© AP Photo / Patrick Semansky
Britain finally learned, on my experience, what real foreign intervention in their political system. However, the intervention did not come from Russia (which would correspond to the political narrative of the British media), and from the United States, although the outbreak of this scandal is really connected with our country. Hillary Clinton harshly criticized British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for failing to publish before the election the secret report on the impact of Russia on British policy and a referendum on leaving the EU.The American edition of Business Insider reports: “Hillary Clinton attacked Prime Minister Boris Johnson for his “inexplicable and shameful” step (the Prime Minister decided) to block the publication of a report about Russian interference in the British elections. The former candidate for presidents of the United States told Emma Barnett of bi-Bi-si, that she was “stunned” by the decision of the UK government. “Everyone who vote in this country, deserve to see it before the elections,” Clinton said. She added: “Because there is no doubt — we know that in our country, we have seen this in Europe, we saw it here — that Russia, in particular, intends to try to shape the policy of the Western democracies. <…> Are not in our favor, and in his”.This situation has led to a paradoxical from the point of view of logic and is extremely insulting personally for Johnson (who at the beginning of his Premiership, promised to prove to Putin that Western liberalism is alive) consequences. On Friday British Prime Minister has come to the point that he was forced to justify Russia! Moreover, the British press for Friday and Saturday gave Johnson a shaped dressing down for his words that “no evidence” of Russia’s intervention in British politics.The problem is that the hapless leader of the British conservatives now in the form of a hard offer to decide who is lying: he, when he says that the evidence of Russian intervention there, or Theresa may, in 2017 (while Johnson was foreign Minister in her government) has officially accused Russia of meddling in the British political process.
Prime Minister Theresa may at a press conference after an extraordinary EU summit on Brexit in Brussels. 25 Nov 2018Теперь the Prime Minister has no choice — he will have during the election campaign to prove that he is, despite his blatant Russophobia, toxic remarks of the Kremlin and a personal commitment Zelensky “to prevent the return of Russia in the “Big seven”, after all, is not an agent of the Kremlin.Moreover, already now it is possible to assume that the contents of the controversial report, the publication of which the tories are trying to block, will be made public and challenge it will not be possible — due to the fact that the British public sincerely trust the security services involved in its drafting. While MI-5 and MI-6 have maximum motivation to accuse Russia of meddling in British politics and Brexit. This will allow you to get yourself a increase in budgets. Yes, and really will turn of the security forces in controlling all branches of government: it will be enough to declare the party “recipient of assistance” from Russia in order to actually determine the election results. As you know, a significant part of British elite are very dissatisfied with the outcome of the referendum, and to seek its abolition through resolute assistance to the parties committed to remain in the EU, is an elegant way to take revenge on the voters who voted “wrong” in 2016.
Judging by the already appeared in The Times leaks, the essence of the accusations against the party of Johnson is reduced to the following pattern: the conservatives received money (donations) from the British businessmen, but it was not just British businessmen, and our former compatriots, some of whom were hiding in London from Russian justice. The logic of British intelligence, since the party’s money Johnson gave the Russians, so therefore the Russian government influenced policy in the UK. As suspected clinical stupidity of the employees of MI-5 and MI-6 would have been frivolous, have to assume that they deliberately ignore another explanation: fugitive Russian businessmen in London do pay the conservatives, but not for the fact that they were doing something good for Russia, but for “political roof” for myself. Perhaps some of them were paid to official London as much as possible tried to arrange a “Russian Maidan” to escape from justice, the businessmen and the officials could triumphantly return home in the status of the winners and the new “democratic government”. Moreover, it would be unwise to think that MI5 and MI6 did not take the opportunity to engage with many of the fugitive “businessmen” and “political refugees” in the close business relationship at the stage of their flight to the UK. That is, to doubt the loyalty to the crown, these sponsors of a leading British political party — is not necessary.
That is what, most likely, hinted Johnson, when, in response to veiled accusations from journalist bi-Bi-si that the tories received money from the “Russian oligarchs”, said: “they were All duly tested. This rule… But I don’t think we should discriminate against people just because of where they come from. It is very important that we have shown this balance and justice” (quoted in Daily Mirror).Johnson can understand — he thought that the party receives money from the “trusted people”, and then it ajar for it to wall and try (with the party) to declare almost agents of Putin. Believe me this crowd is an open question, the more stubborn supporters of Brexit, probably ready to vote though for personally, the Russian President, if only to finally get out of the EU. No matter what the outcome of the whole story, you can not worry about British-Russian relations: they are already so bad that it will not be worse. But there are excellent prospects in terms of obtaining pleasure from the fact that some “London refugees”, who had hoped to enjoy life and political influence on Albion’s shores, keenly felt the vaunted British “rule of law”.Which is really nothing compared to the British political expediency.Ivan Danilov