I post this article by John Warren, who is a regular commentator on his blog, with permission of John and the editor of Bella Caledonia, where it first appeared. Events have overtaken some comments now, but the analysis is worth sharing, I think:
The PM's policy statement on Ukraine yesterday attempted to present Johnson as a statesman of substance. It failed. The generosity of all opposition parties toward a Europe on the edge of War, and to the predicament of Ukraine threatened by Russian invasion allowed an almost unique measure of unanimity in the House of Commons in recent times; coalescing around the condemnation of unquestionable Russian aggression, support for Ukraine's right to sovereign liberty, and for the application of sanctions against Russia that matched the historic moment. On sanctions, which is the core of Britain's capacity to act in this crisis, the PM failed badly. Within the hour the weakness of Johnson's statement, the now-classic pitching a bold, belligerent, yet brittle policy statement that is quickly exposed for being more bluster and less action; by the end of the debate Chris Bryant MP is raising an exasperated Point of Order, questioning the Speaker whether Johnson needs to correct an assertion the PM made under the kind of close questioning we already know the PM invariably handles badly. We have been there before. The PM hastily left the chamber before his eye could be caught.
_
Johnson, when asked to rise to a serious occasion requiring more than the appeal of a louche Court Jester, never quite finds the measure of the moment. Even the backbench mob securing his back couldn't save him, from himself. Johnson resorts, as so often is the case by reliance on whimsically out-of-place and time, vocabulary; here it was words like ‘tranches' or ‘barrage', an eccentric mixture of old-fashioned financial or military terms. Unfortunately the scale and force of the tranches he maneuvered proved pip-squeak, and the ferocity of the barrage, turned out to be a bathetic pop-gun. The first stage of Britain's new policy of staggered responses to Russian aggression; consisting of sanctions against three named Russian oligarchs, and only three in what is now a vast network in London, were three ‘usual suspects' against whom the Americans have already long applied sanctions – for the last four years. Five Russian Banks are also sanctioned, but carefully not including the largest Russian Banks. In spite of the big presentation, the scale of this activity is nevertheless relatively small, particularly against the background of the size of the Russian oligarch presence in Londongrad, or the potential financial tentacles of the money-washing Laundromat.
_
The PM attempted to cover the clear inadequacy of the sanctions offered by Britain that the House clearly and quickly sensed; by offering more sanctions to come; and then, uneasily that this was only the first step in a longer-term co-ordinated cunning plan orchestrated by the West and NATO allies. The problem with this account is, not all Western allies have been as tentative and timid as Johnson and Britain in rising to the scale of the required sanctions challenge. Germany has been criticised in media outlets for sending Ukraine helmets, but not arms. But on the same day Johnson launched his pip-squeak sanctions, The German Chancellor took a major, unexpected sanctions decision with huge effects not just on Russia, but as much for Germany. He stopped the Nordstream2 gas pipeline in the Baltic, which was being completed to pipe gas from Russia to Germany (deliberately routed by the Russians to circumlocute Ukraine and neuter its economic influence). It is estimated that Germany now depends on Russian gas for at least 50% of its supply, and for 34% of its crude oil (Reuters). This is a huge economic decision for Germany, and Britain's comparative commitment so far, is better described as a ‘gesture', in comparison with Germany (which is much closer to the economic ‘front line' of sanctions in the real economy). Tom Keatinge, Director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), captured the essence of the Johnson failure when he immediately dismissed Britain's sanctions with brutal candor, but in terms that ‘nailed' the mismatch; as demonstrating that Johnson was bringing “a pea-shooter to a gunfight” (BBC Newsnight, 22nd February, 2022). Sir David Lidington, an ex-Conservative Government Minister and Chairman of RUSI, supported Keatinge's analysis, albeit in more diplomatic language.
Here I offer the real context to British sanctions, the context on which Johnson is not inclined to dwell. Press estimates suggest there have been 13,000 ‘Golden Visas' (Tier 1 UK Investor Visas to give them their grand title) issued since 2008 to wealthy, powerful foreign investors seeking access to Britain; 2,581 (20%) to Russians, and 55 to Russians as late as 2021. The anti-corruption critics ‘Spotlight' estimate that 50% of Golden Visas could be classified as a ‘risk'. These Golden Visas require an investment of £2m into the UK economy, minimum; immigration is thus reduced to crude money-grubbing, at any price. The regulations and scrutiny of applicants is clearly weak. It should not be forgotten, also that it does not end with Visas. It moves on, allowing wealth based on Tier 1 Visas to ease the way to full citizenship. Then, wealth and the old-fashioned British indulgence of extravagance, especially when wrapped in philanthropy toward established British institutions, consequently opens every door to prestige, status and influence in British society, and even politics. There are 13,000 Golden Visas and we know little about their effect on the UK economy, society or politics, or even whom, in this maze of money, maybe the kleptocrats; because nobody knows, nobody has been looking, because nobody in Government, frankly cared. If they did – we wouldn't be in this mess. We know only that we know little enough, and the Government know sufficiently little, and do sufficiently little to suggest we should be deeply concerned.
