England became the leader of the West against Russia – 01/23/2022 – Matthias Allencastro

In the United Kingdom, all conversations revolve around the “partygate”, where the corruption of secret banquets organized by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s group during his first imprisonment is well known.

Forced to publicly apologize for his boycott and boycott, Boris faces a revolt within his own party. With great moral power among the depressed political class, former Conservative MP Rory Stewart, in an article in the Financial Times last week, spoke out against the “culture and organization” that describes politics as a simple game.

However, while quiet tabloid reports dominate domestic politics, the country is enjoying decisive and exciting days in international relations. In the conflict with Russia, London took the lead in regional alliances with Poland and the Baltic in defending Ukraine. The Difference Between British Diplomacy and EU Reluctance Last week, the newly inaugurated German government, Olaf Scholz, blocked the Estonian-integrated arms transfer operation to Ukraine, causing distrust among NATO members.

Minutes later, Berlin urgently had to remove a general accused of speaking publicly in support of Russia. Germany is not alone in being insecure in the face of events. US President Joe Biden has put an end to the international community by failing to ensure that Washington will never tolerate the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

NATO seems to be paralyzed by the distinction between the most aggressive US position and the European position, knowing the dangers that a conflict represents to its energy security. The company’s internal split code is rife. The alliance is seen as the main reason for Russia’s military expansion for disregarding regional promises made in the 1990s.

For years, the United Kingdom has been accused of acting erratically and compromising US-European cooperation. The only actor with a coherent and proactive strategy in dealing with Russia. Several factors explain the key role of his diplomacy.

One of them, Brexit, seems to have had the effect imagined, at least in the field of foreign policy, by its creators. The UK would never have opened a front in Eastern Europe if it had to ask EU members the right way. London’s high agility is also reflected in strategic communication. Over the weekend, in a Hollywood scene, the Foreign Ministry released a statement saying Russia plans to establish a puppet government in Ukraine in the event of an invasion. Filled with unusual details, the text includes a list of possible ministers.

The belated but brutal realization of the ill effects of the infiltration of Russian capital into the British democratic system is another factor that appears to be gaining weight. Saddam House’s recent statement highlighted the deep corruption of politicians and businessmen by oligarchy close to Putin, which has been condemned by civil society for years. At least some government agencies are aware that diplomatic opposition to Russia is a matter of internal security.

A brief look at the history of the British Empire teaches us that the best moments of foreign policy are often overlooked by public debate. With London leading the West alone in an international crisis for the first time in decades, in the coming weeks, newspapers will continue to make headlines about Boris’ revelry during epidemics.

Provide link: Did you like this text? The subscriber can publish up to five free accesses to any connection per day. Click the blue F below.