Imagine the disappointment for some as the Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Russian involvement in British politics revealed absolutely nothing. No gun smoke, let alone a gun. Yes, it said the Putin regime were a bunch of wrong 'uns, as if we didn't know that already. It also said the UK was too blasé when it came to the Kremlin's influence because we're now their number one target. Sounds terrifying. Unfortunately, the committee refused to elaborate further as we have to be careful about national security. It did concede the Russian troll farms were active during the Scottish referendum - cue the Murdo Fraser and Ian Murray chum-in calling for an investigation of this influence in the hope of tarring the SNP with the Putinist brush. However, it found no evidence of interference in the EU referendum because Theresa May, bless her cotton socks, specifically instructed the intelligence services to steer clear of the Brexit result. Unsurprisingly, the Scottish Tories' enthusiasm to look into one referendum is not matched by Downing Street's keenness to investigate the other.
Do the Tories have something to hide? To suggest the Russian state and its various actors and proxies don't try and influence elections overseas is absurd and naive. It is sinister and banal behaviour when you realise most states with sufficient capacity do the same when they think it's strategically useful to do so. You don't have to be a Maduro apologist to note similar activities are undertaken by the UK in Venezuela, for example. The Tories know that if Russian attempts to influence the EU referendum are taken seriously by any arm of the state, let alone evidence is uncovered and officially sanctified in some way means having to deal with the political fall out over potential subversion, it also severely damages the reputation of the UK as a stable fixture of the international system. Thanks to the City of London the UK is at the heart of international trade and capital flows, and one reason why many city slickers were so pro-Brexit was their belief it could double down on this outside of the "strictures" of the European Union. However, if it is shown how easily the UK was influenced by a few thousand targeted adverts on Facebook and some extra not-at-al-dodgy money for one of the Leave campaigns, its reputation for solidity goes up in smoke and with it the trust of those who run their cash through the City. That said, publicly ruling out of bounds any further investigation of Russian influence isn't the best PR for a post-Brexit Britain eager for trade deals with anybody and everybody.
Subtract the beige macs, cyphers hidden in Hyde Park, and sightseeing England's cathedrals, the Tories have very serious questions to answer about Russia anyway. Again, Russia maintains an active lobby here in Britain, just as we do in other countries via the British Council and a panoply of business interests and NGOs. Russia Today is the most obvious manifestation of these efforts, and has no problem finding useful idiots from the dregs of politics to regularly appear on its output. However, where matters are more pernicious is the extent to which Russian money penetrates the Conservative Party itself. Many a wealthy exile from Moscow, whether hanging around in London out of necessity or choice, have donated monies to the Tories. Some of these people include close political allies of Putin himself. So when Boris Johnson played tennis with the banker Lubov Chernukhin, who also happened to be the wife of a former deputy finance minister, bunged the Tories £160k back in 2014, what was said? Likewise, how much Russian money winds its way into Tory coffers via their exclusive and murky dining clubs? Despite the bravado and Russia-baiting we've seen from Tories this week in advance of the report, how dependent is the party on the kindness of oligarchs?
Russia's influence on British politics is real, and the Tories should explain themselves and be forced to open up their shadowy channels of funding. Nothing to hide, nothing to worry about as the old adage goes. But the Kremlin's influence is nought compared to those of other states - the United States and the EU immediately come to mind. Even the oil-rich autocracies of the Gulf have more clout. Therefore no one's interests are served by over-egging the pudding. Russia ran troll farms and funded posters and leaflets. In the grand scheme of things, so what? When we can explain the Scottish referendum's close result and why Dave and friends failed to convince that staying in the EU was best for Britain entirely by analysing the political dynamics in play. Whether Russia provided the pipeline to Arron Banks's magic pockets or not, this does not get away from the main point some still refuse to confront. Brexit was manufactured, packaged, and delivered here in good old Blighty, and no amount of pinning it on the Russians changes this fact.
