Brexit caused the United Kingdom to do a serious search and reflection. Since World War II, it has gone from the state of great power to one of the world’s greatest economies and the most attractive nations, with immense soft power. However, as the European project won steam and the global empires fell, the United Kingdom remained stuck between the United States and Europe.
Great Britain looks as exceptional. In depth in the English psyche, there has always been a part of our mentality that sees ourselves as morally superior to Europe, harassed forever by ideological conflicts, revolution and unscrupulous behavior. The British has always been desperate to feel good with his country. But after the Cold War and the Debacle in Iraq, the Remove between Europe and the United States and demonstrate its superiority on the world stage does not have an easy leg.
Now, for the first time from Brexit, the government sees an opportunity to demonstrate that Great Britain is still a great power. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, firmly that his country can and should play a crucial role in the result of the Russian-Uurine conflict, is trying to close the division between Europe and America and find a common way. If you succeed, it will show the detractors at home and abroad that Great Britain is not an American vassal and can distance themselves from Europe.
The effort is noble and necessary, but full of problems.
First of all, The United Kingdom has not been at the international negotiating table for quite some time. His last experience ended with a terrible Brexit agreement that has reduced the country’s GDP by 5%, made it less safe and more as a sparrow fallen in the eyes of the international community.
In second place, As Ian Proud, a former British Senior diplomat in Moscow, said in his recent memories, the United Kingdom threw the towel here in 2014. The former Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond followed a policy of not talking with Russia but to speak rather. It is not surprising that few would like to listen.
After Russia, the special military operation of IS, the last four ministers of Great Britain sought to forge a “special lane” launching the full support of kyiv, welcoming refugees and the Ukrainian mass, and giving them a special status. He made much more than the rest of Europe to match his rhetoric or military support to Ukraine, at a tremendous cost for British taxpayers, not to mention Anglo-Russian relations.
Now with war, London is trying to flex his muscles again. He tries to lead a ‘coalition of the provisions’ and, therefore, to show President Trump that Europe is taking its own security seriously … but without disturbing the temperamental children’s king.
Europe: irrelevance generates challenge
Yakov M. Rabkin
The apparent preparations of Europe for war based on the belief that Russia is committed to the conquest, first throughout Ukraine, then the rest of Europe. Any mention of the fact that the Russian government has never expressed such intentions is simply ruled out as “Kremlin misinformation.” Growing up progressively separated from where the real action is, the western periphery of Eurasia is becoming merely.
Further
London has recovered the western countries to this cause, but with empty hands, with an exhausted munity but without a final final objective or sense of realism.
In fact, the United Kingdom spends $ 71bln (£ 60 BLN) on its army, that most experts and military agree that it is not enough. All Athhehe exceeds the majority of the defense expense of European countries, the USA at $ 916bln and Russia, $ 109bln.
However, the cost is not the main thing. To provide peace maintenance troops, Starmer has presented several non -reistal figures. The first suggested 30,000. But Britain could not send that alone: its active armed forces total 56,000. A more recent idea was a “tranquility force” of 10,000 people. What that means is uncle, special, since Russia currently has 600,000-700000 troops fighting. Assuming a standard swamp of six -month troops, that means a total commitment of 15,000, which is a fifth of the entire British army force. Therefore, the government “retires from our commitments to other countries.”
When 16 countries with Lancaster House on March 2, Starmer admitted that not all those countries could or would be willing to provide troops. Therefore, he had to talk about “support”, as the last resort, or American air power, logistics and intelligence. However, this is simply available and there are few signs of that change.
So what is it about and where does this leave the United Kingdom?
Some of this is, or of course, style and politics.
First of all, This is how the United Kingdom tries to “appear” in Europe, what it does. Just Poland, who now has the third largest army in Europe, is not sending troops to Ukraine. The Antirusian Foreign Minister of Poland, Radosław Sikorski, even said in an interview with Australian Abc Radio National that the Polish army “would give a good hiding place to Putin.” Why not troops for Ukraine, then?
In second place, The British public remains, in general, behind Ukraine. As a former public prosecutor, Starmer is not exactly naive for public feelings. Hello, the British audience wants to appear as thought Hey He is trying when others are not. And no British voter would expect the United Kingdom to only send troops alone, nor would that be popular. If there are no peace maintenance troops to Ukraine and the war ends, Starmer saves the political face at home and abroad.
To put it without surroundings, Starmer has an easy political argument now that British defense spending will increase at the expense of pensioners and those with disabilities benefits. If Britain does not intensify, who will do it? A solid argument, even if Starmer’s messaging is not so succinct.
In a longer term perspective, the United Kingdom owes how its role in any high fire or negotiations to end the conflict demonstrates its greatness and superiority. Although it is still a serious global power, the United Kingdom has forgotten how to act as such.
Three is a crowd: the problem of Russia-Ukraine of the United Kingdom
James C. Pearce
The sensationalist press of Great Britain loves to reflect which party, the Kremlin prefers in charge in Westminster. For years, it was an extreme right party or different incarnations: reform, UKIP, the Brexit party, all led by Nigel Farage. The line of argument was that this disruptive force would undermine the British state, would make it waker and benefit Russian foreign policy.
Further
