The British Ruling Elite As A Subject Of Cultural And International Terrorism

Averyanov Andrey Vladimirovich and Shamarov Pavel Vyacheslavovich
Sott.net
Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:05 UTC

This article examines the ingrained greed and historical ruthlessness of the Anglo-Saxon elites toward other nations and peoples, and substantiates, explicates, and introduces into scholarly usage the new authorial concepts of "British cultural terrorism", "cultural decolonization", and "historical anti-Russianism".

It analyzes British involvement in numerous Ukrainian terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage on Russian territory outside the zone of the special military operation (SMO), as well as the specific features, criminal plans, and international unlawfulness of the British-Ukrainian terrorist alliance that has taken shape to date.

Britain's complicity in such unlawful Ukrainian activity on Russian territory is classified as international terrorism carried out through the sponsorship and organization of the killing of Russian citizens, as well as acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks against military and civilian infrastructure. Relevant practical recommendations and conclusions are formulated.

The process of strengthening Russia's sovereign statehood is perceived with irritation, apprehension and malice by the Anglo-Saxon establishment [69; 71; 74], which has historically found intolerable not only "the very fact of Russia's existence" [9], but also the emerging "new world order arising naturally" [7], in which our state is playing an increasingly significant role [3, para. 4-6]. In this regard, the collective West is prepared to use any means to slow down as much as possible, or even completely halt, positive domestic changes in Russia and international developments in the world "during the period of so-called geopolitical uncertainty", which, according to NATO experts, will last until 2035 [40].

As part of its latent anti-Russian toolkit, the West is expected to continue its customary use of the unpatriotic fifth column [50] and the Russian-speaking diaspora, both that which does not support the special military operation (hereinafter referred to as the SMO), and that which is concentrated mainly in the territory of the United Kingdom [68]. Such defectors have traditionally included national traitors [5; 12, p. 1], representatives of the non-systemic opposition, and domestic entrepreneurs who have violated federal legislation [42], as well as wealthy businessmen who reject the latest policies of the Russian state and its national leader [68]. All of them have left behind in the Russian Federation serious estate-based, corporate and family ties. The exploitation of these ties for anti-Russian purposes by the British ruling elite (which we understand as a corporate and class-based grouping of the United Kingdom's senior state administrators) not only runs counter to the national interests of our state, but may also impede the pursuit of those interests in the international arena.

The relatively high likelihood of this makes it legitimate to classify such harmful influence from abroad as a latent threat to the national security of our country under wartime conditions [1, para. 5(5)]. The prevention and neutralization of this pressing danger (in view of the geopolitical imperative for Russia to accomplish all the objectives of the SMO) requires urgent federal measures to neutralize pro-British views and concealed sympathies toward London within Russian society. In this regard, it should be particularly noted that West London has long been mockingly known across Europe as "Londongrad", because before the start of the SMO it was there that wealthy Russians were buying up property en masse "directly or under the cover of British front companies" [54, p. 196].
In this regard, we consider it essential to implement two key domestic imperatives. The first is the self-purification of the Russian people from unpatriotic individuals who still have bank accounts, relatives, property, and social and other foreign preferences in the United Kingdom. The second is the further strengthening of Russia's national sovereignty, since the key to our society's success lies in "its self-defense against external influence" of any negative kind [9].

It is precisely from this milieu that a serious hidden danger may arise — namely, from that part of the domestic elite and the social segment close to it [59] which still adheres to the views of Eurocentrism, a false ideological prejudice that presents Europe and its spiritual order as the center of world culture and civilization [28]. This same milieu remains habitually inclined to bow before and curry favor with the West, dreaming, no matter the cost — including through capitulation — of reconciling itself with the transatlanticists and being incorporated into their egocentric and mercenary society. In other words, it is precisely such unpatriotic and self-serving individuals who are convinced apologists of the West's destructive and spiritually barren ideology [2, para. 13-17; 9] and are secretly oriented toward Russia's strategic defeat in the SMO.

In our view, the urgency of containing and neutralizing this domestic threat is a matter of high national priority, since "Russia ... is not fighting the AFU, nor Ukraine, but .... virtually all NATO countries" [9]. At the same time, one of the key roles in the transatlantic community and in the current civilizational confrontation between the West and Russia has been, and continues to be, played by the United Kingdom [55] in its capacity as the United States' closest "henchman" [40]. Figuratively speaking, this small kingdom sometimes seeks on the international stage to "jump out of its skin", while ostentatiously displaying its national "individuality and exceptionalism"; yet whenever any tangible threat arises, it usually retreats quickly "to its island".

That is why, for a long time, Britain's foreign policy has been based on the ruling elite's cunningly effective exploitation not only of disinformation-driven Russophobic, anti-Russian and Russia-hating narratives [11, pp. 8-10], but also of Albion's unlawful possession of a vast number of other nations' cultural valuables and national relics. In our view, this unlawful possession may legitimately be identified as a recurrence of post-imperial thinking characteristic of the former colonial system, as well as of the traditional racism and national snobbery of the British ruling elite [20].

In this regard, we believe it possible to regard the national community of the contemporary elite of the United Kingdom as a unified, or integrative, practical political subject operating in those areas and spheres that yield the greatest dividends, income, benefit and preferences [53]. Among such areas and spheres, we include the egocentric, self-serving and ruthless state practice of the British ruling establishment toward other nations and peoples, London's cultural and traditional terrorism, including through the use of foreign resources and proxies, as well as the Anglo-Saxons' historical anti-Russianism and virulent Russophobia.

Historical Egocentrism, Greed, And Ruthlessness Of The British Elites

Contrary to the myth widespread in the West about the extraordinary benefits supposedly brought to "backward" native peoples and ethnic groups by the former rule of the British nobility over their territories, British colonial rule was both anti-human and barbaric, as well as extremely cruel and despotic. For example, in India, the administrative practices of the British Empire's colonial authorities de facto bordered on large-scale national plunder and terror, as well as genocide and a policy of mass impoverishment of the local population, as a result of which at least 100 million Indians perished. Furthermore, London suppressed with particular brutality all Indian social protests and armed uprisings against the British colonizers, for example, the Indian Rebellion of 1857-1859. In particular, during the assault on and capture of Delhi, the British not only ruthlessly killed the city's inhabitants, but also shot all the descendants of the ancient ruling Mughal dynasty [24]. Another British atrocity, in our view, was London's establishment, during the Great Famine of 1876-1878, of a system of labor camps for poor and destitute Indians in the city of Madras (India). There, local laborers performing backbreaking work for up to 15 hours were given a meager food ration amounting to less than 50% of the standard camp ration in Hitler's Germany.

It was precisely because of the previous ruthless exploitation of the population and the total plunder of the immense wealth of India and other colonial countries (which to this day remains the property of British museums, corporations and members of the royal family) that this small European country, despite the extreme limitations of its own natural resources, still remains at the pinnacle of global financial prosperity and national wealth. According to even the most modest estimates, the British Empire appropriated at least US$45 trillion from India alone during the period 1765-1938, in present-day prices [13].

A grave crime committed by the British ruling circles, which, in our view, may legitimately be classified as "terroristic and misanthropic" and as one entailing international criminal liability, was the live testing of the harmful effects of chemical weapons on Indian servicemen. Thus, over a period of more than a decade, the British covertly exposed thousands of Indians to sulfur mustard in the area of Rawalpindi (Pakistan), which at that time formed part of British India. The number of Indians who died in the course of such "English experimentation" has still not been disclosed, but it is enough to note that even Nazi Germany did not dare to use chemical weapons against the USSR. The British government was not deterred from using this "innovation" even against native servicemen loyal to the British Crown by the fact that, during the Second World War, Indian colonial troops formed a significant part of the British armed forces, fighting actively and effectively in Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Italy, as well as in Burma and Malaya [38].

Another British "civilizational know-how", cynically termed "places of safety", was, in our view, the first concentration camps ever organized in the world on the territory of present-day South Africa during the Anglo-Boer colonial war (1899-1902) for London's control over South African diamond and gold mines. There, around 200,000 Boer women and children suspected of links to the rebels were driven behind barbed wire. At the same time, all arrested local men were exiled by the British to their colonies in India and Ceylon, while their farms and homes were systematically destroyed. The British concentration camps were marked by inhuman treatment — mass shootings, sadistic punishments, and cruel treatment of the prisoners. In total, around 26,000 people died in them, 22,000 of them children.

