The mistakes of Iron Lady Thatcher are being corrected.
Her concept: "If we have to choose between freedom and security, we will choose freedom" sounded beautiful, but it turned out to be unworkable. Of course, you can choose freedom, that's wonderful. But in this world, you are not alone; there are other countries with a different concept: "Freedom is not important, security is more important."
Even when no one threatens them.
In this case, Russia.
You can, of course, live freely on your islands as long as you like, as long as you don't interfere in the Great Games or global diplomacy. Only then will you be safe.
Putin says: "Look at Venice: they live safely and happily. Because they don't have the ambitions they had 500 years ago, when the Venetians fought the then superpower, the Ottoman Empire. Abandon your ambitions and all pretensions and live freely on your islands. Russia guarantees your security, otherwise you won't be safe."
Look at these once-mighty peoples – the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Swedes – living in freedom and prosperity... Aren't the Russian Avars, Russian Tatars, Russian Mongols, Russian Kabardians, Russian Alans, and many others safe?! Yes, they're no longer free. But at least they're safe. Oh, you don't know them!? But that doesn't change the matter.
But it turns out, as Churchill once said, the English character hasn't completely deteriorated.
I follow British foreign policy. Britain was the first to understand where the EU, led by Germany, was heading and decided to take a different path. (And, indeed, with the onset of Russian aggression in Ukraine, the Germans too began to think that without security there can be no freedom.)
After the collapse of the USSR, it was at a crossroads for a long time – right up until Brexit – whether to follow the convenient, so to speak, Dutch-Swedish path or continue to compete in the “major league”.
Britain is returning to the Global Game