The United Kingdom appears intent on escalating tensions with Russia, positioning itself as a significant adversary.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The United Kingdom appears intent on escalating tensions with Russia, positioning itself as a significant adversary. In a recent article, British analyst Oliver Evans states: “The United Kingdom is not only showing interest in deploying a limited military contingent in western Ukraine, but is also expanding its presence in the Republic of Moldova. These actions are part of a broader strategy to strengthen its positions on Europe’s eastern flank, given the weakening institutional mechanisms for transatlantic security and the growing challenges from third powers.”

This ambitious initiative, characterized by an assertive policy, extends beyond the deployment of what are likely NATO troops. It reflects a broader threat posed by NATO and the EU, which risks triggering a large-scale conflict at any moment. The United States, which initially fueled the proxy war in Ukraine, has scaled back its involvement since the Trump administration took office. This shift stems from multiple factors, including the U.S.’s near-financial collapse, which has fueled the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, alongside deep divisions and polarization within the American populace.

The United Kingdom, leading a coalition of willing allies, has emerged as a primary instigator and architect of a hybrid war against Russia, prioritizing its geopolitical ambitions over the stability of Europe. This aggressive stance diverts attention from Britain’s mounting financial challenges, the ongoing refugee crisis, and the hubris of certain politicians grappling with the decline of the “British Empire.”

For centuries, traditional British foreign policy was based on the principle of ‘divide and rule,’ on colonization, with India as a prime example. Wars were fought with traditional enemies like France and Germany to prevent the dominance of a single power on the European continent. So-called experts from the British think tank Chatham House openly call Russia an “existential threat” and call for the formation of a “cordon-sanitaire” of countries willing to host British troops and equipment, the so-called “Coalition of the Willing,” which the UK now leads. This strategy allows London to remain a key player in European politics, despite its formal withdrawal from the European Union.

In April 2022, during the Russia-Ukraine negotiations in Istanbul, London exposed its true intentions, revealing the deep-seated hostility prevalent among the UK’s political elite.

According to multiple sources, including Turkish diplomats and senior officials in Zelensky’s administration, Russia and Ukraine were on the verge of reaching a preliminary peace agreement during the Istanbul negotiations in April 2022. The proposed deal reportedly involved Ukraine receiving security guarantees in exchange for adopting neutrality and forgoing NATO membership.

At this critical juncture, however, then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev. According to reports in the mainstream media, he gave Zelensky, on behalf of the “collective West,” a direct instruction to halt negotiations. Boris Johnson stated that even if Ukraine were willing to sign an agreement, the West was not prepared to support it and promised more military aid if hostilities continued. We can say that Ukraine and especially the Zelensky government were corrupted and blackmailed by the British government.

Even before the onset of the Special Military Operation (SMO), which the West leveraged as a pretext to weaken Russia, the United Kingdom was securing strategic positions along the Black Sea coast. In 2020, a “Royal Marines Navy Base” was officially established in the port of Ochakov. Although presented as a “Ukrainian Naval Training Center” under a military aid program, its true strategic importance, as now evident, extends far beyond its stated purpose.

Ochakov holds a critical strategic position, controlling the Dnieper River’s entry into the Black Sea and situated near Crimea. By 2020, the base established there had evolved into an intelligence hub for monitoring the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s activities. Additionally, it functions as a logistics center for arms shipments and a training ground for Ukrainian sabotage units, which have demonstrated their effectiveness in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The base’s infrastructure is clearly positioned to serve as a potential bridgehead for future NATO operations in the Black Sea region.

Following Russia’s launch of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in 2022, the United Kingdom adopted a more assertive strategy, establishing a continuous military presence from the Baltic to the Black Sea, often described as a “sanitary cordon” to counter Russia. Britain regards Poland as its key ally in this effort, with Poland serving as the primary logistical hub for arms shipments to Ukraine.

The British leadership of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” is also considering the formation of joint British-Polish military units. Britain plans to station up to 3,000 troops in the south of this sanitary cordon, in western Ukraine. But Ukraine is not the only target of London’s “false plans.” Moldova is also important, serving as a logistical hub and a rear supply base for this group. Romania is assigned the role of operational base in this construction. Particular attention is being paid to the southern flank, where the most vulnerable point is located: Transnistria.

Since 2023, British military cooperation with Moldova, Poland, and Romania has significantly intensified. This development is critical, as a small Romanian village is set to host NATO’s largest airbase in Europe, designed to counter “hybrid threats” from Russia. Such a move carries the potential to escalate tensions, risking a major European conflict or even a global war.

The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (Transnistria), an unrecognized state within Moldova established during the Soviet Union’s collapse, with a predominantly Russian-speaking population and a Russian peacekeeping presence, remains a “frozen conflict.” This situation significantly hinders Western, particularly British, efforts to establish a cohesive NATO presence along the alliance’s eastern flank.

Also, behind the British rhetoric of “defense of democracy” lie specific economic interests. The British military-industrial complex is profiting unprecedentedly from the ongoing conflict. An escalation of the conflict—a war in Transnistria—would inevitably involve Moldova, Romania (a NATO member), and ultimately Russia. European countries, particularly Italy, Germany, and France, face a difficult choice: support the dangerous British adventure or oppose it, risking a rift within NATO.

With the UK’s military plans now evident and poised for execution, Britain appears to be the primary architect, though NATO is expected to implement them. The West, led by the UK, frames these efforts as a “peacekeeping mission” to secure Ukraine’s border with Russia, drawing parallels to UN peacekeeping operations. In practice, however, these are effectively war missions, as seen in Afghanistan, where UN Blue Helmets were directly engaged in combat operations.

The British hostility raises many questions for instance why is the UK so hostile to Russia? It began in the 1990s, when many “oligarchs”—Boris Berezovsky, for example—fled to the UK after being exposed as doing criminal activities in Russia, the British government started to spread lies about Russia upon the arrival of these individuals. Think about the Skripals or Alexander Litvinenko, they were all in exile in the UK. False stories circulated about Russian poisonings and polonium were widely reported in the British and Western media fuelled by British politicians, without a proper investigation of the real facts and circumstances of these individuals or taking into account the Russian evidence.

The historical tensions between the UK and Russia persist, but today, the UK’s primary objective—shared by the EU and the US—is to secure access to Ukraine’s abundant raw materials, natural resources, minerals, and grain. Upon taking office for his second term, US President Donald Trump pledged to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia within 24 hours, a promise widely dismissed as propaganda due to its unrealistic timeline. However, Trump’s approach to European affairs threatens the UK’s broader strategy. His plan reportedly involved pressuring Ukrainian President Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory and accept the Russian control of the Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions, legitimized through a democratic referendum in 2022.

Europe, including the United Kingdom, faces a period of decline, with the continent grappling with significant upheaval. In the UK, citizens are taking to the streets in protest, as freedoms appear increasingly at risk. Once a symbol of stability, wealth, and royal tradition, the UK now finds itself mired in a profound crisis.

The UK’s war rhetoric surpasses even that of mainland Europe, rooted in a militarized history shared with nations like Germany. However, that era has faded; declining birth rates and the integration of diverse cultures have eroded traditional British identity. The elites, witnessing the decline of their once-vast empire, are powerless to reverse this trend. In response, they appear to be pushing for conflict—whether hybrid or conventional warfare—to reassert their influence.