The British order in Eastern Europe A new alliance amid EU instability

After the disastrous visit to the White House on February 28, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy immediately received support from European leaders—not only Tusk, Macron, Sánchez, and Merz, but also British Prime Minister Starmer. Zelenskyy is likely to remain in power for not much longer, but the Russia-Ukraine war may continue, as new players who can prevent a deal between the U.S. and Russia have started to actively intervene. This is the emerging coalition of European countries led by the United Kingdom. It is no coincidence that former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who was sent to London in a diplomatic position last year, announced on February 27 that Kyiv would not surrender and would continue the war until victory. This most popular politician in Ukraine is likely to soon replace the current president, and the British leadership is currently gathering allies who can help him continue the military campaign.

New alliance through intervention

In the past couple of weeks, the United Kingdom has taken on a new role in European and global politics. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declared firm support for Kyiv's continued military efforts and is promoting a plan to deploy British and French troops in Ukraine. These troops are meant to enter the country under the guise of a peacekeeping mission, but in reality, they are intended to establish a backup line of defense behind the Ukrainian army.

In the course of these efforts, London is not only ensuring its own and its allies' access to a share of Ukraine's resources, equal to that of the U.S., in the event of a potential unprecedented deal involving the transfer of the most valuable Ukrainian minerals and strategic infrastructure to America. This is suggested by a detail in the British plan—namely, the intention to deploy troops away from the front lines and near key infrastructure facilities, without which the extraction of Ukrainian resources would be impossible. In effect, London has begun to build an alternative military coalition of Western countries, a "new Entente," amid the instability of existing Western structures.

Last week, the role of the British Prime Minister was noticeable in organizing summits of several European countries in Paris, which, in the context of the European Union's inaction, were intended to be the "European response" to U.S.-Russia negotiations. Starmer, alongside Macron, trampled on traditional mechanisms for coordinating foreign policy within the EU and security policy within NATO. This is quite bold, as the British had only recently left the EU and now behave as though they never left.

In the duo with Macron, the British leader plays the leading role. This reflects the objective balance of power—Great Britain is the second most significant center of the collective West after the United States. But it also reveals the subjective dynamics—one only needs to compare the visits of Macron and Starmer to Washington this week.

The first was met with skepticism, while the latter was referred to by Trump, albeit in a casual manner, as a "special person," accompanying his speech following their meeting with numerous flattering epithets towards the United Kingdom and hinting that a new Anglo-American trade agreement would protect London from the 25% tariffs that would hit the EU. However, the main goal for the British was to secure at least minimal support from Washington in forming a new international coalition. 

In this pursuit, both major British parties are united—the Prime Minister Starmer's Labour Party and the Conservatives. Their influential representative, former Foreign Secretary William Hague, had already declared the meeting between Starmer and Trump as the most important first bilateral meeting between a British Prime Minister and a U.S. President since World War II. The English king even sent Trump an unprecedented invitation to visit the United Kingdom for a second state visit.

Trump has many reasons to treat the British leadership differently than European Union leaders. But now, two aspects have come to the forefront. First, London's ability and willingness to undermine the foundations of the European Union through its maneuvers—during his first presidential term, Trump welcomed the United Kingdom's exit from the EU. Second, the need to prevent the intrigues of the global liberal establishment from involving London in opposition to Trump—London could indeed become a stronghold for global liberal elites in their fight for a comeback in the U.S.

Traditional geopolitical interest

Of course, London, even while agreeing to support the interests of the new U.S. leadership, is primarily playing its own foreign policy game. At the moment, Starmer sees an opportunity to pursue the long-standing goal of British European policy—preventing the consolidation of continental Europe around a single center of power. After 1945, this goal took a backseat as the continent was first divided during the Cold War, and then, within the European Union, not only most of the continent but also the United Kingdom itself became part of a larger union.

To understand how important this goal is, it's worth remembering that for Winston Churchill, the initial motivation for fighting Nazi Germany was not ideological differences: Churchill, in terms of misanthropy, was no different from many Nazis—one need only read his notes on the war with the Afghans or recall the famine in Bengal. What was most important for him was to prevent the hegemony of any single power in continental Europe, as this would strike at the interests of island Britain, located off the European coast, or even pose a threat to its global dominance. This was the sole reason, and the only reason, he openly wrote about in four hefty volumes just before World War II—to destroy Nazi Germany (or any power with similar ambitions).

Of course, Starmer is far from Churchill in terms of openness, and he cloaks everything in new political formulas, but in essence, we see the same drive to build a new political alliance that will prevent the consolidation of the EU around the issue of supporting the Ukrainian government and prevent the emergence of a separate unified European power, even if it is friendly (as much as that is possible in imperialist politics). London is openly pushing the EU and NATO aside from the relevant plans and has already announced the imminent convening of a "British" summit of European countries on Ukraine.

England is trying to build a "new Entente" around the Ukrainian issue, relying on the support of a few notable players like France and Poland. In this sense, the British are indeed uniting global liberal elites around themselves, but they are redirecting their energy toward creating an alternative channel of support for Kyiv, separate from the American one, instead of escalating the conflict with the U.S. over the latter's "duty" to supply the Ukrainian government in its war with Russia.

At the same time, London and its allies have candidates to back in Ukraine instead of the increasingly estranged Zelenskyy, and the likely new Ukrainian leadership demonstrates alignment with the positions and beliefs of European liberal elites, who are working to prevent a deal between Trump and Putin. As former Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhnyi, who arrived in Lviv from London, stated a couple of weeks ago, NATO has become nothing more than a political and economic structure: "NATO as a military institution has no power." He spoke in vivid terms, using clichés and slogans, about the necessity of creating a new coalition: "Ukraine, bleeding out, miraculously continues to fight the axis of evil. There is no alliance, no coalition in the world. Until it is created, we will not destroy this axis of evil. We did not stop the regional war, so now there is a global war that must be addressed at the global level. We must rely on ourselves, on God, on our partners." Zaluzhnyi described the ultimate goal very radically, but it's important to understand that he was likely speaking with an eye toward "his partners," more precisely, the new "British" coalition. According to him, "Ukraine’s victory will come when Russia breaks apart into 27, or better yet, 69 principalities, and before that, someone will take their nuclear weapons."

Eastern Europe as the "black hole" of the New World Order

The emergence of a new coalition is facilitated not only by the weakness of the European Union's center but also by its failure in Eastern Europe. A severe socio-economic and strategic situation has long been developing there, and the Russia-Ukraine war was far from the main cause of its emergence. The situation is worsening with the weakening of Germany, which historically played an important constructive and destructive role in Eastern Europe, but is now struggling with its own internal issues. The latest sign of destabilization in Germany came from the elections held on February 23. The ruling coalition parties were defeated, and the "Alternative for Germany" party, which advocates limiting EU powers and seeking peace with Russia, as well as aligning itself with Trump’s team, came in second. Forming a new government without the "Alternative" is difficult, though possible, but such a government will be extremely unstable. 

Meanwhile, the old parties are not yet ready to form a government with the "Alternative," considering it almost "fascist." Therefore, in the coming years, Germany will face political instability, which, coupled with economic decline, will create a dangerous dynamic. Berlin will send new billions to Kyiv, but it will be unable to fill the power vacuum that has emerged in Eastern Europe following Trump’s distancing from Ukraine or to simply "revive" the economically drained region. 

Meanwhile, Eastern Europe itself is incapable of providing Ukraine with sustained economic and military support or even defending itself: countries are scrambling to invite foreign troops onto their territory and to create foreign military bases—everything one needs to know about the "freedom-loving" nature of Eastern Europe.

As Brussels attempts to reduce subsidies to Eastern Europe—since the transition period has long ended—the EU’s problems in Eastern Europe are escalating. Amid the open defiance by the leadership of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and several other countries towards Brussels’ directives, a new crisis is emerging in yet another major Eastern European EU member state—Romania. On February 26, the presidential candidate who reached the second round of elections in November was arrested, and the elections were annulled under the pretext of "Russian interference." This decision was made under Brussels' insistence—Călin Georgescu is known for his criticism of the EU and his sympathies with Trump’s team. Moreover, Elon Musk reported on the involvement of USAID and the Soros Foundation in the annulment of the first-round results.

It is unclear whether Georgescu will be able to participate in the new elections in May, as the police conducted mass searches and arrests of his associates, and restrictions have been imposed on him personally. Close allies of Trump have repeatedly criticized the annulment of the election results and expressed support for Georgescu, who invited Elon Musk to visit Romania before the elections. Therefore, the police persecution of Georgescu and his supporters this week seems to be an attempt by the EU to "show its teeth" to the Americans, but without taking excessive risks. Observing these repressions, the British decided they could play the same game and symbolically struck at the EU as well. On February 27, what seemed like a private organization, but in reality a well-known "think tank" of the British establishment, the Economist Intelligence Unit, without ceremony, dropped Romania 12 positions in the so-called "Democracy Index," declaring that it had transformed from an "imperfect democracy" into a "hybrid regime."

The large-scale and complex problems at the eastern border of the EU-NATO could not fail to lead to fundamental strategic changes on the continent, creating opportunities for new alliances, such as the one London is attempting to establish. The UK is working in this direction not only with France but also with states in the region. However, the countries of Eastern Europe are unable to become a reliable base for intervention in Ukraine, nor can they deploy serious forces there or even defend themselves. Of course, this does not stop their current leadership from betting on a hard confrontation with Russia, not only in Ukraine but also along the entire perimeter of their borders. Given the socio-economic weakness and growing political instability in the region, this will not lead to a victory for either side or a settlement in Ukraine in the near future. Instead, we are likely looking at another couple of years of war and a potential escalation.