Tag Archives: Salisbury attack

Britain, Europe, Government, Russia, Society

The prospect of an escalating global war is terrifyingly real

THE WEST AND RUSSIA

THERESA MAY made perhaps the most momentous statement of her political career at Westminster when, in a dramatic scene in the Commons, she effectively accused the Russian state of an act of war. She said the Kremlin had instructed its military intelligence agency, the GRU, to assassinate the defector Sergei Skripal in March.

Backed up by a wealth of irrefutable evidence about the two Russian intelligence agents who carried out the assignment, which ultimately resulted in the death of a British citizen and three other serious poisoning cases, Mrs May’s assertion has huge implications, not only for Britain’s relations with the rogue Russian regime, but also for European and Western foreign policy as a whole.

The Salisbury incident is truly shocking. It is the first time that a Briton has been killed on our home soil by a chemical weapon deployed by a foreign power. Yet until it happened, Britain seemed utterly indifferent to the brutality of Vladimir Putin’s government.

 

AFTER Putin sanctioned and authorised another well publicised assault on British soil in 2006, when ex-Russian secret policeman Alexander Litvinenko was murdered with a radioactive poison in London, the initial shock and anger soon ebbed away to apathy, thanks in large part to the feebleness of our Government’s response.

Whilst it is true that the British authorities were quick to name the Russian suspects, the speed of this early announcement was not matched by resolute action from the Government.

The huffing and puffing in Whitehall produced half-measures. That can only have reassured the Russian spymasters that they could get away with assassination.

Sine then we have all become aware of the litany of charges against Russia, like its seizure of Crimea, its blood-soaked intervention in Syria in aide of President Assad’s tyranny and its shooting down of the Malaysian airliner MH17 over rebel-held Ukraine in 2014.

But all those atrocities happened abroad, it was argued. They were nothing to do with us, so a proverbial slap on the wrists would surely do.

In contrast, from the start of the Skripal case, the Prime Minister has been far tougher, imposing sanctions, expelling Russian diplomats, galvanising NATO, and even winning the support of Donald Trump’s White House and the EU for her actions.

Admittedly, this was partly because the potential consequence of the Salisbury poisoning was even more serious than the Litvinenko case, given that Novichok put hundreds of lives at risk.

Nevertheless, the British Government has, despite all its problems with Brexit, displayed a commendable spirit of resolution that has been all too absent until now.

Through her clear-sighted resolution, Theresa May has mounted a direct challenge to Putin’s regime.

And although it has taken six months to name the alleged perpetrators, it has been worth the wait. Thanks to the thoroughness of the investigation, the sheer weight of incriminating material she was able to announce in the Commons means that the Russian state cannot slide away from its responsibility for this crime.

What her Commons statement also did was to blow apart the absurd conspiracy theories about the Salisbury assault that have been circulating, many of them promoted by Putin’s regime or by Kremlin sympathisers.

The evidence, gathered by 250 detectives from 11,000 hours of CCTV footage, shows incontestably where the blame lies. This raises the question as to why the Kremlin resorted to such an act. The answer lies in Putin’s security policy, which is so important to his macho political persona and the image of his regime’s invincibility.

As a former KGB officer himself, he has made ruthlessness a central part of his strongman reputation. It thereby enhances his appeal among the Russian people.

When he first came to power in 2000 on his election as Russian president, there were profound weaknesses in the country’s security apparatus, epitomised by the defections of agents like Litvinenko and Skripal.

 

SO much information was leaked after the fall of communism that Western intelligence thought they had crippled Russia’s GRU agency, giving MI6 and the CIA a window directly into Russian policymaking which helped them to predict the Kremlin’s actions.

But Putin changed all that through a pitiless crackdown. Internal security was vastly improved and leaks closed.

The CIA has privately admitted that many of its contacts in Moscow have gone silent. Some have disappeared. Others simply do not respond to efforts to contact them.

Dealing mercilessly with the defectors became an essential part of that security crackdown.

