Iron Curtain 2.0 in the centre of Europe. Part One

The triple alliance of Britain, Poland and Ukraine, which RUSSTRAT previously reported, can become an element of London's long-term strategy to form a zone of influence critical for the long-term development of the entire Eurasia - far beyond the framework of conditional interaction between Russia and the EU. If the UK-focused alliance is successful in the heart of Europe, London will have a powerful tool to influence many transit flows, which will put countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain 2.0 in a vulnerable position.

The upcoming new format of cooperation between Britain, Poland and Ukraine was announced by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky at the opening of the seventh session of the Verkhovna Rada, but he did not tell about the details of cooperation. Polish experts, including quite reputable ones like the country's former Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, took this initiative with surprise.

They noted that the creation of a defence alliance outside of NATO increases the risks of being drawn into a potential conflict initiated by Kiev with Russia. And also that the alliance is a means for Britain to restore the position of a great power that Brexit has weakened. In addition, attention is paid to the fact that all three members of the alliance have strained relations with the EU.

The facts described above, such as the risk of being drawn into a possible conflict unleashed by Ukraine and the British status of the main beneficiary, do take place. However, the idea of the triple alliance turns out to be deeper and more dangerous than the first impression.

Global Britain

The Westminster-based organisation Council on Geostrategy was the first to speak loudly about the creation of an alliance of London, Warsaw and Kiev. The reason for these conversations was the speech of the British Foreign Minister on January 21, 2022 Liz Truss at the Australian Lowy Institute – the very place where the minister spoke about the numerous invasions of Ukraine "from the Mongols to the Tatars”.

Unlike the level of the British Foreign Secretary's historical and geographical competencies, the context of her speech, where much attention was paid to building the triple alliance, should be taken seriously. The Lowy Institute is a very remarkable "non-governmental" organisation that receives funds from the Australian government through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the same time. And also - from BHP, Capital Group, Rio Tinto and Rothschild & Co.

The Council on Geostrategy, which has taken up the informational legitimisation of the tripartite pact, is no less interesting. The mission, described on the organisation's official website, is described as confronting the "revisionist impulses of large authoritarian powers, which now menace the international order" and asserting Britain's leadership "in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world”.

The Council on Geostrategy advocates "realistic geostrategies – in the Euro-Atlantic, the Indo-Pacific, and the Polar regions – to uphold a free and open international order, in league with our allies and partners”.

The tripartite alliance of Britain, Poland and Ukraine, emphasises the Council on Geostrategy, plays a serious role in the confrontation with the obvious geopolitical opponent – Russia. Or, as the council's analysts call it, "Russia's unruly kleptocracy”. However, the strategy proposed by the think tank is called "Global Britain" - nothing more and nothing less.

The starting point for justifying the concept of "Global Britain" is again "Russian aggression". This aspect is described in detail in one of the materials of the Council on Geostrategy, where among the conclusions it is noted that in addition to Russia, there is also China, as well as other systems that threaten British interests.

As the article puts it, "suddenly, we are forced to confront the prospect" that the future may be more competitive in terms of nations or even civilisations. There is a chance that Britain will be on the "wrong side" of history just because it was simply defeated, the authors worry.

To do this, the Council on Geostrategy says, it is reasonable to abandon the idea, popular in the 1990s, that multilateral dialogue itself is a panacea for any conceivable dispute, and if force is needed, then it is the competence of the United States.

"Global Britain, as a concept that frames global action in the national interest, and increases investment in the military instrument to work alongside diplomacy, situates the United Kingdom (UK) more in the forward-looking camp," the authors suggest.

It is worth noting that the Council on Geostrategy materials are very useful for understanding the British position. In particular, the organisation criticises Germany, France and the "appeasers' clan" in the United States, which see a way out of the Ukrainian crisis in diplomacy, mutual obligations and guarantees.

British policy, the Council on Geostrategy emphasises, is "ways to actively assist Ukraine in its legitimate self-defence, launching preemptive information operations, and directly countering Russian narratives”.

Given the selected fragment, it is hardly surprising that it is the British "ears" that ultimately stick out for most of the information actions that cause the next round of panic. The most recent examples include the decision of British insurance companies to deprive aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace of insurance. This, in fact, means the complete cessation of air traffic with this country. The European Aviation Safety Agency did not give recommendations on restricting flights in Ukrainian airspace, which underlines the entire British initiative in this matter.

