24th February 2022
Here is a tweet worth pondering:
Well, I was wrong. Putin has gone much further than I thought he would.
A consequence of EU and NATO expansion, which came to a head in 2014. It made no sense to poke the Russian bear with a stick.
These are dark days for Europe.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) February 24, 2022
In its form and content the first couple of sentences of Farage’s tweet evoke one of the greatest English poems of the last century, the first verse of which is:
“Nobody heard him, the dead man,
But still he lay moaning:
I was much further out than you thought
And not waving but drowning.”
For at the moment everyone involved in the Ukraine invasion – Putin included – seem to be going much further out than others would have thought.
*
In the United Kingdom we are facing this international crisis with perhaps the weakest cabinet in British political history.
And this is not a party political point – for some Conservative cabinets have been very strong indeed.
One example of this weakness is the Foreign Secretary whose idea of escalation is to contrive (effectively) photo-opportunities:
I have summoned the Russian ambassador to meet me and explain Russia’s illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We will be imposing severe sanctions and rallying countries in support of Ukraine.
— Liz Truss (@trussliz) February 24, 2022
And so we ended up with a photo-opportunity, but in words:
NEW: FCO source > “It was a heated meeting. Liz Truss kicked him out early. Said he should be ashamed of himself, that Russia has lied repeatedly and lost its last shred of credibility with the international community”
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) February 24, 2022
The only thing this exercise showed is that we have a rather gullible Foreign Secretary:
Foreign Sec has just told colleagues at emergency meeting of OSCE permanent council – 'on 10th Feb Foreign Minister Lavrov looked me in the eye + said Russia had no plans to invade Ukraine…Today the Russian govt has shown that they lied to the world'
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) February 24, 2022
This lack of seriousness by the United Kingdom government can be seen elsewhere:
At Business Questions, Commons Leader Mark Spencer announced there would be a debate on Ukraine.
On March 7th.
— Mikey Smith (@mikeysmith) February 24, 2022
7 March is over ten days away.
Boris Johnson has said the UK and allies will announce a “massive package of sanctions" designed to "hobble" the Russian economy.
— Laura Hughes (@Laura_K_Hughes) February 24, 2022
“hobble”
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
They’re banning Aeroflot…but not the luxury private jets.
Farage is plainly not one to miss a good opportunity to shut up.
Not a poke with a stick he needs to wake his ideas up, but a good rub down with a wire brush.
Watching various news programs today, I was struck by the courage of ordinary Ukrainians, the dignity of politicians in Ukraine, also the bravery of Russian protestors and some journalists in Moscow. These people are under real threat but they behaved courageously in line with their principles and spoke from the heart. And then you think about the contrast with the people you mention in your blog and feel revulsion. It is a tragic day.
Well said.
Wonderful poem. Great choice.
Despite being warned by too many to cite, many of the Conservative & Brexiteer elite have been happy to enable Russia; just as Western business in general has enabled China.
The situation in Ukraine reminds me about the argument that PUTIN reputedly funded BREXIT in order to create discord and dis-unity in the West and to de-stabilise the UK. There is little doubt that BREXIT has reduced the UK’s leverage in Europe, and reduced what influence the UK once had in Brussels and amongst European leaders. I would also argue that it has reduced our relevance to the US. In the light of PUTIN’s adventure in Ukraine, this casts the last 6 years in UK history in a different light, I suggest.
I hope you are wrong about the ineffectiveness of sanctions. It’s true that history doesn’t inspire much confidence but massive, sustained sanctions ought to have a good chance of working in my opinion. Most of Russia’s exports are pretty fungible so probably still saleable at a discount. Financial sanctions maybe not so easy to avoid. We should definitely freeze the assets of anyone suspect where the assets are in this country.
The most effective sanctions would be to stop buying Russian oil and natural gas. But that will hurt European economies hard too, especially cutting off gas. Diplomatic isolation might work but it would take time.
Sanctions are always slow to act, it’s hard to be patient watching Ukrainians suffer.
“A consequence of EU and NATO expansion, which came to a head in 2014. It made no sense to poke the Russian bear with a stick.”
What utter crap.
Former Soviet states had a choice between joining NATO or aligning with Russia in an unofficial Warsaw Pact 2.0. Neutrality is not an option, because Putin’s paranoia doesn’t believe it is real.
Faced with this choice, and looking at the conflict in Chechnya, Russia’s sham elections, the invasion of Georgia, the economy dominated by oligarchs, reporters killed, opposition leaders poisoned and imprisoned, rampant corruption, who would voluntarily choose Moscow?
The Ukrainian public want to join the EU for better governance, and NATO for mutual defence. They removed their Moscow aligned politicians and elected new ones which reflected this choice. To blame NATO for the actions of Ukrainians removes all agency from Ukrainians.
My first thought, when this trouble was created by Moscow, was that Putin was planning to agitate in the east of Ukraine to create a solid land bridge between Russia and the Crimea along the shores of the Black Sea.
It now seems increasingly apparent that he intends to use the (to our sense, at least) ludicrous claim that Ukraine is being run by Neo-Nazis in order the replace the Ukrainian government with a pro-Russian regime.
Here’s the problem for the west… Judging by the speed with which Russian forces seem to be moving on their objectives, it seems possible that Kiev could fall in a matter of days. It might be harder to find the officially elected Ukrainian leaders and some may flee, but in well under a month Putin could be in a position to install a puppet government. He could easily disband or de-fang the Ukrainian military, collect and take home any captured US technology that he finds, and by April Fools Day we could be looking at a pro-Moscow regime in a re-imagined Ukraine, perhaps with a few borders re-drawn to Putin’s liking.
The important thing, I think, is to understand that Putin’s actions with respect to Ukraine are a move, not the game. The game is much bigger – it is to completely undermine NATO. At first I thought he was planning on taking Ukraine piece-meal, a war of attrition, being careful to ensure that no action was so extreme as to earn UN condemnation and a massive, instant response. When the world spectacularly failed to do that, he brought his plans forward.
I find myself thinking that unless he is forcibly stopped, there is no reason why he can’t keep going – and roll in to one former Soviet Bloc nation after another.
NATO is a reason he might not keep going. And his nuclear threat seems to indicate that he may be becoming unhinged. To even consider this is lunacy.
I agree that NATO has the ability to work as a deterrent. On the other hand, Russia has land borders with Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. If Russia were to roll in to Kazakhstan, there would be little to stop an onward roll in to Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. If you consider those nations logistically, two of them have borders with NATO allies (Georgia and Azerbaijan, bordering Turkey. Although it really isn’t clear that NATO trusts Turkey these days.
Putin is unlikely to go north to Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia, since as you say all are now NATO members… but Finland is not. It’s just a question of whether or not he sees strategic value.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that Russia has deployed more than 50% of it’s conventional ground forces for the Ukrainian operation – clearly they don’t have the resources to engage in conflict on two fronts simultaneously, but there is nothing to stop him going “one country at a time” and picking off all the former Soviet states that are not NATO aligned.
Nice little country you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Those who are, or suspect they will be, sanctioned, will indeed implement, or have implemented, almost undecipherable avoidance strategies well before innocents suffer their collateral damage.
That said, one must ‘do something’ to stem the ambitions of this, and other watching, global powers. But what?
I fully expected Putin to occupy Eastern Ukraine, for several reasons. Firstly, that is where most Russian sympathisers live. It is also fairly flat and thus easier to defend from insurgents.
Also, not to be overlooked, it is where the most wheat is grown, a veritable bread basket of the area. I believe that was probably a significant factor in Putin’s calculations.
But I was slightly surprised that he seems to have gone for the whole country, and may have bitten off more than he can chew.
A combination of internal Russian protest, solidarity from EU USA U.K. etc in sanctions, resistance from Ukraine not just military but people generally and it could be all over soon.
Does Putin have an option to ratchet up his offensive? Without a swift victory his troops will lose the will to fight a country with whom they share so much history.
