Connect with us

What would Russia prefer to happen in the UK election?



The CIA source reportedly had top-level access to Russian leader Vladimir Putin Sputnik/AFP/File / Mikhail Klimentyev

The UK election comes against the background of one of the worst periods in Russian-British relations since the end of the Cold War. Badly shaken by the 2006 poisoning of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in London, relations spiralled further down in the aftermath of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. The poisoning of another former spy, Sergei Skripal, in March 2018 in Salisbury then killed off any hopes of a recovery in bilateral relations.


Throw in the British government’s failure to publish an intelligence report by MPs on Russia’s alleged involvement in British politics before the election, and the poll is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Russia’s relations with the UK.

But what result does Russia want from the 2019 elections, and why?

I have researched Russia and its relations with the wider world, and the Russian government sees the UK as one of the more hawkish of EU states on Russia. The UK has been a strong supporter of tough sanctions on Russia for its behaviour in Ukraine, and it opposed Moscow’s involvement in Syria.

In 2018, the UK led the largest ever expulsion of Russian diplomats by Western countries, much to the ire of the Kremlin. Moscow’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, even complained in 2018 that: “The country, which is leaving the European Union, is determining the EU policy on Russia.”

The UK is often allied with the so-called “anti-Russian fringe” of former Soviet bloc states. Chief among these are Poland and the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which are seen in Moscow, in Lavrov’s words, as the: “Main activists in NATO and the European Union, which are going all out to impose unbridled Russophobia.”


Read more:
2019 election polls: how to understand a confusing picture in the last days of the campaign

This Russian suspicion of Britain is reinforced by its “special relationship” with the US, with the British hardline stance towards Russia often perceived by Moscow as a proxy for American views in the EU.

Add to this London’s status as a safe haven for Putin’s critics fleeing Russia, who are in their turn targeted by the Russian security forces, to see why UK-Russian relations are in a “deep freeze”.


It’s all about EU

Although Russian diplomats and officials are always careful to stress that Brexit is an internal matter for the UK, the logic of international relations as seen from Moscow shows that a loss of British influence over the EU will be beneficial to Russia. In that sense, a victory for the Conservative party, which is committed to removing Britain from the EU, should be welcomed by Russia.

Removing Britain from the EU kills two birds with one stone for Russia. It diminishes the UK’s influence in Russia’s largest neighbour and trading partner, and through it reduces US influence. Without Britain, the EU will be less powerful, too. Pitching the EU and the US against each in their approaches to Russia, especially over economic sanctions, has long been a target of Russian foreign policy.


Russia might even use its membership of the World Trade Organization as leverage over the UK, particularly if British negotiators fail to reach a deal on their future relationship with the EU by the end of the agreed transition period. The Russians have good, detailed knowledge of difficulties involved in Brexit, including how many British cows cross the Irish border for milking every day.

Russia’s dislike of the EU has two strands. One is a practical realpolitik calculation. Russia has always been more comfortable dealing with individual states, than with an organisation like the EU. The other level is ideological. Russia has long been a champion of nationalist right-wing political forces across Europe, from Marie Le Pen’s National Rally in France to Matteo Salvini’s The League in Italy. In the UK, key pro-Brexit donor Aaron Banks maintained close contact with the Russian ambassador in the UK around the time of the 2016 EU referendum.

Conservatives v Labour

The Conservatives could have plausibly campaigned to be tougher on Russia – something hinted at in their manifesto.


Yet there is substantial evidence of Conservative exposure to Russian money and connections going back years. The Conservative party has been the largest recipient of money from Russian donors, more than £3.5 million since 2010, according to an investigation by Open Democracy. Despite bad publicity, the Conservatives refused to return Russian-linked money even in the aftermath of the Skripal poisoning in March 2018.

Were it not for Brexit, Russia might favour a Labour party in Corbyn’s mould given his sceptical views on Nato, nuclear deterrent, or the UK relations with the US. Some of his past comments, for example, on the causes of the Ukraine crisis, or the disastrous consequences of Western interventions in Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan, chime with Russia’s foreign policy attitudes.

Still, it remains an open question how much Corbyn could change the fundamentals of British foreign policy. Labour’s 2019 manifesto confirms, for example, its commitment to Nato defence spending at 2% of GDP and the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent.

Yet on the fundamental issue of Brexit, it’s the Conservatives who are more in tune with Russia’s long-term foreign policy objectives than Labour, which is campaigning for a second referendum. Fundamentally, “getting Brexit done” is something that Russian foreign policy would stand most to gain from.


Click here to subscribe to our newsletter if you believe this election should be all about the facts.The Conversation

Alexander Titov, Lecturer in Modern European History, Queen’s University Belfast

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Trump blasted for ‘avalanche of lying’ in brutal takedown by CNN fact-checker



CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale provided a brutal dose of reality after President Donald Trump constantly mislead Americans with his false claims during the first 2020 general election presidential debate.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer introduced Dale by recapping that, in his opinion, "clearly this debate was an embarrassment for the United States of America -- a clear embarrassment."

"How much was fact?" Blitzer asked. "How much was false?"

"Well, it depended Wolf on who we were listening to," Dale replied.

"I think it's important for us as journalists to say when both sides are not alike -- and they were not alike tonight," he explained.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

WATCH: Van Jones delivers epic lecture on CNN after Trump ‘refused to condemn white supremacy’



CNN political analyst Van Jones tore into Donald Trump after the president's highly controversial decision to repeatedly refuse to condemn white supremacy at the first 2020 general election debate.

"Only three things happened for me tonight," Jone said.

"Number one, Donald Trump refused to condemn white supremacy," he explained.

"Number two, the president of the United States refused to condemn white supremacy," he continued.

"Number three, the commander-in-chief refused to condemn white supremacy on the global stage -- in front of my children, in front of everybody's families -- and he was given the opportunity multiple times to condemn white supremacy," Jones said.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Jake Tapper stunned by Trump’s debate: ‘That was a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck’



CNN Jake Tapper reacted in shock on Tuesday following the first presidential debate between Democratic nominee Joe Biden and President Donald Trump.

"That was a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck," Tapper said. "That was the worst debate I have ever seen. In fact, it wasn't even a debate. It was a disgrace."

"And it's primarily because of President Trump," he remarked, "who spent the entire time interrupting, not abiding by the rules that he agreed to, lying, maliciously attacking the son of the vice president. When asked to condemn white supremacists, he brought up the name of a neo-fascist, far-right group and said, 'Stand back and stand by.'"

Continue Reading
Democracy is in peril. Invest in progressive news. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free. LEARN MORE