Nervous paralytic game

How the UK answered the poisoning of the ex-employee of the GRU and what troubles still wait

Photo: Flickr / René

Who exactly and under what circumstances decided to kill a former GRU employee and British spy Sergei Skripal, we may never know. It seems that this “someone” was counting on the minimum reaction of the British authorities, similar to the one that followed the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. But everything turned out completely different. The British government has already answered and, apparently, will continue to answer the Kremlin. The question is how exactly.

The review of the invitation to Lavrov means - London does not believe in Moscow and in the near future does not intend to talk to her

Numerous network commentators, including from among the opposition, require the incontrovertible evidence of Moscow’s involvement in the attempt on Skripal. They complain that the “inadequate” reaction of the Teresa May cabinet and the sharp statements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Boris Johnson “pour water on Putin’s mill” and “mobilize his supporters.” All these cute people do not understand: the inhabitants of Daunning Street, to put it mildly, are deeply indifferent to Russian pseudo-election and “voted” for Putin Dagestan with Bashkiria! Teresa May and her office are concerned about the use of a fighting poisonous substance on the British territory and the threat of the life of ordinary citizens who are not related to Russia or in spirit. The government of any democracy in such a situation is obliged to defend itself, and defend itself as publicly as possible, so that it is clear to society.

The British press in the past accused Teresa May of being the Minister of Internal Affairs in the government of David Cameron, she in every possible way slowed down the investigation of the Litvinenko case and the suspicious death of Boris Berezovsky, so as not to aggravate relations with Moscow. Today she has no other choice but decisive actions. And they followed.

Firstly, the selected form of the response to Moscow is as offensive as possible for the top leadership of Russia. In addition to freezing contacts at the highest level and the boycott of the opening of the World Cup by officials and the royal family, the review of the invitation to Sergei Lavrov to visit the UK on a visit was especially sophisticated. The Foreign Minister, in fact, was equated to twenty -three sent Russian diplomats, whom the government of the United Kingdom called the Russian special services. This kind of demarches happen infrequently. Foreign ministers in the event of crises are usually spared. After all, someone should sooner or later discharge these crises. The review of the invitation to Lavrov means that London does not believe in Moscow and in the near future does not intend to talk to her. Smolenskaya Square realized: Lori British ambassador, it seemed, was called on Saturday to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs not to the profile deputy minister or the head of the department in charge of the UK, but to the Department of the Protocol. Like, "get a note with a list of retaliatory steps and leave."

Secondly, response measures stretched out in time. Here, both the unnamed “secret” events, and the adoption of the British analogue of the “Magnitsky Law” - and, therefore, sanctions on this list and freezing those Russian assets in the UK, the use of which can cause the security of this country. That is, May at any time will have an answer to those who want to criticize her for an insufficiently firm position regarding the Kremlin. In addition, its position at the head of the conservative party is not so strong because of not very successful negotiations with the European Union on the conditions of Brexit. If May does not demonstrate determination in conflict with the Kremlin, then it may well be replaced by the current Foreign Minister Boris Johnson or the rising star of the right wing of conservatives, parliament deputy Jacob RiS-Mogg.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister specifically noted in his statement that Britain had no conflict with ordinary Russian citizens-only with Russian power. On the contrary, the measures taken by Moscow, like the “food” sanctions of 2014 against the EU, hit not only twenty -three British diplomats, but also in ordinary citizens of both Russia and the United Kingdom. The closure of the representative office of the British Council deprived the Russians of the opportunity to listen to the lectures of Cambridge professors, watching new British cinema at special festivals and greatly complicated the process of submitting applications to various educational scholarships, primarily the popular Cheved Scholarship for young (up to 40 years) specialists. British citizens in the north-west of Russia, who will need to assure documents or get a new passport, will now have to go to Moscow due to the closure of the consulate in St. Petersburg.

Fourth, the official London will continue to achieve wide support of his position by the allies. Teresa May managed to enlist the joint statement of the United States, France and Germany with the expression of solidarity with the British. NATO took the same position. This, in fact, turned a bilateral crisis into international. However, things have not gone beyond words. According to the Czech media, the official Prague, for example, expressed solidarity privately, but publicly said nothing. The President of France Emmanuel Macron promised to take some measures to take some measures. It is unclear what and when. The internationalization of what was supposed to be a purely bilateral history is quite painful for Russian leadership, which no one trusts anyway.

Fifth, after Moscow answered London, Teresa May promised not to leave Russian measures without consequences. As one familiar foreign diplomat noticed to me, "the British make the Russians be nervous and show that they are not afraid of escalations." If May and Boris Johnson consider the Russian response disproportionate, then, for example, they can close the Russian Consulate General in Edinburgh.

Sixth, the British regulator of OFCOM can withdraw a license from the Russian propaganda television channel RT. However, Russia, in response to this, will almost certainly respond to accreditation from all British journalists, including the BBC Corctic.

The leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbin suggested that the Russian mafia may be behind the attempt on Sergei Skripal

The same, and most importantly: “heavy artillery” in the form of pressure on the oligarchs close to the Kremlin, whose assets and families are in the UK and some of which have British passports, the office of May decided not to apply. The outflow of Russian capital from the country may be painful for the country's economy, especially London and Southeast England, where rich Russians are mainly settled. Many banks, investment funds, realtors and private schools do not want to lose such a clientele. There are plenty of testimonies of laundering tens of billions of pounds of illegally acquired Russian funds in Britain. However, pro -Russian lobbyists still successfully restrained any attempts to seriously take up the origin of Russian capital.

Lobibists are not only among the conservatives traditionally configured to support the business, but also among the opposition of the luborists. Their ultra -lady Jeremy Corbin, whom many accuse of pro -Soviet sympathy in the past and pro -Russian - today, made an article in The Gardian, which actively supports him. Korbin suggested that the Russian mafia could be behind the attempt on Sergey Skripal, although he could not explain what the retired spy consultant could prevent her from.

But the chance that “heavy artillery” will still be applied, should not be discounted. And then this will be the most unpleasant and most unforeseen result for someone who decided to eliminate Sergei Skripal.

* Konstantin Eggert-international journalist, columnist Deutsche Welle, host of the Rain TV channel

The author’s opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editorial office