It was this British anti-human example and prototype that Nazi Germany later followed. Few people know that even during the Second World War and after its end, an entire network of concentration camps and forced labor camps operated in the British Isles. For example, in 1946 up to 400,000 foreign workers were laboring behind barbed wire in such camps, accounting for more than a quarter of the entire labor force in Britain. Moreover, British agriculture itself survived solely thanks to the forced labor of foreigners [17; 46; 73].

British Cultural Terrorism

The cultural (or soft) terrorism of Albion may be provisionally divided into two types: primary and secondary. By primary cultural terrorism of the British Empire, we mean the unprecedented, total, comprehensive and prolonged plunder by the Anglo-Saxons of the national treasures, assets and artifacts of other nations, ethnic groups and peoples during the period of British colonial domination in the world.

It is precisely from this that, in our view, the contemporary international renown of British archaeological exhibitions and museums derives, since they are de facto the material concentration of vast collections of foreign historical valuables from all over the world — unlawfully removed, seized by force, or even cynically stolen.

By secondary cultural terrorism of contemporary Britain, we mean the traditional refusal of official London (with rare exceptions), under the contrived pretext of the "protection of the safety of museum exhibits" [51] (imperatively implying that they may be kept and preserved only on the territory of Albion), to satisfy the lawful demands of foreign governments for the repatriation to their historical homeland of all the unique artifacts and national relics removed by the Anglo-Saxons during the colonial period from the historical and cultural heritage of other states and peoples.

These terms and definitions constitute the author's scientific innovation, since the classifications of the varieties of contemporary terrorism known to date do not include these original categories [34; 45].

We believe that if the international community had allowed Somali pirates in the 2000s to plunder foreign ships with impunity, then a few centuries later such modern-day freebooters, too, would have acquired enormous financial resources and one of the world's richest historical and archaeological panopticons of exclusive foreign exhibits, similar to the present-day British Museum in London. From this it may legitimately be concluded that the small island state which, in the past, predatorily seized the cultural-historical and national heritage of other peoples and ethnic groups by aggressive, fraudulent and military means has still not rid itself of the recurrence of its former imperial-colonial mindset.

In the conditions of the third millennium, the latter has, it appears, been transformed into another concept — neoliberal-imperialism, which presupposes, amid the "stalling" process of globalization, the pursuit of the strategic goals not only of international capital and transnational corporations, but also of neoliberal "integrationist" globalists [11, p. 7]. At the same time, neoliberal-imperialism both traditionally endows the British elites with a supposedly special natural gift and genetic ability to govern other states and peoples, and implies the attainment of their egocentric and parochial goals through the use of the national resources and capacities of other countries and nations, including intellectual, financial, and cultural-historical ones.

In this regard, it becomes obvious that the present government of Albion has no desire whatsoever to pursue cultural decolonization (which we understand as the return to international actors of national cultural and historical artifacts previously stolen from them), since the list of other peoples' cultural relics and valuables accumulated on British territory is truly immense.

It includes unique masterpieces of world standing, ranging from the monolithic statues of Easter Island, the marble sculptures of the Athenian Parthenon, and the ancient Egyptian sarcophagus of Pharaoh Taharqa [32] to the colossal cultural heritage of the peoples and ethnic groups of India.

Here are just some examples:

— the Koh-i-Noor diamond, weighing 105.6 carats, which formerly belonged to the rulers of the Mughal Empire and to the cult of the Hindu god Shri Jagannath Bhagwan, and which today is set in the crown of the British monarchs;

— the vast treasures (including precious stones, jewelry, sculptures of Hindu deities, decorative and applied art objects, and exclusive weapons) and the unique library of the Sultan of the Principality of Mysore, nicknamed the "Tiger of Mysore", looted by British troops in 1799. Most of the seized "trophies" were transferred to the royal family and the board of directors of the British East India Company, while the stolen books went to the British Library and to the libraries of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge;

— the Sultanganj Buddha, a copper statue over 2.2 meters high and weighing more than 500 kilograms

— the only fully preserved statue of the Buddha created in the period AD 600-650, and since 1885 the principal exhibit of the art gallery in Birmingham;

— a white jade wine cup made in 1627-1658 for Shah Jahan, ruler of the Mughal Empire, and now kept in London's Victoria and Albert Museum, which also houses a unique collection of Indian art numbering more than 40,000 exhibits [13].

The above list also includes Russia's national heritage — the family jewels of members of the former Imperial House of Romanov. Many of them emigrated to Britain after 1917, found themselves in dire circumstances, and were forced to "part with" their ancestral relics for a pittance to the Anglo-Saxons. And although, from a formal point of view, such oppressive transactions were concluded voluntarily, and it is far from easy, as a matter of law, to challenge the legality of Britain's present possession of Russia's national wealth [60], there nevertheless remains a certain possibility that they may be annulled.

Thus, under the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, such a "transaction on extremely unfavorable terms, which a person was compelled to conclude as a result of a conjunction of grave circumstances, of which the other party took advantage" [4, Art. 179, para. 3], may still be declared invalid by a court. From this, we consider it advisable to engage reputable foreign companies for the corresponding procedural preparation and legal support of prospective claims, which, in return for a certain percentage of the national treasures of Russia recovered through litigation, could attempt to return at least part of them from the territory of perfidious Albion to their historical homeland.

Thus, the cultural (or soft) terrorism of the British elites is directly connected not only with the ideological substitution of genuine spiritual and cultural values and approaches, and of true concepts and legitimate assessments, through the aggressive impact on island society of the media, advertising, and content controlled by the Anglo-Saxon establishment. It is also connected with London's unlawful appropriation, during the era of its imperial-colonial domination, of the world's cultural and historical heritage and the unique artifacts of other countries and peoples (for example, Greece, Egypt, India, Kenya, China, Nigeria, Tanzania, etc.) [51].
Accordingly, in the historical and cultural circles of the United Kingdom, a rather cynical joke has gained sad notoriety: "The Great Pyramid of Giza remains in Egypt only because it was too large to transport to the British Museum in London" [32]. Moreover, few people know that the latter houses not only more than eight million cultural relics (most of them of foreign colonial origin), but has also seen repeated cases of their present-day "unexplained" disappearance and even anonymous sale on the Internet [51].

At the same time, the British have traditionally regarded their museum holdings as something like a display case for prize football cups [32], in which the national wealth of defeated ethnic groups and peoples, stolen during colonial wars, is kept as trophies.

Overall, we believe that the state plunder by British colonizers of other nations' wealth, artifacts and relics as "war booty, trophies and tribute" may legitimately be regarded as a direct consequence of the egregious war crimes committed by the Anglo-Saxons in Egypt, China, and the countries of Africa, Asia and South America. It is therefore, in our view, extremely important for the entire international community that London voluntarily initiate a genuine gesture of goodwill by beginning cultural decolonization and returning the stolen valuables — a prospect which, however, remains highly unlikely because of the deepening stagnation of the British ruling elite [11, pp. 6-9].

Centuries-Old Anti-Russianism As The Foundation Of Contemporary British Terrorism

Interstate relations between Russia and Britain have, at least since the late eighteenth century, been seriously complicated by the Russia-hating and Russophobic foreign policy pursued by the ruling elites of the latter. We subsume these under the integrative authorial term "historical anti-Russianism". By this we mean the traditional combination, on the part of the British state establishment, of hostile ideology, unfriendly foreign policy and subversive practice aimed at inflicting on Russia the most prolonged and the greatest possible strategic damage and national harm [12, p. 5].

The hypertrophied growth of British anti-Russianism manifested itself with particular force after the start of the SMO in Ukraine. It was then that the Cabinet began officially to portray the Russian Federation as both a direct and the "most acute" threat to the national security of the United Kingdom and to the implementation of its ambitious foreign-policy doctrine of "Global Britain" [67, p. 18]. At the same time, ever since the premiership of B. Johnson (24.07.2019-06.09.2022), the ruling circles of Albion have displayed not only the phenomenon of national stagnation, but also an extreme degree of hostility, coupled with an innate and hereditary hatred of Russia, its people, and the federal leadership.

