36 TheEconomistJuly 25th 2020
1“T
he outrageisn’t that there was in-
terference,” says Kevan Jones. “The
outrage is that no one wanted to know if
there was interference.” Mr Jones, a mem-
ber of the House of Commons Intelligence
and Security Committee (isc), whose re-
port into Russian interference in British
politics was published on July 21st, encap-
sulates the government’s alarming attitude
to the question of whether Russia meddled
in the result of the Brexit referendum.
Russia sows discord and undermines
institutions in many Western countries,
but Britain is a particular target. The pres-
ence of émigrés such as Alexander Litvi-
nenko, who was murdered by the Kremlin,
and Sergei Skripal, who nearly suffered the
same fate, infuriates Russia’s leadership. It
regards Britain as hypocritical and duplici-
tous for making money from Russians
through the “London laundromat” for
cleaning money and reputations while of-
fering sanctuary to its opponents. Britain’s
special relationship with America also
makes it a convenient proxy for Russian at-
tacks on its bigger rival.
The extent of Russian interference inpolitics has been a subject of much specu-
lation. Many of those who voted to remain
in the eu, unwilling to believe that a major-
ity of their countrymen really opted to
leave, were inclined to suspect that Russia
must have had a hand in it, and indeed fun-
ders of a pro-Brexit campaign have admit-
ted meeting Russian diplomats. Russian
fingerprints are visible elsewhere. Oli-
garchs hobnob with ministers at Conserva-
tive Party fundraisers. Jeremy Corbyn, a
former Labour leader and lifelong critic of
America, was endorsed by Russia’s ambas-
sador. Alex Salmond, a former Scottish first
minister, hosts a show on Russian state
television, which routinely cheers his sep-
aratist movement. But hard evidence of in-
terference is thin on the ground.
Many looked to the isc’s report for a ver-
dict on the matter. Boris Johnson blocked
its publication before the December 2019
general election, which heightened expec-
tations. But it is Britain, not Russia, that
comes badly out of the report.
mi5, Britain’s domestic intelligence
agency, initially provided only a six-line
analysis of Russia’s involvement in theBrexit referendum, born, in the commit-
tee’s view, of “extreme caution” in dealing
with political matters. But a lack of focus
on Russia may also have contributed. Two-
thirds of mi5’s work is directed towards Is-
lamist terrorism, and a fifth towards
Northern Irish terrorism, leaving 13% fo-
cused on monitoring hostile state activity.
mi6, the foreign intelligence agency, finds
Russia a “particularly hard” operating envi-
ronment. New technology, like biometric
controls, makes sending spies into Russia
difficult, and grooming sources is a slow
business. Though British spies do engage
in virtual and physical skulduggery against
Russia, fear of escalation and lingering
hopes of coaxing Russia into a more emol-
lient stance limit this activity.
Some observers think the report too
critical of the security services. “Putin
comes out of it really well—a really compe-
tent villain—whereas Whitehall comes out
looking very Dads’ Armyish, which is a lit-
tle unfair,” says Mark Galeotti of the Insti-
tute of International Relations in Prague.
“They are doing things which are much
more strung together than most European
countries, let alone the us.” Sir David
Omand, a former direct of gchq, the British
signals-intelligence agency, told the bbc
that “the intelligence and security agencies
follow the priorities of their customers.”
Ultimately, the blame lies with the poli-
ticians. Clues that Russia had interfered in
Scotland’s independence referendum were
ignored, and it was only when Russia
hacked America’s Democratic NationalRussian interference in politicsSee no evil
Complacency, greed and self-interest have all left British politics vulnerable to
foreign interferenceBritain
37 Labour’snewmanagement
37 Babybust
38 LifeonfurloughAlso in this section— Bagehot is away