Blunders that left us vulnerable to Moscow
IN measured but uncompromising language, equal to the profound seriousness of the occasion, Theresa May handled herself well in the Commons yesterday as she outlined the Government’s response to the gangster Vladimir Putin’s use of a lethal nerve agent on British soil.
Indeed, her resolute demeanour and command of her brief – learned from long experience of dealing with security matters at the Home Office – put to shame Jeremy Corbyn’s toe- curling efforts to defend Russia and score petty political points.
In what was a new low for British politics, the Labour leader parroted the Moscow line, suggesting it was unfair to blame Putin without first sending him samples of the toxin used in the Salisbury outrage.
As a Left-winger behind him ostentatiously displayed the communist Morning Star, Mr Corbyn even appeared to pin part of the blame on budget savings in the diplomatic service! But then that’s Mr Corbyn’s philosophy in a nutshell: when rational argument fails, blame Tory cuts.
As for his preferred response to this grotesque violation of international law and British sovereignty – in which scores of our citizens were put at risk of agonising death – he declared: ‘It is essential to maintain robust dialogue with Russia.’
Does he really believe dialogue will bring to heel an ex-KGB officer who exults in presenting himself as the tough guy who’ll stop at nothing to eradicate his enemies?
But let’s be realistic. On their own, the measures outlined by Mrs May yesterday are highly unlikely to shake Putin out of his contempt for the international order.
Yes, they’re a start. Her expulsion of 23 spies, the most radical such measure for more than 30 years, should seriously undermine Russia’s intelligence gathering.
Other sanctions – including the freezing of Russian state assets deemed a threat, suspension of high-level contacts and increased checks on private flights – also signal that Britain will not tolerate state-sponsored gangsterism.
But welcome though these penalties are – as far as they go – the truth is that Mrs May held back from any that might inflict severe harm on the Russian economy or Putin’s reputation in his own country.
The reasons are all too clear. One is that Britain depends on Russia for up to 20 per cent of our gas, leaving us desperately vulnerable to tit-for-tat sanctions.
Another is that BP, our biggest company, has a huge holding in Russia’s largest oil firm, while the City launders billions of pounds of the country’s dirty cash.
More significant still, politicians have systematically run down our armed forces, spending only £36billion a year on defence while squandering money on overseas aid. No wonder Putin, with a defence budget of £44-50billion – and an army ten times the size of ours – feels safe to sneer.
Yet as Stephen Glover argues on this page, Russia’s economy is only two-thirds the size of ours. This means we could do far more to match Putin’s military strength if only we diverted extra cash to defence.
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 record low?
Given our vulnerability, therefore, the Prime Minister’s sanctions may have gone as far as Britain could go alone towards punishing Russia, without the concerted international effort she must now strain every sinew to secure.
Yet there is one gesture others in Britain could make to signify the nation’s abhorrence of the Salisbury atrocity.
This paper welcomes Mrs May’s decision that no minister or member of the Royal Family will attend the World Cup in Russia. But wouldn’t a boycott by the England team – ideally joined by other countries – ram home the message more powerfully? Over to the Football Association.