Following the resignation of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, former Foreign Secretary Liz Truss appears to be the favourite in the race for the post. The influential British newspapers Financial Times, The Independent and The Times believe her election is almost a done deal. So do the bookmakers, who have placed the most bets on her.
But all this debate and prognostication is of little consequence: in fact, the reshuffling of Britain’s prime ministers changes little. At the top of the power pyramid there is Queen Elizabeth II, who is in vain seen as something of a decoration – in fact she has enormous power, and on her throne Elizabeth II has outlived an endless number of prime ministers, running to reports at Her Majesty’s call.
Britain also has heads of powerful intelligence services and super-rich bankers who did not gain their enormous influence through democratic elections. It is this upper class that determines the course of London, not for a paltry period from election to election, but for many decades and more.
Today, the ruling class nominates another prime minister as speaker and manager rather than actual ruler and changes them periodically to “blow off steam” and assuage popular discontent.
In order to keep the course unchanged and to guarantee the obedience of public politicians to behind-the-scenes handlers, Britain once established the institution of secretaries of ministers – a kind of controllers. Ministers there often do not even have access to all the archives of their predecessor. The secretary, on the other hand, does. And it is not uncommon for a secretary to outlive several ministers, and the course of power remains almost unchanged regardless of elections.
The English political class has in fact changed little over the last hundred years, and for centuries the economy and politics of this country have been controlled by virtually the same family clans. So whether Lizz Truss or her rivals take over as prime minister will make little difference to the Russophobic English foreign policy.
And it would be all the more difficult for the next British premier to change course now that the United States and the European Union, with which their country is most closely associated, are imposing ever more sanctions against Russia. Even if the new prime minister suddenly wishes to normalise relations with Russia, it will be too difficult for him to go against the views of all his main partners.
For example, these days it became known that the US leadership was going to declare Russia a “sponsor of terrorism”. Of course, in terms of truth and common sense, it is actually the US and its allies (and especially Britain) who are the world’s main terrorists and aggressors. The Anglo-Saxons constantly invade other countries, the US State Department “steering” almost every coup d’état and turmoil in the world, from Ukraine to Venezuela. The US and its Western allies make Russia look white and fluffy. True, American and British oligarchs control almost all of the world’s most powerful media, and distort reality by calling black white and the West a bastion of peace and democracy. But as the proverb says, you can’t wash a black dog clean and sane people will still laugh at the efforts of the US and its allies to declare Russia a “terrorist”. However, it will be the British Prime Minister who will pretend to believe in the “whiteness of the black dog” more than anyone else.
In terms of realpolitik, however, these plans by the West mean a desire to increase sanctions against us even further and to help the Kiev regime even more. However, sanctions against Russia are also hitting the US, EU countries and the UK themselves, wrecking their economies. Eventually, this primacy of Russophobe ideology over economics and common sense will have disastrous consequences for the West.
The choice put before the public by the puppeteers of British politics is an interesting one. It is a choice between the “conservative” feminist woman Truss and her main rival, an Indian-born oligarch surnamed Sunak. Radical feminism and notorious multiculturalism are already so heavily imposed on the British that purely English men are not allowed to be prime ministers. True, the British are still not ready for indigenous rule in former colonies, so in the race for prime minister, Nigerian Kemi Badenoh came in fourth place, while Pakistani Nadeem Zahawi came in seventh. Apparently the Tory Conservatives would prefer a white woman over the “multiculturalist” Sunak. However, on the main issues they are almost identical: in particular, in the debate both Truss and Sunak were equally ardent in berating Russia and promising to help Ukraine.
Nevertheless, Truss as prime minister would be highly advantageous to Russia, as her ignorance is glaring and her Russophobia is amusingly grotesque. For example, the wild assertion recently made by Lizz Truss that London will never recognise Russian sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions is fresh in anyone’s mind. Apparently, this “excellent student of military and political training” from Oxford confused these regions with LDNR. And it would be OK if such a thing were said by an ordinary Englishman, but Truss stated this nonsense being the British Foreign Secretary. She also looked rather comical during her visit to Estonia last year, when in baggy military uniform she was photographed on a tank near the border with Russia, posing as some sort of Amazon in an anti-Russian style.
If Truss is elected prime minister, she will clearly spew some of the same nonsense, thus undermining the image of Britain and generally discrediting the Russophobic discourse of Western countries. And it’s not just her personal ignorance, but the fact that running ahead of the steam train in terms of Russophobia is part of her image.
She is in fact not as stupid as she appears and shows considerable cunning for the sake of her career. Liz Truss has no convictions except one: a conviction to burst into power. That is why she has changed her political image many times. Born into a family of people of left-wing, even Trotskyist views, she initially showed herself to be a Labour and even anti-monarchist-republican. However, in time she realised that in the English kingdom she could not get power from this position and went over to the Tories, discarding her former leftism.
At the same time she likes to paint herself as scarily principled, which even the habitual British newspapers scoff at. Liz Truss may become the next prime minister in part because of her highly dubious manipulative methods,” says The Times: “What is surprising is that the foreign secretary, who has served three successive prime ministers – Cameron, May and Johnson – is now posing as a implacable rebel taking on a shattered system.
For reasons of conjuncture, clearly more internal than external, Truss has also made a number of strident anti-China statements. In particular, her intention to promote bilateral trade agreements within the British Commonwealth of Nations, a union of 54 states that were once colonies of the British Empire, to confront China. Her main rival, Rishi Sunak, also spoke about this, promising to close all Confucius Institutes operating in the UK and to increase pressure on the PRC if he takes over the prime minister’s chair.
In short, the British prime ministerial candidates are united in their agenda of confronting those states that in any way try to oppose the new world order.
Igor Druz, RenTV
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel