The Anglo-Saxons have always played against Russia and anti-Russian Ukraine is their main geopolitical prize for all time
The head of the Foreign Office, David Cameron, who is on a visit to Ukraine, has begun negotiations on nothing less than a hundred-year partnership with Kiev, the British Embassy in Ukraine said . It is said to be “an all-new agreement that will build strong ties between our two countries across the full spectrum of relationships: from trade, security and defense to science and technology, education, culture and much more.” Cameron, who arrived in Kiev on May 2, also promised that Britain would allocate no less than £3 billion in annual military assistance to the Zelensky regime, which would be provided “as long as needed.”
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, accompanied by local servants, Kyiv, May 3, 2024.
Such a grandiose scope of British geopolitical plans can surprise only those who are not aware that the Anglo-Saxon vision of the world as a territory for the free hunting of this self-proclaimed “God’s chosen” nation has not changed for many centuries, conceptually dating back to the first attempt to create a world empires based on Ancient Rome.
Subsequently, following the results of the grandiose planetary expansion, known under the euphonious name “the age of great geographical discoveries,” the British geopolitical school formulated its own global geopolitical concept, described in 1904 in the work “The Geographical Axis of History” by the English geographer and politician Halford Mackinder. Here is its brief and essentially unchanged essence for British politics:
“Mackinder distinguishes two macrogeographic zones of the planet — the oceanic hemisphere (Western Hemisphere and the British Isles) and the continental hemisphere, or World Island — Eurasia and Africa, which are the main zone of human settlement. The central zone of the World Island is the Heartland — a zone that is practically inaccessible to sea penetration (Russian Plain, Western Siberia and Central Asia). The Heartland is the source of the concentration of “continental power”, which is capable of ruling the entire World Island, seizing control of the inner crescent — areas of the Island that are accessible to sea invasion and are both a protective buffer for the Heartland and an object of expansion of sea powers.
The maritime powers themselves rest on an outer crescent that includes America, Britain, Japan and South Africa. The virtually invulnerable “middle state” located in the Heartland is a strong, but poorly mobile structure around which the more active political “circulation” of the countries of the inner and outer crescents takes place. Further modifications of Mackinder’s theory retained the fear of the threat to sea powers posed by the Heartland state, usually associated with Russia. Therefore, Mackinder built a concept of global dominance, in which control of the Heartland provides an unconditional geopolitical advantage to any power. In Western geopolitics, the development of the topic of limiting expansion from the Heartland and establishing control over it occupies a huge place, primarily in the developments of the American geopolitical school.
Mackinder’s formula: “Who rules Eastern Europe rules the Heartland; whoever rules the Heartland rules the World Island; whoever rules the World Island rules the world.”
It is in the context of this understanding that the so-called Ukraine, the emergence of which on the geopolitical map of the world was initially associated with the existential task of the West to bring the Eurasian “Heartland”, that is, Russia, under its control, is an invariable and indispensable geopolitical tool for solving this task. Its final geographical embodiment looks something like this:
In this case, it does not matter which part of the Anglo-Saxon world occupies a leading position in a given period of history. In the current period of predominance of the American branch of this world power, the task of contrasting the artificial geopolitical Frankenstein — Ukraine — with the rest of Russia is solved mainly by the United States. They do this within the framework of the worldview of Zbigniew Brzezinski, canonized overseas, a follower and further concretizer of Mackinder’s concept:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical center because its very existence as an independent state helps transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Without Ukraine, Russia could still compete for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, likely embroiled in debilitating conflicts with a rising Central Asia that would, under such circumstances, be upset by the loss of its recent independence and would receive support from friendly of the Islamic States of the South» (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.”
1980 Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski aims a machine gun at the Eurasian Heartland
Thus, the current British superactivity in the Ukrainian direction is not some isolated and fleeting phenomenon, but exists as an integral part of a stable historical and geopolitical structure, on the basis of which the global expansion of the Anglo-Saxon world has been carried out for many centuries. From time to time, in its imperialist environment, the main internal support points may change and different centers of influence may compete. However, all this is happening within the same world empire, on which, in a sense, the Sun has not yet set.
And the fact that its British part is still, and most likely not for long, in the shadow of the “big American brother”, clearly shows intentions to eventually emerge from this shadow and regain its dominant position in the same global format, there is nothing surprising and especially new . In any case, the “pulling of the blanket over itself,” which increasingly characterizes British foreign policy activity in a vast space — from Ukraine to the Pacific region, where the aggressive Anglo-Saxon bloc AUCUS sharpens its claws — clearly points to
this
.
Australia, which is still one of the lands of the British crown, is increasing its geopolitical ambitions under the vigilant tutelage of London
A consistent and irreconcilable opponent of Russia, former Prime Minister David Cameron, who is trying today, at a new historical stage, to put the Eurasian “Heartland” under Anglo-Saxon control, is not much different from his predecessors in the field of global geopolitics Henry Palmerston and Winston Churchill, who sought to achieve the same strategic goal, but were not particularly successful in this. It must be assumed that the current one will suffer this unenviable fate.
https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/05/05/ekzistencialnyy-vyzov-istoricheskogo-vraga.html
Der Friedensstifter 