The Ukrainian dimension of Britain's foreign policy amid the Russian special military operation

Gavrilenko Nikita Vladislavovich Graduate student, Department of Applied International Analysis, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) 76 Vernadsky Ave., Moscow, 119454, Russia gavrilenko.n.v@my.mgimo.ru Other publications by this author

Theoretical and methodological basis of the study

            With the beginning of the special military operation (SVO) of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, the conflict between Moscow and Kiev has acquired a full-scale character. However, the confrontation is not limited to clashes between the armed forces and comments by the authorities of the two neighboring states. There are much more involved parties pursuing their own interests in this conflict. And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no exception. By providing military, financial and humanitarian assistance to Kiev and strongly condemning Moscow's actions, London proceeds from its domestic political situation and the changing international political landscape. In this regard, the task of the study is to confirm the fundamental importance of the current events in Eastern Europe for the UK by analyzing the specifics of its interaction with Ukraine and determining the prerequisites that encourage the Kingdom to take an active – albeit indirect – part in the conflict.

            In an attempt to determine the logic of London's behavior in the context under consideration, the provisions of the scientific research program of realism (in accordance with the concept of I. Lakatos) were used ^[1]. As for the methodological component of the study, in order to obtain the clearest picture of the actions of the British establishment, the following were applied: the historical and genetic method used to explain the formation of patterns of behavior of the state, in this case, the United Kingdom, in the international arena; discourse analysis necessary to determine the images and representations that are used to to justify London's assistance to Kiev in the confrontation with Moscow; the method of decomposition of the problem node, namely, the construction of a problem tree, which allows you to isolate a set of challenges and relevant interests present in the context of the situation under consideration and affecting its development.

Historical justification of the UK's involvement in the Ukrainian conflict

            In foreign policy, London has long proceeded from the logic of the balance of power. In order to prevent the strengthening of the positions of other influential players, he was ready to cooperate with countries that adhere to other values. Against this background, there was a contradiction between principles and national interests.

            Changes began to occur after the First World War, when British Prime Minister D. Lloyd George took an active part in the formation of a new format of interaction in the international arena. Then the foundations were laid for universal norms, in particular the phenomenon of "self-determination". The rejection of dialogue with illegitimate regimes was proclaimed, and the balance of power was replaced by the idea of creating a "community of power", the purpose of which is to provide protection to victims of aggression. Thus began the transition from national interests to liberal principles, which were to spread to the whole of humanity ^[2].

            Almost three decades later, during the Second World War, F. Roosevelt and W. Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter, which outlined the vision of a new world order and rejected the idea of territorial expansion as a phenomenon in international relations. Instead, the protection of not only its national sovereignty, but also of other states began to be declared as the main principle of British foreign policy ^[3].

            Based on these very postulates, the United Kingdom has committed itself to helping Ukraine. In 1994, along with the USA and the Russian Federation, it acted as a guarantor of compliance with the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum. It spoke about respect for the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine, as well as the need to provide assistance to Kiev if it becomes a victim of an attack ^[4].

            The cases considered demonstrate a perceived transition to idealism in international relations. But the reality is that the universal norms that proponents of this approach talk about are imposed on other countries and become instruments for the victorious states to realize their own interests ^[5]. And no matter how the apologists of the liberal idea oppose it, realism dominates in international relations, based on the idea of confrontation between great powers. The main aspects of the approach – the balance of power and the distribution of opportunities – determine the format of competition for leadership in the world. This rivalry often occurs in States of regional importance. Ukraine also belongs to them, as the UK is aware of, which refers to its historical principles of foreign policy, including maneuvering and using all kinds of tools to achieve the most ambitious goals ^[6].

            In 2008, the active development of relations between the two countries began, and the first step on the part of the Kingdom was the approval of Kiev's attempts to get closer to the EU. Ukraine, in turn, counted on assistance in the process of joining NATO, so it decided to strengthen cooperation with London in the field of defense. Against this background, a Joint statement was signed, for the first time noting the "strategic" nature of relations between the two states (A look at the UK's strategic partnership with Ukraine / GEDES, March 21, 2022). But the situation was not going the way Britain wanted.

