In the Vladimir Putin showreel, doubtless given repeat airings in the run-up to yesterday’s presidential faux election, there is usually a place among the shirtless poses and horseback shots for images of the Russian president on the judo mat. Putin is such a committed judoka, he has even released his own instructional DVD, wittily titled: Let’s Learn Judo with Vladimir Putin.
It is not hard to explain Putin’s enthusiasm for the martial art, beyond its conspicuous machismo. Judo allows the skilled practitioner to turn his opponent’s strengths into weaknesses and his own weaknesses into strengths. For the past fortnight, since the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei and Yulia Skripal on the streets of Salisbury, Putin has been giving a masterclass in just how to do that.
He has shown us how he sees, for example, the basic tenets of democracy — whether that is free speech or belief in the rule of law, evidence and due process. To us, those might look like the firm pillars that hold up a decent society, but to a black belt such as Putin they are rotten timbers, ripe for a good kicking and liable to bring down the whole edifice.
Illustration: Yusha
Take the political response to the Salisbury attack. On the face of it, British Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn’s position seems eminently reasonable.
Anxious to learn the lessons of the Iraq catastrophe of 2003, he suggested exercising patience: waiting to see where the investigation leads, not “rush[ing] way ahead of the evidence.”
After all, the intelligence agencies had been wrong before, his spokesman said.
Such a stance seems not just authentic for Corbyn, given his long record, but also right. Who could possibly be against such a call for calm and deliberation?
Put aside the fact that Corbyn’s position is oddly contradictory. If Moscow’s guilt is not certain, why does he support British Prime Minister Theresa May’s expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats? By his own logic, surely that move should also wait until the case is proven.
Put aside too the mismatch between this incident and the Iraq case. No one is calling for military action now.
Back then, the argument was over whether to deal pre-emptively with a threat of weapons of mass destruction that might or might not exist, in a country several thousand miles away. This time, the question is how to respond to an event that has actually happened and which no one denies: the use of a chemical weapon against civilians on a British street.
What is more, there is Russia’s past form. The roll call of murdered enemies of the Russian state is long. We know Moscow is not above eliminating its critics in Britain: Witness the 2006 death of Alexander Litvinenko and the murder inquiry Scotland Yard announced late on Friday into the death of the Russian businessman Nikolai Glushkov.
As for the suggestion that a criminal gang, rather than agents of the Kremlin, might be responsible, the experts are skeptical: It is almost impossible to use the nerve agent “Novichok” without getting killed unless you know what you are doing.
It is for these reasons, among others, that Britain, Germany, France and the US issued a joint statement concluding that there was “no plausible alternative explanation” for the attack in Salisbury.
Those pleas to delay judgement point to a wider error: a misreading of the nature of the contemporary Russian state. In fairness to Corbyn, he is not the only one to make this mistake. US President Donald Trump’s initial reaction was also to plead for patience and to suggest that guilt might lie elsewhere.
As he memorably said: “As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”
The error here is to assume that Moscow’s attitude to evidence and due process is the same as that of nations still governed by the rule of law. In Putin’s Russia, lying has long been a routine and integral part of statecraft.
No matter how copious the evidence, Putin would think nothing of denying it. In 2014, he swore there were no Russian troops in Crimea, even though reporters could see them with their own eyes.
“Anyone could buy” Russian uniforms, he said.
Weeks later he was paying tribute to those Russian troops, with nary a blush.
That same year Moscow waved aside evidence relating to the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine. It continues to block investigations into the use of chemical weapons by its Syrian vassal, Bashar al-Assad. Putin denies hacking the 2016 US presidential elections, in the face of colossal evidence.
Of course he denied any role in the murder of Litvinenko, though he did later ensure the killer got a seat in the Russian parliament, thereby granting him immunity from prosecution.
What meaning does “due process” have when dealing with such a regime? Moscow would not cooperate in good faith with an investigation by the international chemical weapons watchdog, offering up evidence that might be incriminating.
They would see such an inquiry instead as a useful delaying tactic, one that would allow them to issue yet more denials, wild counter-accusations (“Salisbury was an MI5 plot to distract from Brexit”) and obfuscation — disseminated either through their RT propaganda TV station or by their army of bots and online enablers.
That way they could generate yet more of the fog of doubt and confusion that they believe undermines the West’s confidence and strengthens them.
This is the Putin modus operandi: Spread doubt until the public grows exhausted and concludes that the truth is unknowable.
So Britain needs to be clear-eyed about the nature of the threat. It should not overstate it — Russia’s economy is no bigger than the combined output of the Netherlands and Belgium — nor should it underestimate it.
Corbyn condemned the Putin regime for its “conservative authoritarianism.”
That does not quite cut it. Putin is a murderous tyrant, who kills or jails his rivals and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, Chechens and others on his hands.
Britian’s Labour Party should be calling for an EU-wide visa blacklist of Kremlin officials, restricting their ability to enjoy Europe’s playgrounds; for a crackdown on the city banks and law firms that allow Putin’s allies’ money to be laundered through London; and, as Labour representative Margaret Hodge has urged, for May’s proposed transparent property register to be brought forward from 2021 to now.
Above all, the Labour Party and everyone else needs to see Putin for what he is. Not an admirable bulwark against US imperialism, but an ultra-nationalist bent on fomenting hate and division; an idol to UK Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage, French National Front President Marine le Pen and Trump, who sees our democratic and legal traditions as weaknesses to be exploited. The world must give him that chance no longer.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations