By Tom Fowdy
Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, one of the biggest advocates of escalation and perpetuity in the conflict, besides Moscow itself, has been the United Kingdom. Britain has been the most influential anti-Russian player in Europe, aiming to prevent a quick resolution to the war with the goal of undermining big European players, such as France, Germany, and Italy, in the view of maximizing transatlantic power.
When the Biden administration was in the same position as London, this was very easy to do, and thus after the war's immediate outbreak, it became a widely confirmed narrative that Boris Johnson had been a ringleader in sabotaging early talks, promoting the misleading belief that Kyiv could attain an absolute victory over Moscow and didn't need to compromise. As this happened, the British state directed the media, especially the BBC, to overindulge in pro-Ukrainian propaganda, dramatically exaggerating Kyiv's feats, and Russia's setbacks and of course pushing industrial-scale information.
Essentially everything Zelensky and Ukraine say has been posted as unchallenged fact in BBC reporting, from their absurdist numbers to citations from partisan and agenda-driven think tanks such as the "Institute for the Study of War" (ISW) to other blatant misinformation operations. The point is that Britain's state apparatus created a cult of the Ukrainian victory, but as the years went by, this has aged poorly. Hence, Ukraine has not made a single meaningful gain against Russia since November 2022, and of course, the mood in Washington D.C. has shifted. While Britain and America worked hand in glove on the Ukraine war, the new Trump administration now wants out.
Thus, when Trump began negotiations with Moscow on ending this war, Britain reacted with a rare show of defiance against the American position. Having made scores of absurdist promises to Ukraine on "security" and plowed billions into the war-torn country even as basic public services and provisions deteriorate at home, Britain balks at the entire of the inevitable compromise with Moscow that I told you was coming for years but was abused and derided for it. Thus, like April 2022, the UK has moved into a position again whereby it seeks to sabotage any potential peace.
How will it do that? First, adopting the inevitable and easy position of non-recognition of Russia's gains, obviously, it was wishful thinking that Moscow would get that anyway, but second and more critically, refusing to budge on the goal of NATO membership for Ukraine (which the US will compromise on) and then proposing to put troops in the country as a peacekeeping force. The design of these proposals is to make peace impossible by communicating that if Moscow stops the war, Ukraine is going to be militarily integrated into the Western alliance system anyway, forcing them to keep going.
Of course, I also acknowledge that Russia failed to produce a knockout blow on Ukraine to the point it would exclusively dictate the terms, meaning there is little they can do if they stop now. Ukraine will lose a portion of its territory, but it has not lost its state sovereignty. Naturally, Kyiv itself is opposed to these "over its head" talks between Russia and America and absolutely will continue to double down on its alliances thereafter even if the US is disinterested. The goal would be to place a UK military force inside the country which make it impossible for Russia to "resume" the conflict later on without wider repercussions and therefore force new terms on Ukraine. I have long predicted the likely outcome is a "South Korea" style one of 1953, whereby an armistice is imposed, but not a permanent peace treaty. Ukraine will be hoping to never have to agree to a peace treaty with Russia because as highlighted, this is political suicide for its ultranationalist leaders. Instead, they can adopt a "Syngman Rhee" approach whereby the armistice is signed with their own party absent and they just continue ad-infimum to claim the lost territory with the vow it will be liberated someday while integrating with the West to ensure the conflict can't readily be resumed.
Britain will do its best to ensure that lasting peace in favor of Moscow isn't achieved, and thus Ukraine isn't thrown under the bus. For Russia, that means the only option is to fight on and strengthen its hand, and hope that America's position towards Kyiv will undermine their morale and thus their performance. After all, Britain alone is not militarily powerful enough to support Ukraine without American aid, which remains the key factor.
Keir Starmer might be able to use Britain's presence to create the risk of a wider war and create a flawed, unsatisfactory peace that blocks Russia's core interests, but he certainly doesn't have all the cards to perpetuate this forever. The diplomatic game will thus continue, and Moscow will have to outsmart Britain with whatever cards it has left of its own.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | The Transatlantic game over Ukraine begins
Opinion | The demolition of USAID is about realism and 'America First' not anti-foreign aid
Opinion | The disintegration of International law
Opinion | Trump's 'US first' Doctrine over Latin America
Comment