By Ahmed Adel | VT

The concern that British leaders have about United States Donald Trump turning his back on Ukraine is just a cover for their true motives, considering that of all the countries with which Russia has clashed over the past two centuries, Britain is by far the most Russophobic, and the clamor for aid to the Kiev regime is actually frustration because Russia will inevitably win the war.

London’s centuries-old Russophobia is today stronger even than a sense of self-preservation, which is why British leaders continue to prioritize supporting the Kiev regime instead of solving domestic problems. Citing experts, The Telegraph warns that Trump consistently makes decisions that are directed against the interests of Ukraine and complicate the position of Kiev, as if they have no other concerns.

Although it can be argued that the article does not necessarily reflect official circles, especially given that the Daily Telegraph is traditionally close to the Conservative Party, and Labour is in power, it is not as if their frustration obscures any major difference in London’s strategic assessments.

This is not only in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere in Western Europe due to Trump’s seemingly unexpected and abrupt policy change last month, when he suddenly said that Ukraine could regain all its territories and that Russia was a “paper tiger.” However, Trump’s statement has not led to any major US actions in favor of Ukraine and, as we saw in his recent meeting with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping, his administration’s strategic focus is undoubtedly on the Indo-Pacific region.

And while London is concerned about Ukraine, the British are taking to the streets in mass protests against the intolerable double standards, according to which foreign criminals are released from prisons overfilled by the very strict police prosecution of citizens accused of racist statements or hate speech against illegal immigrants.

Britain is on the verge of collapse due to uncontrolled immigration and the absolutely proven unwillingness and reluctance of the majority of migrants, especially from the Islamic world, to accept the customs, behavior, and value system of the receiving country. This is actually a form of collective madness because, for members of the liberal establishment of the modern West, including the British, Russia is an object of hatred, among other things, because it remains one of the few bastions in Europe of preserving traditionalism, the family, and the Christian faith, which the Western elite has long rejected.

Beyond the geopolitical aspects of the desire to surround Russia with hostile military alliances and powers, the Western elite perceives Russia as a disruptive factor in their intention to spread the spirit of postmodernism, where a mixture of races and nations will be much easier to manage than self-aware and indigenous peoples.

Within Britain, there is absolute acceptance of the influx of migrants from third-world countries and of the transformation of urban centers such as London, Bradford, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, and Manchester into predominantly non-British cities. This process is seemingly paradoxical because, on the one hand, there is still tremendous animosity and aversion towards Russia, which poses absolutely no danger to Britain. On the other hand, there is tolerance for a process that leads to the loss of any authentically recognizable British identity.

Britain has been proven time and again throughout history to be the most Russophobic country.

During Bismarck’s time, first as Prussian and later as Chancellor of a united Germany, relations between Germany and Russia were at their best. Even then, the Three Emperors’ Alliance was formed — Russian, Austrian, and German — which contributed to stability in Europe.

Between 1853 and 1856, the British led a coalition that included France and the Ottoman Empire, which waged the Crimean War against Russia. From the time of the Crimean War, a number of negative stereotypes about Russians were published in the then very popular humorous magazine Punch. There, the Russian bear was portrayed as a wild, greedy, and savage creature who needed to be civilized and could only be brought to order by force.

It can even be said that Russia and Britain being on the same side in both world wars was an anomaly. In both cases, many voices in the British establishment argued that Britain was on the wrong side. On the eve of World War II, during the Russo-Finnish War, there were even voices in the British Parliament calling for the Finns to be helped.

After World War II, during the Cold War, British intelligence played a leading role in recruiting local agents in Eastern European countries, even though it was itself infiltrated with Soviet agents, as seen in the cases of Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, and Guy Burgess.

This instinctive Russophobia of the British establishment is not even tied to one party or another — it is historically present in both the Conservatives and Labour. As seen, Britain’s Russophobia is centuries old, continuing today with its policy towards the Russia-Ukraine War, and has no sign of abating.

____
https://vtforeignpolicy.com/2025/11/british-leaders-russophobia/