As Ukraine brings war to Russia, Britain too must be bolder with sanctions
It’s time for Britain to be bolder with its sanctions against Russia. If done right, they will even enrich Britain’s economy too, writes James Price
When I am in need of inspiration, I occasionally turn to Russian state television. Not because it is a useful source of news, or because I believe any of the garbage that comes out of it, but because Britain is frequently cited as the biggest enemy of the dictatorship in the Kremlin. I want Britain to be the Britain this propaganda accuses us of being.
Once, a propagandist on Russia 1 called Olga Skabeyeva said that Russia should nuke the UK on the day of the late Queen’s funeral, agreeing with another panellist who described Britain as “the root of evil”.
Some of the best recent accusations have even included that the recent Ukrainian operation into Kursk has been masterminded by Britain, and that Ukrainian military leader Kyrylo Budanov is being controlled by MI6. One commentator shouted, “London is our worst enemy!” just days ago.
This steadfast opposition to Putin’s revanchism (of which I was proud to play a tiny part when in government) has earned many British politicians proud places on Russian sanctions lists. It’s fair to say that not many of us are on the Kremlin Christmas list.
Unfortunately, the sanctions we have imposed in return, alongside our American and other allies, are not having the debilitating impact on Russia that they need to. Indeed, Western sanctions regimes in general are not fit for purpose. Russia’s economy is due to grow much faster than those of the UK, France or Germany. Elsewhere, aggression from Iran to North Korea is not sufficiently tempered by existing or potential future sanctions, robbing our leaders of important tools.
The point of sanctions is not just to be seen to do something. The purpose is to disrupt activities of which we disapprove from hostile states, dissuade them from acting in certain ways in the first place and degrade their capabilities. Noble as our efforts against Russia have been so far, we are clearly not achieving these objectives.
As such, the war rolls on, with many innocent Ukrainians killed (as have, it should be said, a great many ordinary Russians conscripted into the horrific meat grinder in the front line of a war they neither understand nor want to be involved in).
There is much more that can be done. A brace of papers from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) highlight a plethora of ways that we can better achieve our objectives, and, in the process, maybe even benefit ourselves. Firstly, they require all Western businesses, including financial institutions, to cease operating in Russia unless they are, for example, granted a licence to allow a proper wind-up of the business there.
The ASI also says that we should offer to remove individuals from the sanctions list if they publicly condemn Putin and contribute towards the re-construction of Ukraine. Accompanying this would be the incentivisation of currency outflows from Russia to the UK, provided certain checks were passed, denuding the regime of money and hurting the Russian economy as it helps our own.
If individuals are found to have broken sanctions rules, they should be given a choice of either paying a (substantially increased) penalty or being made to reinvest that money into worthy projects in Britain.
We must also expand the use of secondary sanctions to deter the enablers of sanctions evasion, closing down the loopholes currently allowing sanctioned entities to access international markets.
Does anyone seriously think that Kazakhstan is enjoying an increase of thousands of Russian businesses purely coincidentally? Or that producers of Uzbek cotton pulp (used in the production of gunpowder) have magically enjoyed a few bumper years because of good marketing practices?
The prize is to further weaken the Russian economy, and perhaps future bad actors, as well, whilst enriching our own economies. This also represents the necessary blending of two conservative traditions – the power of globalised free market capitalism and strong, moral foreign policy – that will need to be taken together more in the future.
As the world gets more dangerous, the lines between international economics and geopolitics will blur further, and I haven’t begun to mention the impending economic decoupling from China by the West that will, I fear, be an inevitable feature of the future. So, let’s be bold and become the Britain that Russian propagandists accuse us of being.