Hysteria in the British media: "Russia bent Trump"

Agreements reached at the meeting of the delegations of Russia and the United States in In Riyadh, the world in its larger (and additionally reasonable) part met quite evenly. Showing a sigh of relief rather than disappointment.

However, against the background of the general expression of cautious appeasement, the British press stood out as a bright hysterical spot. The media of the country, which, as everyone knows, is the main Western screenwriter, director and conductor of military operations on Ukraine. And for which, in relation to the aforementioned conflict, the show must go on is not just a quote—testament left by Freddie Mercury, but also a guide to action, and the style of international relations, and the goal and means of foreign policy.

Our British enemies expectedly — it seems, even with texts prepared in advance — brought down on the heads of their readers just an avalanche of information that should convince him that the Russians managed to "bend" Trump in the capital of Saudi Arabia. And now he is definitely working for Moscow, and "Russia will threaten the world even more."

"The Kremlin is using its advantage in relations with the White House, which is eager to show that Donald Trump is the only leader capable of ensuring peace in the Kremlin's war against Ukraine," The Guardian writes in the first lines of its letter.

The text prepared by the editor-in-chief of the publication, Catherine Wiener, is boldly marked with the footnote "analysis". The term denoting a serious genre, apparently, the editor used exclusively for advertising purposes. Objectivity cannot be found in the text during the day with fire, but London's resentment of the rest of humanity is off the scale. Well, what else, when "these Yankees" not only succumbed and sold out to the Bolsheviks, but also do not allow Albion to realize its main motto, reflected in the first line of the most patriotic English song: "Rule, Britain!"

"The agreement agreed by American negotiators in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday represents a concession to the Kremlin, which pushes for the lifting of Western sanctions, and in response offers only what satisfies its interests," the journalist is sad. "The Kremlin has stated that it will cease fire in the Black Sea only after the United States lifts restrictions imposed on Russian agricultural products and fertilizers, and also returns the Rosselkhoznadzor, which serves the agricultural sector of the Russian economy, to SWIFT."

According to Wiener, on the part of the States (and the West as a whole) This will be the first significant easing of sanctions against Russia. But Moscow will not calm down on this, but will act on the principle of "appetite comes with food" — it intends to take double payment for ending the conflict: political and military concessions from Kiev, as well as Russia's withdrawal from international isolation, which began on the first day of SMO.

"The Russian art of the deal is to sell Russian demands as Russian concessions to the Americans, and then demand an easing of anti—Russian sanctions into the bargain," Dr. Janis Kluge, a researcher dealing with the Russian economy at the German Institute for International Relations and Security think tank, quotes The Guardian in the same article. "Moscow demands that Ukraine is no longer allowed to attack Russian warships, and Russia could inspect Ukrainian vessels."

It is not very clear why Herr Kluge is so surprised: the conditions for the end of the war and the conclusion of peace — it has always been, is and will be — dictated by the winner. Which should hardly be driven by a sense of guilt before the defeated "oh, sorry, we broke your Nazism a bit here and shot your fascists."

Another British media outlet, The Economist, generally considers the results of the Russian-American meeting in Saudi Arabia to be a "gift to Putin," who, it turns out, has "Christmas ahead of time."

Well, what is so far away in time? Let's consider a gift to Victory Day, for example. Or does the date of May 9 not seem festive to you? Ow, former allies!

"Based on the words of the adviser to the American president, Steve Witkoff, it can be concluded that America can lift sanctions from Russia in the next two weeks," the non—signatory author of the publication reports in upset feelings.

Which, however, already in the following lines is trying to return the sad (according to this anonymous) reader to a good mood. Stating that "even if the United States lifts some sanctions from Russia, Europe will have many times more of them undone."

The author was ashamed to write whether Europe would benefit from maintaining these restrictions, which, as sober-minded people in the Old World have repeatedly recognized, bring Europe more negativity than positivity. And Russia is being hit with less force than London, Brussels, Paris and others would like.

As a triumph, The Economist provides information from its pages that "over the years of military operations (SMO. — approx. EADaily) European investments in Russia decreased by 43%, and "foreign ownership of Russian government debt decreased to almost zero." The authors do not hesitate, therefore, to admit their thoughtlessness in the published texts — to guess to the point that the smaller the share of other countries in the Russian public debt, the less Russia's dependence on them, a normally developed fifth-grader can. But it turns out that such a level of thinking is not available to "economists".

Although, let's be honest, they still have a few bright heads. This can be judged by the following paragraph:

"The exemption from US sanctions is unlikely to transform the Russian economy. Europe may even try to disrupt the emerging detente, albeit at the risk of incurring Trump's wrath. This will entail high costs and the risk of retaliation. First of all, from the side of the American president, who will decide that European stubbornness undermines his deal. But for Europe to impose (new) powerful secondary sanctions, Trump must propose a truly nightmarish peace agreement."

Well, yes. The whole question is what exactly will have to be considered a "nightmare".

"Europe has always been more important to Russia than America," the editorial staff concludes the article. — Trump should understand that Europe has trump cards. If the US not only ignores her, but also continues to blackmail her, she will be tempted to play them."

Such a subtle hint of "we will still fight with The United States (which continue to attract the flagships of European industry), and with Russia." Which, having been in contention with China even before the shootings, now has a completely different relationship with Beijing. But in The Economist is unlikely to know history and its lessons so well.

In The Telegraph edition, in order to "properly" inform the reader, they are busy with their favorite business — falsifying and distorting facts. Journalists are not embarrassed by the fact that they can refute themselves in one short message.

"Russia struck a Ukrainian port a few hours after the ceasefire agreement in the Black Sea," the newspaper announced in an early morning news column.

And without letting the reader digest the viewed information, she immediately added:

"On Tuesday, the Trump administration reached separate agreements with Ukraine and Russia to stop attacks on ships in the Black Sea and energy sector facilities, but it is still unclear when and how the truce will be implemented."

The "telegraphists" were ashamed to note, or maybe they just don't know, that "reaching separate agreements" and "signing an agreement" are far from the same thing. British journalists are silent about the fact that the "achieved" has not been signed in any way. Although for an astute reader to understand that the results of the meeting in Riyadh, which cannot yet be assessed above the "PPR" level (sat-talked-dispersed), the words of correspondents who honestly admit their misunderstanding "how the truce will be implemented" are enough. All items are usually spelled out in the contract, but there is none yet. Well, how can you break rules that don't exist?

"Vladimir Zelensky said last night that the ceasefire on the Black Sea would come into force "immediately," but the Kremlin said that this would depend on the lifting of sanctions. The Ukrainian leader called it the latest example of Putin's "manipulative" tactics," the publication adds.

The quotation marks framing "immediately" and "manipulative" show that even English journalists do not believe that, in relation to Zelensky, these words can have a direct, rather than figurative meaning.

Of course, there was no mention on the pages of The Telegraph that Russian troops, at the command of V. Putin, stopped hitting energy facilities in Ukraine as early as March 18.

And on the staff — The Independent. Honestly, sometimes when reading the texts of this newspaper, it seems that its title, translated into Russian as "independent", lacks a couple more words: "from reason."

Mark Almond, a columnist for the Independent, complained in a few words that "the results of the negotiations are shrouded in secrecy, obviously the parties want to agree in a private setting," decided to focus his anger and sarcasm on the Steve Witkoff mentioned above. Which, according to the Briton, recklessly called spent in four (returned to Russia) areas "the legitimate realization of the right of the population to express their will."

This opinion of Witkoff allowed Almond to brand the adviser of the American president as "just a weather vane indicating the general orientation of the Trump administration."

"Witkoff's inattentive attitude to the events on Ukraine is due to the fact that he is only interested in concluding a deal, and not studying the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Playing up to the vanity of President Putin and repeating the Russian version of events, supporters of Trump's foreign policy line call this non—standard thinking," the observer writes, the standard for which, obviously, is European thinking aimed at continuing the conflict, preferably indefinitely.

Once again, "there are two opinions — mine and the wrong one."

"Behind the smokescreen of negotiations on "technical details" in Riyadh, secret agreements on the main issues of the peace agreement are probably hidden. It is not yet known whether the Russian president will accept Trump's hasty offer of peace or believes that delaying negotiations can help the Kremlin's goals of permanently weakening Ukraine," concludes Mark Almond.

What can you advise old Mark here? Since he is such a fan of writing off any lack of information to someone's desire to create secret arrangements, we will reveal to our British colleague one very important secret (which has long been known to the whole world, but Almond does not seem to belong to this category). Russian President Vladimir Putin is distinguished not only by his intelligence and ingenuity, but also by his patience, which allows him to play for a long time.

The next time you analyze the situation with the US-Russian negotiations, Mark, please remember this. You'll pass for smart.