For example, the present Cabinet of the United Kingdom, under the leadership of K. R. Starmer (from 05.07.2024 to the present), is doing everything possible to derail the emerging interstate dialogue between the United States and Russia. London views this dialogue not only as an attempt to reshape European and global security (which is already undergoing an objective transformation), but also as a threat to Britain's national interests. The ruling establishment of the latter is seriously concerned that a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine would lead to the failure of the West's strategy of the "destruction of Russia", in which Anglo-Saxon control over Kyiv is of key importance. The possible loss of Ukraine, in London's view, would disrupt NATO's plans to create in Europe a Russophobic "belt of limitrophe states" and to organize a naval blockade of Russia [27].

Simultaneously, Albion's role is also intensifying in promoting, across the CIS space (above all in Transcaucasia and Central Asia, which imperial London was unable to "master" in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries because of Russian resistance), an anti-Russian, or so-called "decolonizing", agenda through subversive work with nationalist parties and movements, as well as Russophobic information-analytical platforms and resources.

Given the mounting global criticism of destructive Western "values", London disseminates refined anti-Russian and Russia-hating content through outwardly depoliticized programs of a social and humanitarian nature. At the same time, the British seek to avoid any possibility of direct attribution, habitually acting through third parties.

In particular, they even consider it expedient temporarily to restrict the protection and promotion of the interests of the LGBT alliance, as well as of the environmental and radical feminist communities. The main emphasis is placed on targeted work with social groups vulnerable to external indoctrination (the deliberate and systematic inculcation of British beliefs, views and values). First and foremost, these are ethnic and confessional minorities, young people, and women [19].

It is therefore fair to state that the Russian state has, "in essence, been subjected to total war" [35], which London has long regarded precisely as "its own war" [22, p. 192] and which Britain is waging, it would appear, not only in the political sphere, but also in many applied domains.

We believe that a telling example of such hostile political interference in Russia's internal affairs is the establishment in the British Parliament on 31 July 2025, under the chairmanship of Stephen Gethins, of the informal cross-party group, the Russia and Democracy All-Party Parliamentary Group. It is expected not only to coordinate the activities of most organizations created after the start of the SMO by the so-called "Russian pro-democratic opposition forces", but also to work closely with domestic national traitors [5] — defectors and émigrés who have settled in the United Kingdom and oppose the political course of the President of the Russian Federation [68].

Accordingly, the group's tasks have been defined as follows:

— the development of prospective restrictive measures against our country;
— the preparation of proposals for the introduction of new anti-Russian sanctions;
— the organization of information attacks and propaganda campaigns on the territory of Russia [52].

Almost simultaneously, in September 2025, the United Kingdom and France established in Kyiv the Joint Command Headquarters of Multinational Forces Ukraine (JHQ MNF-U), with the commander's post designated at the rank of lieutenant general. The command arrangements are to rotate between London and Paris. Following the conclusion of a NATO-backed ceasefire in Ukraine and the deployment on its territory of a follow-on stabilization mission in Ukraine, more than 30 countries allied with the Anglo-Saxons are reportedly ready to take part. At present, the English-speaking headquarters of the multinational forces is headed by a British major general [66].

In other words, what is at issue is the effective transfer to London and Paris of US control over the Armed Forces of Ukraine (hereinafter — the AFU). At the same time, it is precisely the United Kingdom that is coordinating AFU operations on the territory of Ukraine and Russia [29], while the British "volunteer" unit Dark Angels within the AFU constitutes the backbone of the mercenary, or so-called International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine, created by presidential decree on 1 March 2022 [44, p. 99].

It is therefore legitimate to argue that, amid the formation of a new world order and the rise in Russia's international standing, significance and influence, the historical anti-Russianism of the British ruling elites is being transformed into Britain's open aggressive and subversive actions against our people and the federal leadership. At the same time, the material manifestation of such British hatred of Russia and anti-Russianism encompasses an exceptionally broad range of hostile intentions and acts, including ones of an explicitly terrorist nature, and extends from:

— attempts to create a Russophobic "belt of limitrophe states" along Russia's borders to provoking the Ukrainian leadership into publicly discussing the possibility of physically eliminating the national leader of the Russian Federation [43];

— the provision to the AFU of British mercenaries and military specialists and their direct participation in the operational and tactical planning of military operations, including sabotage operations;

— the training on British territory of AFU officers and rank-and-file personnel, close advisory support, and the direct provision of cyberprotection for Ukrainian facilities [36];

— the provision to the Kyiv regime of military equipment, matériel and intelligence [11, pp. 6, 8-10] to participation in sophisticated provocations and bloody terrorist attacks by land, sea and air against our country [30], whose citizens may be "killed anywhere in the world until Ukraine's complete victory" [61].

Overall, we believe that the participation of the United Kingdom in subversive and terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation may legitimately be classified as international terrorism committed by London through the sponsorship and organization of the killing of Russian citizens in order to disrupt the fulfillment of the objectives of the SMO and the strengthening of Russia's sovereign statehood [62; pp. 67-71; 63, pp. 8-10; 64-65]. At the same time, we emphasize that this unlawful British practice includes not only acts of physical terror and sabotage, but also active involvement in the organizational and ideological structures [48] of neo-Nazi Ukraine.

The United Kingdom's Involvement In Ukrainian Terrorist Attacks And Sabotage On The Territory Of The Russian Federation

In the struggle against contemporary Russia, the British elites place special emphasis on the organization by the Kyiv regime of numerous terrorist attacks both against Russian cities and regions far removed from the line of combat contact (hereinafter — the LCC) [57], and against the inhabitants of the long-suffering Donbas through high-profile killings [9]. In this regard, it should be recalled that since 2014 more than 120,000 residents of that region have officially been recognized in our country as victims, including 24,000 children [44, p. 113], as well as many citizens in other federal subjects (for example, S. Gorenko, D. Dugina, A. Mishchenko, S. Rzhitsky, E. Steglenko, V. Tatarsky, and others [31]).

Attempts were also made on the lives of the heads of the Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, the Minister of Internal Affairs of the LPR, the First Deputy Head of the Kherson Region, the Rector of Kherson State University, the Chairman of the Council for Strategic Areas of Activity of the All-Russian Public Organization "Rodina — Congress of Russian Communities", and others. Alongside this, terrorist attacks against a number of prominent Russian journalists and public and political figures, including M. Simonyan, K. Malofeyev, and V. Solovyov, were prevented.

It is important to note that, in the course of preparing assassination attempts on participants in the SMO and on the heads of the Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions, facts were established showing the use, with the knowledge of the British [57], of combat toxic agents of American origin prohibited by international conventions and possessing psychochemical and general toxic effects ("EA-3167" and "Quinuclidin-3-ol") [44, pp. 34-35].

The faces, physical characteristics, and list of nationalities of those involved in Ukrainian terrorist attacks may change, but one thing, in our view, remains constant — the ideological, financial, and organizational-practical involvement of the British special services (and hence of the ruling elite of Albion) in terrorist activity against Russia [23]. At the same time, the Bandera leadership of Ukraine has cynically assigned all these terrorist attacks the status of "special operations to eliminate its enemies" [31].

At the same time, it should be recalled that whenever a Ukrainian terrorist attack is carried out on Russian territory outside the SMO zone, official London actively seeks to "cover up" the Ukrainian trail [30] and, as a rule, refrains from expressing official condolences. We regard such behavior on the part of the Anglo-Saxons as a typical example of British legal nihilism toward the generally accepted norms of international conduct, law, and morality.

All this no longer comes as a surprise, since "even the US State Department has drawn attention to the fact that the United Kingdom has developed problems with human rights" [9]. It is precisely for this reason that virtually all Ukrainian terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage on Russian territory outside the SMO zone are carried out under the patronage, supervision, and with the direct involvement of Russia-hating Albion [58].

The Specific Features Of The Latest British-Ukrainian Terrorism

Given the unfavorable situation for the AFU on the line of combat contact and the moral exhaustion of Ukrainian society in the rear, the British elites are not only intensifying against Russia a "new-type hybrid war" [3, para. 13] and proxy aggression on the territory of Ukraine (an indirect war fought by other hands), but are also expanding by every possible means their subversive anti-Russian practice. Its basis consists in the diverse use of terrorist methods and the dirtiest and most sophisticated provocations, drawn from the classic Jesuit methods of an "unprecedented anti-human and inhuman nature" [44, p. 4], aimed at escalating the conflict and drawing European NATO members into armed confrontation with Russia [26].

