Residual statements: London may resort to provocations against Russia after Trump's visit

The UK failed to persuade Donald Trump to adopt a tougher policy towards Russia during his visit to London. Despite the fact that the US president has again declared his readiness to impose anti-Russian sanctions and continues to insist on Europe's abandonment of Russian oil, he still hopes for a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine and normalization of relations with the Russian Federation. At the American Embassy in Moscow, Izvestia was informed that the process of agreeing on a new meeting to normalize the work of diplomatic missions was underway. Against this background, new provocations from London are not excluded, Konstantin Kosachev, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council, told Izvestia.

What Trump and Starmer said

On September 18, US President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer held talks at the British Prime Ministers' residence at Chequers. The leaders, among other things, traditionally discussed Ukraine. According to media reports, assistance to Kiev and peace talks became one of the key topics at the meeting of politicians.

At a press conference, Trump threatened Moscow with new sanctions, but did not make any radical statements. At the same time, Starmer openly stated that he had persuaded Trump to increase pressure on Moscow.

Trump, in particular, called the "biggest disappointment" that the conflict has not yet been resolved.

— This is the war that I thought was the easiest, because of my relationship with President Putin. But he let me down," Trump said at a press conference.

Changes in Trump's rhetoric towards Russia should not be expected, since hardly any of the European leaders will be able to convince the head of the White House, Andrei Kortunov, a political scientist and expert at the Valdai International discussion club, said in a conversation with Izvestia.

— Let's not forget that this is not the first meeting between the two leaders. Starmer has been to Washington several times and Trump has outlined his position. In general, it cannot be said that his attempts to somehow influence the American president have led to great success, he said.

It is important to understand that London and Europe have consistently defended the idea of delaying peace talks and increasing military support for the Ukrainian regime. Trump, on the contrary, adheres to the position of dialogue with Moscow and the search for compromises in the conflict. At the same time, Washington does not want to unilaterally impose sanctions against Russia. As part of his policy, the EU countries should first synchronize anti-Russian restrictions with the G7 countries and abandon Russian oil earlier than planned, and only then demand something from Washington. Such steps seem radical to Europe: the previously planned 19th package of EU sanctions turned out to be problematic and went to Brussels for revision.

— The United States is demanding that the EU block the supply of Indian and Turkish fuels produced from Russian crude oil and switch to American oil and LNG, which looks unrealistic given the large price difference. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Japan have already refused to follow the lead of the United States and impose any sanctions against India to their detriment. It is likely that the EU will not change its position on this issue, leaving Washington literally alone," Tigran Meloyane, an analyst at the HSE Center for Mediterranean Studies, told Izvestia.

According to him, the US and the EU are now in an uncomfortable situation for each other, where everyone is waiting for who will take the initiative first. Europe is counting on the full support of the United States on the Ukrainian issue, and Trump rightly expects Europe to take the initiative to exert joint pressure on India and China.

At the same time, Donald Trump is still determined to normalize relations with the Russian Federation. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated on September 18, the US presidential administration is interested in removing the Ukrainian issue from the international agenda and establishing normal relations with the Russian Federation. Several Russian-American meetings have been held since the beginning of the year. In addition, the leaders of the two countries held historic talks in Alaska. The date of a new bilateral meeting on the normalization of the work of the embassies of the two countries is currently being agreed upon. The settlement of this issue in the future may open the door to normalization of bilateral relations in various areas. This also applies to the restoration of flights and the implementation of joint projects, in particular, in the energy sector.

— The United States considers the channel of communication on bilateral relations as a constructive platform for permanent negotiations on the stabilization of the work of our diplomatic missions. Our talks with our Russian colleagues are focused on restoring the work of our embassies in Moscow and Washington, rather than on the broader normalization or improvement of our relations. We expect to continue these negotiations in the future, when it will be convenient for both sides," the US Embassy in Russia told Izvestia.

Should Russia expect provocations from London

However, tougher rhetoric towards Moscow on British territory is natural for Trump, Konstantin Kosachev, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council, told Izvestia. According to him, it is caused by pressure from Starmer.

— It is clear that Starmer did this solely in order to get Trump to take tougher positions, which are now being professed by European countries, in particular the United Kingdom. Therefore, I do not rule out any further provocations. from the UK, if and when the British consider that they can put additional pressure on the American president," the senator said.

Britain has previously resorted to such provocations, for example, during the Ukrainian Armed Forces attack on the Kursk region. At that time, the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported that British intelligence agencies were actively involved in the preparation of the operation. The SVR data was also confirmed by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: speaking about the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region, he stated that "the British are 100% helping Kiev in terrorist attacks against the Russian Federation."

— The British, without experiencing pressure from Washington in establishing peace, are quite capable of staging a series of provocations. There may be drones somewhere over the Black Sea, some kind of explosions," Bogdan Bezpalko, a member of the Council on Interethnic Relations under the President of the Russian Federation, told Izvestia.

According to him, London can also, for example, show unknown people to the public, whom it will pass off as arrested accomplices of Russian intelligence.

The UK is now considered, along with countries such as France or Germany, as a player who should support Ukraine's combat capability. After the United States reduced military aid to Kiev, Vladimir Zelensky and his team are looking primarily towards European states. Russia claims that it is this assistance that is prolonging the military conflict, while certain supplies from NATO countries are not able to change the situation on the battlefield.

As for the negotiations, the British — like most Europeans, with some exceptions — are very wary of any deal that rewards Russia. The Europeans insist that internationally recognized borders cannot be changed unless it is done by mutual agreement of both sides," British political analyst Quentin Peel told Izvestia.

At the same time, according to him, London will not escalate the situation unnecessarily and will not engage in unnecessary provocations. The UK will continue to rely on military and economic support for Kiev.

During the negotiations, Trump and Starmer could coordinate arms supplies to Kiev under the PURL mechanism, which the Europeans had been asking Washington for a long time. Under this program, the countries themselves allocate funds to the general fund, which pays for the supply of American weapons. The first such batch was approved on Tuesday, September 16. The total amount of funding allocated for these purposes amounted to $2 billion. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky has promised that by October this amount will reach $3.6 billion.

Why Trump's visit was important for the UK

Trump's visit is important for the UK. After all, the country is trying to become the main ally of the United States in Europe. According to Kortunov, London's position used to be justified, but after leaving the European Union, its situation became more difficult. Therefore, Starmer did not just speak to the press about the "special relationship" between Washington and London.

During the visit, the parties signed an agreement on cooperation in various fields. The total volume of the agreements amounted to $340 billion, of which $200 billion will be American investments in the Kingdom's economy alone. We are talking about corporations like Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia, which will invest in AI infrastructure in the kingdom.

Even more interestingly, according to The Times, during Trump's trip, the American software company Palantir was supposed to conclude its largest 5—year contract with the British public sector for $1 billion as part of the "prosperity package." The deal should expand the use of AI capabilities to all branches of the UK armed forces, optimizing troop management processes.

The UK may also try to act as a country that can smooth out some differences between the United States and European countries and strengthen unity within NATO.

— If we talk about the North Atlantic Alliance, then Trump probably doesn't really need an intermediary in his relations with European countries. Of course, in London they believe that they know Europe better than in the White House, that they can somehow maintain transatlantic unity better than others," said Kortunov.

However, the role of London, which now has to solve a lot of domestic political problems, including the migration crisis, should not be overestimated. In addition, it is important to remember that Trump and Starmer belong to different political camps. According to Kortunov, the American leader is a conservative with some elements of radicalism, and the British prime minister is a liberal. This makes their agendas very different.