            In 2009, Ukraine postponed the idea of joining the North Atlantic Alliance until a more appropriate moment after Germany, France and a number of other member states opposed the country's accession to the bloc. Given the new conditions, the United Kingdom considered it appropriate to lobby the EU for a decision to conclude an association agreement with Kiev. But in 2013, President Viktor Yanukovych at the last moment refused to sign the prepared document, which was regarded as an attempt to rapprochement with Russia ^[7]. The consequence of this decision was Euromaidan.

            Since 2014, Britain has been striving to increase economic and defense cooperation with Ukraine, thereby increasing the latter's ability to contain the conflict with Lugansk and Donetsk. In the same year, at the NATO Summit in Wales, London achieved double success: it was able to convince the countries to prepare a final collective statement beneficial to Kiev, and was also chosen as the main partner in the framework of the alliance's trust fund activities aimed at the development of the Armed Forces (A look at the UK's strategic partnership with Ukraine / GEDES, March 21, 2022).

            In addition to support within the military bloc, Britain initiated "Reform Assistance Programs" in Ukraine in order to improve the level of public administration and assist in the implementation of economic reforms in the country. Indirectly, this led to the development of trade relations between the two states. In October 2020 The UK and Ukraine signed a "succession agreement", which became a transformed version of the agreement between Kiev and Brussels. The need for this step was due to the preparation of the United Kingdom for leaving the European Union. In addition, the parties signed the "Agreement on Political Cooperation, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership", which became the embodiment of agreements on strengthening cooperation in the military and military-political spheres ^[8]. These decisions have become even more important after the end of the Brexit procedure. In the strategy "Global Britain" adopted in 2021, Ukraine is mentioned twice, with the main emphasis on increasing its resistance to threats to national security and the intention to continue to increase the capabilities of the Armed Forces ^[9].

            Despite the development of trade and economic ties, it cannot be said that they are of fundamental importance for the UK. According to a report published on the government's website, by the end of the second quarter of 2022, taking into account the previous three, Ukraine ranked 69th in the list of the largest partners of the United Kingdom - it accounts for 0.1% of all trade with counterparties. It is noteworthy that the trade balance for this period was negative: London exports goods and services in the amount of 826 million pounds, and imports – by 1 billion pounds Compared with the figures for the same period of time, but a year earlier, we can note an increase in the level of mutual trade by 16.6% – or by 264 The largest increase was observed in mutual trade in services (Trade & Investment Factsheets. Ukraine / GOV.UK, November 19, 2022).

            Based on all of the above, we can conclude that despite the modest indicators of mutual trade, the United Kingdom still sees Kiev as an important strategic partner in Europe, which is not part of the EU. In order to have weight in the region, it is not enough to maintain contacts with former colleagues in the association – no matter how much solidarity the actions of the "collective West" are determined, the countries within the integration grouping have their own national interests, which may conflict with the British ones due to the relative benefits that, from the point of view of the scientific research program realism, are of more interest than absolute ^[10]. In this regard, London needs to build up all kinds of ties outside the Union in order to gain competitive advantages in the struggle for leadership on the European continent ^[11]. As for Ukraine, it was able to enlist the support of an influential actor in international relations in the intention to restore territorial integrity after in 2014 Crimea returned to the Russian Federation, as well as to deepen the political and diplomatic dialogue, which contributed to the expansion of economic and other ties ^[12].

Special military operation of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine and the response of the UK

            The beginning of the SVO did not shock the government of the United Kingdom, since the country's intelligence, together with its partners in the Five Eyes organization (which also includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA), was able to obtain information about the "attack being prepared by Russia" and transfer them to Kiev (Ukraine has been a rare success for UK foreign policy / Financial Times, April 11, 2022). The successful activity of the relevant services increases the importance of the UK as an important ally of Ukraine, and also strengthens the country's position on the European continent. While Berlin and Paris refused to believe in the impending clash of the armed forces of the two largest states in the region, hoping to resolve the contradictions diplomatically, London was preparing for a conflict. According to analysts, if it were not for the "quick and courageous" actions of the countries of the "anglosphere", Ukraine could have already been defeated, and "free democratic" Europe would be in a long retreat (Boris Johnson is using Ukraine crisis to launch a British comeback in Europe / Guardian, May 15, 2022).