This state of affairs, the Council on Geostrategy notes, fully meets the interests of Ukraine – after all, Ukrainians and their leaders express their “willingness <…> to accept such support”. This means that they are satisfied with everything.

Prepaid military alliance

The transition from the autocratic hegemony of the United States to a multipolar world, in full compliance with the laws of dialectics, creates new opportunities not only for Russia and China. The reduction of US interests and capabilities in Europe and Washington's reorientation to the conflict with China, Russia's still insufficient influence, and the EU's weak political and military subjectivity have created a certain vacuum that can be used by external players.

In particular, Britain, whose exit from the EU by Brexit largely gave London a free hand to promote its own policies - where the interests of its former European counterparts are not taken into account in the first place.

A cursory analysis of open data is enough to make sure that over the past few years, Britain has formed a serious network of military and political influence not only in Poland and Ukraine, but also in the Baltic states. Historically, the British position in Turkey is strong, which closes the axis that London is trying to build. Although in the case of Turkey, London's influence is significantly weaker than in other listed countries.

A striking example is the Council on Geostrategy itself. Its director is listed as Viktorija Starych-Samuoliene, identified as a British citizen originally from Lithuania, among the employees you can find many people with names like "Anton Holoborodko" and others who emphasise the British-Polish-Baltic-Ukrainian commonwealth by their origin.

Britain's military cooperation with the rest of the axis powers has long been in place. On February 8, 2022, commenting on the dispatch of another 350 British soldiers to Poland, the head of the British Ministry of Defense Ben Wallace reminded that London has been strengthening its presence in Poland, Estonia and Latvia since 2014.

Separately, it is worth mentioning Ukraine, which Britain consistently pumps up with weapons, linking this activity to the aggravation in Donbass. Over the past few years, tens of thousands of weapons of various kinds have been sold to Ukraine, and military supplies have become particularly intense in recent weeks.

On January 17-18, 2022, three planes with 2,000 units of NLAW short-range anti-tank systems landed in Ukraine, and Kiev places its main hopes on Britain in terms of future battles with Crimea. On February 8, Ukraine's Ambassador to Britain Vadym Prystaiko announced the signing of a $2 billion agreement with London, under which Britain will supply Ukraine with an entirely unnamed range of weapons, including anti-ship missiles.

In June 2021, the British government, the British Babcock group and the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine signed a trilateral agreement that launched the UNCEP program. According to UNCEP, 8 small missile boats (up to 400 tons of displacement) will be built for Ukraine to operate in the Black and Azov Seas.

The Ukrainian side insisted that the boats be armed with Ukrainian “Neptun” missiles , a slightly modified replica of the old Soviet Kh-35. However, in the end, future boats will be armed with “Sea Spear” missiles. This is not the most obvious choice for an anti-ship system - the missile is an adaptation of the British anti-tank missile for “Brimstone” helicopters. The launch weight of the rocket is specified as 50kg, and the power of the tandem cumulative warhead is 6kg of explosive. The flight range is stated as 10-12 kilometres.

This is clearly not enough to disable a modern ship, but Ukraine, apparently, does not have to choose. The supply of weapons from Britain is carried out frankly "in a colonial way" - Ukraine is given a loan for the purchase of British weapons. The money, without leaving the United Kingdom, immediately goes to British arms factories, and the interest on the loans remains with Kiev.

A similar credit line paid for the construction of boats - as part of a loan of £1.25 billion. In addition to the boats, the Ukrainian Navy will receive two Sandown-class minesweepers, decommissioned from the Royal Navy due to age. Another operator of such ships is Estonia, which is also significant.

The principle that obsolete or already decommissioned weapons are delivered to the allies at full cost is widely practiced by Britain and other countries. A few days after the landing of the British planes with NLAW cargo, Ukrainian experts drew attention to the fact that the service life of the complexes had either expired or was close to it. However, the latter may not be an unambiguous hint to the Ukrainian side about the need to implement the purchase as soon as possible.

It is easy to see that Britain's agreements with its allies are, to put it mildly, skewed in terms of obtaining benefits. For example, in addition to boats on credit with British missiles and minesweepers, which still had to be written off, Ukraine will pay Britain to develop plans for the construction of new naval bases in Berdyansk and Ochakov.

To be continued...