11 comments:
To say that Russia et al were not responsible for the large numbers of reactionaries who supported Brexit is quite right. Those reactionaries have been there long before any such Russian meddling. But, to then say that Russian meddling had no effect is clearly facile.
We know that Russia did meddle in lots of votes in the US, in Scotland, In Britain, in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere. They spent huge amounts doing so, just as similarly in the past, the US spent billions meddling in Eastern and Central Europe, the Balkans and elsewhere, just as in the past they spent large amounts meddling in Western Europe. These powers would not waste that money if it had no effect, any more than large companies would not spend billions on advertising unless it too had an effect.
Advertising does not cause people, generally, to buy, say, washing powder, which they would buy anyway, but, it does have an effect in creating brand differentiation between essentially identical products, so that it has marginal effects in getting consumers to buy Brand A rather than Brand X, and more significantly to buy branded products rather than cheaper unbranded products.
Russian meddling, along with the meddling of Cambridge Analytica, and its Alt-Right associates was certainly not responsible for the existence of millions of British reactionaries who voted for Brexit, but then it only needed to be responsible for getting half a million or so people to vote for Brexit rather than Remain, or to vote for Brexit rather than sitting at home, to get the required result.
And, given the waifer thin majority for Brexit that is clearly what they managed to do, especially as in every poll since the Brexit vote, supporters of Brexit have been in a clear minority. Labour should demand an Inquiry (preferably a Workers Inquiry) into Russian and other Alt Right meddling in the Brexit vote, and demand that Brexit be suspended until the result is produced. We know that the Russians and other sections of the Alt-Right put loads of money into supporting Brexit supporting groups, including giving at least hundreds of thousands to the Tory Party. Labour should organise a full scale inquiry into those connections, and prepare to demand that, at the very least the Brexit vote be re-run.
“just as similarly in the past, the US spent billions meddling in Eastern and Central Europe, the Balkans and elsewhere, just as in the past they spent large amounts meddling in Western Europe.”
In the past! Typical Boffy spin and subterfuge (always in the service of imperialism I note).
Boffy won’t know this given he is a servile lackey of the imperialist ruling class and their interests, but the wikileaks reports show that the US currently spends more on cyber warfare than the entire Russian defence budget!
This report is nothing but propaganda, distraction and theatre.
They have not produced a report on other nation’s attempts to ‘influence’ elections. They haven’t done a report on the much bigger problem of the billionaire classes attempts to subvert democracy; they haven’t told us the British state itself subverts democracy both at home and all over the world.
The way this report had been presented you would believe millions had voted the way they did just because Russia told them to. My guestimate is that less than 0.0001% of the population would have been in any way influenced by anything Russia did. Personally I don’t think Russia are stupid enough to believe they can influence any election in the UK.
And let us say they broke a story that did tip the balance (that didn’t happen btw), that would only amount to giving British people the truth about something they didn’t know before.
But the worst thing of all is that any faction on Earth can now claim an election to be null and void because x, y or z influenced said election. This is nothing but the old old story of blaming foreigners for domestic problems.
Instead of blaming the racist pond life who went into a polling booth and put an X against the Brexit box, those that are defeated have to project that blame onto Russia. It is called politics, because you don’t win votes by directly attacking the people whose votes you are trying to win (therefore you need external scapegoats or internal ones that the majority can be rallied against, so Jews or Muslims for example.).
Anyone in politics has to find bogeymen sooner or later, rather than confront the inconvenient truths.
Anyone defending this Russophobia is nothing but an arch reactionary.
Well don't I feel like a mug, voting for Brexit out of conviction when there was Rouble on offer.
The Parliamentary committee and report are just ludicrous. A bunch of paranoid incompetents in a fruitless search for evidence.
As for this 'London Laundromat', and the idea that the UK is the centre of Russian Money Laundering, a story the BBC seem very keen on, well we know where a shed load of money got laundered and how. 200,000,000,000€ through the Estonian branch of Danske Bank. In legal vehicles known as SLP - Scottish Limited Partnerships. Maybe they did some in London too, but it seems odd to speculate something may have happened in a place when we absolutely know it happened somewhere else.
I should have thought that was bleedin' obvious that Putin gave Brexit a helping hand. As Misha Glennie explained on "PM", Putin wants to split the Western alliance and disrupt bourgeois democracy. If only on the principle of "Cui bono", its obvious that Putin wanted Brexit and will have interfered to help achieve it (NB: Brexiteer fanatics: I'm not saying that Putin *caused* Brexit; just that he benefited from it and would have been a f***in' idiot not to have given it a helping hand). As for the leaders of the Leave campaign, the most charitable thing you can say is that they were Putin's useful idiots.A less charitable description would be "stooges of Putin". Finally, as the ISC report says, Johnson and his boss Cummings "did not know" whether Putin interfered "because they did not want to know." No wonder Johnson is refusing to have a new investigation - his boss wouldn't allow it. But why the hell would anyone on the left support Johnson's stance on this, as so many seem to? Useful idiots, indeed!
"I should have thought that was bleedin' obvious that Putin gave Brexit a helping hand."
But it wasn't in any way decisive. The decisive moment was when Osborne and Cameron came back from their 'negotiations' with absolutely nothing. If they had brought back a concession such as a break on Free Movement I would probably have voted to Remain. Not because of Free Movement per se, but it would have shown the EU to be a pragmatic organisation capable of adjusting to national circumstances. Instead what we got was a refusal to change the rules. It was clear that all our 'concessions' and 'rebates' are temporary and would be removed at a suitable point in the future and we would be EU NW to be taxed and harvested as the rest saw fit.
Just to bang on, all those 'One Nation' Tories like Grieve who left in disgust don't seem to have realised that the EU is not a 'One Nation' organisation. It is top down-bureaucratic centralism. The antithesis of Toryism. I mention this just to show how utterly detached from political reality this group of people have become.
If you're going to blame Putin, you need to show how Putin persuaded Merkel to concede nothing.
"its obvious that Putin wanted Brexit and will have interfered to help achieve it "
Which alt-right conspiracy theory site did Denham get this twaddle from?
"Putin wants to split the Western alliance and disrupt bourgeois democracy"
Again which conspiracy theory nit jobs did Denham get this from?
Though if it is true then we can at least say Putin is a force for good in the world!
"would have been a f***in' idiot not to have given it a helping hand)"
Why would he? Russia was involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline deal all the way through Brexit. In fact this deal has split the US and the EU. Why would Putin want to disrupt all that?
The fact is that Brexit was made in Britain, projecting that blame onto Russia is right wing reaction at its worst.
I watch the brilliant RT every day and I their coverage was balanced, they had on pro and anti EU people. Incidentally I was against brexit, Russia had sod all to do with that vote.
The US is a far bigger influence on British politics than Russia, for all sorts of historic and cultural reasons (language being one of them).
Denham is just a nut job conspiracy theorist and once again bats for ruling class imperial interests, as he always does of course.
People like Denham call themselves leftists, amazing isn't it!
BCFC: I think you'll find most "alt right conspiracy sit"(s) tend to be pro-Putin. He's certainly funded plenty of far-right forces in Europe, including the Front Nationale.
I was going to engage further, until I read this "I watch the brilliant RT every day": enough said.
It is brilliant actually; renegade inc must count as one of the most brilliant progressive programmes put on any news channel ever.
Marxists like Richard Wolff, Michael Hudson and Slavoj Zizek are on regularly, progressive economists from the New Economic Foundation are on plenty of times.
Denham is a conspiracy theorist gone mad. According to this conspiracy theory nut job Putin is funding the whole of Europe’s far right! Denham is a typical imperialist warmonger, inventing bogeymen! Projecting blame onto foreigners, how alt-right is that!