            In February 2022, the British government took a rather expected position regarding the actions of the Russian armed forces and President Vladimir Putin. Based on the analysis of speeches and articles by Prime Minister B. Johnson, Foreign Minister L. Truss, as well as representatives of the United Kingdom in such international structures as the UN (General Assembly and Human Rights Council) and the OSCE, managed to form an idea of the discourse that the British political establishment tried to spread during the first month of the conflict and which it continued to follow in the future.

            First of all, it should be noted that the key figure on which the emphasis is placed in the analyzed speeches and articles is the President of the Russian Federation. From the very first day of the special military operation, the British government tried to emphasize that the events taking place are exclusively a strategy for V. Putin to realize his "imperial ambitions" (Prime Minister's speech in Poland on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: March 1, 2022 / GOV.UK, March 1, 2022), which is not much different from the image that was tried to form in the West in previous years ^[13]. So, in almost all the texts under consideration, it was possible to find an indication that London was not fighting Russia itself as "a great country with a rich history and a people who have something to be proud of," namely, the head of state and his "regime." In this regard, B. Johnson addressed the citizens of the Russian Federation in Russian, stating (PM message to the people of Ukraine and Russia: February 25, 2022 / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022):

"I do not believe that this war is being waged on your behalf. It shouldn't be like this. This crisis, this tragedy can and must come to an end."

Thus, the Prime Minister hoped to call on the population of the country to categorically oppose the actions of his president and influence the events taking place in the neighboring state. Addressing the Russians in their native language, the head of the British government tried to earn their trust, thereby having levers of pressure on the political consciousness of the inhabitants of the Russian Federation.

            Focusing on the figure of V. Putin, London seeks to point out the existence of an "authoritarian" – or even "totalitarian" – regime in the country, which allows it to justify the participation of the United Kingdom in the events in Ukraine by the confrontation of the liberal democratic world with an ideological competitor that poses a threat and violates the norms of international law ^[14]. This is evidenced by at least two factors. First, the President of the Russian Federation is described as a "Russian dictator" (Prime Minister's address to the nation on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: February 24, 2022 / GOV.UK, February 24, 2022), whose actions are "revanchism" aimed at revising the world order formed after the end of the Cold War (PM call with NATO leaders: February 25, 2022 / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022). To do this, he sends his "war machine" to Ukraine (PM article on Ukraine: 6 March 2022 / GOV.UK, March 6, 2022), one of the most intimidating in the world, thereby undermining the "idea of a united and free Europe" (Prime Minister's speech in Poland on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: 1 March 2022 / GOV.UK, March 1, 2022). All these metaphors are used to describe a real autocrat, which is what the British political elites are trying to do.

            Special attention in this context deserves the fact that L. Truss, who held the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time, resorted to using the surname of the President of Russia as a common name. Calling for overcoming strategic dependence, which threatens the economy and security of the Western world from "malicious actors", she pointed out the need for more decisive actions and demonstration of serious intentions towards "future Putin" (The era of complacency is over: Atlantic Council Making lecture 2022 by the Foreign Secretary / GOV.UK, March 10, 2022). In the view of the Highways and the political establishment of the country as a whole, there is no tougher and harsher head of state than the President of the Russian Federation. In this regard, London believes that it is necessary to take such measures that would not allow leaders with the same vision of the international environment to appear.

            Secondly, developing the thesis of ideological confrontation, B. Johnson and his colleagues point to the global significance of victory over Russia in the current conflict, since "the struggle is underway not only for the freedom of Ukraine and its right to self-determination, but also for the freedom and security" of the entire Western world (Press conference with Baltic Foreign Minister, 3 March 2022: Foreign Secretary's opening statement / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022). As part of a bilateral telephone conversation, the head of the British government, together with the Prime Minister of Canada, J. Trudeau stressed that "Vladimir Putin's attack on Ukraine is an attack on democratic countries everywhere, and the world needs to stick together and support Ukrainians in their hour of need" (PM call with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: February 25, 2022 / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022). In addition, after the vote on the resolution condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, the British representative to the UN B. Woodward stressed that the whole "free world is on the side of the people of Ukraine" (UN General Assembly vote on Russian aggression against Ukraine, 2 March 2022: UK statement / GOV.UK, March 2, 2022). This only confirms the thesis about the existing conditional division of the world into two blocs, from which the West, in particular the United Kingdom, is repelled in its foreign policy, and the current conflict in Eastern Europe is conducted within the framework of the confrontation between them.

            Another important component of the discourse under consideration is the thesis about the isolation of the Russian Federation in the international community. Representatives of the United Kingdom have repeatedly stated that as a result of the beginning of the SVO, the whole world has turned away from the Russian Federation and no one wants to cooperate with it. As a confirmation of their words, politicians and diplomats refer to the results of the vote at the UN General Assembly. So, on March 10, 2022, L. Truss delivered a lecture at the Atlantic Council event. One of her main theses was (The era of complacency is over: Atlantic Council Making lecture 2022 by the Foreign Secretary /GOV.UK, March 10, 2022):

"At a meeting of the UN General Assembly, 141 states voted to condemn Russia's actions. The only supporters of Russia were Syria, Eritrea, Belarus and North Korea. We would never have thought that the Russian Federation would be able to descend to such a level: with the exception of Eritrea, its only allies are a vassal state, a rogue state and a state led by a war criminal. Putin is shunned, and he is isolated. He has made his country a global outcast."

Using such statements, the United Kingdom is trying to create additional pressure on the leadership of the Russian Federation, forcing it to make concessions and put an end to the military operation, which would mean Moscow's geopolitical loss. This is explained by the fact that the international isolation of the Russian Federation is much more likely to end not the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine, but the unsuccessful completion of the implementation of strategic tasks that currently face the armed forces and the command. In other words, defeat may lead to the fact that the discourse imposed by British politicians and diplomats will become a reality.

            In addition to the above-mentioned manifestations of anti-Russian rhetoric, it is necessary to consider how the special military operation itself is described in the speeches. Many Western politicians, including British ones, are convinced that the start of a full–scale conflict in Ukraine is an "unprovoked" decision, for which only the President of Russia is responsible. In this context, the phrase "war of choice" is quite often used (Press conference with Baltic Foreign Minister, March 3, 2022: Foreign Secretary's opening statement / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022). It was previously used by R. Haas in the book "War by Necessity, War by Choice" in relation to US actions in the Middle East. The use of this term, in our opinion, is controversial, although it corresponds to the logic of the collective West. According to the definition of Z. Brzezinski, the phenomenon under consideration is the desire to "change the character of other states and justify the start of the campaign with ambitious ideological and moral goals" – it is from this idea that London is repelled. However, in his review of Haas' work, the former American politician notes that as long as the result of the conflict is unknown, it is impossible to unambiguously determine the difference between necessity and choice ^[15]. The Russian Federation has its own justification for the events taking place in Ukraine, the "collective West" has its own justification for the use of such rhetoric. And only the end of ITS will be able to judge the opposing sides.

            As for Ukraine, the United Kingdom has formed a directly opposite discourse around it, which meets its geopolitical interests. On March 1, 2022, during his visit to Estonia, B. Johnson stated the following (Prime Minister's speech in Estonia on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: March 1, 2022 / GOV.UK, March 1, 2022):

"A sovereign and democratic people is fighting for its existence against an enemy who wants to subjugate it by force. When we realized how terrifyingly big President Putin's ambitions turned out to be, the world did exactly the right thing by uniting in praising the valor and bravery of the Ukrainian people, led by President Vladimir Zelensky."

In order for the discourse about "dictator Putin" to be convincing, and for Britain's indirect participation in the conflict in Eastern Europe to be justified, first of all for its own population, it was extremely necessary for London to create an image of Ukraine opposite to the Russian one. So, it appears to be a state that supposedly seeks to become a full-fledged democracy, but which is hindered by a neighbor on this path. On February 25, immediately after the previously discussed remark in Russian, Johnson switched to Ukrainian and said that "the world needs a free and sovereign Ukraine" (PM message to the people of Ukraine and Russia: February 25, 2022 / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022). In this regard, the Government of the United Kingdom tried in every possible way to promote the idea that Kiev needs to be given all possible support and should be praised for its valor and courage in the fight against a country that surpasses it in power.

