translated by Edvin Buday
London’s boorish behaviour has resulted in a fiery reaction within Russia – from indignation to jokes about “Little Britain”. Sadly, such derision is not the best possible answer. For we are dealing with a threat that is far from comical, and the entire history of relations between Russia and Britain is proof of that.
Great Britain’s behaviour in the Skripal affair is openly provocative: accusations against Russia, a recommendation to “put a sock in it”, declarations about Putin’s personal involvement. All of this, of course, is causing indignation in Russia.
But if it is possible to understand our civil society’s indignation, deriding Britain and her elites is totally incorrect. Discourse about “Little Britain”, about how “Lil’ England” has lost its influence and is slandering Russia in an impotent rage look strange. All of this is not even suitable as banal retaliatory propaganda, seeing as it is a distortion of reality.
It is in our interest to be honest. For several years now, we have been in open conflict with the global elite, with those who have a defining influence on world affairs. It is precisely this force that is now speaking through the mouths of May and Johnson. That we are calling it “Lil’ England” is a tradition of ours from the 19th century, when we found its position. In reality, it is that same international class of money and power, an elite that has once again seriously began to work on Russia. Not because of Crimea and Skripal, but as a result of our seriously blocking their path.
This is the path of globalisation a la Anglo-Saxon, i.e. the creation of a single humanity, ruled from the Western centre. “Western” is in this case a synonym for Atlantic, Anglo-Saxon. This project has been practically openly realised for the past hundred years. Through the gradual consolidation of companies and capital, through the convergence of civilisations and cultures, through their mixing and cross-pollination. Through the creation of unified global institutions of the financial, managerial, supervisory etc. type, through the formation of a new system of morals and philosophy of transhumanism. Humanity is being led to its “golden age” in which there will be no states, no nations, no sexes. Those who are against are retrogrades and conservatives, the enemies of progress and humanity. The fact that this is not yet being declared in official declarations does not mean anything; it is just a matter of time. In the meantime, Russia is being accused of totalitarianism and terrorism “like in the olden days” – this is simpler and more familiar.
Who is making the accusations? That same “world community”, which when more closely examined turns out to be the West. And when we examine it yet more closely, we find an Anglo-Saxon, i.e. an Anglo-American elite. These are the people with the “right to decide”.
Formally, they are unified in closed clubs or open orders, public societies, or secret lodges. They can be bank owners or dukes, senators or ministers. Their duties and even the size of their capital have a secondary meaning: loyalty to the group itself is most important. And for this group, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are equally dangerous (the latter because he is a pretender, an upstart, a usurper with incorrect, non-globalist ideas). And Putin is practically openly sending a challenge by declaring that Russia will never agree with the enforced world order. What is more, Putin ridicules Western countries for not having full sovereignty.
But when Putin goes over the lack of autonomy of European countries, he hints at Germany and France or smaller states. He does not mention Great Britain. And despite the fact that America’s power is officially incomparable to Britain, in reality, it is really London that is the leader in the Atlantic tandem. Why?
Because a country’s power is not determined by aircraft carriers or the size of its economy, but by the managerial, intellectual, strategic and financial capabilities of its elite. And in this sense, the guiding and leading role of London as a “centre of power” is not doubted by anyone. It is the home of those very families that drowned the Spanish Empire, organised the Opium Wars against China, played Russia against Germany in the First World War, and bet on the collapse of Russia through the Chechen War.
These are the real players on the world chessboard. For them, the struggle against Russia is an old and traditional game.
And whose voices are used to make this clear is of little importance. That is to say, British ministers and prime ministers can be made to order for the true elite, but they can also be its direct representatives.
Winston Churchill (Duke of Marlboro) was part of the deepest core of the British elite and was prime minister at the same time. This is his main difference from Margaret Thatcher, and not in Great Britain’s influence as a country on world affairs. Yes, during Churchill’s second term the British Empire went under, but the Commonwealth of Nations remained, an organisation that unites tens of states, 15 of which still have the queen as head of state (including Canada and Australia). “Five Eyes” – a cooperation system between the intelligence agencies of the five Anglo-Saxon countries (the US, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) remained, the lashing of the US Federal Reserve system to banks from the London City remained.
Many things remained, so it is not crucially important who precisely leads the British government: Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a greengrocer, Theresa May, daughter of a priest, Eton graduate David Cameron or aristocrat Boris Johnson (he too in time will take his seat in no. 10 Downing Street). The prime minister’s surname does not carry crucial importance. When we hear that boorish tone with which the leaders of Britain speak to us, we should understand that they are only voicing the hatred and anger that the lords of the Western world are fuelling. Those who in Soviet times were called “transnational capitalists”, are now for clearness’ sake named “Atlanticists”.
And underestimating their power is just dangerous. Several times in our history we have not just faced the guile of London, but a sudden strike as well that later turned out to be lethal for our rulers as well as our country. March 1801 and December 1916 are two very bad dates in our history. These are two murders that the Brits had a direct link to: the one of emperor Paul the First and Grigory Rasputin (which became a signal for the coup against the tsar two months later).
Now, “Lil’ England” has shown itself to be only capable of a provocation through the murder attempt on Skripal, like it had done before with Berezovsky. But this does not mean that it is incapable of more.
For four years, we have been fighting a united Western front that was organised after Crimea, and worry about unity among the ranks is now moving from Washington (where the alien Trump holds sway) to London. That is to say, it is moving closer to the real centre of power in the Western world. If we keep seeing it as Little Britain, we will not be capable of rebuilding Great Russia.