Murder, caviar and why our relations with a thuggish Kremlin are at their worst since the Cold War
By Edward Lucas
Gordon Brown's personal relationships with foreign leaders are not his strong suit. He is regularly out-dazzled by Nicolas Sarkozy and outmanoeuvred by George Bush.
But in his meeting with Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, this week, he showed commendable - and rare - resolve in withstanding the Kremlin's trademark mixture of bullying and blandishments.
In the run-up to the meeting on the fringes of the G8 summit in Japan, Medvedev made it clear that he was prepared to thaw what has become a new Cold War between the UK and Russia - but only if Britain met him half-way. Brown refused.
Cool reception: Russia's president Medvedev and Gordon Brown shake hands but the bodly language betrays suspicion
Tony Blair may have kow-towed to Vladimir Putin, who made hollow offers of friendship. But Mr Brown has proved himself determined to stand up to an increasingly bellicose, and wily, Russia, which is possibly why the Kremlin retaliated by yesterday naming a top embassy official as a British spy.
Before this week's get-together, the siren voices of appeasement in Britain were crooning at top volume. For most British exporters, trade with Russia is booming.
Moreover, London is the place where Russian companies like to list their shares, sell their bonds and bank their profits, and a phalanx of pin-striped admirers are profiting richly from that. It is in British public schools that Russia's elite educate their children and it is in Britain's high society that they find the glitz and respectability they crave.
So in the City, in big business, and in the political and social elites so lavishly courted by Russia's spin-doctors, the hope was that with a new man in the Kremlin, perhaps Downing Street would get things 'in perspective' and put past political difficulties aside.
In other words, what does murder matter when profits are at stake? Who cares that Alexander Litvinenko was a British citizen when he was poisoned in November 2006? Who cares that the prime suspect in that murder became a celebrated Russian politician?
Who cares that another Kremlin assassin was caught stalking a British resident, Boris Berezovsky, through the streets of London last summer? Who cares that Britain's outgoing ambassador in Moscow, Sir Anthony Brenton, was mercilessly hounded by the thugs of Nashi, the 'Putin Youth' movement?
And who cares that the Russian staff of the British Council in St Petersburg were hauled from their beds in the middle of the night for interrogation?
Luckily for us, and for our brave allies in Eastern Europe who live in the shadow of a resurgent Russia and have been forced to look for security under the umbrella of the proposed U.S. missile defence shield, Mr Brown cared.
The view from Downing Street is that if Russian-British relations are indeed at their worst since the days of the Cold War, that's their fault, not ours.
There are those in Britain who refuse to believe this. With champagne, caviar and cash, the Kremlin is infiltrating Britain and buying friends and influencing people in a way that would have been unimaginable during the last Cold War.
But for now at least, this seduction only goes so far. Stiffening Britain's backbone are the security and intelligence services, usually known by their unofficial titles, MI5 and MI6.
Jonathan Evans, the sharp-witted director of MI5, has authorised an unprecedented level of semi-official briefing on the issue and Russia's rampant espionage has infuriated his hard-pressed spycatchers. Russia is now rated the third biggest security threat facing Britain, beaten only by the threat from Islamic terrorists and rogue states.
On BBC2's Newsnight this week, a senior security official gave a remarkably crisp public quotation, blaming the Kremlin for the Litvinenko murder. Short of hanging a banner from his top-floor office in the hulking MI5 headquarters at Thames House, Mr Evans's message could not have been clearer.
It is the same story at MI6, which for years has battled with the Foreign Office's supine and gullible attitude towards the Kremlin. At their green-glass headquarters across the Thames, the veteran Cold War spooks at last feel vindicated.
They warned back in the 1990s, when Russia was supposedly democratic, that the KGB was still up to its old tricks. They rang alarm bells when Mr Putin, a KGB veteran, took power. They highlighted the dangerous overlap between the business, political and secret-police worlds in the new Russia. Now they have been proved right.
And Britain's top spymaster, Alex Allan, has been stricken down by a mysterious illness that has left him in a coma. It is almost certainly just a tragic coincidence. But in some minds, the timing, just before the Brown-Medvedev summit, gave it a potentially sinister twist.
After all, what better way of warning those who defend Britain's interests not to confront Russia than to strike down their spy boss with an untraceable, near-lethal poison?
Nobody in the world of shadows wants to entertain that notion. But neither will they deny that the old KGB - chiefly the FSB, its sinister successor - has the ruthlessness, and the technology, to do such a thing if it wanted.
It would be a gross exaggeration to say that Britain's Russia-watchers are living in fear. But we are all aware that the Moscow authorities now have the right (under Russian law) to order the execution of ' extremists' at home and abroad.
Even some British businesses are beginning to concede that Russia isn't so rosy after all. Britain's top oil-men pooh-poohed Tony Blair's warning about betting too heavily on Russia last year.
Shell has lost the majority of its huge Sakhalin venture, and BP is being driven out of its joint venture with TNK, a Russian firm whose owners' brains are matched only by their muscles.
Outrageous though the tactics used against it have been, I have little sympathy for BP. The company has been burned before by a joint venture with the same bunch of people in the 1990s - and its shareholders should be justifiably aggrieved that the managers they employ have failed to learn from that lesson.
But the British Government is right not to get too closely involved in the case - not least because one factor may be an attempt to soften Britain's position on other issues, such as the Litvinenko murder.