The Brexiters / Cons took dirty Russian money. I believe the brexit english nationalist party has pocket £2m during bozo’s ‘leadership’. They are irredeemably tarnished. Corrupt & rotten.
Further, they share a common political philosophy with the Russians – right wing, small state – in which the uber rich get richer.
Don’t expect bozo to do anything of significance. He will make bombastic claims whilst minimising UK endeavours – subject to nationalist press approval.
Paul, I do not think the facts support your claims. Specifically, when you write, “Further, they share a common political philosophy with the Russians – right wing, small state – in which the uber rich get richer”.
In the Ukraine speech he gave this week, Putin said this: “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely, Bolshevik, communist Russia. This process began immediately after the revolution of 1917… As a result of Bolshevik policy, Soviet Ukraine arose, which even today can with good reason be called ‘Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s Ukraine’. He is its author and architect.”
The “revolution of 1917” Putin references is, of course, the “Bolshevik Revolution”, the armed insurrection which followed the “February Revolution” that had overthrown the Tsarist autocracy of Tsar Nicholas II.
What emerged was a communist state in which all resources were nationalised. The complete antithesis of a “small state”.
Don’t mistake Putin’s tolerance of private ownership and market economics in Russia today for any belief in or support of small-state capitalism. Putin tolerates the “appearance” of private ownership for 2 reasons – as a mechanism to help him work around the sanctions imposed by the west after the 2014 annexation of Crimea… and of course his personal enrichment.
You go on to imply that millions given in donations to the Conservative Party is proof of Russia peddling influence for political ends, but here I think the picture gets much more murky, so even if your facts are superficially correct, it does not follow that your conclusions are sound.
Russia is a “Mafia State” (have a read of Rachel Maddow’s book, “Blowout”, for context), it is something of a “wild, wild west, with Putin at the top as an autocratic leader. What happens in Russia, therefore, is that as soon as someone makes enough money to do so, the allure of being able to “buy their way in” to the UK and settle here becomes a very attractive proposition.
The UK has been led by the Conservative Party since the election held in May, 2010. It therefore seems reasonable that anyone seeking influence with the government would choose to ingratiate themselves with the Conservatives and not the Labour Opposition. Correlation is not Causation, as the saying goes. If we had been led by a Labour government of Gordon Brown and/or his successors, from Tony Blair’s 1997 win through to today, the chances are that we would today be discussing “Russia’s donations to the Labour Party”…
“We should definitely freeze the assets of anyone suspect where the assets are in this country.”
The Tory Party is too much in hock to the Russians to be able to do that easily.
The UK government could actually do quite a lot viz a viz sanctions freezing and seizing the assets rinsed through the London laundromat, but the Tory party is utterly compromised by its connections with Russian oligarch funds. Interesting that the new legislation to combat the laundromat has been put off until after the Easter recess, whereas if it is Brexit legislation it can be rushed through both Houses of Parliament in a couple of days. By the way, whatever happened to that Report into Russian funding? Cynical, moi?
I do think the right targeted sanctions are valuable.
Firstly its not for nothing we talk of oligarchs as Russia really is ruled by a quite small (a few hundred) group of individuals who have become obscenely wealthy by stealing the state and who are above all law and question. At the top sits Putin the new Tsar who is consciously rebuilding the absolutism of that position. However Russia alone is not that interesting to the oligarchs and they have spread around the world and especially have moved their kids to western schools and universities and bought mansions by the brace.
Sanctions targeting them directly by confiscating property and wealth in banks and removing residency rights and freedom of travel to the west plus seizing their businesses in the west will have huge effects.
As to legality – this is genuinely a 1939 moment and it’s war and emergency powers must be invoked and used.
Secondly Putin consciously uses sport and spectacle as a national distraction for the people and to that end Russia must be banned from all sports held in the west and no major sporting events held in Russia – and this should go on as long as Ukraine is occupied.