Since March, it has often been asked why Skripal, a former double agent, should still be a target, so many years after Putin let him out of the Gulag and allowed him to retire to Britain. It appears that Putin’s intelligence services have decided that letting defectors sleep soundly at night offers too much temptation for others to follow suit.

Kill one, frighten 10,000 is an old tactic, and one that the Russians seem to have adopted. Washington certainly believes that putting the fear of God into potential double-agents was the real reason for poisoning Sergei Skripal.

The Salisbury attack may also reflect Putin’s wider, geopolitical strategy, with its focus on dividing the West through surprise, propaganda and intimidation. Years ago he decided the West, particularly America and Britain, wanted to get rid of his regime.

Instead of asking what he could do to allay Western concerns, he adopted the opposite course by using Russian wealth from the country’s energy resources, plus the long experience of Soviet spycraft, to mount campaigns of disinformation and denial.

Until Salisbury, that strategy appeared to be working. The Novichok assault, however, led to an unprecedented act of unity – due in part to the British Government’s resolve.

The West hung together and backed Britain. The question now is whether this accord will last. The Prime Minister has said that she will be trying to mobilise the EU to harden sanctions on Russia and co-ordinate counter-measures against Russian intelligence operations in Europe.

That could be easier said than done. The wall of unity is already showing signs of cracking. Apart from the awkwardness created by Brexit, Putin’s policy of divide and conquer is also having an impact, for the Russian president has been soft-talking allies in the EU.

Last month, for instance, he was a guest at the Austrian foreign minister’s wedding, and Vienna’s Right-wing government is one of the loudest voices in the EU clamouring for improving relations with Moscow.

In Italy, the new government is led by a critic of sanctions against Russia, so imposing new ones is unlikely to win Rome’s support.

Yet, Britain cannot possibly let the Salisbury attack slide away into unpunished oblivion as it did the Litvinenko case.

The need for action is all the more important because, worryingly, the balance of global power is sliding away from the West. The U.S., Britain and the EU are still economically potent, of course, but the rise of China as both an economic and military superpower adds to the challenge posed by Russia and other states.

Even Turkey, a member of NATO, is moving away from the West under President Erdogan. The fact is that the Salisbury outrage is a graphic indicator that the world is becoming a less stable place. It was a rare but disturbing episode that exposed the nature of the escalating global war between spy agencies.

In its aftermath, that war is likely to intensify.

Which makes it all the more imperative that the Government is robust and vigilant. The West needs to be resolute and united in the face of Putin’s ruthlessness.

Standard
Britain, Government, NATO, Russia, Society, United Nations

NATO stands united against reckless Russia

NATO

THE attack in Salisbury was the first offensive use of a nerve agent on NATO soil since the alliance was created in 1949. It involved one of the most toxic substances ever deployed. And the attack displayed total disrespect for human life.

As the fallout from the attack continues, many people have been rightly appalled that a chemical-nerve agent could be used in a small cathedral city. People there just go innocently about their daily lives.

All NATO allies stand in solidarity with Britain. The alliance has offered support as the investigation proceeds, and it has called on Russia to urgently address the UK’s questions. NATO also says that Russia should provide full disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Any use of chemical weapons is a threat to international peace and security – an unacceptable breach of international norms and rules, which has no place in a civilised world.

Sadly, though, the attack in Salisbury comes against the backdrop of a reckless pattern of Russian behaviour over many years.

The illegal annexation of Crimea. Support to separatists in eastern Ukraine. Unwelcome Russian troops in Moldova and Georgia. Meddling in the domestic affairs of countries such as Montenegro. Attempts to undermine our democratic elections and institutions. Cyber-attacks and disinformation. And Russia has also been investing in new weapons, some of which carry nuclear warheads. NATO has responded: our defences are now stronger than at any point since the Cold War.

NATO has tripled the size of its multinational response force to 40,000 troops – with a 5,000-strong spearhead force ready to deploy anywhere within 72 hours. It has also stepped up air patrols over the Baltic and Black seas.

The alliance has deployed four battalion groups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, with contributions from across the membership – a clear demonstration that the organisation stands together, all for one and one for all. Britain leads the battlegroup in Estonia; they’re protecting the whole of Europe.