The far right in France, in the UK and throughout Europe don’t need any help from Russsia, they are very much Europe’s problem and a product of the social conditions not only domestically but throughout the world. I would argue the current rise of the far right has much more to do with imperialist adventures in Iraq, Libya and Syria than anything Russia might have done (which is actually nothing!). Wars that Denham supported to the hilt.
In fact I would argue Denham and his ilk have done more to boost the far right than Putin.
Russia is actually alarmed at the rise of the far right (you see this expressed on RT all the time), given it was the far right who in the 1940’s marched unchallenged across Eastern Europe, massacring tens of thousands and resulting in millions of dead Russians. You think the Russians have forgotten all that?
Putin is a man of the Right. He's also a war criminal responsible for the death of thousands of civilians in Chechnya. Those apologizing for his grisly Kremlin regime are useful idiots of the right.
BCFG,
"Which alt-right conspiracy theory site did Denham get this twaddle from?"
I think you'll find that the alt-right are pro-Brexit and pro-Putin. The "Russia caused Brexit" conspiracy theory is instead the preserve of the FBPE types: neoliberal Remainers who were too arrogant to realize that their elitist backing for the EU would never resonate with the masses.
"The US is a far bigger influence on British politics than Russia, for all sorts of historic and cultural reasons (language being one of them)."
Correct: I'd argue that one reason why the "Britain is full" cry of the anti-immigration Right was so salient in the UK is because many Britons look longingly to the English-speaking New World (the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand).
"Russia is actually alarmed at the rise of the far right (you see this expressed on RT all the time), given it was the far right who in the 1940’s marched unchallenged across Eastern Europe, massacring tens of thousands and resulting in millions of dead Russians. You think the Russians have forgotten all that?"
Clearly politics in both Britain and Russia is distorted by a popular obsession with World War II!
Dipper,
"But it wasn't in any way decisive. The decisive moment was when Osborne and Cameron came back from their 'negotiations' with absolutely nothing. If they had brought back a concession such as a break on Free Movement I would probably have voted to Remain."
"If you're going to blame Putin, you need to show how Putin persuaded Merkel to concede nothing."
Surely Cameron must have been aware that Freedom of Movement was so absolutely fundamental to the EU that they'd never agree to changing it?
I'm guess it shows that Brexiteers don't have a monopoly on British exceptionalism: many ostensibly pro-EU British politicians saw the EU as a way to magnify British power just as the Empire had been in an earlier era. The fact that after the 2008 financial crisis the EU had become increasingly dominated by the former WWII enemy Germany must have especially enraged older Brits (and your comment holding "Merkel" responsible for EU migration policy clearly shows that you were affected by this strain of thinking!)
As for Freedom of Movement itself, I say it's a clear case of Britain being hoist by its own petard. It was entirely uncontroversial in the UK until impoverished formerly Soviet-occupied countries joined the EU in 2005, an expansion that was pushed for very strongly by UK politicians. This expansion however caused mass westward migration from eastern Europe, which went disproportionately to the UK as it was one of only 3 "old" EU countries (Ireland and Sweden being the others) not to impose transitional controls.
Perhaps the Blair government was hoping to mollify rising Islamophobia in Britain (driven by 9/11 and the War on Terror) by replacing mostly-Muslim immigrants from the MENA region and South Asia with non-Muslim immigrants? This decision backfired though, dooming the UK's EU membership by allowing that issue to become linked to the immigration issue.
"I think you'll find that the alt-right are pro-Brexit and pro-Putin."
To paraphrase Michio Kaku, that all depends on how you define alt-right.
It is simply a nut job conspiracy theory to claim Putin wants this that or the other in relation to the EU. And given it is an attempt to project domestic issues onto foreigners it certainly falls within my definition of alt-right.
In fact I would call the likes of Denham and Boffy Ultra-Ultra right.
Post a Comment