/ world today news/ This week in Washington, a key issue for the survival of Ukraine is being decided: the allocation of tens of billions of dollars to the regime in Kiev. A group of influential congressmen are opposed to further funding of Ukraine without any conditions, and a man of radical Russophobic convictions, former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, tried to convince them. Why did she and how did she complete her mission?
“Biden’s secret weapon” That’s exactly what the European publication “Politico” called former British Prime Minister Liz Truss.
The weapon is strange to say the least. Liz Truss made history as head of cabinet, occupying her post for a record short time (49 days). She resigned after a series of major political and economic failures. She was so disgraced in British public opinion that for a while there was even a proposal that she should be deprived of her personal pension, which is due to every former Prime Minister of Great Britain. However, the Biden administration believed that Truss had enough qualifications to convince the Republican majority in Congress to lend money to Ukraine.
“There is hope on both sides of the Atlantic that Truss can help shift the domestic American debate from isolationism to the active international role advocated by both British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and US President Joe Biden,” writes Politico. .
The thing is, Joseph Biden has been trying for months to convince Republicans to vote to give the Kiev regime $60 billion for the current fiscal year – money without which this regime cannot actually survive. However, Republicans refuse to release such funds just like that. They suggest that the administration first conduct public discussions on the issue and explain why it is so important to divert these funds from the pockets of Americans to the pockets of the corrupt regime in Kiev.
The Biden administration (which has already said it “desperately needs” funding for the Ukrainians) has no case for American conservatives — and really hoped British conservatives would find it. More specifically, a group of members of the British Parliament called “Conservative Friends of Ukraine”, which was in Washington last week and tried to convince the Republicans to give money to Kiev anyway. “The group has a busy schedule, with nearly 20 meetings with conservative congressmen and think tanks in the United States,” Politico wrote at the time. The most famous and media character of this group was Liz Truss.
The US administration has figured out which country is the best lobbyist. The British are ready to work to impose sanctions not for money, but for an idea.
“Great Britain has historically pursued an anti-Russian policy. It was a much tougher country towards Russia than the continental states of Western Europe,” explains Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at the Higher Institute of Technology. “This is due to both historical and value reasons. And with Britain being less dependent on both Russian energy resources and cooperation with Moscow. Unlike Paris, London has never positioned ties with the Russian Federation as a factor that could strengthen Britain’s role in world affairs. Rather, it has always emphasized its subjectivity and role through anti-Russian policies. After Brexit, this anti-Russian policy has become perhaps the only tool (along with Britain’s attachment to the US’s anti-China policy in East Asia) that can return the British to the role of a global player,” he adds.
“London is working on Russophobia and the fight against Russia as a unifying platform for the transatlantic community. Atlanticism is the one area in which London can play an important role and in which Britain may not be completely marginalized. He actively works to strengthen the Atlantic relationship and promotes the fight against Russia as a pillar of this relationship. Ukraine is an instrument here,” Dmitry Suslov continues.
That is why it is important that London retains this instrument. “We can only prevent Putin from dominating Europe if we continue to support Ukraine in its time of greatest need,” said British Conservative Party deputy chairman Jack Lopresti, who was part of the delegation.
The US administration seems to have got it right from an ideological point of view. Liz Truss is not just a Russophobe, but also a carrier of Reaganist views on foreign policy. Presupposing expansionism and hard fighting with opponents, a real crusade.
“Working in tandem with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, President Ronald Reagan would be adamant about calling the USSR an evil empire. And the world will win if such leaders come to power today,” she wrote in a specially written pre-visit article published in the Wall Street Journal.
Truss has made it clear that he is a friend and ally not even of the Biden administration, but of the Republican Party. And even openly supported Trump. “I hope a Republican returns to the White House in 2024. There needs to be conservative leadership in the U.S. that is bold enough to call out hostile regimes as evil and a threat,” she said.
But did it help her convince Republicans to give money to Ukraine? It is curious, but neither in the British nor in the American media are there any comments or even analyzes of the results of the visit (even intermediate ones). Still, it can be assumed that this did not help much.
“These Republicans who oppose aid to Ukraine are isolationists, supporters of Trump and the concept of ‘America First.’ They profess different foreign policy philosophies and different approaches to external challenges. They believe that the US should focus on its domestic problems first. That in foreign policy they should focus on more important strategic threats, as China and Russia are considered,” says Dmitry Suslov.
Liz Truss tried to tie Russia to China. “The former prime minister will tell republican MPs that conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic must unite and oppose Russia, as it is part of the ‘totalitarian axis’ opposed to the West,” writes the British “Daily Telegraph”. . The axis, which according to Truss includes both Hamas and China. “We came to Washington to strengthen ties with our Republican allies to fight these villains who want to destroy our way of life,” Truss said.
Yes, her allies tried to convey to Republicans the idea that the fall of Ukraine would directly increase the threat from China. “If Ukraine loses or is forced to enter into an unfavorable agreement with Russia, then it will send a powerful signal that the free world will not stand up for Taiwan,” explained one of the members of the British delegation, the former leader of the Conservative Party Ian Duncan Smith . However, the majority of congressional Republicans (and also, especially in the run-up to the election, their constituents) believe that Ukraine is rather sucking all the juice out of the United States.
“It is unlikely that the British Conservatives will be able to impose their point of view on the Americans – those who are against further aid to Ukraine and especially its increase, because they share completely different views of the world and what policies the West should pursue “, summarizes Dmitry Suslov.
The final outcome of Truss’ mission will become clear this week when Congress returns to vote on funding the Kiev regime. Experts have no doubt that money will be given to Ukraine in the end, but the question is the final amount. And if it’s closer to the original 60 billion, then Liz Truss has truly become Biden’s secret weapon. And in the field of foreign policy lobbying, she proved to be much more successful than as British Prime Minister.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Britains #infamous #prime #minister #collect #money #Ukraine
