May 27, 2022
Boris Johnson visited an RAF base in Woodington yesterday. But the idea that Britain has the military power to make a significant difference in any future conflict with Russia is a fantasy (Photo: Carl Ricken / Pool / AFP via Getty Images)

One thing that is true of Wallace’s comments is, of course, his assessment of the seriousness of the current crisis between Russia and Ukraine.

Unlike Britain’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who celebrated his visit to Moscow by making a pop video in an unnecessary fur hat, Wallace believes that Vladimir Putin’s withdrawal from Russia’s Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014 was effective. By way of permission, the West now needs to draw some lines on the plains of Eastern Europe.

Sign up On our Opinion Newsletter

Sign up On our Opinion Newsletter

This means not only supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty, but also providing concrete guarantees to the three Baltic states, now members of the European Union and NATO, at the expense of which Russia is angry. And the striking resemblance to Nazi expansionism in the 1930s, when Newell Chamberlain signed his infamous and short-lived Munich Agreement with Hitler, leaves no one with a knowledge of European history.

This, however, could lead to any defense of Wallace’s “Munich” remarks. Because the obvious implications – that Bulldog Britain is now facing the Russian threat, while others in Europe cannot be trusted to do so – are as aggressive, arrogant, and misguided as the situation may be. Is.

Undoubtedly, in the face of political pressure, the crisis in Ukraine has come as a relief to a Conservative government that is now under house arrest over allegations of misconduct and corruption. And parts of the media have co-operated in trying to portray Britain as the leader of the Western response.

In fact, though, this 1940-style portrayal of Britain is misleading in at least three ways, if not outright deception.

First, while Britain has agreed to transfer arms to Ukraine and British troops along NATO’s eastern borders, after decades of military spending cuts, the amount that Britain can provide is very small. ۔

Read more

Read more

Ukraine-Russia crisis: The West must end its dependence on Russian gas, while Vlad …

They have some symbolic significance, of course. But the idea that Britain still has the military power to make a significant difference in any future conflict with Russia is at least a generation old.

Second, remarks like Wallace’s have had a profound effect on Britain’s relations with other Western allies. Even as Boris Johnson makes sensational statements about the need for a strong and united Western response, his government and parliamentary party – formed on the sole demand that they abide by the Brexit plan. And with the lies involved – just humor can’t help. To the great European powers, and their admirable hatred of war, as a sign of weakness, and a willingness to surrender to an adversary whose treaties are not worthy of being written on this paper.

This outrageous insult threatens to break the original international treaty and the treaty that was recently threatened by the British government itself – Bridget in general, and the Northern Ireland Protocol in particular – and one such government. The image emerges that barely understands the meaning of international. Collaboration, except photo opportunity. And who, in fact, has spent the last half-dozen years trying to weaken and break up the European Union to the satisfaction of Vladimir Putin.

Because if we are to talk about whispers in the air, as Tory MP Tom Tagindhat argued this week, it is time to address the unpleasant tangle of financial relations I connect with the growing presence. Russian oligarchs, close to Putin’s government.

A quarter of Boris Johnson’s cabinet is known in Britain for accepting political donations from wealthy Russian sources. And this week, the Labor shadow chancellor and foreign secretary wrote a letter to their government counterparts, asking the Conservative Party to repay a total of about £ 2 million in donations from such sources since 2019.

As noted by the Westminster Intelligence and Security Committee, in its 2020 report on Russia, the British government has not launched any investigation into the concrete evidence that Russia favored a holiday in the 2016 Bridget referendum. There was a lot of interference. And it has failed to introduce the proposed legislation to stop the laundering of foreign money through Lond
on.

They all stink from strong to strong. And it is bound to invite accusations of hypocrisy from governments that now criticize themselves for cooperating with Vladimir Putin by all British ministers.

In 2022, in other words, the UK is not only weaker than it seems to be, but also less credible, and has compromised deeper than its government’s recent record and associations. And if Ben Wallace were a sensible man, he would recognize him, and say nothing to make matters worse.

As the leading security think tank Chatham House said this week, “the need to confront Russian aggression means that Britain is unwaveringly committed to its European neighbors … and it needs to ensure that European allies “If security is to be co-operated, it will continue to do so for years to come.”

To say that the traumatized populists of the past decade, including Boris Johnson in Bridget mode, have sought to disrupt and weaken these bonds of cooperation, to promote xenophobic sentiment for short-term electoral purposes, is hardly controversial. Is. And the world can be forgiven for the realization that, if trust is to be rebuilt, a complete change of British government may be necessary before the cure can begin.

Editor’s message:

Thank you for reading this article. We rely more on your cooperation than ever before because the change in consumer habits caused by the Corona virus affects our advertisers.

If you haven’t already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checking journalism with a digital subscription.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.