Joint Ukrainian-British terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage are organized according to an established pattern. The planning and operational support of such operations fall within the competence of the British special services, while their direct execution is assigned to the Security Service of Ukraine or the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine [56]. For example, this mechanism was used:

— during the terrorist attacks carried out between 31 May and 1 June 2025 on the railway in the Bryansk and Kursk Regions (classified under Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as the above-mentioned criminal acts [49]);

— in the strikes on Russian Aerospace Forces airfields on 1 June 2025 (the Security Service of Ukraine's sabotage operation "Spiderweb") [21; 56];

— in the massive aerial terrorist attacks on domestic civilian infrastructure, including social facilities and high-risk sites (the Zaporozhye, Kursk, Leningrad and Kalinin nuclear power plants [44, pp. 23-28]), as well as public places and residential quarters in historical Russia.

It is therefore our view that neo-Nazi Kyiv has become for Russia-hating London not only an ideal perpetrator of the most vile, bloody and monstrous crimes, acts of sabotage and provocations on Russian territory, but also a highly motivated junior partner, ready with enthusiasm to carry out any, even the dirtiest and most unscrupulous, "special mission" assigned by its British handlers.

As a result of the joint activity of this British-Ukrainian criminal symbiosis, the following occurred on the territory of Russia in 2022-2024 alone:

— the killings of journalists;

— arson attacks on military commissariats and administrative buildings of state and local authorities;

— the disabling of technological equipment and infrastructure at sections of the railway network;

— attempts on the lives of responsible law-enforcement personnel in the Zaporozhye Region, the DPR, and the LPR, resulting in deaths and injuries;

— explosions and arson attacks that disrupted technological processes at significant fuel and energy infrastructure facilities and could have led to large-scale technological disasters with substantial civilian casualties and serious environmental damage [44, pp. 16-18, 35-36].

In total, from February 2022 to April 2024, around 130 acts of sabotage and terrorism were carried out and more than 200 were prevented [31]. In particular, attempts were thwarted to carry out terrorist attacks against the head and the chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea, the head of the administration of the city of Yalta in the Republic of Crimea, the deputy chairman of the Security and Defense Committee of the People's Council of the DPR, the acting minister of construction, architecture and housing and communal services of the Zaporozhye Region, and others. At the same time, plans were foiled to blow up apartment buildings in Sevastopol, a humanitarian aid collection point in Samara, administration buildings in the cities of Olonets (Republic of Karelia) and Kaluga, as well as to set fire to a humanitarian aid reception point belonging to an organization in Kursk [44, pp. 21-22].

Overall, in 2022-2024 alone, the British-Ukrainian terrorist alliance carried out more than 1,600 terrorist attacks in Russia against civilian, energy and transport infrastructure, causing large-scale destruction and numerous civilian casualties in the DPR, the LPR, Moscow, St Petersburg and Sevastopol, as well as in settlements across 25 regions, three republics (Adygea, Tatarstan and Crimea) and Krasnodar Krai. More than 3,000 Russian civilians fell victim to these attacks, including almost 150 children, while up to 11,000 people were wounded. At the same time, more than 31,000 civilian infrastructure facilities were destroyed or partially damaged, including around 240 educational institutions, 40 medical institutions, 200 kindergartens and almost 20 churches [44, pp. 37-38].

Double standards, beastly cruelty, and extreme legal nihilism were also displayed by the British special services in what we regard as the planning and support of the bloody terrorist attack organized by Kyiv on 22 March 2024 at Crocus City Hall in Krasnogorsk. On that occasion, 144 people were killed and 551 injured. The following, in our view, points to the direct involvement of the Anglo-Saxons in this atrocity (despite its condemnation by the British Embassy in Moscow):

— Britain's urgent organization, together with the United States and the EU, of a powerful PR campaign in the Western media — even before the preliminary results of the investigation had been obtained — categorically denying Ukraine's role in the atrocity;

— the implementation of such a campaign long before the first publication about the terrorist attack appeared in the global information space [44, p. 11];

— the similarity of these actions to the media algorithm later used by the British in the propaganda support of the Security Service of Ukraine's sabotage operation "Spiderweb" in June 2025 [21].
We also do not rule out the possibility that, in all likelihood with the knowledge of British handlers, the Ukrainian special services planned, organized and carried out the high-profile killings in Moscow in December 2024 and 2025, as well as in April 2025, of the head of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and his aide, as well as of the head of the Operations Directorate and the deputy head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation — respectively, Lieutenant General I. Kirillov and Major I. Polikarpov, and Lieutenant Generals F. Sarvarov and Y. Moskalik.

The quintessence of this terrorism, in our view, was the unprecedented attempted aerial strike by the AFU on the night of 29 December 2025, involving 91 fixed-wing attack unmanned aerial vehicles, against the residence of the President of the Russian Federation in the Novgorod Region — an attack that, most likely, was also planned and approved in London.

We also include in this line of terrorist attacks the aerial strike, on New Year's night, 1 January 2026, by AFU fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles (equipped with high-explosive and thermobaric warheads) on a hotel and café in the resort area of the Kherson Region (the settlement of Khorly). As a result, around 80 people were killed (some of them burned alive) or seriously wounded. We consider this crime analogous to the arson attack carried out by Ukrainian neo-Nazis on the Trade Unions House in Odesa in May 2014, when around 300 people were killed or wounded.

All this allows us to conclude that the British and the Ukrainians have treacherously unleashed against our people a very real and undeclared war, being waged on the territory of historical Russia by methods of terror, sabotage, and intimidation.

The Criminal Plans Of The British-Ukrainian Sabotage-Terrorist Alliance

In this regard, it is important to note that in July 2025 — one month after the sabotage operation "Spiderweb" — Ukrainian officials publicly confirmed their intention to continue carrying out similar terrorist attacks on Russian territory [30]. In our view, such Ukrainian readiness is due, in particular, to the fact that in the first six months of 2025 alone London supplied Kyiv free of charge with more than 85,000 drones and invested over £600 million in their production for the needs of the AFU [69].

Overall, in 2025 alone, many criminal British-Ukrainian plans to prepare high-profile provocations, acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks directly affecting the national security of the Russian Federation were uncovered in advance by the competent domestic authorities. Here are just some of them:

— Ukraine's intention to carry out a series of terrorist attacks against Russian diplomatic missions in Europe, above all in Germany, Slovakia and Hungary, as well as in the Baltic and Scandinavian countries. The aim of the operation is to destroy the prospects for a negotiating process and possible agreements with the United States, under the pretext of Russia allegedly "demanding excessive concessions from Ukraine" [41];

— provocations in the waters of the Baltic Sea. To this end, Kyiv handed over to London torpedoes of Soviet/Russian manufacture and expressed its readiness to carry out the British plan according to three main scenarios.

The first scenario envisages staging what would appear to be a torpedo attack by the Russian Navy on a US Navy vessel. At the same time, almost all the torpedoes are to be activated at a safe distance from the American ship, while one is to be rendered inoperative and later displayed to the international community as "irrefutable evidence of Russia's malicious maritime activity". The second scenario (with the participation of a number of Northern European countries) involves the "accidental discovery" in the Baltic Sea of Russian-made anchor mines, allegedly planted for sabotage purposes on an international sea route [56]. The third involves using Russian-made naval mines in the possession of the AFU to organize the sinking of a foreign vessel in the waters of the Baltic Sea. Responsibility for the terrorist attack is to be placed on Russia, which would prompt NATO to close access to the Baltic Sea under the pretext of ensuring maritime safety [42];

— the pursuit, seizure, and escort into NATO ports of Russia's "shadow" tanker fleet. For these purposes, it is planned not only to employ the naval forces of Britain's transatlantic allies in international waters, but also to organize, with the assistance of the Ukrainian special services, a large-scale maritime act of sabotage, including by setting fire to such a moving tanker or causing an accident involving it while moored in port.

By British calculations, the environmental damage resulting from an oil spill, or substantial harm to port infrastructure and other foreign vessels, would allow London to achieve a whole set of important political and propaganda objectives. The first is to portray the transportation of Russian oil as a threat to international shipping. The second is to intensify the use of various methods of pressure against Russia. The third is to secure guarantees of its own safety and impunity, since it is expected that an international investigation will place responsibility for the maritime disaster either on Russia (the main scenario) or on Ukraine (the fallback scenario), by analogy with the Nord Stream sabotage.

