Mrs May was right to set out a measured retaliatory response. Some of these were economic, targeting financial assets that might abet Russian espionage. Others focused on that capability more directly, including the expulsion of 23 diplomats, identified as “undeclared intelligence officers”. Mr Putin is unlikely to change his foreign policy as a result of unilateral British action. And, while Nato allies and the EU have offered words of solidarity, there is much uncertainty around the potential for coordinated containment of the Kremlin. The lack of such cohesion – especially when Brexit makes Britain look strategically dislocated – may have emboldened Russia. [...]
The leader of the opposition’s response to the prime minister was dispiriting. Jeremy Corbyn invited Mrs May to acquiesce to Russia’s requests that a sample be sent to Moscow for verification – on the supposition that the Kremlin might then honestly try to match it with its own stores. He sounded too keen to find another explanation for the use of the nerve agent novichok in the attack.
There are many reasons to be wary whenever governments ask for cross-party support. Oppositions have a duty to challenge prime ministers in the most critical circumstances. Nations should not act in haste over such issues. But Mr Corbyn’s reluctance to share Mrs May’s basic analysis of the Salisbury incident made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power. In the coming days the diplomatic clash with Moscow is sure to escalate. There is likely to be a campaign of obfuscation and misinformation directed at British audiences. That is the Kremlin’s well-established modus operandi. When matters of national security come to the fore, governments do not acquire a licence to act without check or criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment