Britain's Role in the Securitization of Russia's Influence in Central and Eastern Europe (Case Study: Poland)

In recent years, Russia's strategic influence in the Central-Eastern European region has led to a shift in British foreign policy priorities (transition from isolationism to extraversion). Britain believes that "the increase in Russian military movements in Eastern Europe", "the annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia", ​​"the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula to Russia, etc. are contrary to the rules and values ​​of the existing order in international politics. Therefore, the barrier of influence against Russia in the region is strategic. Poland is one of the countries in this area that, geopolitically (close to Russia), can play an utterly deterrent role to the Russian influence. Therefore, the primary purpose of the present study is to analyze British measures against Russia in Eastern and Central Europe, especially in Poland.

Consequently, the question arises as to how Britain seeks to prevent Russian influence in Poland?

The paper's hypothesis is based on the premise that Britain's main strategy in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, is the securitization of Russia's influence in the country. Due to Eastern European countries' military and defense weaknesses, Britain distorts Russia's foreign policy d. In other words, Britain, with its tools such as diplomacy, the media, and research institutes, is demonstrating Russia's strategy as an existential threat to the security system in Eastern Europe.
The method of the present research is analytical and argumentative.The Methodology and Theoretical Framework: The present research method is qualitative. Data analysis will also be based on securitization theory.

Britain attributes the German invasion of Poland and the evolution of communism to the fact that their enemy (Britain and Poland) has been the same throughout contemporary history (ie, Germany and the Soviet Union). Consequently, Poland considers Russia its most important enemy in recent years. This common assumption between Poland and Britain has led Poland to see Russia as a threat to its values and independence and to equate the United States and Britain with its strategic allies. That is why the memorandum of understanding between the two countries mentions the two countries' cooperation in World War II and Britain's efforts to transition to democratization in Poland. These cases are referred to as common historical points between the two countries.On the other hand, Britain has blurred the line between "Polish" and "British" by accepting more than one million Polish workers in its own country. Today, Poles see the UK as a friendly country with better economic incomes than other European countries. So if the Polish government is given the power to choose between Russia and Britain to align its foreign policy orientations, it will undoubtedly be Britain; because Poland's foreign policy will be built in interaction with the country's economic interests with Britain. Britain is trying to make Russia a common enemy in its relations with Poland, so labels such as aggressor, enemy, hostile, etc. are given to Russia. Britain does this through three channels: First, Britain insinuates to Poland that Russia is NATO's number one enemy and that NATO is Poland's main guarantor of security. Second, Britain brings Poland and the United States into international alliances against Russia (a country that violates international order and security).

Britain is well aware that the Polish elite is strongly dependent on the United States for security and defense. Therefore, from the British point of view, the precondition for US defense and security assistance to Poland is its opposition to Russia's strategy in the region. Third, Britain has given itself and its allies the Role to play in countering Russia as a common enemy in the region and changing Russia's values and norms in the direction of the value foundations of allied countries. In this sense, Poland is one of these countries and the confrontation with Russia is considered legitimate for it. Since the annexation of Crimea by Russia, Western European countries, especially Britain, along with the United States, have sought to increase their security and defense cooperation with Central Europe (mainly Poland) and Eastern Europe. In some ways, this has strategic implications for NATO's influential countries; First, Britain and the United States have made the fight against Russia more acceptable by intensifying their military presence in those countries. Indeed, Russia's actions in the Ukraine conflict have provided an opportunity for Britain and the United States to secure Russian action in the region. This has given NATO leaders the power to impose heavy sanctions on Russia in 2014. This situation helps to stabilize the region in two ways. First, Russia sees the Ukraine conflict as a strategic victory and balances its position in Eastern Europe to avoid less possible damage from NATO. As long as Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is deeply concerned about the permanent presence of NATO on its borders, it considers it a hostile act. On the other hand, economic sanctions imposed on Russia by NATO member states could deter and stabilize Eastern and Central Europe.  Another consequence of the presence of British troops and the intensification of US military programs in Eastern Europe could lead to instability, contrary to the above assumption. Russia has proved that it is acting only in the face of developments in Eastern Europe, disrupting all NATO calculations. Aside from the Crimean Peninsula, South Ossetia is an example of this hypothesis. Although Russia and a limited number of countries in the world have recognized the independence of this region, the majority of states do not recognize the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Russia's intervention in Georgia was only on the pretext of defending Russian citizens in the region.