In the United Kingdom, all conversations revolve around the “partygate”, as the scandal of secret parties organized by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s team during the first confinement is known there.
Forced to publicly apologize for his neglect and omissions, Boris faces a rebellion within his own party. With great moral authority among the demoralized political class, former Conservative MP Rory Stewart spoke out, in an article in the Financial Times last week, against the “culture and system” that interprets politics as a simple game.
However, while domestic politics are dominated by noisy tabloid reports, the country is experiencing decisive and exciting days in international relations. In the clash with Russia, London took the lead in a regional alliance with Poland and the Baltic countries in defense of Ukraine. The contrast between British diplomatic activism and European Union hesitation was evident last week when the newly sworn-in German government of Olaf Scholz blocked an Estonia-coordinated arms transfer operation to Ukraine, raising distrust among NATO members. .
Moments later, Berlin had to hastily fire a commander accused of speaking publicly in favor of Russia. Germany is not the only one that has shown itself to be insecure in the face of events. US President Joe Biden left the international community standing on end by failing to ensure that Washington would never tolerate a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
NATO itself seems paralyzed by the divergence between the more aggressive American position and the European one, aware of the risks that a conflict would represent for its energy security. The institution’s internal rift is rich in symbolism. The alliance is seen as the main responsible for the Russian military escalation for not respecting the territorial commitments made in the 1990s.
For years, the UK has been accused of acting erratically and compromising the US-Europe partnership. It is now the only actor with a coherent and proactive strategy for dealing with Russia. Several factors explain the leading role of his diplomacy.
One of them is that Brexit, at least in the field of foreign policy, seems to have had the effect imagined by its creators. The UK would never have opened a front in Eastern Europe if it had had to ask EU members for the right of way. London’s greater agility is also reflected in strategic communication. Over the weekend, in a Hollywood scene, the foreign ministry issued a statement accusing Russia of planning to install a puppet government in Ukraine in the event of an invasion. Filled with unusual details, the text included a list of possible ministers.
Another factor that seems to be weighing on is the late but brutal realization of the harmful effects of the penetration of Russian capital into the British democratic system. A recently published report by Chatham House made clear the deep corruption of politicians and businessmen by oligarchs close to Putin, denounced for years by civil society. At least some state agents are aware that diplomatic opposition to Russia is also a matter of internal security.
A brief look at the history of the British empire teaches us that the great moments of foreign policy are often overlooked by public debate. It is quite likely that in the coming weeks, newspapers will continue to make headlines about Boris’ revelry during the pandemic as London leads the West alone in an international crisis for the first time in decades.
.
