British Labour’s Russia Problem

  • 0
  • 23 April 2021

The British Labour Party were never short of ‘Russia problems’ in the twentieth century. Its first government was brought down by the fraudulent Zinoviev telegram whereas its second, and most successful, helped start the Cold War. But in 2017, Jeremy Corbyn was accused of apologising for Vladimir Putin.

Following the Skripal poisoning, Corbyn called for ‘absolute evidence of guilt’ from the Russian state rather than an outright condemnation. Even when he did point the finger at Vladimir Putin, he did so gently, much to the displeasure of his own party.

Since the Blair years, Labour’s policy towards Russia needed a jeweler’s eye to locate. Ed Miliband and Corbyn hardly ever mentioned Putin or Russia whilst Leader of the Opposition. Its last threeelection manifestos barely referenced Russia; in 2019 it did so just once: “Boris Johnson refuses to publish the report into possible foreign interference by Russia in UK democracy”.

Labour did not even promise to release to the report if elected.

In some respects, steering clear of Russia is understandable; British elections are not won on foreign policy issues – ask Tony Blair. But when western democracies have had plenty to say, Labour’s response is usually quieter than crickets (who actually make some noise).

Sir Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, took over from Jeremy Corbyn in April 2020. He has struck a harsher tone with Russia, yet in rather a quiet and safe manner. In a speech at Chatham House in early 2020, Starmer said the rise of authoritarianism in Russia poses a real threat to global stability. He did condemn the Salisbury poisoning on the BBC’s Question Time, and after the release of the Russia Report, claimed that Boris Johnson had deliberately suppressed its findings (it was completed before the 2019 General Election and withheld for six months).

Beyond that, Starmer and his Shadow Cabinet have said extraordinarily little. Lisa Nandy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary’s response to the Russia Report was just three sentences long. Labour’s response to the poisoning and arrest of Aleksei Navalny was confined to a few of its members tweeting, and the reader missed all of them.

To be clear, I am not saying Labour should be harsher on Russia. But Russian donors to the Conservative Party, disinformation during two referendums and general elections and a Russian media mogul receiving a peerage ought to have been fertile ground for Labour to make a little political hay from.

So why has it not? As The Spectator put it, don’t rock the boat anymore than you have to!

COVID-19 has suspended politics as normal. It should have given Labour a much bigger stick with which to hit an incompetent government over the head, but the vaccine rollout and threat of the Union breaking up also limited its ability to do that.

There would have been risks involved in tackling Russia through the pandemic, and it seems that Starmer viewed it too great to handle. But the opposition is supposed to look like a government in waiting and Labour has little in the way of a foreign policy agenda to speak of. Starmer promised to give a speech in the coming weeks on how he sees Britain’s role in the world, and as leader of Her Majesty’s opposition, this is not a big ask. The trouble is he still has not.

Labour lost the last four general elections for largely failing to engage with British society as it is, build a broad coalition of leftist and centrist voters, and,in the process, ignored parts of the country it needed to win, namely, the aspirational and consumer-orientated middle class. Its confused Brexit stance made that a lot worse – but so did its leaders.

Labour’s membership struggles to admit this, but most Britons could not envision Corbyn and Miliband as Prime Minister. They came across as weak and indecisive tothe majority of voters. In the 2015 General Election, Ed Miliband was mocked in a TV-hustings for not being tough enough to deal with Putin. Corbyn wanted to get rid of the trident missiles that point at Russia; as Michael Foot and George Lansbury discovered, pacifism does not win over the British electorate.

Starmer came in with a much better public image, even winning Jeremy Clarkson over. What he has yet to do is explain to the British public who and what Labour is. To chuckling effect, the Liberal Democrats admitted their surprise this week at Starmer being unable to make massive headwinds in the polls, even with increased evidence of Tory cronyism and lobbying.

Recent events in Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and also Russia pave the conditions for a larger international response, and one where a human rights lawyer should be in his element. Even something as simple as outlining whether he views Russia as bigger threat to China or not would make Starmer and Labour look more serious than the party of Russian moneythat benefitted from electoral interference.

Labour’s lack of a defined Russia (and foreign) policy is revealing of much deeper problems in the party’s messaging and PR. But it now has a real opportunity to develop aresponse and policy agenda for the post-Soviet space, a region that could boil over in the next few years. Asserting some foreign policy credentials might reassure Britons Labour will restore the UK’s global reputation – but don’t get your hopes up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Researchers from Six Countries Discussed the Challenges for International Psychological Security in the Context of the Use of Artificial Intelligence

  • 0
  • 23 November 2020

On 12 November 2020, a panel discussion "Artificial Intelligence and International Psychological Security: Theoretical and Practical Implications" was held at St. Petersburg State University as part of the international conference "Strategic Communications in Business and Politics" (STRATCOM-2020).

The discussion was moderated by Konstantin Pantserev – DSc in Political Sciences, Professor of the St. Petersburg State University,

citește mai mult


  • 0
  • 2 July 2020


This book  , edited by Evgeny Pashentsev, brings together a series of chapters written by Russian and non-Russian scholars

citește mai mult

The Past and Contemporary Russia

  • 0
  • 18 June 2020

The breakaway region of South Ossetia announced in May that its capital, Tskhinvali, would also be known as Stalinir.  Co-naming the capital after the former Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, its president – Anatolii Bibilov – stated in his decree that the move was to 'preserve historical memory in connection with the 75th anniversary of  Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945'  – until it had

citește mai mult

Azebaijan, cheia geostrategică a Asiei Centrale

  • 0
  • 13 February 2018

După destrămarea URSS, Azerbaijanul a fost statul ex-sovietic care alături de    republicile Baltice a avut o dezvoltare constantă și durabilă. Desigur, aici pot fi adresate unele critici regimului de la Baku cu privire la democrație, care în opinia multor analiști este doar mimată la Baku. Însă faptul adevărat este că acest stat a reușit să își gestioneze eficient resursele de care dispune pentru a deveni o societate prosperă. I se atribuie Azerbaijanului etichet

citește mai mult

What Can Democrats Learn From Alabama’s Doug Jones?

  • 0
  • 30 November 2017

In ordinary circumstances, Doug Jones would already be preparing to move to Washington DC. The former prosecutor famous for convicting KKK members for a church bombing is up against gay bashing, God and gun lovin’, twice kicked out of elected office, Judge Roy Moore. A man who has eight accusers of sexual assault, all of whom were underage at the time of the allegations.

Yet, if one looks at all the recent polls, they show a ti

citește mai mult

Azerbaidjanul, petrolul și românii

  • 0
  • 7 October 2016

Întotdeauna, statele sunt nevoite să își apere poziția pe marea tablă a geopoliticii, uitându-se cu grijă la vecini, dar și la puterile regionale. Această regulă presupune nu doar poziția ofensivă, ci și valorificare atuurilor, astfel încât să devină piese care contează pe „câmpul de analiză”, iar nu elemente neglijabile, care sunt măturate dintr-o dată de cei ce au suficientă putere să mânuiască piesele.

Caucazul, ca regiune geopolitică, nu face nici ea excepție

citește mai mult

Experts on the Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence and Challenges to International Psychological Security (part I)

  • 0
  • 2 December 2021


Evgeny Pashentsev


Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, despite their high significance for social development, raise threats to international psychological security (IPS) to a new level. There is a growing danger of AI being used to destabilize economies, political situations, and intern

citește mai mult

Senate Races to Watch in the 2022 Midterms

  • 0
  • 30 July 2021

An oddity for the party of power, Democrats are favoured to keep the Senate in next year’s mid-terms.

With a 50-50 Senate the Democrats have a favourable map coupled with numerous Republican retirements (open seats are traditionally harder to defend). Recent analysis by Alan L. Abramowitz also showed that to stand a ‘good chance’ of keeping control of the Senate Democrats would only need to maintain single digit lead on the gene

citește mai mult

What Happened to the BRICS?

  • 0
  • 18 June 2021

It was 2012 and I remember what my supervisor told me well: BRICS are the future, and this is where the research (and) money will be going. In my American history class a few months earlier, the lecturer told us: BRICS will define the twenty-first century.

[B]razil, [R]ussia, [I]ndia, [C]hina and [S]outh Africa were the talk of Wall Street for a decade. Just days after 9/11, Goldman Sachs’ Jim O’Neil coined the term in a paper c

citește mai mult