_
The PM is now using the Visas, and other sanctions purely as a tool to leverage pressure on Russia over Ukraine; when the sanctions and the Visas should be applied against Russia (and elsewhere) not solely because of Ukraine, but because Britain, its interests and its people have been wantonly exposed to international kleptocracy, most egregiously for at least the last fourteen years (since Golden Visas were devised), but more widely for thirty years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
_
Britain has had a particular and special problem with international kleptocracy, ever since the neoliberal ideology established the privileged status of economic and financial policies that focused on the distinctive advantages offered by open, fast, expert international financial transactions by the City of London Global financial reach, pitched as Britain being “open for business”; or now ‘Global Britain'. Such opportunities offered by London should not have required much imagination by the British Government, or the expertise available to it: to be aware that what they were offering so freely to all the world; that ‘open for business ‘became open to kleptocracy and money laundering. Unless Britain's financial sector enforced rigorously regulated scrutiny and surveillance, Britain would inevitably prove particularly attractive to dangerous or malign international actors, seeking access to the City of London and British society; especially if offered soft entry terms and low-hanging fruit, through weak regulations, inadequate supervision or surveillance, or the flaws in prosecuting money laundering.
_
The strategy Johnson outlined in his commons statement, of a ratcheted sanction system against Russian aggression may well be inadequate to the task. Let us ask a simple question. When is an invasion, an invasion? When Johnson began his Commons statement, the sombre nature of his manner, curiously unsettling because unconvincing and out of character (he even seemed to have attempted a new tie), was at least underscored by the grim fact that he was telling us the invasion of Ukraine had begun. The tanks were rolling into the south-eastern region around Donetsk (the Donbas area within Ukraine); where there has been a Russian-sponsored uprising and war over the contested territory since 2014. As the statement unfolded and the British sanctions became part of a ‘staged' response, the invasion seemed gradually to metamorphise; it wasn't quite ‘the invasion'. We now had an invasion of Donbas (stage 1 sanctions), and a ‘full invasion' of Ukraine (stage 2 sanctions). The invasion wasn't quite ‘The Invasion'.
_
The Johnson plan suggests not only that the invasion is hard to identify, but implies the sanctions will work. We know the threats of sanctions do not work, because they did not stop Russian tanks rolling into Donbas. Why do we believe they will work now and stop the full invasion of Ukraine? Because we carried out the threat, after the tanks had rolled in to Donbas (Stage 1). Notice we do not appear to expect the Stage 1 sanctions to force Russia out of Donbas; so not that effective. I do not claim to have deep knowledge of Ukraine, therefore I am now in speculative territory, but here are my other problems with the Johnson staged sanctions ‘plan'. Sanctions do matter, but I do not see that if Russia decides on a full invasion of Ukraine, a large territory of 44m people, and with a history of fighting for Ukraine, that foreign sanctions will prove decisive in Russia's big strategic decision.
_
The full invasion of Ukraine is Putin's Rubicon moment. The scale of the consequences of such a decision for both Russia and Ukraine, which Putin must already know; seems to me likely far to out-weigh the significance of Western sanctions. Perhaps you have watched the news. I have noticed young people in Ukraine holding signs up in English for the cameras – ‘Welcome to Hell'. They are, I suspect sending out an international message. What message? Why? I suggest because they know well Ukraine-Russian relations and their common history, and they are conscious of what that means. Only the Russians, Ukrainians, and the Germans can adequately understand that history, and the mark it has left on all three. Hence the Germans send helmets not guns, but in a moving understanding of a shared horror, stopped Nordstream2.
For those who understand nothing at all of this history, I suggest reading Timothy Snyder, ‘Bloodlands' (2010) on the WWII war in Ukraine. There were at least three protagonists in the war in Ukraine; Germans, Russians and Ukrainians, all fighting each other; without any rules at all. It was the worst of the worst: a bloodbath, your worst nightmare, a vision of hell. This is what war looks like in Ukraine for Russians and Ukrainians and in the memory of Germany. It is this history, this bitter experience, this understanding of the consequences if anything stays the Russian hand over invasion; not foreign sanctions. If sanctions are going to have any effect in a final Russian decision it seems to me it is better to show Putin what we can do by doing it. Before he acts; because the truth seems to me that Putin already has decided, from experience over Crimea, 2008; over Donbas, 2014; over the 2016-20 Trump Presidency and the political disarray of America; of watching the West's shambolic Afghanistan collapse, 2021; and has already decided that the West is full of decadent, weak leaders whose principle response to aggression is appeasement, of putting off the big decisions.
