On Wednsday, May 31st, the chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, had declared British officials as „legitime military targets“, after, as he stated, the United Kingdom was "de facto" at war with Russia.
This war has deep roots. Throughout the colonial period, the policies of European states were marked by fierce rivalry – particularly on the part of England respectively Great Britain. Lord Palmerston outlined his country's strategy with the words, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual...” Even more precisely, the Chinese statesman Sun Yat-Sen (1866-1925) characterized this policy without true solidarity: “The key policy of England is to attack the strongest enemy with the help of the weaker countries... When an enemy has been shorn of his power, he is turned into a friend, and the friend who has become strong, into an enemy”.
This pragmatic strategy has created the largest world empire of all time, but without historical sustainability. Centuries of expansion were followed by dissolution within just a few years after World War II. – The moment of decline shortly after the war won, and thus the greatest British triumph ever, shows a fundamental error of Palmerston. This concerns the question, whose interests actually had been served over an entire age.
For attentive observers, this question was unequivocally answered by 1776 at the latest, when the 13 North American colonies renounced from their motherland as the United States. The text of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the circumstances surrounding the secession, made it clear that it was by no means a rebellion against Great Britain, but only a rejection of an absolutely unsolidary “British” policy.
The latter accepted an eight-year bloody civil war (War of Secession 1775-1783) between the British in North America and the British on the island, only to enforce the plundering of the colonies in the interests of privileged unscrupulous profiteers also in North America. The text of the Declaration of Independence expresses the deep regret of the settlers over the separation. However, they saw in it the only way to escape the unfair model of colonial “development” that threatened their freedom, clearly to be seen after the ultra-rich had already established this system in other countries of the British Empire.
It can be considered one of the greatest tragedies in history that the ideological successors and/or descendants of the super-rich British merchants of the colonial era succeeded in transforming the geo-strategically even more protected USA into their second headquarters, just a few decades after their independence. In both countries, however, thousands of single findings show that the rulers of the system never acted as solidarity members of these “their” two nations.
There is abundant indication that the money oligarchy has fought every successful nation and group as a rival for the earth's resources - exactly according to the strategy detected by Sun Yat-Sen. Namely, these were and are Spain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia (e.g. in the Crimean War 1853-1856 and in the October Revolution of 1917 financed by the West). China is also one of them, which at the turn of the years 1911/1912 was already on the way to become a republic based on the model of the USA. This historic opportunity was thwarted by American financial circles, which initiated the overthrow of 1st President-elect Sun Yat-Sen and his replacement by dictator Yuan Shi-Kai - a pattern repeated later in Latin America many times.
The Brexit, the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU, has shown the continuity of this strategy, in which permanent friendly ties and integration in a community of values are avoided. The irrational break from the EU, which has been pushed with vehemence by the mainstream media, confirms that the British, like all other successful nations, had only ever been a useful tool for the money elite - and is now nearing the end of its usefulness.
Britain's insularity has long provided effective protection against invasion. For centuries, in particular the ultra-rich have been able to pursue their egocentric interests under this protection. Also, it was never difficult to get the islanders to work for the shrewd policies detected by Dr. Sun Yat Sen which were designed to prevent each of the European powers from building up the strength needed to invade Britain by engaging them in wars.
However, a forward-looking British protection policy should have taken into account the progress in transport and weapons technology. In concrete terms, provisions had to be made for the inevitable historical moment when the military-strategic advantage of the island location would expire. But without any adequate change in consciousness in British politics, this constellation already occurred latest in 2018, when Russia put the first Avangard missiles into service, which, equipped with warheads with 120 times the energy of a Hiroshima bomb and 27 times the speed of sound, could cover every corner of the island within a few minutes. Invasion plays no role in a scenario shaped like this.
There are four other aspects that make it clear that the UK is heading towards sacrifice on its current course, regardless of the fate of the continental European countries.
Firstly, Great Britain is obviously exposing itself ahead of all other Western countries in heating up the escalation against Russia - with additional arms deliveries even before the invasion, with the first battle tanks sent into the war zone, with the first fighter jets, with the first DU shells (uranium ammunition that to around 60% consists of U-238) and recently, with the first long-range cruise missiles.
Secondly, the NATO treaty offers no guarantee whatsoever that partner countries will provide effective military assistance, with the relevant Article 5 leaving significant discretion to do so. – History has already given a clear signal during the Algerian War, when France was left alone despite the explicit inclusion of its Algerian departments in the original NATO Treaty. On the contrary, arms were non-officially delivered to the Arabs.
Thirdly, with the Brexit, the protection of the EU has been removed. Much more binding than in the NATO Treaty, the EU Treaty Article 42, Paragraph 7 states: "In the event of an armed attack on the sovereign territory of a member state, the other member states owe it all the assistance and support in their power..."
Fourth, unlike in the past, the insularity today is proving disadvantage. - Assuming that Russia would react to the continued arms deliveries with a nuclear warning strike, in which significant parts of the British armaments industry would be suddenly destroyed - how should NATO partner countries be able to react to this in a helpful manner - even if they had the will to do so? A more far-reaching and potentially greater danger is represented by the way in which all civilization-leading nations are generally perceived by the powerful money aristocrats - as tools where it appears oppotune, and otherwise as rivals for the resources of the earth and for domination of its inhabitants.
The media-wide narrative of the deterrent effect of having one's own nuclear weapons has a wide plausibility gap regarding the psychology of an influential group of people who remarkably lack of empathy and who can afford the most expensive protective systems. This raises the question what rational argument is used to support the naive assumption that the United Kingdom would NOT be sacrificed without hesitation in a clash with Russia if the great goal that had been clearly recognizable since 1853, could be achieved, namely to finally dissolve Russia?
The lack of a forward-looking British protection policy is up to take its toll. At the latest, the founding of the USA should have shown the non-violent, sustainably correct way, which had to lead to the creation of the UNITED STATES OF EUROPE including Russia.