the UK’s Russia-Ukraine Problem — Russia in Global Affairs

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.

However, there is only one problem with this argument: it is ridiculous. Reform and Ukip were not going to win any of the previous elections and their chans in the next are still more gloomy. The British electoral system of First Fits The Post will not allow it unless the conservative party somehow collapses (it is far from death). Assembling this higher in the surveys (currently 25%) means that they have a long way to fall before.

Another theory has been, quite strangely, the conservative party. Before the 2015 elections, it was written that conservatives are a bad known in Russia and, therefore, there is no expectation that you think it could get worse between the two nations. That comment has aged very poor.

If the story tells us something, it could be the Labor Party, now in power for nine months. Relations with the United Kingdom in Russia flourished under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and during the Soviet era, work always gave a more conciliatory tone towards Moscow. He helped socialist thinkers always try to learn from the first communist state (good and bad elements).

But the old Trotskyist that the left no longer occupies the core of the Labor Party of Great Britain, much less his fags, and the communist state no longer exists and has not had a policy of ‘Russia’ since the years of Blair-Brown. Starmer no longer has the luxury of ignoring Russia.

The Starmer really cannot worsen things and circumstances can force him to repair things (in tranquility). He acknowledged at the end of last year that the war in Ukraine was coming to an end. When he does, Starmer can only continue ignoring Russia for so long and there is little more than I can do for Ukraine. It is true that British construction companies will align to help rebuild Ukraine. But Great Britain also has a housing crisis and the Labor made many bold campaign promises.

Starmer is playing with an empty hand when it comes to British promising troops in Ukraine. It was obvious from the beginning that the premise of the British troops rested in the Europeans who joined him to do so. Moreover, and to cite the former head of the British army Lord Dannatt, the armed forces of Great Britain are so arrested that they could not lead any peace maintenance mission.

All the drop -down force that Great Britain has only 56,000, compared to 1.1 million Ukrainians who are currently fighting. Yes, and it is a great yes, Great Britain were to deploy troops in Ukraine, I could barely expect to gather 1% of that figure. That is before the United Kingdom considers how much more ity chickens to increase its defense expense, another priority for Starmer.

In addition, NATO membership for Ukraine is dead. To what purpose would British troops be a uncle. Even more, neither Britain nor Europe can afford to finance the military of Ukraine for the rest of the year. Even more sure that Putin, as part of any peace agreement, will simply not accept NATO troops as peace forces in Ukraine. It is the most fundamental and brilliant red line that Kremlin has drawn.

Starmer has few realistic options in addition to gestures, as well as his association of hundreds of years with Ukraine earlier this year. There were no details, only ‘should’, ‘encouraged’ and another vagus language. But that is also true when it comes to Russia. He cannot rule out the relief of sanctions or go against President Trump at this time, but he can only sacrifice a hard rhetoric.

Starmer could give the United Kingdom an economic impulse by raising certain sanctions. The Russian trade of the United Kingdom was worth several billion pounds before 2022. Last year, there were only £ 2 billion and Russia fell to its 68th largest commercial partner. To put it without surroundings, I really couldn’t get worse.

Sometimes politics is simple. Britons because cheaper energy invoices. Achieving that with Russian gas will increase consumer confidence, which would make the stubbornly slow economy of Great Britain move, and gives the Labor some of the troops they need for low -performance public services. Allowing key industries, such as finance, cars and whiskey to be a great boost for both countries.

But it is also reality, not just political. The Russian market is massive and lucrative for the United Kingdom, it has always been. Several British companies are already exploring a return to the Russian market. Why not leave them? Tax increases will soon occur in Britain, and are necessary. But why let the British economy stagnate when there are easy options available?

Hard rhetoric, of course, continues in large part because it is easy. Russia is an easy bogey man. But also England in the Russian media. So much so that it is almost a formality for attacks with each other.

The United Kingdom’s dilemma with Russia and Ukraine is simple. It was a to support Ukraine, but cannot do it in a way that matches its rhetoric. He also hugs to leave Russia aside, but doing so is not a possible or economically possible. How does the United Kingdom defense spending increase specifically to protect Ukraine against Russia? It cannot.