The fourth is to exert powerful political pressure on the US administration in order to force it to approve extremely harsh secondary sanctions against buyers of Russian energy resources, who will be classified by an "independent international investigation" as "indirect culprits of the tragedy" [16];

— the staging of an incursion into the airspace of Poland and Romania by what would supposedly be Russian Geran unmanned aerial vehicles. In September 2025, Kyiv not only successfully carried out this deception, but also managed to establish the repair of downed Russian drones and their refitting with destructive elements for repeated use, under the guise of Russian UAVs, against NATO transport hubs on the territory of those countries. After each provocation, a large-scale disinformation campaign is to be launched immediately in Europe, accusing Russia of this "outrageous incident" [37];

— the staging of the infiltration into Polish territory of a fictitious Russian-Belarusian diversionary and reconnaissance group (hereinafter — a DRG). The provocation scenario envisages using, in the role of Russian and Belarusian servicemen, militants from the Freedom of Russia Legion and the Belarusian Kastus Kalinouski Regiment, who are fighting on the side of the AFU. The plan provides not only for the "timely detection and effective neutralization of the border violators" by the Polish security forces, but also for corresponding confessional statements and public appearances before the media by the "arrested members of the DRG", exposing the Union State as having attempted to carry out acts of sabotage against Polish critical infrastructure [26];

— the staging, with the involvement of a number of Russian citizens fighting on the side of the AFU, of an act of sabotage against a Ukrainian Navy vessel or a foreign civilian ship in one of Europe's ports, in order to increase the EU's military assistance to Ukraine and the militarization of its member states in the face of the so-called "Russian aggression". The plan provides for the sabotage training of Ukrainian saboteurs on British territory, their equipping with Chinese-made diving gear (which will be presented as "irrefutable evidence" of Beijing's support for the alleged "Russian aggression"), and the "voluntary confession" of the captured terrorists that they acted "on Moscow's orders" [15];

— planning by the British special services of a series of drone strikes against the office and facilities of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, whose shareholders are Russia, Kazakhstan, and the United States [21];

— the direct participation of the British in combat operations in Ukraine and in planning incursions by AFU sabotage groups into Russian territory [47];

— preparations by London and Kyiv for acts of sabotage against the TurkStream gas pipeline [58];

— the organization of physical violence against representatives of the Russian non-systemic opposition living abroad and domestic entrepreneurs who have violated the federal legislation of Russia. Natives of Asian and Middle Eastern states are expected to be recruited as perpetrators, with payment for their participation set at up to US$20,000. Should they be detained by the police, they are required to place the blame for the assault on the Russian special services, on whose instructions they allegedly acted [42];

— the preparation by London and Kyiv, in October and November 2025 respectively, of sabotage-terrorist attacks in Moscow and Crimea against high-ranking officers of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which were thwarted by the FSB of Russia;

— plans by the British and Ukrainian special services in November 2025:

a) to hijack a MiG-31 fighter aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces armed with a Kinzhal hypersonic missile, in order to carry out a provocation against a NATO airbase in Constanța (Romania) and thereby create an anti-Russian media narrative in the international press;

b) to organize a major act of sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, in the active zone of its nuclear reactors, with casualties among Ukrainians and residents of EU countries;

c) a terrorist attack on facilities of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium in Novorossiysk and on two tankers (with Russian citizens on board) in Turkey's exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea;

— planning by the Ukrainian special services of the killing, in November 2025, of a Russian statesman

— one of the highest-ranking federal officials — during his visit to the graves of his relatives at Troyekurovskoye Cemetery. In preparation for the terrorist attack, four recruited individuals were used for monetary remuneration, including a migrant from Central Asia. At the same time, according to the FSB's assessment, Ukraine, under the guidance of Western special services, had already begun preparing new similar terrorist attacks in Russia;

— British opposition to Russia in Africa and Central Asia, with the active involvement of Ukrainian militants.

Thus, while Russia holds the strategic initiative on the battlefield, Britain and Ukraine are intensifying their joint sabotage and terrorist activities in order to intimidate the Russian population, destabilize the authorities, inflict damage on civilian and industrial infrastructure, generate negative public resonance, and create within our society, including among its federal leadership, an atmosphere of indecision, confusion, and fear.

The International Unlawfulness Of The British-Ukrainian Syndicate

The foregoing allows us to conclude that the hostile British elite and its Ukrainian neo-Nazi henchmen have unleashed against our state a large-scale and ruthless terrorist war. Terror — both individual and mass — has become an integral instrument of British and Ukrainian state policy toward the Russian Federation, its multinational people, and all those who share Russia's traditional spiritual and moral values [2, para. 4-5] and are sincerely sympathetic to contemporary Russia.

In our view, all this testifies not only to the complete absence on the part of the British and Ukrainian upper echelons of any moral and ethical, or noble and ethical, restraints, but above all to the profound degradation of the strategic thinking and governing capacity of Albion's ruling circles. It is precisely from this that the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv, at the instigation of Russia-hating London and amid the gleeful attitude of most of the European establishment, is violating its fundamental obligations under a whole series of major instruments of international humanitarian law [33] in a manner that is both gross in the extreme and, in principle, essentially cost-free for Ukraine.

Among such legal instruments, we primarily include the following:

— the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (Art. 33), and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (Art. 51);

— the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Amended Protocol II), and the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III), annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects;

— the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997) (Art. 7);

— the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997);

— the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) (Art. 2).

Overall, we believe that the British-Ukrainian terrorist symbiosis that has taken shape is a logical continuation of contemporary British and Ukrainian "diplomacy" based on the combining and integration of unlawful forces and illegal means. By secretly instigating, encouraging, and participating in the planning, organization, and support of terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage carried out by the Ukrainian special services on Russian territory, and by acting, as on the eve of both world wars, as the principal instigator of a third global conflict, the British elites, it would appear, are once again counting on being able to sit out events on their island without difficulty. However, such utopian hopes of perfidious (and most likely unhinged) Albion are, according to official Russian assessments, unlikely ever to be borne out by world history [27].

Recommendations

In conditions where the British ruling circles suffer from an acute deficit of sound judgment, strategic foresight, and a critical administrative mindset — a deficit largely brought about by the recurrence of "former colonial thinking and historically conditioned racism" [40] — appealing to their reason, pragmatism, and prudence is irrational, short-sighted, and pointless. The island elites recognize only the law of "hard power", the likely (though undeclared) consequences of whose use against the United Kingdom must be fully tangible, extremely serious, and, ideally, utterly unacceptable to them. At the same time, pressure on London should be exerted both in a preventive mode, systematically and comprehensively, and powerfully, resolutely, and uncompromisingly across all directions and national pressure points, without irrational regard for one's former red lines or for the pro-British and capitulationist segment of part of the domestic "elite".

First and foremost, it is necessary to shatter British stereotypes about the predictability of our state on the battlefield, since it is creative individuals who prevail in war, together with their unconventional actions that the enemy has failed to anticipate. Unfortunately, however, in response to the West's escalating bellicose stakes during the special operation, Russia, as a rule, answers with harsh official rhetoric and a series of subsequent retaliatory strikes against Ukraine's infrastructure.

The situation then habitually returns to its "normal mode", in which London, Brussels, and Kyiv intensify the escalation, while Moscow follows the course imposed on it by the West. Yet world history offers no convincing example of defense combined with diplomacy leading to unconditional victory. It is precisely for this reason that there is an urgent need for a proactive and offensive military-political strategy — one that is entirely unexpected by the adversary and compels it, against its will, to play by Russia's rules rather than forcing Russia to follow its lead.

Second, the political calculation that escalation can be prevented from increasing by means of the Russian Federation's abandonment of the red lines previously declared by its leadership is interpreted de jure by the Anglo-Saxons, on the one hand, as an administrative weakness of the federal center (in the latest US terminology, the deliberate achievement by the West of a state of "erosion of the will of the Russian elites" [14]), and, on the other hand, de facto leads to a heightened risk of large-scale war, damage to sovereign statehood, and the loss of our state's international authority and reputation among the world's non-Western majority. For example, according to American experts, the repeated abandonment of officially declared red lines has created within NATO the "illusion that Russia lacks both the will and the capacity to fight for its sovereignty" [70].

