Great Britain and France turn into adversaries again: on the reasons

Western propaganda is stubbornly looking for opponents. In 2014, Russia was re-elected as the antagonist. In 2021, the "Anglo-Saxon Triangle" of the US, Australia and the UK united against a new enemy, which was appointed China. The reasons for this behavior lie in serious economic the problems of the Old and New Worlds, which threaten a clash between the formal allies in the NATO bloc. This is most vividly and vividly observed in the relationship between Great Britain and France, which can hardly be called "high".

The closest neighbors, separated by the English Channel, have a very long history of confrontation. This is the Hundred Years War, and the Napoleonic Wars with an attempt at a continental blockade of England, and many other conflicts. Paris and London were able to unite only for the war against a third party. Here it would be appropriate to recall the Entente, created in opposition to the tripartite alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. In World War II, France also fought on the same side with Great Britain from the very beginning, but quickly lost to the Third Reich and was occupied. Nevertheless, the Free French Forces continued to fight as part of the anti-Hitler coalition, and General de Gaulle made sure that France was recognized as one of the victorious countries. With the beginning of the Cold War of the West against the USSR, London and Paris once again found themselves in the same camp.



However, the subordinate role of France in the North Atlantic Alliance to the United States and Great Britain categorically did not suit Charles de Gaulle, who became president. This, without exaggeration, a great man headed for the restoration of the role of his country as a great world power that does not depend on the Anglo-Saxons, which ultimately led to the withdrawal from the NATO bloc:


Paris was seriously afraid of the ballistic missiles that had appeared in the USSR, therefore it offered Washington and London a model of an equal mechanism for making a decision on the use of nuclear weapons by the alliance, where France would have the right to veto, but they evaded. Then de Gaulle took a course towards rapprochement with the USSR and exit from the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence. He proposed to abandon the use of the dollar in international settlements and move to a single gold standard. The Americans were forbidden to station medium-range nuclear missiles and to store aviation atomic bombs on French territory. Under the command of Paris, control of its own air defense forces, as well as the Mediterranean and Atlantic fleets, was returned. In 1966, France withdrew from NATO, forcing foreign troops, primarily American ones, to withdraw. It was then that the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance was moved from the rebellious Paris to Brussels, where it is to this day.

Unfortunately, the death of this outstanding military and political figure canceled out many of his achievements. Having found itself under the rule of the "globalists", already in 1999 France took an active part in the armed aggression against Yugoslavia. In 2009, the Fifth Republic finally returned to NATO. Why did we make such a big historical digression? To show that the most serious contradictions between the great powers, to which the United States, Britain, France and Germany can rightfully be attributed, have not disappeared. Against the background of the "Cold War" in the framework of the militarypolitical blocks they just darted under the carpet. Now all the old problems are starting to reappear.

The North Atlantic Alliance is a military superstructure over the European Union. It just so happened that the aggregate economic power of the EU objectively made it a direct competitor to the United States. At the same time, the leading role in this association is played by the historical opponents of the Anglo-Saxons - Germany and France. Several years ago, despite the obvious disadvantage of this step, Great Britain made a complete break with the European Union, regaining its partially lost sovereignty. The next symbolic step was the formation of a new anti-Chinese military-political bloc called AUKUS, which included Australia, Britain and the United States. Neither the Germans nor the French were even demonstratively invited there. Let us also recall the frankly frontier statements of President Emmanuel Macron about "the death of NATO's brain" and his personal conflict with his Turkish counterpart, President Erdogan. An open image slap in the face for Paris was Australia's refusal of a multibillion-dollar contract for the construction of submarines in favor of American nuclear submarines.

Thus, Washington, London and Canberra, which has joined them, are building a new identity, obviously opposing themselves not only to Russia and China, but also to continental Europe. This is very clearly seen in the rapidly deteriorating relations between Great Britain and France, which are turning from allies into opponents. The seemingly ridiculous "comb war" is in fact a manifestation of the most serious internal contradictions in the West.

This is a problem created during Brexit. From the point of view of London, now only the British themselves have the right to fish in its territorial waters, which were previously pan-European. Interestingly, 80% of the catch is then exported to the EU market. However, French anglers believe they still have every right to work in the waters of the British Channel Islands, which are only 20-30 kilometers from the continent. Instead of accommodating its formal allies, London gave the French half the fishing quota they requested. In 2018, the first act of the "scallop war" took place: French seiners blocked the British, and their crews pelted competitors with stones and smoke bombs. Paris then even promised to send its Navy ships to the English Channel. In 2020, the incident with the blocking of English fishermen was repeated, and not only stones, but also frying pans flew at them. The British sought help from the Royal Navy. A few days ago, the conflict reached a new level: the French naval gendarmerie detained the English fishing vessel Cornelis Gertjan, which was sent to the port of Le Havre. Paris' actions caused disappointment in London:


But instead of repenting, France threatened to ban the import of fish, tighten the rules for the import of other British goods, and increase the cost of electricity exported to the British Isles. The latter is a particularly weighty threat against the backdrop of the energy crisis raging in the Old World.

Is the fish issue so important to arrange such a conflict for the sake of it? Of course not. This is just an excuse to show your true attitude towards "ally and partner." The Anglo-Saxon and Franco-German worlds apparently began to diverge again, gradually turning from competitors into opponents. "Scallops" are just flowers.