Foreign Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson has set an ultimatum to Russia of a personal nature, while the spirit that, while Moscow is cooperating with Damascus, legs Boris Johnson will not be on Russian soil. This statement he confirmed what has long been known that British diplomacy can not come to terms with their true place in the new world.
After the appointment of the head of the foreign Office eccentric Boris Johnson, recently led the London, from the British foreign office began to expect something unusual. And Johnson really surprised: all the time that has elapsed since his taking office, he behaved correctly emphasized and modestly, avoiding harsh statements. Apparently, this is a beneficial impact of ancient traditions.
“To Boris Johnson in EU countries are very cautious”
However, the effect is double-edged, it not only reduces the eccentricity, but also increases the sense of self-importance.
During the meeting with Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Johnson, in addition to duty applications (“we Have problems in the relationship, but we intend to increase the positive, look for things that we can do together in a positive way”), suddenly has put forward an ultimatum to Russia. Like, he will visit Moscow with official visit only “when Russia will find a way to stop supporting (Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad.”
Recall that the Syrian question – not the main contradiction in Russian-British relations. Main, quoting the same Johnson, that the murder of former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, the violation of the Minsk agreements in Ukraine and the investigation into the collapse of the liner Malaysia Airlines in the Donbass. Why with all this Johnson led to his official visit to Moscow support for Assad – hard to say. In fact, do not understand what he wanted to achieve with this statement?
All questions on Syria, Russia decides with the United States. And the farther, the clearer it becomes that talking with someone else is a waste of time. Turkey and Israel to solve their local problems. Terrorists Russia, unlike the USA, negotiations are not leading. And now the American-led coalition with its attempts to maintain some “opposition”, which is similar to LIH* confusingly, is the main obstacle for peace in Syria.
Britain, like other NATO countries, in this case plays not even second, but third fiddle in the American ensemble. For Barack Obama and the Democratic party in General, Brickset was a serious blow to them promoted the concept of the EU as a Junior partner of the US and Britain as the main conduit of American interests in the EU. With London, Washington literally speaks the same language, and the self same of Johnson, by all means support withdrawal from the EU, Washington explicitly remembered.
Therefore, the “threat” of the head of the foreign Office not to visit Moscow as long as Russia did not stop supporting Assad, it’s hard to call impressive. If Johnson does not come to us, we will meet with Lavrov on neutral territory – the quality of negotiations will not change.
Incidentally, the current British government is hard to call sustainable. But the position of Assad, on the contrary, improved – thanks to the support of Russia and despite the efforts of the US and Britain. Therefore, it is possible that Johnson will stay in the new position not too long, and the new head of the foreign Office for the statements of the old is not the answer. As for Assad, he will continue to lead Syria. Or will resign. But to solve it will not be in London, not in Washington and even in Moscow and in Damascus.
Britain has long lost its Imperial grandeur (hence the use of the term “UK” does not seem justified), but despite this, continues to behave as if it remained “the Empire on which the sun never set”. US support their British partners the illusion, but no wonder the British Prime Ministers repeatedly called “poodles of Washington.” London is too dependent on its former colony in order to pursue an independent policy fundamentally. Yes, Brickset was the crashing of the Atlantic strategy of globalization, but its effects seem to be largely formal.
Recall that to Boris Johnson in EU countries are very cautious. For example, his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault, the accession of Johnson to the new position was met by saying that the British “lied a lot” and “pinned to the wall”.
Probably, the foreign Minister of Britain should be more soberly assess their political weight and the political situation in the world. And what explicitly not to do so is to try to scare Russia’s refusal to come to Moscow. In the end, his senior colleague, the head of state Department John Kerry regularly visits to Moscow and Sochi and anywhere in the world where you can talk with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
If the position of Britain really depended on the solution of the Syrian or the Ukrainian question, the head of the foreign Office would hardly have occurred to limit the diplomatic maneuver by the geography of the negotiations. However, Britain is mired in internal problems and has lost much of its ability to influence the decision of the really important international issues (although, of course, her veto power in the UN security Council has not been canceled). If Boris Johnson ever again will arrive to Moscow, it is unlikely this someone will become worse. Is that gift the hat on the Arbat will buy the same John Kerry or ordinary Chinese tourist. We have now a lot.
* Organization in respect of which the court accepted entered into legal force decision on liquidation or ban the activities on the grounds stipulated by the Federal law “On countering extremist activity”