            Finally, it is important to analyze how London sees itself against the background of current events. For the successful implementation of the "Global Britain" strategy, the United Kingdom needs to create an image of an actor actively involved in the management of global political processes and striving to increase its importance in the international arena due to this ^[16]. For this reason, the conservative government resorts to the following remarks (Press conference with Baltic Foreign Minister, March 3, 2022: Foreign Secretary's opening statement / GOV.UK, February 25, 2022):

"We are strengthening the eastern flank of NATO and maintaining security in Europe through the Joint Expeditionary Force led by the United Kingdom. With regard to the provision of defensive weapons to Ukraine, the UK became the first European country to provide it to Kiev, and now we are also providing humanitarian assistance. We have committed ourselves to provide assistance in the amount of 220 million pounds, and we are the largest donor in Europe. In addition, we are at the forefront of putting serious pressure on the Kremlin through sanctions, and now it is extremely important not to reduce it."

The narrative of a responsible global player, for whom the security and well-being of other states are important, is of key importance for the UK. It allows you to set the tone for the implementation of collective actions of the progressive Western world both at the NATO level and at the state level. Due to such actions, London gets the opportunity to put its main competitors in Europe – Germany and France - at a disadvantage.

            It is important to emphasize that the measures and actions taken by the United Kingdom in practice do not differ much from the stated goals and the discourse formed around the conflict in question. Thus, according to the report by K. Mills prepared for the House of Commons, as of February 21, 2023, the United Kingdom provided military assistance to Ukraine in the amount of 2.3 billion pounds, and 250 million pounds were donated to the International Fund for Ukraine. According to this indicator, the United Kingdom ranks second after the United States ($29 billion). Together with economic and humanitarian aid, since February 2022, London has allocated 3.8 billion pounds (Military assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion / UK Parliament, February 21, 2023).

            During the year of the conflict, the United Kingdom provided lethal weapons, including anti-tank missiles, artillery, air defense systems, armored fighting vehicles, armor-piercing shells and three M270 multiple rocket launchers. In January 2023, the UK announced a significant increase in combat support, including the delivery of 14 Challenger II tanks (UK confirms it will send Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine and pressures Germany to increase support // Guardian, January 16, 2023).

            London also provided more than 200,000 units of non-lethal military aid, including bulletproof vests, helmets, night vision devices, medical equipment and warm clothing. In November 2022, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that the first of three decommissioned Sea King search and rescue helicopters (UK to give artillery rounds and helicopters as part of military aid to Ukraine / GOV.UK, November 23, 2022).

            In addition, in June 2022, B. Johnson launched the Interflex program aimed at training up to 10 thousand new and active AFU soldiers every 120 days. This initiative was a replacement for the Orbital program, under which more than 22 thousand Ukrainians received military training from 2015 to 2022 and exercises were conducted in the Sea of Azov ^[17].

            Finally, in February 2023, the question arose about the supply of jet fighters to Kiev. This was the main purpose of President Zelensky's visit to the UK. Prime Minister of the country R. Sunak requested an analysis of existing capabilities from the Ministry of Defense and announced that Ukrainian pilots will undergo appropriate training, which, however, may take up to three years (Rishi Sunak may be keen to send Ukraine jets, but trouble is on the horizon // Telegraph, February 8, 2023). But the decision of the United Kingdom to supply Kiev with shells containing depleted uranium deserves special attention, which caused a resonance in the world due to the harm caused to the environment and people when using it (Putin says Russia ‘will respond’ if UK supplies depleted uranium shells to Ukraine / Guardian, March 21, 2023).

          Summarizing all of the above, it should be noted that from the very beginning of the special military operation, Great Britain took a tough position against the Russian Federation, starting to promote the idea of the need for its isolation. The active support of Ukraine is justified by an attempt to protect the entire "free world", as well as the basic norms and principles of international law on which interstate interaction is based. However, there are a number of other reasons that determine the behavior of the United Kingdom in this matter.

            Firstly, the conflict in Ukraine has become a "blessing" for former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as it has allowed to divert the attention of the media and society from the scandals associated with his name (UK's strong support hides a less glorious past / Chatham House, May 11, 2022). The head of government had an opportunity to convince the population and political elites opposed to him of the existence of a more pressing problem – the threat of undermining the architecture of European security – requiring an immediate response from London. And the Prime Minister, as well as his successors, succeeded. This thesis is valid for two reasons.