Russia may be failing in its attempt to browbeat Britain, but it is doing well elsewhere, particularly in continental Europe, where the ruthless use of bribes and energy blackmail have corralled countries such as Germany, France and Italy into the Kremlin camp.
Both the European Union and Nato now stand pitifully divided. The business interests of their big members leave them unable to defend countries that are at risk from Russia. Coupled with a Russophile French presidency of the EU for the next six months, the sun is shining on the Kremlin - and its denizens are making all the hay they can.
No wonder that countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland believe only a direct relationship with America can guarantee their security. And no wonder Russia is reacting so toughly to the incipient deal on American missile-defence bases (aimed to deter Iran, not Russia) in those countries.
It said this week that it would respond with 'military-technical means' (new weapons) if the American plan goes ahead.
The bleak truth is that nothing in Russia has changed. The diminutive, softly-spoken Mr Medvedev may look and sound different to his thuggish, foul-mouthed ex-KGB predecessor, Vladimir Putin. But his politics are the same: what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable.
The political system is still closed to competition, corruption is rampant, and the economy is a shambles outside the big cities. This incompetent, but menacing, regime is bad for both Russia and Europe. But only Britain and a handful of allies seem to be prepared to do anything about it.
8 comments:
It is simply mind-blowing that you are allowed to write on issues pertaining to Russia for the Economist. While you certainly are entitled to your own opinion (but not your own facts), I am continually floored that the editors of the Economist would allow you to right such one-sided anti-Russian editorials and pass them off as journalism.
You seem like a nice fellow but the Russia you think you know, no longer exists.
We we to focus on any country in the world we could find anti-Democratic decisions, trends, and people. We could also find lots of negative developments and situations.
As Malcolm Gladwell so excellently explained in his book, what one thinks s/he sees is based as much of his/her preconceived notions as on the reality in front of him or her.
You don't like Russia. Therefore, anything Russia does will be seen by you negative. This tendency should immediately disqualify you from covering anything to do with Russia.
Perfectly concise position, no comments needed because we have returned to square one, unfortunately...
I disagree with you Timothy. Preconceived or lately acquired assumption are, still the task of journalism is to INFORM. If you do not like Ed Lucas texts, you may simply read liberal scripts in Guardian or other forums.
The saddest part Timothy is a fact, that when persons like Ed Lucas WARN US all about rise of Kremlin barbarians in sheepskins for years now, there are persons like You who want to control the free flow of informations - I JUST CANT BELIEVE IT!!
And to add one more comment Timothy. Yes, I agree and pretty much know that Edward agrees as well on the fact that Russia is not USSR! However, the article and his latest book is about the fact that Kremlin governors and their retinue is the Soviet educated NOMENKLATURA (teachers indoctrinated them about the superhuman race who could even turn Siberian river current around), that does not lead the new Russia forward, but instead back to the suspicious and authoritarian past of gouvernance a'la Union Sovietique...unfortunately
Hi Timothy
1) I don't know how I could have made it clearer that this was _not_a piece for The Economist. Look at the headline!
2) It is not a piece of factual reporting but an opinionated commentary. That is what the Daily Mail commissioned and I was glad to write it. If you want nuanced, balanced reporting, then look at the Economist's news pages.
3) Why do you think this gang of crooked chekisty who infest the upper reaches of power in Russia is good for the country?
If anybody knows anything about flair, a handshake with the Russians should not be on the agenda, for Russia is the biggest hypocrisy, the biggest makeover ever to appear on the planet. Just go and visit the country, Siberia and you will see how deep seeded nation decay Russia is. And I don't blame the peasants. The problem is that the Kremlin could not care less about the people and it's a shame. Instead, the Kremlin invests money in bribing politicians, plays havoc, even kills those who criticise them. To me, the Kremlin disgust overrides everything that I've been trying make out.
Therefore, anything Russia does will be seen by you negative. This tendency should immediately disqualify you from covering anything to do with Russia.
A very interesting idea, but I wonder how far the "only those who like Russia, should write about Russia" concept can really go.
Surely, Mr. Lucas has an interest in Russia. He speaks to some extent Russian, and, in my mind, only some one who is truly motivated can learn a foreign language without constant exposure to it.
I, for example, have a limited interest in southeast Asia. Yet I know some people who visit Vietnam, learn Vietnamese, and are sure to criticize the government there. Should they not be entitled to write about Vietnam -- or should we trust these embitttered 'Namophiles as great sources of information?
One does not need to worship the local authorities to demonstrate an interest in a place: and Russia is a place, not a leadership, correct?
I mean... every time I hear anything about Russia makes me shake all over. The Kremlin gawk is now over the Czech's soil.
I understand that societies play down their problems, put their best foot forward and try to make a good impression, but Russia takes this tendancy to the extremes. Russia supports almost all dictators all over the world: Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just to name a few, tries to nip every democracy in a bud. Why?
It seems to me (and what scares me the most) that most Russians are proud of it. Russia is ok, the West - oh no no no...
To my mind what makes the false fronts so much misleading in Russia than those of other countries is the lack of controversy. An entire veneer of people has been created by the Russia system and those who speak freely take risk to be hammered.
It is like a national sport to deceive others.
I'd be grateful if anyone could help me and say something good about Russia... without pulling the wool over the eyes.
People like "Timothy" will never understand anything...
My appreciation for your articles, they portray russia as it is - a criminal bully, big but with a small brain.
Greetings from Sweden
PS. We will stop the Nord Stream pipeline.
Post a Comment