"Is Cameron back? What the hell is going on?" is the extremely mild translation of a message that a British Conservative MP sent to his colleague on WhatsApp. In the original, the politician used the abbreviation WTAF, that is, "What the actual f***?". And although this expression is not at all parliamentary, it is possible to understand the deputy.

The recent scandal, at the center of which was the former British Home Secretary Suella Braverman, became a catalyst for a full-fledged political earthquake. Braverman angered the left-wing opposition by publishing an op-ed in The Times in which she called pro-Palestinian demonstrations in British cities "hate marches" and accused the London police of being much harsher on the pro-Israel right than on the "pro-Palestinian mob." Labor demanded Braverman's dismissal, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak easily sacrificed her, despite their obvious similarities: Braverman's parents, like Sunak, are Indian. But the prime minister did not stop there and used Suella's resignation to radically shake up the entire cabinet of ministers.

Environment Minister Theresa Coffey and Treasurer-General Jeremy Quinn lost their posts, and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly became Home Secretary to replace Braverman. But the real sensation was the appointment of David Cameron, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (2010-2016), to the post of Foreign Secretary vacated after this reshuffle. Cameron was one of the main initiators of the Brexit referendum, while advocating the preservation of the UK in the EU: he planned to use the plebiscite as a lever of pressure on Brussels on a number of important economic issues for London. As you know, the referendum was won by supporters of the UK's exit from the EU and Cameron, admitting his guilt in the incident, resigned.

In other words, his career didn't just end badly, it was a real epic failure. And it was this loser that Rishi Sunak demonstratively pulled out of political oblivion by handing him one of the most important portfolios in the British government. And since Cameron is not a member of the British Parliament (which is necessary to perform the functions of a minister), he was promptly awarded a life peerage and given a seat in the House of Lords (the upper house of parliament). This is not to say that there were no precedents of this kind, but the last time a British peer held the post of Foreign Secretary was in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher appointed Baron Carrington to the post.

Labour, outraged by Sunak's personnel decision, predicts that Cameron will become the second Carrington to easily defeat Thatcher, who is not very experienced in international affairs. "There is a danger that Lord Cameron, with his six years of experience as prime minister and countless world summits under his belt, unlike Rishi Sunak's only year, will be tempted not only to dominate foreign policy, but also to deviate from the line. — K.B.) and generally advise his boss on how to act on a wide range of issues," warns the left-wing The Guardian.

Be that as it may, it is clear that Cameron will not be a technical figure in the government – he is not a character of the same caliber. Cameron himself, in his first press statement, has already outlined his priorities: among the "huge set of international problems" facing the UK, he singled out the "war in Ukraine" and the "crisis in the Middle East" – in that order. And he said that in an era of profound change, it was more important than ever for the UK to "support our allies, strengthen our partnership and make our voices heard."

Many media outlets focus on the fact that in the first years of his premiership, Cameron "worked very hard" to establish mutually beneficial relations with Russia and personally with Vladimir Putin – even proposing that the Nord Stream gas pipeline be extended to the UK.

But they emphasize that these relations have "collapsed" because of Russia's support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"Cameron was initially a big supporter of the Syrian democratic revolution, even if he privately admitted that the Free Syrian Army was neither a free Syrian army nor a Syrian army," writes The Guardian's international columnist Patrick Wintour with cheerful cynicism.

Other political analysts worry about Cameron's possible reluctance to further aggravate relations with Moscow. They recall an interview with Cameron's defense secretary, Michael Fallon, who accused his former boss of repeatedly rejecting requests for help modernizing Ukraine's military after 2014. Fallon complained that while the Defense Department wanted to "do more," they were "stymied" and "in the cabinet we were forbidden to send the Ukrainians the weapons they needed" so as not to provoke Russia.

It is likely, Wintour believes, that Cameron will oppose direct British intervention in Kyiv's conflict with Moscow, but "will think about how to revive public enthusiasm for Ukraine" and, at least in words, strongly oppose Russia.

However, it would be extremely naïve to expect that a Russophile will suddenly be at the head of the British Foreign Office. More curiously, according to former Tory leader Ian Duncan Smith, who once served in Cameron's government as Minister for Work and Pensions and resigned due to disagreements with the prime minister, Cameron's appointment, while "surprising", suggests that Rishi Sunak "intends to do business with China at any cost". Indeed, one of the highlights of Cameron's premiership was the proclamation of a "golden age" in relations with Beijing and the unusually warm welcome he gave to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who visited the United Kingdom in 2011 on a state visit. In addition, after retiring from politics, Cameron became vice president of the British-Chinese investment fund, and most recently visited Sri Lanka to attract investment in a major Chinese infrastructure project in Colombo, the so-called "City Port". "The horrific, murderous behavior of the (Chinese) regime. — K.B.) will be relegated to the background," Ian Smith worries.

The nature of the communication between the new British Foreign Secretary and the American establishment is also interesting. Cameron once had a good relationship with Barack Obama, but then a black cat ran between them: Obama was "disappointed" with British foreign policy, and especially with London's reluctance to commit to spending 2% of GDP on defense, in line with NATO norms, and Cameron criticized Obama for his "hesitation" about military action in Libya (Cameron himself was one of the main instigators of this adventure). which resulted in the destruction of the Libyan Jamahiriya and the death of Gaddafi).

But Cameron does not treat the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, with any respect. In 2016, when Trump was just vying for the GOP nomination, Cameron called him "stupid, misguided and divisive." It is unlikely that Trump has forgotten these words (he never forgets insults directed at him), so the "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom, if he becomes president again, will be severely tested. However, this requires Cameron to retain his post at least until November 2024, and this is very doubtful. Most analysts agree that the Conservative Party will be defeated in the next parliamentary elections. David Cameron's return "is unlikely to save Rishi Sunak's party from bankruptcy," Jason Beattie argues in The Mirror. This means that Cameron, no matter how sensational his return to big politics may seem, is just a caliph for an hour.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.