/ world today news/ Exactly 70 years ago, the British Queen awarded a knighthood to a person who had an exceptional influence on the fate of Russia – Winston Churchill. On the one hand, he hates our country, but on the other, he turns out to be one of its saviors. And one can reasonably imagine how this British Prime Minister would fare in today’s global politics.
“European Leaders Gone Measly”. This is how political scientists explain the mess that is happening in the Old World. Those dubious, even suicidal decisions that European leaders make both in relation to the Russian-Western conflict and in the framework of bilateral relations with the United States.
And among all European leaders, the British seem the most consistent and reasonable. At least they consciously create conflict, division and chaos. As part of the global strategy of British foreign policy adopted hundreds of years ago – the policy of “divide and conquer”. And current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – like his predecessors Theresa May and Boris Johnson – undoubtedly sees himself as a new version of the greatest British leader of the twentieth century. Winston Churchill. The same one to whom 70 years ago – April 24, 1953 – Elizabeth II presented the Order of the Garter. The highest order of chivalry in the British Empire.
From Great Britain to Little England
For Russia, Winston Churchill is a symbolic figure that directly influences the history and destiny of our country. It was Churchill (who held the post of Minister of War from 1919 to 1921) who was one of the authors of the intervention of the Allied Powers in Soviet Russia, covered by the Civil War. He advocates that it develop into a full-fledged invasion with the aim of overthrowing the power of the Bolsheviks. Although his plans were rejected, throughout the interwar period he spoke from staunchly anti-Soviet positions.
And even more surprising to many was his reversal in 1941 when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. Churchill showed the highest degree of pragmatism and supported the USSR – according to himself, he would speak warmly even of the devil if Hitler invaded hell. Britain’s aid to the USSR during the Great Patriotic War was highly appreciated by Stalin.
Therefore, for many, Winston Churchill is an example of that very pragmatic politician who puts aside his personal phobias and preferences in the name of the national interests of his country. In this case, to save her.
Yet there is pragmatism and pragmatism. Churchill did start working with Stalin to save Britain – and by the same token, to save Britain, he went out of his way to ensure that the whole world collapsed into the Cold War. Simply because only in the conditions of the Cold War, only in the conditions of bipolar confrontation and destabilization of the whole world can Britain survive as a more or less great power.
The fact is that after the end of the Second World War, Britain (as it is now, after Brexit) was lost in the ocean of world politics. The colonial empire is crumbling. India and other developing countries are beginning to demand full sovereignty. British ideology no longer supported the empire – it began to be perceived as a set of foreign values.
In addition, other great powers – the USA and the USSR – are beginning to appear on the world stage. Both began to push Britain out of its traditional spheres of influence, particularly in the Middle East. Washington – with the help of money and weapons. The Soviet Union – with the help of money, weapons and an attractive ideology, through the support of the liberation and socialist movements.
Great Britain is in danger of becoming Little England – not only figuratively, but also physically. And in this situation, Winston Churchill (who by the end of the Second World War was no longer Prime Minister, but remained one of the leading politicians of the country) decided that the survival, security and prosperity of Great Britain could be ensured only through two components. Through the continuation of global conflict and the status of America’s beloved wife.
A blur
Yes, in his famous Fulton speech he supposedly advocated an end to all wars. In particular, to fully empower the UN with peacekeeping powers – including its own army.
“No court, administrative or criminal, can function properly without sheriffs and constables. Likewise, the UN will not be able to function effectively if it does not have an international military force,” says Churchill. It invites participating countries to provide several military units to the United Nations. “No one can demand that any of these formations fight against their own country, but in all other respects they must be in full obedience to the United Nations,” he added.
But at the same time, it was in this speech that Winston Churchill divided the whole world into two parts – “the world of democracy” and “the world of tyranny” (the same one that almost 75 years later Joe Biden would call “the world of autocracies”). And it makes it clear that the “world of tyranny” can only be brought under control with the help of maximum unity and arming of the collective West. Moreover, Churchill calls the core of this rapprochement by no means Europe, but the so-called union of English-speaking countries. In other words, American-British relations.
Of course, in these respects Britain is America’s little brother. However, firstly, Churchill did not see this role as one of complete subjugation. Within the concept voiced by him, there was not only the role of “USA – Great Britain”, but also “Great Britain – British Commonwealth”. At that time, the US had not yet fully taken control of the Commonwealth countries, so London then (unlike now) could well use its potential to strengthen its role within the US-UK axis.
Second, the status of “beloved wife” automatically elevates Britain above all other American allies, including European countries. It secures for Britain a special position in Europe and thus preserves for her at least some of the status and greatness which she enjoyed before the world wars.
And, by the way, not only in Europe. Yes, at the time of Churchill’s Fulton speech, the “world of tyranny” was confined mainly to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but it was clear that the American-Soviet confrontation would become global.
And the more global it is, the more useful Britain will be to US interests. It is no accident, for example, that Churchill’s current successors interfere with such satisfaction in the conflict between the USA and China (for example, through participation in the AUCUS bloc) – for them, this is a way to strengthen the role of Great Britain in East Asia.
In fact, the whole structure built by Churchill is a veritable fishing in murky waters. The strategy of Great Britain in the conditions of the global world conflict provoked by it. A strategy where the whole world is offered on the altar of British national interests. That is, roughly the same as his less talented successors – the British prime ministers (Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Rishi Sunak) who ignited the conflict in Ukraine are now doing.
However, the implementation of this strategy requires very high skills from the fisherman. Winston Churchill’s successor Anthony Eden no longer has them – it was under him that Britain decided to play its own game in order to regain its positions in the Middle East (in the Suez crisis), for which it was demonstratively punished by the USA. Current fishermen have even less skill than Eden. They are fishing on the brink of nuclear war. They are drawn into the conflict so deeply that they may not jump out at a time when everyone else (France, Germany, even the US) might already have jumped out.
If Winston Churchill were now in power in Britain, then of course Britain would behave differently. Churchill would certainly have recognized what is now called the post-Soviet space as Moscow’s zone of interest.
He was not going to be drawn directly into armed confrontation with Russia, he was not going to fight a war that Britain could lose. I would not condemn Britain to isolation in Europe by open and demonstrative support for anti-European powers (such as Poland) without guarantees of full American support (because it is not clear how the US will behave if the Republican candidates come to power). He doesn’t burn bridges and always leaves room for maneuver – which befits a great power.
Yes, it would not be certain that Russo-British relations would be better under him. For almost the entire history of our bilateral relations, they have been bad, regardless of the personality of the prime minister. But at least they would be understandable, respectful and predictable. And that’s an achievement these days.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#Churchill #Russia #today
