There are many different views in respect of the House of Lords and of what in my view remains a hugely important aspect of British Government. I do not challenge views in respect of what may well be quite the opposite of my own – mainly because the longer that I read the views from opponents of an unelected second chamber the more I realise that many just do not understand the importance of what many in the House of Lords do in respect of Bills and Committee work and in oiling the wheels of Government.
I suspect that I have around 40 members of the House of Lords on my ‘Commentary’ and I well know from their responses how appreciative many of them are. It may not have always appeared like it, but I have always tried to be independent in regard of my political colours and would in that respect regard myself as a ‘crossbencher’ if I had myself ever sat in the House. Not all would agree and I will never forget the Labour Peer Lord Bach, then MinDP House of Lords if I recall correctly stopping midway as we walked back from an evening summer function at Kensington Palace back to the relative civilisation of Kensington Gore saying “but Howard, you aren’t one of us (Labour)! Somewhat surprised and deciding for some reason to play into the hands of the three separate military colours, I replied saying “that I readily admit to being particularly supportive toward light blue [RAF] to which he replied “Light Blue, Light Blue – you couldn’t be more dark blue if you tried”. I have always treasured these remarks and have continued to keep in occasional touch Willy Bach ever since. The same is true of Lib-Dem peers such as Baroness Harris who having known for many years now hold in great respect as she keeps me on my toes. As to Labour, one peer stands out and who I have both known and respected for many years now – The Lord Robertson of Port Ellen who as Tony Blair’s first Labour Secretary pf State for Defence later went on to become Secretary General of NATO.
Defence debates in the House of Lords make those in the House of Commons leaving much to be desired. Today, 26 years after having been appointed Secretary of State for Defence by the then PM Tony Blair his knowledge and the value added he provides to the defence debate remains as strong as ever.
Known also for his warmth, humour and quick wit which he often used to lighten up proceedings, what follows are some of what I regard as being his best published speeches to organisations. More may well follow over the next two or three weeks during the quiet season.
CHW (London – 9th August 2023)
Speech by The Rt. Hon. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Secretary General of NATO
On: NATO: Shaping Security in the 21st Century
23 March 2001
“Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a pleasure to be here with you this evening. Indeed, as Secretary General of NATO, I could hardly feel more at home than at a meeting of the European- Atlantic Group. Since 1954, this Group has followed a principle which guides my own organization as well—the fundamental requirement for strong cooperation between Europe and North America on the full range of economic, political and military issues. And through your efforts, you have helped forge that relationship into the strongest, most effective partnership possible. So let me begin by congratulating you on the work you have done, and continue to do, to further transatlantic cooperation.
Now, if one reads the headlines today, one might get the feeling that that cooperation is under threat. The news is full of disagreements over airplane subsidies, or beef hormones, or genetically modified corn flakes. Editorials suggest that new developments, such as improving European defence capabilities or US missile defence plans, are undermining the common perspective on security that has kept the transatlantic community together for over five decades. And as a result, there are more than a few doom Sayers predicting that the sky will soon fall on the Euro-Atlantic area.
My message to them is simple: relax. Over the past five decades, the transatlantic relationship has seen more supposedly disastrous moments than a Hollywood thriller—over Suez, over Euro-missiles, over Bosnia and countless other disagreements. Each time, some observers predicted NATO’s demise. And each time, NATO not only survived—but emerged stronger, more cohesive, and more relevant.
This pattern has not changed. Indeed, two recent issues serve to prove once again that our ability to agree, and to do the right thing, has not diminished. I am speaking, of course, of missile defence and the European Security and Defence Identity.
When these two issues entered our transatlantic agenda in earnest some time ago, they both seemed to carry the potential for major transatlantic controversy. Both projects implied the notion of “distance”. For some observers, missile defence seemed to imply a US desire to look after its own security, regardless of Allied concerns. For others, ESDI seemed to suggest an exercise in European self-assertion – -ganging up on “the only remaining superpower”, the United States.