I’m pleased to find UEFA is taking the football final away from St Petersburg and that F1 is being leaned on to cancel the Russian FI GP. However the big hit must be banning Russia from the Paris Summer Olympics 2024 and Milan Winter Olympics 2026 and all the others to follow as long as Ukraine is occupied. That sanction will have a huge effect in Russia.
In general, sanctions are more for the sanctioners than the sanctioned. They help people feel good for a short while. About as long as they take to work up an explanation of why they didn’t work. (However, in the case of the US sanctions against Cuba, apparently 60 years is not time enough…)
But your first point contains the essence of why some sanctions might work better than others in order to hurt the sanctioned.
Because the advantage of a small group controlling a country is also its disadvantage – targeting is easier.
You are right not to underestimate the value to the small group at the top of Russian society of their international legitimacy – and here Britain has more of a role to play than others. The private schools, the houses, the universities, the football clubs and other prestige investments, the financial system in the City, access to London in general. Stopping this could have a significant effect on the political situation in Moscow.
But it would require illiberal legislation. Some of which might be against British citizens.
This is certainly possible. Although unlikely with the current government.
So how far should one go to be authoritarian against authoritarians in order to protect liberal values ?
Sporting sanctions could be very effective. The Russians practically invented sportswashing in the Communist era, and they would not like to be excluded. Kick them out of EUFA, the World Cup, the Olympics, etc. until they restore independence to the whole of Ukraine.
I like your last question – how would I answer it? How clever do you think I am?
I think you are right to draw a connection with 1939. Hitler was also a gambler who came to feel that he had some unique historical insight because he was willing to use military force against decadent democracy. Amomg the bitter ironies of what is happening is that Ukraine and Byelorussia were the main battlegrounds between the Nazis and the Soviet Union and yet Putin accuses the Ukrainian Government of being Nazi.
I have been struck that some of the truly informed commentators (eg from Chatham House) have drawn attention to the dangers to Putin’s personal position if he does not achieve a quick victory in Ukraine. Maybe, just maybe, something good will come out of the vicious suffering imposed on Ukraine.
It’s not really an irony. Putin sees it that way because Stalin saw it that way when Soviet forces retook Ukraine.
Admittedly sanctions often don’t work … however, allegedly sanctions were part of the reason why South Africa’s apartheid government s-l-o-w-l-y collapsed.
“…The only thing this exercise showed is that we have a rather gullible Foreign Secretary:…”
At the risk of being irksome , let me provide a bit of perspective ( yes, perspective, even non liberal, can be a tad pesky at times).
I’m not a big fan of Liz Truss (ed) but she happens to be the Office holder of Foreign Secretary – it falls on her office to call in Ambassadors ( plenipotentiary) and read them the ‘riot act’ if their country misbehaves – even this blog likely thinks that what Putin has done is illegal and is a breach of international law ?. Happy to be corrected or know more about the wardrobe & powdering colour of the Foreign Secretary if this makes for good reading?.
Contrast Liz Truss with President Macron yesterday who is reported to have spoken to Putin – Macron is alleged to have said that Mr Putin had lied to him in the call about the invasion – then this from the FT ( yesterday):
“Macron, who negotiated with Putin for nearly six hours at the Kremlin two weeks ago and wrested from him last weekend an agreement in principle to have a summit with US president Joe Biden, has been criticised as naive for thinking he had any influence over the Russian leader, and opportunistic for trying to use the international stage to help his chances of winning re-election in April…”
So, if we’re going to criticise Truss, let’s in all liberal fairness and equality, add Macron to the list of gullible and naïve leaders – who whilst ostensibly doing their job , are just as ineffective but happen to be from a different, albeit EU elite.
Cuts both ways.
I hope anyone who reads this comment by John Jones does not take his point too seriously. I am no particular fan of Macron or indeed any current EU leader. But there is no sensible reason I should have to list all foreign leaders who are similarly afflicted when I am writing a post about the UK government.
Cuts both ways? There has to be a limit to “on both sides” misdirections and evasions.
“But there is no sensible reason I should have to list all foreign leaders who are similarly afflicted when I am writing a post about the UK government….”
It’s your blog. Absolutely, to which you invite comments.
I’m minded to agree with you about Truss – the challenge facing anyone writing about the Ukraine is that the UK government is, as we both acknowledge a bit part actor , gullible actor if you will.
To have the FT make a similar comment on the President of France merely provides a perspective, alternative but aligned viewpoint.
Truss and Macron – travelling bedfellows.
Perish the thought
“And we can hope that Putin and Russia will implode from their misadventure.”
We certainly hope that Putin and his cronies will implode from their misadventure. But I don’t wish that upon Russia. There are many good and decent people in that enormous country who will disapprove of their government’s action. Only a tiny minority of those are brave enough to protest explicitly.
Reports this morning (Fri 25th) say that c.1000 Russian protesters were detained overnight, and explicit warnings issued to the population. I don’t think it’s a question of bravery but more pragmatism when we know how Russia treats political prisoners (Navalny being the current exemplar).
There is in interesting parallel between the Brexiteers in the UK government who thought they could negotiate with individual countries and the way Putin wants to deal with individual countries and not the EU.
Not hard to see that the desire of some Brexiteers that the EU should fall apart is very similar to Putins wish that the EU does not exist.
okay, just read a piece by Ian Bond which includes this view of where Putin wants is heading:
” Putin wants to make Russia the dominant power on the European continent. ”
” In the United Kingdom we are facing this international crisis with perhaps the weakest cabinet in British political history. ”
Given that the weak cabinet has flowed from the consequences of Brexit, it is difficult not to note how Putin seems to have been the (only) winner in the game of brexit that has been played out over the last decade.
Yes, well spotted. Soft power of pretty immense magnitude IF it is employed properly BUT read DAG’s post on the effectiveness of sanctions – bullets and dead bodies talk a lot louder than a sanction. AND sanctions although some are agreed at an EU level, many require national authority – e.g Nordstream2. At $100+ a barrel of oil and god knows what a therm of gas, he can ride it out economically. Some one will always sell you gold if you have the cash.
Like Farage I though the incursion/invasion would be limited to the Donbass region – however, my guess is that the Russians decided if they limited their invasion to that region without taking out Ukraine’s military capability, they would become involved in an interminable war – which they would have become, one has been going on in the said region since 2014, not that the world took much notice then. So, militarily it was decided to ensure that the ‘war’ would be as short as possible by destroying Ukraine’s military capability. Militarily this is very similar to the 7 days war (if you are old enough to remember that) and once Ukraine cannot threaten Russia the hot part of this will end and the cold part begin. Maybe military neutrality is starting to look like a better option for Ukraine – but we can all be wise after the event – it’s too late now!
An acquaintance who knew Farage in their yoofs said that he was always gobby, needing to be the centre of attention and so a pain at parties.
so he is now looking for carresses from Putin. At each appearance Farage now looks more like Salacious Crumb from Star Wars:
https://www.google.com/search?q=side+kick+jabba+the+hut&rlz=1C1ONGR_frFR984FR984&oq=side+kick+jabba+the+hut&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i8i13i30l3.6285j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Alan, above, wrote:-
“The private schools, the houses, the universities, the football clubs and other prestige investments, the financial system in the City, access to London in general. Stopping this could have a significant effect on the political situation in Moscow.
“But it would require illiberal legislation. Some of which might be against British citizens.
“This is certainly possible. Although unlikely with the current government.
“So how far should one go to be authoritarian against authoritarians in order to protect liberal values ?”
That question has been asked and answered before.
Hansard
House of Commons
Wednesday 22 May 1940
“I am sure there is nobody in this House to-day who does not realise that if we are to preserve our liberties eventually and for the future, we must make a substantial surrender of them at the present time. ”
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1940-05-22/debates/4c996122-750a-4895-ba01-ac46013df9b8/EmergencyPowers(Defence)Bill
I recommend reading the whole debate. It is fascinating and inspiring.