Hard-headed deterrence is the antidote to Putin’s poison
Apologists for a revanchist Russia confuse engagement with submission
Philip Stephens
The Kremlin had nothing to do with the attempted murder of a former Russian spy in the small English city of Salisbury. Moscow must similarly be absolved of any role in the invasion and annexation of Crimea. The heavily armed Russian soldiers fighting in Eastern Ukraine are no more than civilian volunteers. Cyber attacks in the Baltics and Scandinavia are the invention of hostile states. Russia has no role in the daily slaughter of Syrian civilians. Charges of interference in the US presidential election are wholly fabricated.
We know this because Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, insists it to be so. Television images of the troops in Crimea, traces of Russian military-grade nerve gas found in Salisbury, hard documentary evidence collated by the US special prosecutor Robert Mueller — they are all fake news. Mr Putin, we must also understand, does not care that we know that he is lying.
As Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has learnt, he is as brazen in private discussions as in his public pronouncements. Tearing up the rules is Mr Putin’s way of projecting Russian power.
Horrible though it was — the more so because of the use of a chemical agent bearing the unmistakable fingerprint of Moscow — the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia is scarcely shocking against the standards of the regime. State-sponsored assassination has the public backing of the Russian parliament. At present, Mr Putin is fighting a sham election.
Most likely, the Kremlin’s calculation was that killing a “traitor” living abroad would at once boost his ratings and serve as a warning to opponents.
The regime’s contempt for Britain has been evident for some time. You do not deploy a weapon such as Novichok without expecting to be found out. The symmetry with the murder in London of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 is striking. Mr Litvinenko was killed with polonium — on the orders, an exhaustive inquiry found, of the Russian state. Britain’s feeble response to that outrage probably explains why Moscow felt it could act again with impunity.
The counter-measures announced by Theresa May, the prime minister, are welcome, if again too cautious. Any tit-for-tat measures from Moscow should be met by a much firmer response.
A clean-out of spies from the Russian embassy in London is overdue. So too are financial and travel restrictions on Mr Putin’s allies in the business community. For too long, London has been happy to launder dirty money and even dirtier reputations.
Bankers, public relations consultants, Mayfair estate agents and pensioned-off politicians and diplomats have extracted rich rewards. Art galleries, museums and universities queue to bestow a stamp of respectability in return for hefty donations.
Wealthy Russians enjoy spending their riches in London. The door must now be slammed firmly shut against those associated with the present regime. The test of Mrs May’s response will be whether it is followed by tough legislation modelled on the US Magnitsky Act and by the use of “unexplained wealth” powers to confiscate the profits of corruption.
The attempted murder of Mr Skripal cannot be seen in isolation. It is part of the pattern that includes fostering corruption in the former communist states of eastern and central Europe, fomenting instability in the Balkans, the spread of fake news and disinformation, and financial support for populist extremists. Mr Putin’s goal is obvious enough — to destabilise and divide European democracies and chip away at the values that underpin the liberal order.
Welcome as they are, expressions of support for Mrs May from allies are insufficient in themselves. Britain has not helped itself by deciding to leave the EU, but for Germany, France and the rest defending the international rule of law should be more important than arguments about Brexit.
Sadly, Mr Putin has apologists in high places. Donald Trump, the US president, still refuses to admit the attempt to subvert US democracy. Populists on the far-right and left in Europe are seduced by Russian authoritarianism. Presented with evidence of state-sponsored terrorism and chemical weapons, Jeremy Corbyn, the far-left leader of Britain’s opposition Labour party, still struggled to condemn Mr Putin.
Then of course there are also those who want to “engage” with a revanchist Russia — it is too powerful and dangerous to drive into isolation. These apologists confuse engagement with submission. They also misremember the cold war, when co-operation in arms control coexisted with military competition.
That co-operation was rooted in western resolve. Now, as then, those who value democracy and human rights can properly deal with Mr Putin only from a position of strength. His disdain for rules and norms must be shown to carry a cost. The Russian leader sees appeasers for what they are. Far from being a provocation, hard-headed and sustained deterrence is the only plausible route to a more stable relationship.
The west is menaced by Mr Putin’s regime. For all its economic weakness, Russia’s military power and reckless hostility towards the norms of international behaviour imperil peace and democracy in Europe. The Russian president thinks that the west has lost faith in its own values. A failure to stand firm against aggression would show him to be right.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario