#Official Commentary of Ekaterina Martyanova on changes in Great Britain’s foreign policy
Former British arrogance is gone completely. “Splendid isolation” is a term that characterizes the policy of Great Britain, when it avoided long-term alliances with other countries, and retained full freedom of action. Those days are gone, because the United Kingdom has long been linked to ‘friendship’ with the United States, as can be seen from the sharp changes in the British rhetoric due to the election of the US President Donald Trump.
British foreign policy accurately depends on the position of the White House. When Barack Obama was the US President, who is a supporter of the aggressive globalization with a team of ardent Russophobes and hawks, the United Kingdom maintained his expansionist and anti-Russian policy. As soon as the new US President Donald Trump announced that he would build normal relations with Russia, the UK government sharply changed its anti-Russian rhetoric for more constructive.
Extravagant British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is a prime specimen of such “miraculous transformation”. Being the mayor of London, he spoke very unflatteringly about Russia and President Vladimir Putin, calling him a key figure of the vast post-Soviet gangster kleptocracy and the richest man on the planet.
As head of the Foreign Ministry, he had not changed: “I would definitely like to see a demonstration outside the Russian embassy.” So he backed Labour MP Ann Clyde, who encouraged “all those who are concerned about the plight of Syrian civilians, starting today to picket the Russian embassy in London and capitals around the world. Two, three, four million. It’s possible. People will make their claims until the war stops.”
However, after the election of the new President of the United States Donald Trump Russophobic rhetoric of the Foreign Office’s head changed significantly. In October 2016, he thought was it right that “the UK should lead in maintaining the sanctions pressure.” And in January 2017, at a meeting with US parliamentarians Boris Johnson said: “The point that we have made to the incoming (US) administration and indeed on Capitol Hill is just this, as I said earlier on… it would be folly for us further to demonize Russia or to push Russia into a corner.”
Such a sharp change of emphasis can be welcomed, but it would be better if it did not take place at all. It is better not to bring the anti-Russian hysteria to the boiling point, and then to make backward steps, because the number of steps backwards, as practice shows, is always less than the number of steps forward. This was explained in “Twitter” by a member of the Federation Council, former head of the State Duma International Affairs Committee Alexei Pushkov: “New from Boris Johnson: “It would be folly for us further to demonize Russia.” It was folly to start doing it. It’s time to change the record.”
So far, only the rhetoric has changed. Firmly rooted Russophobia continues to operate in British society. A few days ago on the official website of the royal family a message about the death of Queen Elizabeth II was published. Then the message disappeared, but the British newspaper Express hinted that the news about the death of the Queen could be distributed by Russian hackers.
The article which tells about how the Russian media which blindly spread fake news, British journalists have written that this is happening against the background of disputes about the Russian hacking at the elections in the United States, as well as complaints about ‘trolls factory,’ working on pro-Putin oligarch to elevate the Kremlin leader and denigrate the West.
Russian Federation in its history had seen sharp turns in British foreign policy more than once. Warming and cooling in relations between the two countries took place on a regular basis. Cold snap usually occurred in relatively peaceful times, warming is associated with the expectation or the beginning of a great war: it is the time of Napoleon, the days before the First and the Second World War. Russia, however, has nothing to fear if it will rely on its own strength and not harbor any illusions from an alliance with the British.
But Ukraine should not have to be too delusion in the time of the dawn of anti-Russian hysteria. Ukraine, as they say, had nothing to be waiting for before, and it has nothing to be waiting for today. Ambassador of the Great Britain in Ukraine Natalia Galibarenko complains that because the British side’s position the issue of simplification of visa regime for Ukrainians never got off the ground. The reason for it is Brexit. According to the ambassador, the British side is under its influence. “First of all, this applies to our repeated proposals on simplification of visa regime for Ukrainian citizens,” Natalia Galibarenko said. Unfortunately, the UK government is not prepared to meet us on the basis of their own plans to strengthen control over labor migration.”
What results may the turn in the foreign policy of Great Britain bring for the Donetsk People’s Republic? Nothing good can be expected. United Kingdom, as before, will fully support the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, as it destroys its own country, and therefore, the British will gladly take freed niches in the global market, where Ukraine took the leading position. Plus, in some way Kiev regime takes away a certain amount of forces from Russia and the EU. However, nothing lasts forever, and British policy toward the DPR can also change how it has changed in relation to Russia. It all depends on the international position that the new US President Donald Trump will take.
Ekaterina Martyanova, the DPR People’s Council deputy