It is time for Russia to move on to a severe solution to the “British question”

Operation Subbotnik: The former Great Britain has begun to take too many liberties
Админ's picture
account_circleАдминaccess_time31 May 2021remove_red_eye6 100
print 31 5 2021
 

On May 26, 2021, Georgia celebrated a state holiday – Independence Day. The celebration was attended by Polish President Andrzej Duda, who made another sharp statement about Russia. In particular, he said: "Russia is not a normal country, it is not a state that behaves normally, it is an aggressor state."

In the statement of Duda, one phrase was particularly interesting to me - "not a normal country". On this occasion, I remembered the April 2017 interview  of James Nixey, head of the Russian and Euro-Asian direction at Chatham House, in which he also used a similar feature. Nixey noted: "Russia has not yet become, so to speak, a 'normal country'." Further, the British expert clarified: "After all, I am speaking from the position of Western bias. And for us, the West is normal."

Thus, according to this terminology, to be normal is to accept Western values and to be embedded in the hierarchy of the world liberal order led by the United States.

It should be noted that Chatham House or The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the main analytical centre of Britain in the field of international relations, responsible for developing the geopolitical strategy of this Anglo-Saxon state.

Recently, on May 13, 2021, Chatham House "delighted" us with another report entitled "Myths and misconceptions in the debate about Russia. How they influence Western politics, and what can be done."

The tone of this document is set in its preamble: "This report deconstructs 16 of the most prevalent myths and misconceptions that shape contemporary Western thinking on Russia. It explains their detrimental impact on the design and execution of policy, and in each case outlines how Western positions need critical re-examination to ensure more rational and effective responses to Russian actions.

Underpinning our analysis is the essential argument that, contrary to wishful thinking on the part of many Euro-Atlantic politicians and policymakers, there is little prospect of Russia becoming a more constructive and cooperative partner for Western governments in the foreseeable future. Well-meaning efforts to ‘improve’ the relationship with the Kremlin are thus likely to founder, as Russia’s strategic goals, values and understanding of inter-state relations differ irrevocably from those of the West."

In fact, this document can be called a declaration of war on Russia. Everything is denied to our country. Let's list a number of myths that, according to Chatham House, Western politicians and statesmen should get rid of: the statement that the peoples of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are a single nation, that Crimea has always been Russian, that Russia was promised that NATO would not expand, that Russia has the right to a "defensive perimeter" - the sphere of its privileged interests, which includes the territories of other states, and that sanctions are the wrong approach.

The British intend to make this document a program for all Western countries and exclude any deviation from the framework laid down in it. It is obvious that this program, first of all, will be promoted and will find a response from politicians, "talking heads", the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. Thus, it is question, at minimum, about the conceptual management of the post-Soviet and Eastern European space from the part of Britain.

This is even seen in the example of the Polish president's recent statement about Russia as "not a normal country". Britain sets theses and stable expressions, and the others repeat them in unison. Given that Russia and the United States have strategic nuclear forces and the need to maintain strategic parity, no matter how bad the relations between the countries are, both the Americans and we need constant contact and dialogue on issues of strategic stability.

While with Britain, it's quite another matter. Its military potential is not comparable to the Russian one. And there is no urgent need for Moscow to maintain any relations with London. Already only this report "on myths" with an attempt to impose an openly hostile Russian agenda on the entire Western world is enough to put Britain on the list of unfriendly countries with the corresponding organisational conclusions on the composition of its diplomatic and consular institutions.

It is also advisable to conduct an operation in Russia under the conditional name "Subbotnik" to clean up our territory from British agents and British organisations. It is necessary to introduce a ban on British investments in strategic sectors of the Russian economy, and Russian companies and banks with state participation should be categorically banned from any investments in the British economy, social, sports and humanitarian spheres.

The British establishment is a long-standing, very smart, dangerous and forever enemy of Russia, so any cooperation with it is simply impossible. Attempts to improve relations will be a waste of time and effort and surely will be used against Russia itself.

The fact that some Russian oligarchs have chosen London has little to do with the fundamental state interests of Russia and its people. These patrons of the British model should also be paid attention to, because they have a heart where their money is, i.e. not in Russia. And Britain's use of their potential as a fifth column and against Russia is quite possible.

It should be noted that even the administration of US President Joe Biden shows some signs of a sane attitude towards Russia. And the agreed summit meeting in Switzerland should bear fruit, be it only in the form of a reduction in tension.

The British, by the way, are not happy about the possibility of such a meeting, and the fact that the above-mentioned report "on myths" appeared just now is not an accident. London, in its typical manner, is trying to seize the strategic initiative and set the framework for negotiations to which it is not a party.

Of course, if the British Empire repeated the fate of Atlantis, it would be the greatest tragedy that could be sung in songs, epics and legends. However, if to speak about the realities, then we should build such a rigid model of attitude towards Britain, so that there are as few points of contact with it as possible: to maximally isolate it from Russia, as much as it practically possible.

At the same time, these measures should be enshrined in a separate federal law, the working title "On relations with the United Kingdom". This document should list the restrictions that apply to all areas of life, as well as the special control procedures for all British institutions, organisations, companies and individuals.

Obviously, this document on Britain will be discriminatory, but the worst enemy should be treated as the worst enemy, that is, accordingly. And it will be a good example for other countries.

Average: 5 (6 votes)