The Russia Report and the power of ideas

“Now I know this is happening, I have to tell the PM,” declares Jim Hacker in “Yes Minister”. He had been told of security concerns over dealings with a foreign Government. The Chief Whip, Vic Gould, thought such a disclosure would be a very bad idea. There would have to be an enquiry that could be very embarrassing and cause thousands of jobs to be lost as a result of trade restrictions. Gould told Hacker angrily: “Just because you’ve caught something nasty, why do you have to wander about breathing over everyone?”

I was reminded of this sketch when reading the Intelligence and Security Committee claim that the Government had failed to act against Russian interference in our political arrangements. The contention was that it was “hot potato” and that the most prudent course would be to ignore the matter.

Naturally, there are some partisan considerations. The SNP MP Stewart Hosie, a member of the Committee, said: “There should have been an assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum and there must now be one, and the public must be told the results of that assessment.”

What about an “assessment” of Russian support for Scottish independence? The report does acknowledge “there has been credible open source commentary suggesting that Russia undertook influence campaigns in relation to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014,” and that was “potentially the first post-Soviet Russian interference in a Western democratic process.” Alex Salmond, now hosts a TV show on the Russia Today station. Hosie responds that he doesn’t want to get into “a criticism of any particular individual.”

Kevan Jones, a Labour MP on the committee, said claims by Downing Street that it delayed publication of the report to have time to respond were “not true”. The implication is that the real motive was to avoid a report critical of the Government until after the election took place last December. Bureaucratic delays can be annoying but the Government’s response is certainly detailed and thorough.

In terms of political expediency, it would have been advantageous to the Conservatives if the report had been published last year. It is a bit of a damp squib. There is no great revelation. Just a lot of worthy references to the need to be aware of the Russian threat, which the Government has accepted but insists they had already spotted. As it was, the story about the report being delayed did put Boris Johnson on the defensive during the election campaign.

Speaking of that campaign, another tricky point for the Conservatives came when Labour announced they had got hold of a leaked document — 451 pages of documents on trade talks with the United States. Jeremy Corbyn claimed they showed that the NHS “will be up for sale”. They showed nothing of the kind. But Labour was reheating a leak to the Reddit website for which the Russians were “almost certainly” responsible. Where is the indignation from Jones about that?

Rather than needing any intelligence investigation, the Russian stance is predictable. They are in favour of disruption. Thus they are in favour of Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn. They support Brexit and Scottish independence. It’s not even terribly clandestine. Just tune into Russia Today. How shrewd these judgements are from the point of view of Russian national interest is another matter. If anything they probably are a source of embarrassment to whatever causes they wish to promote.

I do think the EU referendum was a special case, in the sense of the indignation the result produced and the uncharacteristic reluctance among the British for “losers consent.” Thus there is an inclination to look for conspiracy theories, such as that the Brexiteers only won due to Russian online “bots”. The Government says: “We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum.” The remainers respond: “That shows you haven’t looked hard enough!” My own suspicion is that even if there was any Russian involvement, it didn’t make much difference.

A great danger is conflating being anti-Putin with being anti-Russian. Should all Russian emigres to London be regarded as Putin stooges? They should not — even if they are rich or “oligarchs” as the very rich ones are dubbed.

The report says: “Whilst the Russian elite have developed ties with a number of countries in recent years, it would appear that the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was the exploitation of the UK’s investor visa scheme, introduced in 1994, followed by the promotion of a light and limited approach to regulation, with London’s strong capital and housing markets offering sound investment opportunities.

“The UK’s rule of law and judicial system were also seen as a draw. The UK welcomed Russian money, and few questions — if any — were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth. It appears that the UK Government at the time held the belief (more perhaps in hope than expectation) that developing links with major Russian companies would promote good governance by encouraging ethical and transparent practices, and the adoption of a law-based commercial environment.”

The Government responds that “tackling illicit finance and driving dirty money and money launderers out of the UK is a priority”. Also that: “The UK has one of the world’s largest and most open economies. These factors make the UK attractive for legitimate business, but also expose the UK to money laundering risks.”

All these points are valid, so far as they go. But the Russians who have come to London (with or without their money) to escape Putin are important allies, not enemies. I am old enough to remember working alongside Russian emigres in London to campaign against the Soviets.

Reading too much John le Carré and other spy dramas can draw us into a cynical view of the intelligence services as amoral. So often the patriotic hero end up embittered at the conclusion as he discovers he has been treated as a fool in “the game.” Thus there will be sympathy with the suggestion that the threats to our security are sometimes overlooked. Who knows.

The greatest protection for our western values though would be to rediscover our sense of belief. That is the way to defeat Russian authoritarianism, Chinese totalitarianism or Islamist terrorism. A sense of patriotic pride in our democracy, individual liberty and free enterprise. No doubt our security services are aware of the threats to our way of life — no doubt they could be doing a better job to defeat those threats. That is an important battle but more so is the battle of ideas. Our best defence against hostile foreign propaganda is our belief in ourselves.