Britain needs Boris inside the Kremlin

HER Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is not a minor figure, at home or abroad. It is the post held by Lord Palmerston, Anthony Eden and Ernest Bevin. Donald Trump’s Oval Office could fit into Boris Johnson’s majestic Whitehall chamber several times over.

And, wayward as he may be (as were many of his forerunners), Mr Johnson is not a minor figure in the politics of the United Kingdom, which itself remains a major economy and a significant military and diplomatic power.

So we are entitled to wonder what is going on when Mr Johnson abruptly cancels a long-planned visit to Moscow, at a crucial moment, while his US equivalent, Rex Tillerson, flies to the Russian capital on a hastily arranged mission.

Britain has interests of her own, not always identical to those of the US. Our relations with the Kremlin are badly in need of repair. The cancelled meeting was to have been the first high-level contact between the two countries since 2012. Also – having taken no part in the attack on Syria which has so angered the Russians – this country is perhaps better placed to keep communications alive at such a time than any US envoy.

Of course we are Washington’s friend, in good times and bad. But we should avoid either being or appearing to be subservient to our most important ally. The problem of Russia is probably the greatest facing the Western powers. It has much to do with the current confrontation over Syria and the survival – or otherwise – of President Assad.

While we have been supportive of President Trump’s missile attack on a Syrian air base, Mr Johnson took an independent line last Thursday, saying it was ‘important’ to try to get a UN resolution condemning Assad before any unilateral action was taken. As it turned out, Mr Trump decided to go it alone.

These differences may prove to be significant in the weeks to come, as the US decides what to do next. Serious doubts remain about what exactly happened in Khan Shaykhun, scene of the gas attack.

As yet there is no independent verifiable evidence of who was responsible, or precisely what munitions were used, and there is bafflement about Assad’s motives. What did he hope to gain which made up for the real risk of US retaliation?

Russia’s attempted explanation may be fanciful and incredible. But that does not mean rebel claims are necessarily accurate either. Russian forces are still present in Syria, and President Putin is not abandoning Assad. This makes any deepening of American or other Western action against him highly complicated.

There is a real risk of direct clashes between Western and Russian forces. Syria – unlike Serbia, Iraq or Libya – has sophisticated modern air defences supplied and maintained by Moscow which make any intervention much more dangerous than any we have attempted since the end of the Cold War.

There is a serious argument for a proper UN-sponsored investigation of Khan Shaykhun, and for keeping all possible channels open to Moscow. Let us hope that at least Mr Johnson’s visit to Moscow is rescheduled very soon.