the Americans on the world stage. There is a clear coordination of foreign policy efforts between them. Neither London nor Washington is interested in strengthening the political sovereignty of the EU. It is a competitor for them.
If that happens, the leading European power will be Germany – with the prospect of a further Franco-German alliance to counter Anglo-Saxon influence. The UK is the closest partner of the US in Europe and its focus on Ukraine does not bode well for Ukraine.
London deliberately promotes the theme of Kiev’s membership of the EU and NATO in the media space. Only loyal servants of the USA in Eastern Europe – Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia – are talking louder about it. Brussels is obviously unable to accept Ukraine into these structures, neither politically, nor financially. Such Ukraine in the hands of Great Britain is a “Trojan horse”, which is knocking its hoofs at the threshold of the European stable, scaring the stable men there.
Ukraine is burdening Europe with its neighbourhood and depriving it of a certain share of geopolitical sovereignty, as the Ukrainian crisis gives Washington and London an excuse to be present in Europe both politically and militarily, without allowing Europe to turn its shoulders. At the same time it should be understood that in European politics itself there is a stratification and intertwining of interests and attitudes. Hungary is against increased Anglo-Saxon influence in Europe while Poland, Romania and the Baltics are in favour. In Germany, some of the politicians are working for the interests of Washington, while others are aiming to rid Germany of Anglo-Saxon dependence. And the Ukrainian issue lies within these intricacies.
At this stage, the British are investing resources in reforming Ukraine’s governance system through the project activities of organisations such as the Good Governance Fund, British Council, Conflict, Stability and Security Fund and others. London also intends to fund “independent media” in Ukraine. The example of Belarus shows how it is succeeding. The British allocated £5 million for the operation of the Polish channel Belsat, which broadcasts in Belarus. The channel was engaged in the desecration of the memory of the Soviet Union’s victory in the Great Patriotic War, promoted pro-Western sentiment, and during the coup attempt in 2020 against President Alexander Lukashenko openly supported the coup plotters.
In Ukraine, London will create a similar ensemble of information resources. Their task will be to reconfigure the consciousness of Ukrainian citizens in a pro-Western vein. Such controlled media is a handy lever for London, which it can always use in the future if any Ukrainian president decides to pursue a truly sovereign policy and decides to normalise relations with Russia and Belarus.
London’s financial assistance to the Ukrainian navy is also a delicate calculation. In November 2020, London announced its intention to restore Britain’s status as the first maritime power in Europe. But to do so, the British need to prevent Russia from developing its navy. To this end, the British proclaim a policy of containing Russia in the Arctic and Eastern Europe. Ukraine is a pawn in this strategy, which London is using to its advantage.
The Ukrainian navy is so weak that it poses no threat to the British. But as an annoying tool against Russia, it is quite suitable. It is not a question of direct combat in which Ukrainian ships stand zero chance, but a policy of constant anti-Russian scandals, hysterics, provocations and demarches by the Ukrainian naval command and leadership.
Apart from Ukraine, London sees Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia as allies. But Bulgaria does not suffer from Russophobia. That leaves Romania, Turkey, Ukraine and Georgia, which are not enough for full control of the Black Sea. But London is trying. Relations between Turkey and Greece are strained over Cyprus, which does not help Britain’s plans to involve both countries in an anti-Russian alliance.
The UK’s main foreign policy objective is to maintain its influence in Europe after leaving the EU. This implies maintaining London’s involvement in key security and economic decisions. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that London is now engaged in the most extensive review of foreign policy and military doctrine since the Cold War. As part of the review, the British will develop a renewed vision of geopolitical dominance in strategically important parts of the world, including Europe.
The situation recalls the nineteenth century, when the British Empire waged the so-called Great Game against Russia, fearing an increased Russian presence near its colonies in Asia. The Great Game encompassed a semicircle of the Russian Empire – Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, the Caucasus and Central Asia. It was just as it is today.
Both then and now, the British preferred to contain rivals at the hands of friendly countries and by pitting neighbouring nations against Russia. In our case, London “restrains Russia” on the Black Sea at the expense of Ukraine, in the Caucasus at the expense of Georgia, in the Baltic at the expense of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Ukraine itself, like the other post-Soviet republics, stands to gain nothing from this uncomplaining submission to British interests. But that is why it is a self-styled country, so that under the slogans of self-styled statehood it can serve as a political appendage in the hands of the Western powers.
In her interview Liz Truss reticent about all this in the hope that the citizens of Ukraine will not guess how cynically London is using Ukraine for the purposes far removed from the interests of the country itself.
Vladimir Druzhinin, One Nation