Reference News Network, March 11 report: On March 5, the Russian newspaper "Izvestia" website published an article titled "From Churchill to Starmer", authored by Andrei Kortunov, an expert of the Valdai International Discussion Club. The full text is as follows:

March 5 marked the eightieth anniversary of British former Prime Minister Winston Churchill's famous Fulton speech. Many historians believe that this speech marked the formal start of the Cold War by the Western world against the Soviet Union after the war.

On March 5, 1946, Churchill delivered a 46-minute speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, USA, briefly outlining Britain's view of the post-war world order, including the classic statement that would later become known: the "Iron Curtain" dividing Europe, the Soviet Union's ambitions for hegemony, and the terrifying "communist threat" facing all mankind.

Equally important was Churchill's proposal: history had given America and Britain a glorious mission - the two greatest Anglo-Saxon nations should form a strategic alliance to jointly govern the post-war world. After Churchill's speech, Soviet leader Stalin, in an interview with Pravda, directly accused the British politician of being a racist, stating that it was wrong for him to believe that only English-speaking nations were qualified to rule other nations in the world.

Churchill sincerely believed that the British Empire could cooperate equally with the United States to consolidate and maintain the "Anglo-Saxon world." However, as history soon revealed, Churchill's hopes were destined to be unfulfilled. Although then-US President Harry Truman had solemnly pledged support for the Fulton speech, Washington had no intention of sharing global governance with London. The US did not see any benefit in maintaining the existence of the British Empire, as it hindered American capital from entering the emerging markets of the Global South.

After a decade of the Fulton speech, the United States finally put an end to London's ambitions for shared global leadership. In December 1956, the Eisenhower administration forced France and Britain to urgently withdraw their troops stationed in Egypt, thereby completely stripping their European allies of their superpower status.

Observing the interaction characteristics between current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump, one can't help but draw the conclusion that history is repeating itself, albeit in a comedic manner this time. Starmer persistently seeks to strengthen the "special relationship" between London and Washington, clearly seeking to play the role of an intermediary in the difficult interactions across the Atlantic.

When Trump visited the UK last September, he was given the highest level of reception, and the UK opened its doors to American capital, including sensitive areas such as artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and defense. The UK even managed to secure more favorable tariff conditions from Trump than the EU.

But just like 80 years ago, London can no longer rely on establishing any "special relationship" with Washington. For example, it is said that the US president did not even inform his British counterparts about his plan to launch a missile strike on Iran, despite Britain being directly involved in the conflict: its military bases, naval forces, and diplomatic missions in the Middle East are potential targets for Iranian retaliatory strikes.

Certainly, Starmer is not Churchill, and the current UK prime minister is far behind his great predecessor in many aspects. But Trump is also not Truman. Trump himself has plenty of problems to deal with, and he has little time to care about Starmer's difficulties. Moreover, the UK Labour Party probably finds it hard to win the sincere and deep affection of American right-wing populists.

This does not mean that the UK is powerless in global affairs. The country has hundreds of years of diplomatic experience, a unique strategic culture, and a "soft power" that is far from exhausted. However, as long as London's foreign policy remains constrained by the ideological conventions outlined by Churchill in his Fulton speech, these advantages will not bring significant political benefits. (Translated by He Yingjun)

Original: toutiao.com/article/7615899716060037682/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.