How should Britain engage with Russia?

We can no longer assume that London and Washington agree on Moscow

by Crispin Blunt / March 16, 2017 / Leave a comment

Published in April 2017 issue of Prospect Magazine

Theresa May and Vladimir Putin at a G20 meet in China ©Stefan Rousseau/PA Archive/PA Images

When Theresa May visited Donald Trump in January, she also spoke to the Republican caucus about the need to “engage but beware” with regard to Russia. This advice came too late for Trump’s now-former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The less-than-wary engagement with Russia landed both men in political trouble, and also highlighted the urgent need for the west to align its policy on Russia.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has reported on UK-Russia relations, and concluded that the Kremlin is now a challenge to the rules-based international order. The assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, cybersecurity threats, the illegal annexation of Crimea, the destabilising actions in the Donbass, and the brutal conduct of operations in Aleppo, are all examples of this challenge. The success of collectively agreed western policies, such as sanctions, is crucial in response. Yet Trump’s campaign rhetoric shocked many in its apparent readiness to depart from convention. His initial comments on sanctions and Nato caused anxiety on both sides of the Atlantic.

We cannot any longer assume that London and Washington share a common view and united policy approach on Russia. British strategy to manage Russia must therefore involve ways to influence the US administration, strengthening those within the State Department, Pentagon and CIA who, like May, wish to tread carefully. Despite the suspicion caused by contacts between Trump’s team and Russian officials, the new Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has assured allies that the US won’t do a Russia deal over their heads, and the Secr…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

3512392795bf0ae32190580.71400692

Go to comments

After David Davis' resignation, rumours of a no confidence vote are growing. But would it...

Comments

Antifake
March 18, 2017 at 10:16
"Kremlin is now a challenge to the rules-based international order" After Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq, Libya and other agressions of western pro-americans countries it sounds like a nonsense.
1. Peter Sullivan
  April 11, 2017 at 08:55
  I agree. It seems most western journalists have a distinct blind spot when it comes to Western campaigns of destabilisation in the countries you mention.
2. Moray S.
  August 6, 2017 at 01:47
  "rules-based international order" really means US rules-based international order. Russia has probably given up trying to forge better relations with the US & the West as it's now very clear they are to be the whipping boy for the foreseeable future. The grounds for the latest round of sanctions - meddling in the US election (which is as yet unproven) makes this very clear. These sanctions will impact European use of gas from Russia - to the detriment of Europe and to the likely benefit of the US. Perhaps Europe will finally wake up and realise that US interests don't always align with theirs, especially when it concerns their close neighbours. It appears more like a crude divide and conquer strategy. It is rather amusing to see US anger at alleged outside interference in their political process - something they have been involved in for many decades.