To be sure, much of this controversy was the result of oversimplifications of which parts of our media are so fond. Still, for a while, NATO seemed to be stuck between the proverbial rock and the hard place—between an American siege mentality and a European ego-trip. And mutual recriminations were flying back and forth across the Atlantic.
As I have said on other occasions, as someone who straddles the Atlantic, if Europe and America were moving apart, no one would feel the pain more acutely than I would. But, luckily, I didn’t have to be !22 flexible. Because, as is customary in the long history of our transatlantic community, whenever we seem to be at loggerheads, a unique mechanism kicks in—a mechanism called “common sense”. This common sense has gotten us out of trouble more than once. And it has enabled us to surmount seemingly insurmountable challenges.
In the specific case of missile defence and ESDI, transatlantic common sense has led us to realise three fundamental points:
First, ESDI is as inevitable as is missile defence. The United States cannot impose permanent military abstinence on the EU, just as Europeans cannot impose a policy of permanent vulnerability on the US. Both issues are thus going to remain on our transatlantic agenda, and, hence, we need to deal with them in a pragmatic way.
Second, those willing to take a closer look will realise that both issues can be made fully compatible with Alliance interests. Once we deprive these issues of their novelty value and of their surrounding hype, we will find that a large part of the alleged “controversy” is more about process than it is about substance. This means that there is much room for skilful management—and for political leadership.
And this brings us to the third and most important fundamental: when it comes to skilful management and political leadership on transatlantic issues, NA TO is key. Yes, missile defence may seem like an issue largely driven by Washington. And, yes, ESDI—or ESDP—is in large part an EU-driven project.
But the key to the success of these projects lies with NA TO. Because NA TO is the crucial “transmission belt” for transatlantic defence cooperation, and policy coordination. It is the framework that more than any other enjoys the trust and confidence of Europeans and North Americans alike. This gives NA TO a unique opportunity to coordinate, harmonise, and shape events. And we are determined to make full use of these opportunities.
I indeed, the last few weeks offered some very instructive examples for NATO’s tremendous ability to push things in the right direction. As you know, I have recently visited Russia and the US. In the discussions we have had in both the White House and the Kremlin, I could see that things are moving—and in the right direction.
On missile defence, my recent meetings in Washington made pretty clear that our transatlantic discussions in NATO have had a very beneficial effect. The US Administration not only displayed understanding for legitimate European concerns, but it also highlighted the need for including the Allies in this endeavour. The fact that the word “National” has been dropped from “National Missile Defence” is thus more than a mere shift in rhetoric. It indicates a desire to make this an Atlantic project.
This new common ground on missile defence is not confined to NA TO Allies. Indeed, in my meetings in Russia I could also detect some movement. Of course, the Russians are still sceptical about US plans, but they, too, admitted their serious concern about proliferation. They spoke about “rogue states” and about the dangerous leakage of missile technology and the threat to countries close to the “rogue states”. What’s more they proposed a military response, in the form of a shield against such missile attacks. So there was a joint diagnosis of the disease, and even a developing common ground as a possible prescription.
Quite obviously, the efforts by the US and its NATO Allies to work towards a new consensus on missile defence did not go unnoticed in Russia. At worst, this signalled to Russia that wedge-driving would be futile. At best, this suggested that the time might have come for doing serious business together on a commonly perceived threat.
Regarding ESDI, our very intense discussions within NATO, and between NATO and the EU, have also changed the atmospherics of the debate. In particular, we have reassured the US that the project of ESDI will remain an Atlantic project. The gist of the message I received in Washington is simple and straightforward: As long as NATO is not harmed, ESDI should go ahead. As long as NATO is not harmed—well, I think this is a condition we shouldn’t have trouble meeting. Because no one wants to harm NATO. On the contrary, ESDI will strengthen it.
In a nutshell, these past weeks have revealed that when it comes to solving problems, NATO is indispensable. On missile defence and on ESDI, we have buried any notion of splitting the Alliance. What once was a dispute over theory has now been boiled down to a matter of practical implementation; what once seemed like a fundamental difference over substance has been boiled down to discussions over process. All this has vindicated that wonderful German saying: “The soup won’t be eaten as hot as it is cooked”.