_
Johnson has a further problem I do not understand if he insists on a staged sanction response. What if Russia doesn't undertake a full invasion of Ukraine? Suppose that Putin is satisfied, at least for a period by his initial invasion, consolidating and settling for glacial salami-slicing territory around the south-eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, resolving matters on the ground over some borderline he draws, and can hold. Britain, therefore, does not take any further sanctions against Russia, because that is the way the ‘plan' is constructed. If Johnson is suggesting that the second stage sanctions are dependent on Russia going no further, and Russia goes no further; then Johnson presumably will not take any further action against the kleptocracy in Britain, whether or not it is in Britain's best interests to act against kleptocrats who may be operating freely within Britain, and quite possibly against Britain's vital national interests. How does that work, for anyone?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Wise words from John, as I’d expect, Richard. But events have already overtaken them, except that his assessment of the feebleness of Johnson’s ‘staged response’ – and indeed that of the EU and US, though not quiet as pathetic – is fully exposed.
But what should we have expected from a liar and a braggart? A life spent as such – and largely getting away with it, as he undoubtedly will with ‘Partygate’ – means he’s not going to be altered by what’s going on Ukraine, however much Johnson would like it to offer him his ‘Churchill moment.’
And on a broader note, what about the EU? What is is that we don’t know that’s stopped the EU/US from blocking Russia from the Swift payment system? Because it would appear that the Ukrainian President doesn’t know or understand that either.
So, let’s be absolutely honest about this. This is a dark day for liberal democracy globally and in Europe in particular. It’s exposed the fact that financial (primarily) and economic interest are far more important to our politicians than democracy. That won’t surprise many of us, particularly followers of TRUK blog, but it may well be a shock many more.
As you’ve already discussed in a number of blogs, Europe, but also the world more widely, will not be the same after this. It will be particularly interesting to see how this plays out in the US, where the Republican party has already taken an autocratic turn and will no doubt start to act as such should it take control of the House and Senate in the midterms in November. It will then become a full blown autocracy (“managed democracy” as per Russia) should a Republican candidate win the presidential election in 2024. That seemed a done deal prior to Ukraine, but maybe the actions of Russia, with the repression and terror that’s sure to be inflicted on Ukraine and its people after it’s defeated, will inspire and reawakening in belief in democracy in the US – and elsewhere, perhaps.
But here in the UK all we can expect is more spin and lies: about why more couldn’t have been done for Ukraine; about why stronger actions could not be taken against Russians/Russian entities in the UK; about why so little can be done to tackle the London Laundrymat; and on and on.
And why? Because as I’ve commented before on this blog, for the past decade and more we’ve had a political party in power whose primary interest is money and whose citizenry is not the general public of the UK but the wealthy. That’s what drives their thinking and their policies and anyone who can’t see that is as blind as they were prior to Ukraine to the idea that Putin was not a dictator and would act accordingly. He is and has been for a long time. The West turned a blind eye and the people of Ukraine are now paying the price – and they won’t be the last.
Spot on
I have to say this is very informative.
My reading of Johnson was the presence of an underlying nervous tension – something strange about his voice – as he read out his bullshit reaction to Russian aggression. There was a feeling that he’d been caught red handed with his hands in the biscuit tin and that he just could not wait to deliver some form of palliative and then get out as quickly as possible before questions about how many biscuits he had taken and what flavour they were were thrown at him.
The Speaker BTW was absolutely useless. Spineless.
It’s a mixture of the deplorable, plain stupidity and loose/blind morality that has got Johnson, BREXIT and his party tied up in the most awful knots. He’s been walking with Tigers and obviously did not understand the rules.
But we – and the West – are just so reduced by all of this. And the fate of a sovereign nation now hangs in the balance (and that might already have tipped against them).
Excellent piece – thank you John
For those who missed it, Jess Phillips did a superb job of eviscerating James Cleverly on Peston. With Hunt sitting inscrutably alongside.
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2022/02/24/jess-phillips-schooled-james-cleverly-over-party-funding-and-the-look-on-his-face-is-10-10/
She was good
Good on Companies House too
I think John Warren has summed up the falsity of Johnson’s empty bluster and bravado succinctly and correctly. The baying red-faced Conservatives in the House of Commons may think they have an “election winner” in Johnson’s pointless rhetoric in this grave hour, but hopefully, the readers of the Bella Caledonia and much wider public will see through the weakness and pointless propagandizing by the government.
Thank you for the kind and thoughtful comments. I hesitated to comment on this but would wish to make two comments.
1) Kurt Volker, US diplomat, a past US Ambassador to NATO, past US Special Represenataive to Ukraine and a critic of Western weakness opposing Russia looks back to evidence of Putin purposes in 2007, before the invasion of Georgia that the West ignored. Volker is right about the West’s total failure (and we still haven’t resolved the SWIFT banking problem, or the oil and gas issue, so we still have big holes in the sanction regime). In terms of what seems to me the most obvious public evidence of the nature of Putin’s tactics I would also argue we can go back before 2007, and without requiring to interpret Kremlin geolpolitical strategy, or anything complicated; all we needed to do, in London in 2006; was respond with the minimum required adequacy to the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, executed by means of polonium added to his tea, in the genteel surroundings of the public lounge of a Mayfair Hotel. What did we do? We followed standard procedure if you really do not want the inconvenience to the freewheeling neoliberal klondyke (this was just before the Crash): round up the ‘usual suspects’; i.e, banish a few Russiona diplomats, and then return to normal, as if nothing had happened: for the next sixteen years. The West sent itself to sleep, counting money. We introduced Golden Visas two years laters (another easy money scheme). In fourteen years, circa 13,000 Golden Visas were issued, 2,581 of them principally to Russian oligarchs! What could go wrong?
2) Here is a heated exchange between Tobias Elwood, Conservative MP at the Liaison Committee, 17th November, 2021 and Boris Johnson. Elwood was sufficiently angry at Britain’s defence policy failures to lose his cool a little, allowing Johnson to adopt a slightly patronising approach (of course it makes you angry being patronised by a buffoon); with Johson telling Elwood (ex-soldier and a defence specialist) “The old concepts of fighting big tank battles on European land mass are over”. What we really need is cyber and “warning systems”. Warning systems? So basically no fighting. That went well. It is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nAX25vIVyI
John
You are absolutely right about ‘counting money’ – it also shows the degree to which even New Labour were pretty ‘relaxed’ when it came to ensuring that money flowed and kept flowing no matter what. Morally, Giddens etc., the Third Way was morally blank.
But also it was just far easier to ‘count money’ than find other creative strategies and investments to overcome our weak dependence on Russian money and resources.
One more point. There is some unpleasant self-congratulation in Conservative circles at the more recent, and sudden about-face to toughen financial sanctions; at the same time as some finger-pointing at the EU for weakness over SWIFT and oil and gas. Candiddly, there is something creepy about this. The West has catastrophically failed its first duty; the protection of all our liberty. No excuses. None.
The UK is not doing a great deal. First because whatever the cost of current sanctions for Britain, the energy problems Europe has to face with sanctions in the ‘real’ economy (principally oil and gas), are much more serious and difficult to turn round quickly than Britain’s ever shifty reliance on plain international money transactions; what we are doing has been easier for us to do. Second, even here we have not faced major issues; just like the EU. The major problem is energy – oil and gas. So here is Ian King, Sky News today, to remind us of something that has been discussed often enough over the last couple of days, but not by the British Government: “Strikingly though, while more Russian lenders are being targeted, many will be surprised that neither Gazprom nor Rosneft, Russia’s two big energy companies, have been singled out for more punitive treatment. That may well be because BP owns 20% of Rosneft and the government will be wary of hurting a business in which one of the UK’s biggest companies – a major shareholding in the long-term retirement plans of millions of Britons – has a strategic stake. But it is nonetheless surprising.”
We must not allow this Conservative Government and Party to run from the scene of its abject failure, discarding all its clothes; only to emerge in a puff of smoke as if the only people who understand a crisis that is nothing to do with the, Boris Johnson, Sunak, Truss, Patel and the whole intellectually bankrupt, wretched cabal are guilty of having failed the country; intolerably.
Allow me to sum up Conservative principles in one usable sound-bite: the money doesn’t smell
Agreed
I realise this may sound a little bonkers but … in addition to how compromised Johnson is in terms of Russian Tory donors, Russian money wrapped up in U.K. assets…. Is there a potential that he’s actually also frightened for his own safety, should he irritate Putin by effectively freezing the laundromat?
Perhaps I’ve been watching too many thrillers. But it does seem to me that people who’ll happily poison individuals running around in our country might also be happy to wreak revenge if their financial facilitator lets them down.
Why not?