Iron Curtain 2.0 in the centre of Europe. Part Two
London instead of Brussels
The opinion of the British think tank that London's Eastern European partners have poor relations with the EU is completely true. Future members of the British axis have repeatedly expressed their complaints to the European Union, which de facto meant Germany and France.
Young Europeans and those claiming this role prefer to express their complaints to "old Europe" through the British media. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, in an author's article for the Daily Telegraph, accused the EU governments of passivity and a lack of courage "in the face of the growing Russian threat”, calling the events in Ukraine "the last warning" for unification.
"In a critical situation, we need genuine leaders to end the threat and return Europe to the path of security and development," the Polish Prime Minister concluded.
Taking into account the platform from which Morawiecki's voice sounded, it is not difficult to conclude who exactly he sees as such a leader.
Earlier - also in the British media - Morawiecki published other appeals, extremely radical in relation to the established order in the EU. The European Union risks falling apart or turning into a dictatorship if it continues to blackmail Warsaw because of fears of a “Polexit", the Polish Prime Minister claimed in another article in the Daily Telegraph.
Before that, in a letter to EU leaders, Mateusz Morawiecki accused the bloc of "punishing" and "starving" Poland with threats to withhold €60 billion for recovery from COVID due to the ambitions of the Polish leadership, which refuses to obey European legislation.
On October 8, 2021, the Constitutional Court of Poland ruled that its rules are above EU law - which, of course, contradicts the fundamental treaties of the bloc. Morawiecki argued that "no sovereign state" can agree to this because it is "illegal" and "dangerous for the continuation of the European Union”.
Poland's complaints to the EU look diverse and aggressive. Poland also sees the reason for the conflict with Brussels in the actions of Brussels in the situation with the Turów mine. At the end of February 2021, the Czech Republic filed a complaint with the EU court against Poland, accusing it that due to the expansion of a coal mine in the border areas of the republic, the groundwater level dropped sharply.
On May 21, the EU court granted the Czech Republic's request and ordered Poland to immediately suspend production at the Turów mine until the issue is resolved on its merits. Poland refused to implement this verdict, saying that the court's decision is unacceptable interference in ensuring the security of the republic. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that Poland should pay the European Union €500 thousand for each day of production violating the court's decision at the mine. Warsaw also refused to pay the fine.
The situation was resolved only by February 2022, the Czech Republic withdrew its claim from the EU court, and Poland paid the Czech Republic €45 million in compensation.
The European Commission decided to deduct the amount of the accumulated fine from the funds coming to Poland from the EU budget. Morawiecki called this decision "complete absurdity", which "the European Union is full of" because of "ideological stubbornness".
Kiev takes a similar position. The main exponent of this position is the Ukrainian Ambassador in Berlin, Andrey Melnyk. Only in the last month and a half, a Ukrainian diplomat managed to demand money from Berlin "more than it allocates to Somalia”, accuse the head of the Bundestag Committee on Foreign Policy, Michael Roth, of being unwilling to meet and talk about German arms supplies to Ukraine, publicly demand rocket weapons from Berlin "as compensation for Germany's historical responsibility”, reparations for lost cultural heritage during the Nazi occupation, and blamed the Germans "indirect responsibility" for the mass famine in Ukraine in 1932-1933. There is no criticism of Britain from Kiev.
Taking into account the scale, Lithuania's voice is heard weaker than the rest of the axis participants. However, the qualitative assessment of the behaviour of Vilnius is not too different. In November 2021, Angela Merkel was subjected to simultaneous and merciless criticism by Warsaw and Vilnius because of the situation with migrants on the Belarusian-Polish border. Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis declared the inadmissibility of bargaining with Minsk, "especially on behalf of the EU”.
On February 8, 2022, a remarkable meeting took place between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė in London. According to the Foreign Office, the parties discussed the crisis in Ukraine, as well as in Lithuania's relations with China. The Celestial Empire took Lithuania "out of the equation" of commodity flows after Lithuania officially agreed to the "sovereign" name of Taiwan's mission in the country.
In other countries of the world, Taiwanese missions act on behalf of the island's capital, Taipei, following an international agreement that such a name does not contradict the "one China" policy.
Recall that China is designated as an enemy of Britain in accordance with the AUKUS doctrines. The nuances and prospects of this military-political bloc, which is also called the "Pacific NATO", are described in detail in the material of RUSSTRAT.
The widening of the split between Lithuania and the EU was further outlined in Šimonytė's speech at the London School of Economics and Political Science. There, the Lithuanian Prime Minister accused the EU of underestimating the risks of dependence on Russian oil and gas or on Chinese supplies, technologies and investments.
"We should strive for a partnership that meets our strategic interests," Šimonytė said while in London.
In other words, there are at least three states in Europe where radical euroscepticism is combined with the existing British military and political influence and an undisguised request for a change of "leader". Berlin or collective Brussels no longer attracts these countries, but London looks quite complimentary.
In addition, these states are in solidarity in denying the attempts of the "old Europe" to seek a solution to the existing conflicts on the continent together with Russia, and also to some extent conflict with China. It is enough to recall the story of the nationalisation by Kiev of the “Motor-Sich" enterprise for the production of helicopter engines, which China had previously managed to buy.
There is also a demographic basis for the British "axis". Despite serious fluctuations, Polish citizens are still the largest group of foreigners living in Britain in the first generation. Their current number - 815,000 people - is twice as large as the second largest group, Romanian citizens, of which there are 404,000. With 2.2-2.4 million Lithuanians living in Lithuania itself, more than 200,000 Lithuanians live in the UK.
Iron Curtain 2.0
Churchill's Fulton speech in March 1946 remained in memory as "the speech about the Iron Curtain". By far her most famous passage is the words that "from Stettin on the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended on the continent”. In 2022, there are enough signs that London is ready to repeat this experience.
76 years ago, the world was different, and the "iron Curtain" had a very simple meaning. Now, the British axis may be much more important. The Council on Geostrategy has published a map of the future alliance.
Map
From a geographical point of view, the British axis is a wedge driven between the EU and Russia. From the geopolitical point of view, it is a serious threat, and not only to Russia. Peace and effective cooperation between Europe and Russia can only guarantee the presence of a "buffer" from neutral states, and in this case an even more alarming situation arises when the "buffer" is controlled by a third party at all.
The lion's share of transit flows from Russia passes through the territory that Britain will take under actual control. And also, more importantly strategically, overland logistics lines from China. In the hypothetical case of a conflict with the EU, the UK, through proxy states, can significantly complicate the supply of energy carriers and goods produced in China to Europe. And also - air traffic, labor migration routes and much more.
In this regard, supply routes that are independent of the political ambitions of third states are of great importance. For gas, these are offshore pipelines (Nord Stream 2), for commodity exchange - the Northern Sea Route. The fact that Britain consistently opposes the implementation of the first and the development of the second fully fits into the logic of establishing remote British control on the Eurasian continent.
The fact that two EU member states are involved in the British project makes it possible to effectively influence the internal situation in the EU itself and take steps that irritate Russia. For example, to strengthen the potential of the Ukrainian armed forces unfriendly to Russia, which will require Moscow to take adequate counter-actions.
In addition, control over Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine allows London to torpedo the efforts of constructive circles of the EU to strengthen ties between Europe and Russia with someone else's hands.
Underestimating the plans for the creation of the British axis can have serious consequences for Russia and "old Europe" - and the situation of the latter is even worse, taking into account its lesser ability to mobilise and act quickly.
Of course, at the moment Britain cannot oppose anything in direct competition with either the EU, Russia, or China. However, the implementation of the project "from London to Odessa" may turn out to be a very effective move on the geopolitical board.
In London, they understand the limits of their capabilities, and therefore the partners will have to bear the main burden.
"It is wise to be wary of overstretch. Not every point under attack is a geopolitical domino. British initiatives can only prevail in common cause with allies like Poland, the US and partners like Japan, Australia and Ukraine," writes the Council on Geostrategy.
It is possible that Turkey is deliberately absent from this number of states in order not to attract additional attention to it. If Ankara's actions are determined not by national Turkish interests, but by the goals of Great Britain, then the British axis will become even more dangerous.
It is very difficult to calculate all the consequences, but the most obvious is the possibility of organising a migration crisis in the south of the EU, selective access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and back, as well as a wide field of possibilities for the projection of British interests in the near-Turkish region.
There is nothing new in the principle of "divide and conquer", but the multipolarity that has taken place gives additional opportunities to London. In conditions of limited resources and a new geopolitical reality with major players, Britain intends to act by creating alliances and conflicts. And she certainly does not intend to remain on the sidelines of world processes.
"If the UK adjusts its policy in accordance with outdated and short-term views of the world and takes a defensive and parochial position, who will shape the new era of global governance?" the Council on Geostrategy worries.
Although the announced alliance of Britain, Poland and Ukraine includes only three states, two of which individually could hardly ever dream of influencing world processes, the whole system as a whole requires the most careful study. It is difficult to accuse the Anglo-Saxons of not being able to calculate a few steps ahead - and every time a Great Game was played for the sake of damaging Russia.