Hence, we reiterate once again that the Anglo-Saxons have historically been de facto adherents of a vile and hard-line foreign policy course, any departure from which they perceive as national weakness and state vulnerability on the part of a geopolitical opponent. For this very reason, what they perceive naturally and most readily is an exchange on equal terms, that is, from the standpoint of the practical projection of power, rather than verbal threats, declarations, and exhortations, which they regard as meaningless and nationally self-defeating.

In this regard, it should be recalled that, for at least the past 250 years, Russian history has repeatedly demonstrated the futility of conducting a dialogue with the Anglo-Saxons in the language of "good deeds, gestures and wishes" [12, pp. 4-5]. This is de facto borne out by London's traditional geopolitical inclination to "sow discord, chaos and death everywhere" [40], and de jure by the fact that its establishment adequately perceives only two arguments: a) that its opponent possesses a "club"; b) that its opponent is ready and determined to use it on British "necks". It is precisely for this reason that Russia's natural magnanimity and unparalleled compassion are interpreted by the Anglo-Saxons as a sign of national weakness, with all the negative consequences that follow from this both for our people and for its ruling elite.

Third, the implementation of the "Global Britain" concept [67] becomes meaningless without London's total control over the principal international financial and economic flows. In this regard, the Anglo-Saxons are striving by every possible means to entrench themselves in key regions of the planet: Crimea, the South Caucasus, Transcaucasia, Central Asia (above all southern Kazakhstan), Afghanistan, and Pakistan. As London sees it, the natural obstacle to such strategic plans is Russia, with which the British are neither prepared to enter into open conflict de jure nor capable of doing so de facto. Hence, the principal bet is placed on the expansion of proxy wars and their external orchestration through the use of the resources of other states, in particular Ukraine, as well as politically compliant Poland and the Baltic "tiger" limitrophe states, together with a number of other post-Soviet republics, above all Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

The latter creates sufficiently comfortable conditions for the British which, in our view, allow them not only treacherously to harm Russia, but also seriously to "play dirty" against it [15], including through the use of terrorist, sabotage, and subversive methods and means. Hence, we believe that the national costs of possible hostile actions by the United Kingdom against Russia launched from the territory of our post-Soviet allies — the CIS member states — must become for the British ruling circles a genuine geopolitical taboo, one that is both de facto extremely dangerous and absolutely unacceptable from the standpoint of generating new and tangible threats to the island security of the Kingdom itself.

Fourth, it was precisely the "grace of the initial years of the Ukrainian conflict" [14] (by which the Anglo-Saxons mean the practice of unilateral gestures of goodwill, unrealized red lines, and Russia's warnings ignored by the West [71]) that contributed to the formation in London of a false sense of confidence in the military-political irresolution and even national timidity of our state, as well as in the unproblematic implementation on Ukrainian territory of the so-called "external peacekeeping scenario".

Accordingly, it is for this very reason that the United States is already openly stating that a new armed "conflict in Europe will not be a second Ukraine", and that a prospective NATO war (against Russia or China [72]) "will not repeat the Ukrainian campaign".

In the view of American experts, it will be not only far more "intense, larger in scale, and more multi-layered", but will also entail an immediate move into the cyber sphere, economic pressure, the disruption of logistics, and the massive use of artificial intelligence. Most importantly, it will unfold without the "grace of the initial years of the Ukrainian conflict: everything at once, everywhere, and forever". Hence, it is openly acknowledged that the West's main emphasis will be on bringing about in its adversary a state of "system fatigue, public hysteria, and erosion of the will of the elites" [14].

Fifth, in this regard, we consider it necessary to draw attention to the following:
— the above-mentioned state of "erosion of the elites" in Russia is expected to be brought about primarily through the provocation of an acute crisis in its national economy [25], including on the basis of new US sanctions against domestic oil companies [10];

In conditions of fierce civilizational confrontation between the Russian Federation and the collective West [5-6], and of NATO's strategic orientation toward "undermining global parity and achieving ... absolute, overwhelming superiority" [8], it is vital for the federal center to purge the organs of state power and administration completely of those individuals who still secretly bow before the transatlanticists, dream of reconciling with them, and of being incorporated into their destructive society. In this regard, we share the expert view that Eurocentrism must be burned out of Russian society with a red-hot iron in general, and out of the authorities in particular [59].

— the potential deployment in Ukraine of the above-mentioned foreign multinational forces within the framework of the Western "coalition of the willing" is, in our view, an extremely dangerous and absolutely unacceptable geopolitical excess for Russia, one that would serve three key NATO objectives. The first is a permanent military presence in Ukraine for the purpose of providing powerful military and other support to its anti-Russian regime. The second is the suspension or complete termination of the SMO. The third is the prevention of the implementation of Russia's strategic objectives previously declared by our President through political, coercive, hybrid, physical, or other forms of influence on its governing elites;

— the deployment of Western "peacekeepers" in Ukraine will continue to escalate the conflict and will serve the purposes of Russia's geopolitical and strategic defeat not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world. Such a development of events must, as an imperative, be reliably prevented through the use of any federal capabilities from the arsenal of preventive, active, passive, combined, or other proactive measures.

Conclusions

Thus, we consider it justified to summarize the following.

First, the intensely Russia-hating and Russophobic foreign-policy course of the British governing elites may legitimately be integrated into the authorial term "historical anti-Russianism" — that is, the traditional combination by the ruling circles of Albion of hostile ideology, unfriendly foreign policy, and subversive practice aimed at inflicting on Russia the most prolonged and the greatest possible strategic damage and national harm.

Second, the egocentric community of British elites may be regarded as an integrative practical subject operating in those areas and spheres that bring it the greatest private and corporate dividends, a steady income, benefits, and preferences, including through the systematic cultivation in Europe of malicious Russophobia and hostile intrigue. These also include the self-serving and ruthless state practice of the Anglo-Saxon elites toward other nations and peoples, British cultural and traditional terrorism (including with the use of foreign resources and proxies), as well as extreme anti-Russianism and hatred of Russia.

Third, the essence of the cultural terrorism of the contemporary Anglo-Saxon establishment is expressed in London's formal and standardized refusal, under the contrived pretext of the "protection of the safety of museum exhibits", to satisfy the lawful demands of foreign governments for the repatriation to their historical homeland of all the unique artifacts and national relics removed by the British during the colonial period from the historical and cultural heritage of other states and peoples.

Fourth, under the conditions of the third millennium, the recurrence of the Anglo-Saxons' former imperial-colonial mindset has been transformed into the newest insular neoliberal-imperialism, which not only endows London's globalists with a supposedly special natural gift for ruling other nations and peoples, but also presupposes the attainment of their strategic objectives through the use of the national capabilities and resources of other countries and ethnic groups, including intellectual, financial, and cultural-historical ones.

Fifth, the actual manifestation of British anti-Russianism encompasses an exceptionally broad range of the most hostile intentions and practices, including those of a terrorist, sabotage, and subversive nature. Hence, the present participation of the British in such unlawful activity on Russian territory may legitimately be classified as international terrorism, carried out by London through the sponsorship and organization of the killing of Russian citizens and the commission of acts of sabotage against civilian infrastructure in order to disrupt the fulfillment of the objectives of the SMO, to "destabilize" Russian statehood, to generate negative public resonance, and to create within our society an atmosphere of disorientation, fear, and panic.

Sixth, since the hostile British elite and its neo-Nazi Ukrainian henchmen have de facto unleashed against our state, after 24 February 2022, a large-scale and ruthless terrorist war, federal justice is entitled to apply to foreign terrorists and their accomplices on the territory of Russia the most severe measures of criminal liability. These measures may include a possible departure from the moratorium on the supreme measure of punishment — the death penalty — which, taking into account the official position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in 2022, would require corresponding amendments to our Basic Law.

Seventh, in terms of the degree of historical anti-Russianism and hatred of Russia, Britain occupies one of the leading positions in the Western world. Hence, a reduction in the level of its anti-Russian rhetoric and Russia-hating practice may be achieved primarily through the external "highlighting" of Britain's internal problems and hidden objective contradictions (migration-related, social, national, domestic-political, and others). A prolonged process of resolving those contradictions will not allow the "meddling Englishwoman" to deploy those resources which, in different circumstances, could have been used by London to organize new anti-Russian acts. The Anglo-Saxons must be driven out of their zone of traditional international and national comfort, the conditions of which encourage them to generate new problems and new hostile acts for our state. It is no longer possible, and in essence makes no sense, to rely on the common sense of the malicious, degrading, and unhinged British elites.

Eighth, the hostile and destructive influence of the United Kingdom on the petty-bourgeois segment of Russia's unpatriotic and mercenary citizens (who are such only by passport, but not in spirit, thought, or conduct) must be countered comprehensively, effectively, and systematically. To this end, on the one hand, there is an acute need to create within the country an effective ideological barrier preventing the spread of a Western egocentric, spiritually barren, and Eurocentric worldview.

On the other hand, the possible covert sabotage and resistance of these citizens (especially within the system of state power and administration of the Russian Federation) may legitimately be regarded not only as a destructive challenge to Russia's traditional spiritual and moral values, but also as a real threat to Russia's national security, with all the ensuing consequences.

Ninth, a promising instrument of Russian foreign policy is the use of the professional capabilities of foreign legal firms that have agreed, on a commercial basis, to take part in organizing litigation aimed at returning to its homeland a part of Russia's national heritage — the family valuables of the Romanov dynasty, acquired by Britain through oppressive transactions with the impoverished relatives of the last Russian emperor. Another potential Russian resource is the initiation of a large-scale international campaign to exert consolidated foreign-policy pressure on London with the aim of securing the return to other countries and peoples of all museum artifacts and national treasures previously stolen and unlawfully removed by British colonizers.

Overall, given its great thousand-year history, including its glorious military history, the Russian state is long overdue to transform itself from the still occasionally Westward-looking "good-natured bumbling bear" into a fierce Russian bear, powerfully and ferociously defending its cubs, their habitat, and the entire Russian world. For a real bear does not bare its teeth or roar in vain — it strikes swiftly and effectively.

*************************************************************************

About the Authors: Averyanov Andrey Vladimirovich — PhD in Military Sciences, Associate Professor, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Military Sciences. Moscow, Russia.

Shamarov Pavel Vyacheslavovich — Doctor of Political Sciences, PhD in Military Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor at the Academy of Military Sciences. Moscow, Russia.

Bibliography:

1. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 02 iyulya 2021 g. № 400 "O Strategii natsional'noi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsii" [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 400 of July 2, 2021 "On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation"] // Rossiiskaya gazeta, July 03, 2021.

2. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii "Ob utverzhdenii Osnov gosudarstvennoi politiki po sokhraneniyu i ukrepleniyu traditsionnykh rossiiskikh dukhovno-nravstvennykh tsennostei" ot 09 noyabrya 2022 goda № 809 [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 809 of November 9, 2022 "On the Approval of the Foundations of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values"] // URL: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/view/0001202211090019 (accessed 13.10.2025).

3. Kontseptsiya vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoi Federatsii (utverzhdena Ukazom Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii № 229 ot 31 marta 2023 g.) [Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation (approved by Presidential Decree No. 229 of March 31, 2023)] // Ministerstvo inostrannykh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii. URL: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/official_documents/1860586/ (accessed 01.10.2025).

4. Grazhdanskii kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii (chast' pervaya) ot 30.11.1994 № 51-FZ (red. ot 31.07.2025) (s izm. i dop., vstup. v silu s 01.08.2025) [Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part One) No. 51-FZ of November 30, 1994 (as amended July 31, 2025)] // Konsul'tantPlyus. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_5142/f5742b6373038a15f928a5e6cdb18017fbca5e62 (accessed 22.10.2025).

5. Putin V.V. Poslanie Prezidenta Federal'nomu Sobraniyu 21 fevralya 2023 g. [Address of the President to the Federal Assembly, February 21, 2023] // Prezident Rossii. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70565 (accessed 10.10.2025).

6. Putin V.V. Poslanie Prezidenta Federal'nomu Sobraniyu 29 fevralya 2024 g. [Address of the President to the Federal Assembly, February 29, 2024] // Prezident Rossii. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73585 (accessed 25.07.2025).

7. Putin V.V. Vystuplenie na Plenarnom zasedanii Peterburgskogo mezhdunarodnogo ekonomicheskogo foruma 20 iyunya 2025 goda [Speech at the Plenary Session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, June 20, 2025] // Prezident Rossii. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77222 (accessed 23.06.2025)

8. Putin V.V. Soveshchanie s postoyannymi chlenami Soveta Bezopasnosti RF [Meeting with Permanent Members of the Security Council of the Russian Federation] // Prezident Rossii. September 22, 2025. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78051 (accessed 27.09.2025).

9. Putin V.V. Vystuplenie na plenarnoi sessii XXII ezhegodnogo zasedaniya Mezhdunarodnogo diskussionnogo kluba "Valdai" 02 oktyabrya 2025 goda [Speech at the Plenary Session of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, October 2, 2025] // Prezident Rossii. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78134 (accessed 03.10.2025).

10. Putin V.V. Otvety na voprosy predstavitelei SMI [Answers to Questions from Media Representatives] // Prezident Rossii. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78275 (accessed 24.10.2025).

11. Averyanov A.V., Shamarov P.V. Britanskaya elitarnaya stagnatsiya kak sledstvie antirossiiskogo i diasporal'nykh faktorov [British Elite Stagnation as a Consequence of Anti-Russian and Diaspora Factors] // Diplomaticheskii vestnik. Pravo. Ekonomika. Politika. 2025. No. 3 (30). Pp. 5-27.

12. Averyanov A.V., Shamarov P.V. Britanskoe "privilegirovannoe" obrazovanie kak geopoliticheskii instrument vozdeistviya na inostrannye elity [British "Privileged" Education as a Geopolitical Instrument of Influence on Foreign Elites] // Predstavitel'naya vlast' - XXI vek. 2025. No. 7-8 (222-223). Pp. 1-18.

13. Alekseev A. Kolonial'nyi dolg: Indiya trebuet ot Velikobritanii vernut' sokrovishcha [Colonial Debt: India Demands That the United Kingdom Return Treasures] // Kommersant. October 20, 2022 URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5619448 (accessed 06.10.2025).

14. Analiz doklada RAND: Rasseyannye, zamaskirovannye i razlagaemye. Posledstviya boevykh deistvii na Ukraine dlya budushchikh konfliktov s uchastiem SShA [Analysis of the RAND Report: "Dispersed, Masked and Degradable"] // Agentstvo sotsial'nogo inzhiniringa. June, 2025. URL: https://sea.com.ru/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Анализ-доклада-RAND-2025.pdf (accessed 27.09.2025).

15. Anglichanka snova gadit [The Englishwoman Is Up to Mischief Again] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Press-byuro. October 6, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/10/anglichanka-snova-gadit.htm (accessed 15.10.2025).

16. Britanskie spetssluzhby gotovyat ekologicheskuyu katastrofu v mezhdunarodnykh vodakh [British Intelligence Services Are Preparing an Environmental Catastrophe in International Waters] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. August 4, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/08/britanskie-spetssluzhby-gotovyat-ekologicheskuyu-katastrofu-v-mezhdunarodnykh-vodakh.htm (accessed 27.09.2025).

17. Varshavchik S. Kontslagerya i vyzhzhennaya zemlya: britanskii genotsid burov [Concentration Camps and Scorched Earth: The British Genocide of the Boers] // RIA Novosti. May 31, 2017. URL: https://ria.ru/20170531/1495482248.html (accessed 08.10.2025).

18. Velikobritaniya vpervye naznachila voennogo attashe v Azerbaidzhane [The United Kingdom Appointed a Military Attaché to Azerbaijan for the First Time] // Interfax. March 14, 2025.URL: https://www.interfax.ru/world/1013615 (accessed 15.10.2025).

19. Vystuplenie direktora SVR Rossii S.E. Naryshkina na 56-m zasedanii Soveta rukovoditelei organov bezopasnosti i spetsial'nykh sluzhb gosudarstv — uchastnikov SNG [Speech by Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service S.E. Naryshkin at the 56th Meeting of CIS Security Bodies] // SVR RF. May 19, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/05/ob-izmenenii-podkhodov-zapada-k-sderzhivaniyu-suveren-nogo-razvitiya-gosudarstv-uchastnikov-sng-vystu.htm (accessed 28.09.2025).

20. Gerson E. Kul'turnyi grabezh: Britaniya otkazyvaetsya vozvrashchat' ukradennye relikvii drugikh stran [Cultural Plunder: Britain Refuses to Return Stolen Relics] // NTV. URL: https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/2742457 (accessed 12.10.2025).

21. Glava FSB obvinil Britaniyu v provedenii operatsii "Pautina" v Rossii [Head of the FSB Accused Britain of Conducting Operation "Spider Web" in Russia] // RBK. October 16, 2025 URL: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/16/10/2025/68f092629a79472c859cd728 (accessed 15.10.2025).

22. Godovanyuk K.A. Golovolomka rossiisko-britanskikh otnoshenii: sistemnye protivorechiya i natsional'nye interesy [The Puzzle of Russian-British Relations: Systemic Contradictions and National Interests] // Sovremennaya Evropa. 2022. No. 7. Pp. 185-197.

23. Zadorozhnaya A. Vrazhdebnye deistviya Londona trebuyut ot Moskvy novykh podkhodov [Hostile Actions of London Require New Approaches from Moscow] // Delovaya gazeta "Vzglyad". November 1, 2022. URL: https://vz.ru/world/2022/11/1/1184845.html (accessed 01.10.2025).

24. Indiiskoe narodnoe vosstanie [Indian People's Uprising] // Bol'shaya rossiiskaya entsiklopediya. URL: https://bigenc.ru/c/indiiskoe-narodnoe-vosstanie-1f7109 (accessed 06.10.2025).

25. Kalashnikov M. "Rasseyannye, zamaskirovannye i razlagaemye" — doklad REND-korporatsii ["Dispersed, Masked and Degradable" — RAND Corporation Report] // Livejournal. June 12, 2025. URL: https://m-kalashnikov.livejournal.com/4711390.html (accessed 26.09.2025).

26. Kiev gotovit novuyu rezonansnuyu provokatsiyu [Kiev Is Preparing a New High-Profile Provocation] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. September 30, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/09/kiev-gotovit-novuyu-rezonansnuyu-provokatsiyunew25.htm (accessed 30.09.2025).

27. Kovarnyi Al'bion snova vtyagivaet mir v voinu [Perfidious Albion Is Dragging the World into War Again] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. March 10, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/03/kovarnyy-albion-snova-vtyagivaet-mir-v-voynu.htm (accessed 30.09.2025).

28. Kozlovets N.A. Evropeotsentrizm kak ideologicheskii fenomen i obshchestvenno-politicheskaya praktika [Eurocentrism as an Ideological Phenomenon and Socio-Political Practice] // Evraziistvo i mir. 2018. No. 1. Pp. 35-48.

29. Kots A. Britaniya vzyala pod kontrol' upravlenie ukrainskimi voiskami [Britain Took Control of Ukrainian Military Command] // Lenta.ru. September 14, 2025. URL: https://lenta.ru/news/2025/09/14/britaniya-vzyala-pod-kontrol-upravlenie-ukrainskimi-voyskami (accessed 25.09.2025).

30. Koshechkina V. Glava FSB zayavil, chto Velikobritaniya stoit za teraktami i diversiyami na territorii Rossii. London kuriroval operatsiyu "Pautina" [FSB Head Stated That the UK Is Behind Terrorist Attacks and Sabotage in Russia. London Supervised Operation "Spider Web"] // Lenta.ru. October 16, 2025.

31. Krutikov E. Terrorizm stal glavnym priznakom kievskogo rezhima [Terrorism Has Become the Main Feature of the Kiev Regime] // Delovaya gazeta "Vzglyad". February 7, 2024. URL: https://vz.ru/world/2024/2/7/1249156.html (accessed 05.10.2025).

32. Kruchinenko N. "Vystavka ukradennykh tsennostei": kak Britaniya uzhivaetsya s kolonial'nym muzeinym naslediem ["Exhibition of Stolen Valuables": How Britain Lives with Its Colonial Museum Heritage] // TASS. March 16, 2025. URL: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/23400237 (accessed 08.10.2025).

33. Lyubimov A.P. Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of Law]. Moscow: Yurait Publ., 2019. 257 p.

34. Makhnenko S.I., Sypchenko N.N. Tipologiya terrorizma: ponyatie i kharakteristika otdel'nykh tipov terroristicheskikh aktov [Typology of Terrorism: Concept and Characteristics of Certain Types of Terrorist Acts] // Gumanitarnye, sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki. 2019. No. 8. Pp. 54-59.

35. MID RF opublikoval primery rusofobskikh zayavlenii so storony predstavitelei Zapada [Russian Foreign Ministry Published Examples of Russophobic Statements by Western Representatives] // Russkii mir. February 24, 2023. URL: https://russkiymir.ru/news/310650 (accessed 30.07.2025).

36. MID RF ne isklyuchil uchastie Britanii v planirovanii teraktov protiv Rossii [Russian Foreign Ministry Did Not Rule Out Britain's Involvement in Planning Terrorist Attacks Against Russia] // TASS. May 26, 2023. URL: https://tass.ru/politika/17851663 (accessed 10.10.2025).

37. MID RF ukazal na plany Ukrainy provesti diversii v Rumynii i Pol'she [Russian Foreign Ministry Pointed to Ukraine's Plans to Carry Out Sabotage in Romania and Poland] // Regnum. September 26, 2025. URL: https://regnum.ru/news/3990851 (accessed 30.09.2025).

38. Mikhin V. Indiya: nezabyvaemye prestupleniya britanskikh kolonizatorov [India: Unforgettable Crimes of British Colonizers] // Novoe Vostochnoe Obozrenie. February 6, 2023. URL: https://journal-neo.su/ru/2023/02/06/indiya-nezaby-vaemy-e-prestupleniya-britanskih-kolonizatorov (accessed 06.10.2025).

39. Mishina I. London privetstvuet novyi kurs Srednei Azii i Kavkaza: Azerbaidzhan i Kazakhstan obkhodyat Rossiyu storonoi [London Welcomes the New Course of Central Asia and the Caucasus: Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan Bypass Russia] // Svobodnaya pressa. October 21, 2025. URL: https://svpressa.ru/politic/article/487016 (accessed 22.10.2025).

40. Naryshkin S.E. O vyzovakh i vozmozhnostyakh dlya stran SNG v usloviyakh transformatsii miroporyadka [On Challenges and Opportunities for CIS Countries in the Context of the Transformation of the World Order] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. February 11, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/10/vystuplenie-direktora-svr-rossii-na-zasedanii-soveshchaniya-ruko.htm (accessed 26.10.2025).

41. O vozmozhnykh ukrainskikh teraktakh v Evrope [On Possible Ukrainian Terrorist Attacks in Europe] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. February 19, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/02/o-vozmozhnykh-ukrainskikh-teraktakh-v-evrope.htm (accessed 30.09.2025).

42. O gotovyashchikhsya antirossiiskikh provokatsiyakh [On Preparing Anti-Russian Provocations] // Sluzhba vneshnei razvedki Rossiiskoi Federatsii. February 11, 2025. URL: http://svr.gov.ru/smi/2025/02/o-gotovyashchikhsya-antirossiiskikh-provokatsiyakh.htm (accessed 30.09.2025).

43. O razzhigayushchikh nenavist' vyskazyvaniyakh ukrainskikh gosudarstvennykh i obshchestvennykh deyatelei [On Hate-Inciting Statements by Ukrainian Public and State Figures] // Ministerstvo inostrannykh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii. September 15, 2023. URL: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/themes/id/1904647 (accessed 05.10.2025).

44. O sovershenii kievskim rezhimom prestuplenii terroristicheskoi napravlennosti: doklad Ministerstva inostrannykh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii [On Crimes of a Terrorist Nature Committed by the Kiev Regime: Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation] // Ministerstvo inostrannykh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii. September 12, 2024. URL: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/doklady/1969025 (accessed 05.10.2025).

45. O tipologii terrorizma. Ponimanie sushchnosti i prichin dlya osushchestvleniya uspeshnoi bor'by s terrorizmom [On the Typology of Terrorism: Understanding Its Nature and Causes for Effective Counteraction] // Gorodskoi okrug "Mirnyi". URL: https://mirniy.ru/info/anti_terror/4824-o-tipologii-terrorizma-ponimanie-suschnosti-i-prichin-dlya-osuschestvleniya-uspeshnoy-borby-s-terrorizmom.html (accessed 17.10.2025).

46. Pervye kontslagerya: kak britantsy ispol'zovali "lagerya smerti" [The First Concentration Camps: How the British Used "Death Camps"] // REN TV. Sept