            According to a public opinion poll published on January 24, 2023 by Ipsos, 79% of Britons believe that refusal to take decisive action will lead to the Russian Federation increasing its military activity in Europe and Asia. About the same number of respondents (78%) are convinced that it is important to maintain restrictions on Russian oil and gas, even if there are difficulties with heating this winter (for comparison: 63% of respondents on average gave a positive answer to the first question in the 28 states whose population participated in the survey. As for the second question, it was asked only in 13 countries, and the average was 67% More details: Britons are more likely to back actions in support of Ukraine than many other countries surveyed / Ipsos, January 24, 2023). No less revealing is the fact that 70% of respondents support the application of the "most severe" economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, and 68% support the need to support Ukraine until the Russian armed forces leave its territory.

            The key findings of the study also include: 63% of Britons support the supply of weapons and air defense systems to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 57% support the idea of sending a military contingent to NATO countries bordering Ukraine and 55% support limiting gas and oil imports from Russia, even if this leads to a serious increase in energy and food prices. Finally, a minority (33%) supports sending soldiers directly to the combat zone, and the same number of respondents would like to maintain diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation.

            The second reason is related to the inter-factional consensus in the House of Commons regarding assistance to Ukraine. This was confirmed by the leader of the Labor Party, Keir Starmer, during his visit to Kiev. He noted that "there will be no disagreements between the political parties on this issue, so we will continue to work with the government and discuss what else we can do as support" (Keir Starmer visits Kyiv to highlights Labor's backing for Ukraine / Guardian, February 16, 2023). Thus, Starmer is trying to declare himself as a reliable partner and a staunch supporter of the Ukrainian people.

            It is worth noting that it is quite difficult to imagine a different rhetoric, taking into account the significant support for the actions of the United Kingdom from the citizens. The Labour leader, who has every chance of winning the general election next year, urgently needs to maintain or increase the popularity of his party as the Conservatives face serious socio-political and economic challenges, including those related to anti-Russian measures. Nevertheless, due to the government's decisions in the Ukrainian direction, the Tories were able to avoid additional problems, including in Westminster.

            Secondly, the government had a task to demonstrate to voters the correctness of the decision to leave the European Union. Being a member of the EU, the UK was somehow institutionally limited in its actions, in particular in foreign policy ^[18]. Now the Cabinet of Ministers has an opportunity to show that the Kingdom can act quickly, decisively, purposefully and responsibly, without looking back at its partners. This has become one of the main stimulating factors in the active introduction of restrictions against the Russian Federation – although researchers note that even under D. Cameron, the preservation of sanctions regimes could be due precisely to London's harsh rhetoric on this issue ^[19].

            In addition to this, the UK was able to assume the role of coordinator of the process of distributing military equipment and equipment, providing humanitarian aid and collecting evidence of allegedly illegal actions by the Russian side (The Case for an Ambitious British Role in Ukraine's Reconstruction / British Foreign Policy Group, July 4, 2022). By fulfilling these tasks, the state has managed to earn a reputation as a loyal and flexible partner.

            Thirdly, the conflict in Ukraine is an opportunity to increase its importance in Europe as a player influencing intraregional processes. The UK is striving to get ahead of its main competitors – France and Germany – which is confirmed by its swift, decisive and tough actions against Russia. In addition, this interest is linked by the establishment with the future of the security architecture on the continent. The reason is that without maintaining a stable position in Europe, the United Kingdom will not be able to talk about increasing cooperation with states in other regions, primarily the Indo-Pacific, which is of particular importance for the country as part of the implementation of the "Global Britain" strategy (The war in Ukraine as a test for "Global Britain" / New Eastern Europe, July 14, 2022). Representatives of the House of Commons and members of the International Affairs Committee also speak about this. In their updated report on the country's foreign policy doctrine, they note that London "cannot successfully participate in the processes in the Indo-Pacific region without a strong foundation in Europe, especially given the influence that several European countries have in international structures such as the UN" (Refreshing our approach? Updating the Integrated Review / UK Parliament, December 18, 2022).

