UK calls out Russia in show of post-Brexit
strength
London embraces active deterrence against Moscow,
deepening its security differences with the EU.
BY CRISTINA
GALLARDO AND ELENI COUREA
February 2,
2022 4:00 am
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-russia-post-brexit-ukraine/
LONDON —
With troops gathering on the Russian-Ukraine border, Britain senses an opportunity
to demonstrate it can be more diplomatically nimble since Brexit.
After
leaving the EU, the U.K. has deployed its so-called Magnitsky sanctions — which
allow the government to stop targets from entering the country, channeling cash
through British banks or profiting from the economy. The U.K. has promised
economic sanctions of unprecedented strength against Russian individuals and
companies and has not ruled out targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In recent
weeks, Britain has also sought to undercut Putin’s plans by releasing
intelligence suggesting Russian security agencies were trying to replace
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Addressing the House of Commons last
week, U.K. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said Britain would “continue to expose
[Russia’s] playbook, including false-flagged operations and also disinformation
and cyberattacks.”
While
London has long talked tough on Russia, by releasing intelligence in
anticipation of Putin’s attacks rather than blaming him afterward, the British
government is keen to show that it can now do things differently from the rest
of Europe.
The
approach has been welcomed across the Atlantic, with the White House also being
forward about pointing out what it sees as Russian disinformation.
“We have no
closer ally than the U.K., and that inseparability has been spotlighted with
our joint approach to Russia’s aggression,” said a senior State Department
official. Former American ambassador to the EU Anthony Gardner noted the U.K.’s
latest sanctions legislation could be “a major Brexit upside.”
Critics
counter that the U.K. cannot be as effective outside the EU because it is
locked out of key meetings between the U.S. and the EU. Despite being in
Brussels at the time, Truss was not invited to talks between U.S. Secretary of
State Antony Blinken and EU foreign affairs ministers last week.
Earlier
this year, several EU governments discussed the possibility of inviting the
U.K. foreign secretary to ad-hoc discussions with EU counterparts when major
crises or challenges emerge, but on this occasion, the EU chose not to —
although officials say she would have accepted.
“I’m afraid
London has created the atmosphere where it doesn’t want to be part of EU
coordination and so [Truss] wasn’t invited, which I think it’s symbolic of
Britain not being at all the tables where coordination is happening,” said
Peter Ricketts, a former British ambassador to France.
British
officials counter that Truss and Defense Secretary Ben Wallace have been deeply
engaged in the discussions with EU and U.S. counterparts, through NATO and
bilaterally, with multiple trips to EU capitals and transatlantic calls. Prime
Minister Boris Johnson also hopes to sign a trilateral deal with Poland and
Ukraine to strengthen cooperation in the face of Russian aggression.
Disclosure
as deterrent
The U.K.
has a long history of calling out Russian aggression, recommending former KGB
officer Andrei Lugovoi be charged with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, who
died after being poisoned with polonium-210 in London in 2006, and accusing
Russia of being responsible for the attempted murder of double agent Sergei
Skripal in Salisbury, England in 2018.
The tactic
stepped up a gear more recently, according to Neil Melvin, director for
international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute.
“About 18
months ago, the U.K. made a decision that it wouldn’t just be about defending
the rules-based order but that it would move into active deterrence, pushing
into Russian space, being unpredictable,” he said. “The U.K. feels now that
actually combating Russia requires an active deterrence policy. The EU foreign
security policy is about reacting to things that have already happened. It
really struggles to deter.”
Douglas
London, a former CIA senior operations officer and author of the book “The
Recruiter: Spying and the Lost Art of American Intelligence,” said it would be
“useful” for the U.S. to have a close ally calling out the Russians by
disclosing intelligence, but disclosure runs the risk of exposing sources and
assets.
“It
shouldn’t be done frivolously, because it doesn’t matter how you declassify
something, you’re giving your opposition an advantage,” he said. “The Russians
will be looking for how the information was collected, so will investigate
where it might have leaked from: an agent, technical collection or
mishandling.”
Others
question the risk of disclosing information, especially when several
Ukraine-watchers have questioned its accuracy.
Russia’s
Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the British statements as
“disinformation.”
Previously
the U.K. joined with the U.S. in attributing cyberattacks to the Russian
intelligence agency GRU in October 2020.
Ciaran
Martin, an Oxford University professor and former chief executive of GCHQ’s
National Cyber Security Centre, said the U.K. has become increasingly aware of
the advantages of boosting transparency in cyberspace when it comes to hostile
activity.
“I’ve long
been a supporter of the U.K.’s approach of transparently calling out hostile
state activity in cyberspace. I think it’s useful and welcome that that
approach has extended to this current crisis,” he said.
The
benefits of attribution range, Martin said, from destabilizing those behind the
attacks by showing their activities are known, helping equip defenders with
real-time technical information, and instilling confidence in citizens that the
government knows what’s going on.
The
approach has certainly won plaudits at home, and at a time when the British
prime minister faces huge political pressure because of the Partygate scandal.
Many Tory MPs and foreign policy analysts have welcomed the government’s
uncompromising approach toward Moscow.
“There was
a period when [French President Emmanuel] Macron was meeting up with Putin and
being very sympathetic to him, in terms of presentation anyway,” said Andrew
Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow. “When Boris Johnson became foreign
secretary, it took him one visit to Moscow to realize that this was not a
profitable approach for us to take.”
Across the
Channel, other Western allies — notably France — argue such matters are best
dealt with in private, Martin added.
Stopping
the laundry machine
The
Achilles’ heel of the British response to Russia continues to be money
laundering.
Chatham
House, a leading foreign affairs think tank, urged the U.K. to clamp down on
money laundering by kleptocrats from Russia and post-Soviet republics, who have
become increasingly influential donors to the British Conservative Party.
In a report
published last month, it said Johnson’s party received £3.5 million from
naturalized British citizens of Russian and Eurasian backgrounds between 2010
and 2019 — warning that the volume of donations appears to have increased ever
since.
Some within
the Tory backbenches have become increasingly vocal on this, but they remain a
minority. Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the House of Commons’ foreign affairs
committee, warned last week that the U.K.’s efforts to support Ukraine risk
being “undermined” if the government does not act to stop “dirty Russian money
flowing through our system.”
In
response, Truss said Monday that the government will bring forward an economic
crime bill to tackle illicit finance.
“Given
London’s financial position, London needs to be leading on this issue and the
government has not responded,” Melvin said. “There is a feeling that this is
this is an area that for some reason, the Conservative Party is not willing to
address.”
Nahal Toosi
and David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário