The New Cold War

My old friend Edward Lucas has written an excellent call to arms, The New Cold War, about the dangers to the West and Russia itself of the country's fascist turn under Putin.

For Europe, in particular, the risks of becoming dependent on a hostile Kremlin through its growing dominance of gas supplies to the continent are huge. Yet the Russian industrial-military complex is successfully proceeding to divide and rule Europe: witness Gazprom's hugely expensive plans for a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, bypassing the Baltics and Poland, which the former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, is ignominiously chairing. Since a pipeline on land would cost a fraction as much, the Nordstream pipeline makes no commercial sense. It's true purpose is surely to give Russia greater power to blackmail its former vassals.

In today's news, consider the divisions over whether NATO should grant Ukraine and Georgia "membership action plans" that would open the door to their eventual membership. Russia aggressively objects. While there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether Ukraine and Georgia should be admitted to NATO - personally, I think they should - Russia should not be given a veto over what its neighbours and NATO do. Appeasing Russia for the sake of NATO "unity" would be shameful and unwise.

"Banditry that reminds you only of Zimbabwe and Belarus"

- Garry Kasparov on the beatings of peaceful pro-democracy protesters by Putin's riot police

The gloves come off

So much for the pretence that Putin is a democrat.

Not content with rigging elections, snuffing out press freedom and having his critics conveniently murdered, Russia's quasi-dictator yesterday sent riot troops out in force to the streets of Moscow to break up a 2,000-strong demonstration of students and pensioners - the largest-ever anti-Putin rally in the Russian capital - protesting against his evil regime. Garry Kasparov, the chess champion turned opposition leader, was also arrested and later released.

What's new is not that Putin is stifling dissent, but that he is wielding his iron fist so publicly, rather than in the shadows, behind a cloak of deniability.

"Russia without Putin," shouted the crowd of unlikely revolutionaries. If only.

Russia does it again

Last year it was gas piped through Ukraine, now it's oil through Belarus - how many times does Russia have to cut off Europe's energy supplies before we wake up to the risks of being dependent on the Kremlin to keep the lights on?

More on Litvinenko

I've just read The Times's leader on Alexander Litvinenko's death, and it captures what I wanted to say much better. Read it here.

My friend Edward Lucas's comment piece on how to respond to Russia is superb.

Russia's deadly embrace

I don't usually write about such matters, but I am so shocked and outraged by the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London that I feel compelled to comment.

The death of Mr Litvinenko - a bitter foe of Russia's president, Vladimir Putin - bears all the hallmarks of a political murder.

Getting your hands on enough radioactive polonium - the apparent murder weapon - to poison someone requires access to a nuclear reactor or a particle accelerator, according to Professor Dudley Goodhead, of the Medical Research Council & Genome Stability Unit. That narrows the field of potential suspects considerably.

Despite official assurances that they have turned over a new leaf, it is well-documented that Russian spies have made a habit of using sophisticated poisons to eliminate their enemies. Indeed, even if common criminals could somehow have obtained some polonium, why would they bother using such esoteric means to kill Mr Litvinenko when they could more easily have had him stabbed or shot?

In short, although there is no concrete proof as yet, it is certainly reasonable to believe that the Kremlin had a hand in the murder of Mr Litvinenko, who himself pointed the finger at Putin before he died. The Russian authorities certainly had both motive and means, as well as reasons to try to cover their tracks. Pointedly, the SVR, the KGB's new guise, went to the lengths of denying responsibility - not because killing Mr Livninenko was inconceivable or wrong, but because it was said not to be worth the damage to relations with Britain.

How should the West react?

John Thornhill writes in the FT that:

the west should remain open to the Russian people. Western European countries should, if anything, ease visa restrictions for Russian visitors and encourage young Russians to study abroad. EU countries should encourage mutually beneficial business, financial and cultural ties wherever possible.

However, Europe must remain united in the face of any intimidation and not allow the Kremlin to play one country off against another. EU countries should reduce their dependence on Russian energy supplies if Moscow is going to regard them as a political tool. They should continue to denounce human rights abuses in Chechnya – and elsewhere – as being incompatible with the standards of the international organisations to which Russia belongs. And Britain should be firm in prosecuting whoever is responsible for Alexander Litvinenko’s death, no matter where the investigation leads.

Quite right too.