<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/aside>\n
A cross-party alliance in parliament has developed which sees the question of Russian corruption no longer through the prism of finance, but instead as a security and foreign policy threat, requiring fresh sanctions even if this causes short-term economic damage to the UK.<\/p>\n
Ministers want to pursue a broad Russian containment strategy at the coming summits covering cybersecurity, Nato\u2019s military posture, sanctions against Vladimir Putin\u2019s oligarchs and a more comprehensive approach to Russian disinformation.<\/p>\n
It is argued that\u00a0votes by MPs this week\u00a0over public registers of beneficial share ownership in Britain\u2019s overseas territories and the introduction of Magnitsky-style sanctions belatedly gives the UK greater moral credibility to urge wavering countries to join an international alliance.<\/p>\n
James Nixey, the head of the Russia and Eurasia programme at the thinktank Chatham House, said: \u201cIt\u2019s hard to persuade even your closest allies to take tangible measures with impact if we\u2019re not prepared to sacrifice some of the Russian investment in our own country and stick to a point of principle. Government statements on this have been either ambiguous or all over the place.\u201d<\/p>\n
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common understanding of the truth, but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide western electorates and sow doubt.<\/p>\n
Alicia Kearns, who ran the Foreign Office\u2019s strategic counter-terrorism communications in Syria and Iraq, argues that Russia is seen as nearly unique in its willingness to conceal the truth.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen we are dealing with most malign states or even terror groups, an element of truth is expected to increase the efficacy of their disinformation, but with Russia there is no commitment, or adherence, to the truth,\u201d she told the Guardian. \u201cFor instance for the first 10 days that Russia was inside Syria, it insisted through a large propaganda campaign that its planes were only bombing Islamic State\u2019s positions, and it was categorically not true.\u201d<\/p>\n
Russia\u2019s critics say in case after case \u2013 the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in 2014, the role of official Russian forces inside Ukraine, the murder of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko on UK soil, the Syrian government\u2019s repeated use of chemical weapons, the covert disruption in the western Balkans and repeated cyber-attacks \u2013 the west finds itself arguing with Russia not just about ideology, or interests, but Moscow\u2019s simple denial, or questioning, of what the western governments perceive as unchallengeable facts.<\/p>\n
\u201cPutin is waging an information war designed to turn our strongest asset \u2013 freedom of speech \u2013 against us. Russia is trying to fix us through deception,\u201d said Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of the foreign affairs select committee. Tugendhat argues Putin only responds if countries stand up to him.<\/p>\n
Some argue this characterisation is Russophobic. Truth is always contested in international relations. Diplomats after all have always just been \u201cgood men sent abroad to lie for their country\u201d. The US president, Donald Trump, has been described by his former CIA director James Comey as \u201cuntethered to the truth\u201d.<\/p>\n
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia\u2019s record of mendacity is not a personal trait of Putin\u2019s, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy ineffective.<\/p>\n
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin \u2013 she had more than 40 in a year \u2013 to say he lived in a different world. David Cameron also once told friends that discussions with Putin were unlike with any other leader.<\/p>\n
He told colleagues the normal assumption was that his interlocutors were speaking their version of the truth. \u201cWith Putin you came off the phone, and you were not quite sure he believed what he was saying,\u201d Cameron said.<\/p>\n
For some Baltic diplomats, Putin\u2019s regime now lies so systematically that diplomatic dialogue is close to redundant. Linas Linkevi\u010dius, the Lithuanian foreign minister, said: \u201cA lie isn\u2019t an alternative point of view; it is simply a lie and needs to be identified as such. A T-90 tank in Ukraine isn\u2019t just a \u2018vehicle\u2019. Propaganda is not a legitimate form of public diplomacy.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Nixey, \u201cdiplomats have been part of the problem. We have known Russia has a fundamental disagreement with the west over the \u2018post-cold war order\u2019 for years, stretching back well before Georgia 2008. But diplomats are hard-wired to seek better relations. It is laudable in principle but logically you\u00a0can\u2019t<\/em>have better relations with someone from whom you are getting a divorce due to irreconcilable differences.\u201d<\/p>\nKearns concurs. \u201cThere is a reluctance in the Foreign Office to be forceful in our calling out of Russian falsehoods, fearing that it could end or frustrate wider dialogue with Russia,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut there has been a big shift in the wake of Ukraine, Syria and Salisbury. A firmer stance does not necessitate an increase in aggression or vitriol, but a recognition that when Russia \u2013 or any other nation\u2019s \u2013 actions are unacceptable and there is a responsibility to hold them to account, and that by doing so, we can effect change.\u201d<\/p>\n