The Russian entry

The power of the Russian threat is undermining confidence in Eastern Europe. Not the organisational issues, but the collapse of world structures and power differentials. The Russian origins were in transitional views pf living and social partnership. The British are more socially isolated and Europe more structurally anticipating change and renewal. This coordination of Russian opposition is based on political;l transition and power dissipation. The consequence is political ideology and social risk. Its is a framed view of the world based on collapse and frameworks. A sort of growth in political and social animosity.

This approach has become enmeshed in the European debate, the EU is too solid and too much unification has collapsed national identity and social resistance. The British withdrawal is not against Russia, but has learnt lessons in democracy and pluralism. The new challenge from the Johnson government is ideological breaks with Russia and a new stance on what it is in European membership  undermines the government. The Russian approach to Britain has been reinforcing to democratic values, and the growth of unity between the countries has not been matched by any other move.

The British approach has been to use caution and time to heal wounds.The east has been challenging British norms and hierarchies, which in Britain have an international outlook. The unity of east and west has been indicated as an issue by Donald Trump,  The mechanics of unification are of course not a public debate, the residue is found in views of east and west in anarchic assertion of growth. The debate has not reinforced integration, and the power has diffused attempts to persevere.

The Russian entry is therefore as an outsider, not in independent notions of sovereignty like assimilation. The position of identity has been situated in positions of perception, and politics has found Russia an ally in media success and framed solutions. The noise of Westminster has been absent in Brussels and this will be used.