When it comes to Russia, NATO’s response remains firm, defensive and proportionate. It won’t mirror Russia tank for tank, missile for missile, or soldier for soldier. It will continue to combine strong deterrence and defence with the search for meaningful political dialogue.

When tensions run high, and they invariably are, it’s important both sides talk to each other, to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. NATO does not want a new Cold War. And it certainly doesn’t want to be dragged into a new arms race. An arms race has no winners. It is expensive, risky, and in nobody’s interest.

Russia will continue to seek to divide us. But NATO allies stand united. Twenty-nine countries – representing half the world’s military and economic might.

Britain does not stand alone.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Russia, Society

UK measures and sanctions on Russia still leaves us vulnerable

BRITAINopinion-1

IN measured but uncompromising language, Theresa May handled herself extremely well in the House of Commons this week as she outlined the Government’s response to Vladimir Putin’s use of a lethal nerve and chemical agent on British soil. The Prime Minister’s rhetoric was equal to the profound seriousness of the occasion.

Her resolute demeanour and command of her brief – no doubt learned from her long experience of security matters at the Home Office – put to shame Jeremy Corbyn’s efforts to defend the Russian state and his attempt to score petty political point scoring.

In a new low for British politics, the Labour leader parroted the Kremlin line, suggesting it was unfair to blame Putin without first sending him scientific samples of the toxin in the Salisbury attack.

To his discredit, too, Mr Corbyn even appeared to pin part of the blame on budget cuts to the British diplomatic service.

Corbyn’s response to this grotesque violation of international law and British sovereignty – in which scores of our citizens were put at risk of agonising death – was: “It is essential to maintain robust dialogue with Russia.”

Who would honestly believe dialogue would bring to heel a former KGB officer who exults in presenting himself at stopping at nothing to eradicate his country’s enemies?

Even the SNP in Scotland, never a party solid on defence – incoherent on NATO and divisive over Trident – have grasped the gravity of the situation.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: “It is very clear that Russia cannot be permitted to unlawfully kill or attempt to kill people on the streets of the UK with impunity.”

The SNP’s party’s Westminster leader Ian Blackford assured the Commons that his party backed the Government and that “a robust response to the use of terror on our streets” was required.

However, we must be realistic. On their own, the measures outlined by the Prime Minister are high unlikely to shake Putin out of his contempt for the international order.

 

YES, Mrs May’s approach is a start. Her expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats identified as spies, the most radical such measure for more than 30 years, should seriously undermine Russia’s intelligence network. These expulsions were always going to be met with a tit-for-tat response.

Other sanctions – including the freezing of Russian state assets deemed a threat, the suspension of high-level contacts and increased security checks on private flights, customs and freight – also sends a signal that Britain will not let state-sponsored gangsterism flourish with impunity.

The truth, though, is that Mrs May held back from other measures that could have inflicted serious harm on the Russian economy.

The reasons for such caution are clear. One is that Britain depends on Russia for 20 per cent of our gas, leaving us desperately vulnerable to punitive Russian reprisals.

Another is that BP, our biggest company, has a vast holding in Russia’s biggest oil company, while the City launders billions in the country’s dirty cash.

And politicians have run down our Armed Forces, spending only £36billion a year on defence. Putin, with a defence budget of £44-50billion – and has an army ten times the size of ours – will feel safe to sneer.

Yet, Russia’s economy is only two-thirds the size of ours. We could be doing much more to match Putin’s military strength.

As for energy security, wasn’t it criminally irresponsible to allow last year’s closure of Britain’s biggest gas storage facility, leaving our reserves at today’s perilously low levels?

Given our vulnerability, the sanctions may have gone as far as Britain could go alone without the international effort needed by straining every sinew to secure.

There is one gesture that could signify abhorrence of the Salisbury atrocity. Whilst it is welcomed that no government minister or member of the Royal family will attend the World Cup in Russia this summer, wouldn’t a boycott by the England team and other countries who are equally infuriated ram home the message more powerfully?

Standard