logo-loader

Russian actions shine a light on the political weakness of Britain, but not much else

Published: 09:23 16 Mar 2018 GMT

1521192646_Putin

The leaders of the US, France, the UK and Germany have now laid down the official narrative for the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury this week.

It was, say the combined heads of state, the “first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the second world war.”

That’s fighting talk and indeed, under certain circumstances, such a use of violence on the sovereign soil of another nation could be deemed an act of war. Various wars in the past have been started for less: in 1739 there was even a war between Spain and the UK about a man’s ear.

Of course, the salient fact about the War of Jenkins’s Ear [s that it was actually about control of the Atlantic sea trade.

In the case of Russian and Britain, or even Russia and the wider Western allies, what any war that might be brewing would actually be about is less than clear.

There’s the recent conquest of half of the Ukraine by Russia. But taking a global geopolitical perspective, this simply represents Russia asserting control in a traditional sphere of influence, one that is largely peopled by ethnic Russians.

Tensions? Yes. But World War Three, no.

Then there’s the Russian activity in Syria. It grates that Russia is supporting an unpalatable despot, sometimes against ostensible allies of NATO, and particularly Turkey. It grates too that President Putin is able to play the role of the strong man in the region, when US and British military power has been effectively rendered impotent by war-weary electorates.

But here too, in Syria, President Putin is simply asserting Russian power in an old and long-established area of influence. Why are the Kings of Jordan more palatable to the West than the minority Muslim rulers of Syria? – look no further back than the Cold War.

Perhaps more seriously, Russia is cosying up with China in a way that could present a strategic threat to the US and its allies. But even here, it’s unlikely that relations will ever get too close. If they did, it would require the Russians admitting on the world stage that they are playing second fiddle to China, which won’t be easy.

So what then does the latest round of poisonings and diplomatic abuse tell us about the global situation?

There are two scenarios.

The first is that that this is all deliberate. It’s been speculated in various quarters that President Putin is using the exciting attraction of standing tall against a foreign power (Britain) to bolster his support in the upcoming election. And remember, it may be the first aggressive use of a nerve agent in Europe since World War II, but as yet he hasn’t killed anyone.

Such a hypothesis would also allow President Putin to demonstrate his reach and power to potential dissenters, to foment divisions in the West and to highlight the weakness of Britain, which was once, going back 150 years, Russia’s most formidable foe.

Of the weakness of Britain there is no doubt. The country’s politics is in complete disarray, its electorate divided against itself and unlikely to find near-term resolution.

But in terms of financial muscle it is still perhaps worth highlighting that the UK’s economy is still roughly 25% bigger than that of Russia, and that according to the World Bank the UK last year accounted for around 3.85% of the world’s economic activity, with Russia trailing at 1.8%.

The Americans have got 24.3%. So any idea that Russia can walk tall in the world in terms of real wealth is stretching a point, to say the least.

But it can make some real waves and generate real influence by its ability to move swiftly and decisively.

Or to put it another way, de facto Mr Putin isn’t accountable to a judiciary, a civil service or an electorate, so if he wants something badly enough, he’s able to put measures in place to get it.

Even so, there’s the second scenario. And it largely revolves around the strangeness of the affair.

Intelligence agencies were initially wrong-footed when they sought a motive for the style of the attack – why not just use a bullet or even more subtle method? Why not try to make it look like an accident?

And indeed, if this attack wasn’t a brutal application of soft power and propaganda, then the way it turned out almost certainly was a mistake. But if it’s true that Mr Skripal wasn’t meant to survive the attack, then something’s gone wrong, always assuming that reports he has survived are actually true.

Perhaps there is more to Mr Skripal than a simple spy swap. No-one in the public domain has yet heard from the victim, and behind closed doors he may be able to shed some light. In the meantime, there is a renewed sense of uncertainty at large.

The central question is: what kind of world are we really living in?

 

 

FTSE rises ahead of Easter weekend, JD Sport gains on upbeat outlook -...

The FTSE 100 gained on the final morning of this shortened Easter trading week. Festive cheer was limited though, as Thames Water confirmed shareholders would not provide it with a £500 million rescue package, prompting speculation over the London supplier’s future. On a more positive...

36 minutes ago