            Fourth, the prospect of the presence of the Navy in close proximity to the borders with the Russian Federation opens up for Britain, which could become an additional lever of pressure on it. Already, the United Kingdom is trying to provide it by conducting military exercises with Romania and Moldova, as well as, according to some statements, assisting Ukraine in attacking Russian ships in the Crimea (Moskau meldet besch?digtes Kriegsschief / Spiegel, den 29. October, 2022).

            Finally, access to the Black Sea in the future may allow increasing the scale of political, economic and, possibly, military cooperation with Asian countries. Even now, London is trying to strengthen its influence in relations with Tbilisi within the framework of the annual "Strategic Dialogue of the Wardrop", named after J. O. Wardrop, a British diplomat who served in Transcaucasia in 1919-1921. On January 26, 2023, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom J. O. Wardrop. Cleverley held a meeting with his Georgian counterpart I. Darchiashvili, at which he acknowledged that "Russia's invasion of Ukraine made it obvious the need to develop and deepen cooperation with countries, including Georgia, which are particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression" (UK firms up support for Georgia in annual Wardrop Dialogue / GOV.UK, January 26, 2023). The British Foreign Minister expressed readiness to play a key role in the process of increasing resistance to hybrid threats. During the meeting, the ministers agreed to increase cooperation on a number of priority issues, including Georgia's aspirations to establish closer contacts with NATO through a "Package of specialized assistance."

Fifth, it is imperative for the Government to protect the liberal values that underlie British society and on which the vision of the world order promoted by the "collective West" is based. In the confrontation between states with "democratic" and "authoritarian" regimes, as the embodiment of which it seems possible to consider the Ukrainian crisis, the Kingdom is interested in the victory of the former, since it directly relates to them and they are led by the United States, its main ally. Of course, the "special" relations between London and Washington are ambiguous, for example, due to the difficulties with concluding a free trade agreement, which significantly limits the ties between them. Nevertheless, given the position of the United States in the international hierarchy, defeat in Ukraine – albeit indirectly – will lead to a serious decrease in their influence, and with them the UK will also surrender its positions. Given her ambitions, such an outcome will put an end to the possibility of their realization. Speaking in the language of domestic realist researchers, the United Kingdom will not be able to independently propose an alternative version of the global ideology or a progressive strategy that would make it possible to talk about it as a great power, since it has been integrated into the model of the world order for too long, where the United States was the dominant force ^[20].

Sixth, the British government is interested in Ukraine's victory, since it allegedly declares its aspirations for a full-fledged democratic transition and final accession to the "Western community". For London, the current events are a way to signal to the whole world that there is an actor in the international arena who can be relied upon in the fight for freedom. It was due to his active involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and assistance to Kiev that Boris Johnson managed to resign as prime Minister as a brave fighter for democracy (Post-Boris Britain will continue to stand with Ukraine against Putin's war / Atlantic Council, July 8, 2022).

Thus, it can be concluded that the reasons for Britain's indirect involvement in the crisis in Eastern Europe are determined by many factors that influence the country's policy at the national, regional and global levels. Taking into account some differences between the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance in their approaches towards the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom seeks to act independently, gathering around itself "like-minded people" allegedly under the greatest threat from Moscow. London thereby seeks to assume a major role in the formation of a new security architecture in Europe, which, if successful, may be beneficial when entering new regions.

Conclusion

Summing up, we can conclude that the actions and goals of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Ukrainian conflict are generally explained by the desire to demonstrate independence in foreign policy to its own population and the world community and the desire to realize its great-power ambitions. In addition, the current situation in the European region allows us to work together with the opposition forces, shifting their attention from domestic political challenges to perceived threats on a global scale. In relations with its allies, London relies mainly on those countries that are in close proximity to the Russian Federation and adhere to the toughest line towards it. This is how Britain seeks to achieve primacy in Europe in order to determine the agenda and further actions of the "collective West" and signal to current and potential partners in other regions about its readiness to be a trustworthy leader.

Of course, the strategy of the conservative government has led to serious socio-economic consequences, which are added to the costs of the coronavirus pandemic and withdrawal from the EU, and also jeopardized the position of the entire party. However, due to the high geopolitical stakes and risks, the UK will not abandon the chosen approach.