So how will this process now move along? Regarding missile defence, it means that the US will continue to brief Allies on their plans. It means that some European NATO members will continue to explore bilaterally how to co-operate with the US on missile defence technologies. It means that NA TO as a whole will remain engaged in studying proposals for theatre missile defence.
And, it means that we will look at the proliferation challenge in more depth. To this end, our newly created Weapons of Mass Destruction Centre—a mouthful, I admit—will play an important role. By establishing a database on proliferation, it will lay the groundwork for a joint transatlantic approach towards this challenge.
And that is not all. Should Russia’s proposals about co-operation in theatre missile defence become a bit more concrete, we would also have in place the appropriate forum to deal with such prospective cooperation: our NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council.
On ESDI, the way ahead is equally clear. Two issues, in particular, must be managed correctly. First, we must ensure that the non-EU members of NATO are not excluded from satisfactory participation in EU-Ied operations. Over the past few months, we have made real progress on this issue, and I am confident we will very soon have an agreement between the EU and NATO that satisfies all concerned. That will let us get on with flushing out the important detail.
Second, we have to ensure that defence planning between the two organizations does not diverge. EU and NA TO forces must be capable of handling the full range of operations they are assigned: NATO and EU, not either-or. That is why the Alliance is preparing to offer access to the EU to NATO’s defence planning. This will prevent any unnecessary duplication, and ensure that we have the most effective pool of forces.
Once again, we are close to a deal. And once the deal is struck, we will have a stronger NATO and a stronger EU. In European crisis management, our option will no longer simply be “NATO or nothing”. Instead, we will have a broad array of options, tailored to the situation.
ESDI and missile defence both are examples of the unique transatlantic culture of pragmatic problem-solving. We have reassured a sometimes-sceptical US about the strategic necessity of ESDI. And we have gracefully defused a “national” missile defence question that could have alienated the Europeans. In short, we have defused potential problems, because we relied on the common sense that is so firmly ingrained in our transatlantic community.
Today, our transatlantic community faces another challenge in the Balkans. A handful of extremists are trying to destabilise the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in pursuit of a nationalist pipe dream. They will not succeed. Why? Because we have learned the importance, and the power, of transatlantic unity.
Some years ago, the Balkans were pulling us apart. Some years ago, when the war in Bosnia raged, the US and its Allies did not see eye to eye. As a result, we were unable to have a decisive influence on the situation. But when we finally saw eye to eye, we ended the war. Common sense should have told us much sooner what was so obvious: that there can be no progress in the Balkans without transatlantic unity. We learned our lesson late, but, as the saying goes, better late than never.
And we internalised that lesson. So when the Kosovo crisis heated up, we did not let it divide us. On the contrary: we stood firm, even in the most challenging of circumstances. And, in the end, over a million refugees could return to their homes.
In managing the current crisis, this unique transatlantic solidarity will prevail yet again. We are increasing security measures along the border in Kosovo, primarily by working to interdict any rebels or arms from attempting to cross into the country. This should allow the government in Skopje to handle the crisis largely by its own means. The rebels will not be allowed to destabilise a country that is an example to the region that different ethnic communities can live alongside and amongst each other. All the governments of the region, in the EU, in NATO, and across Europe are determined to see this crisis resolved as it should be—peacefully, and with no further destabilisation in a region that has already suffered too much.
In reflecting about our transatlantic community, I sometimes feel that it resembles a self-regulating currency market. There’s frantic activity, euphoria, gloom and doom, and then euphoria again. Yet, at the end of the day, after all the ups and downs, transatlantic relations always find back to a natural balance.
Let me be clear: I do not want to suggest that NATO can be left on “autopilot”, because things will always set themselves right by default. What I would like to suggest, though, is a little more calm and cool judgement in dealing with the issues at hand. Whether it is missile defence, ESDI, or the perennial issue of the Balkans—we can work things out. We have the political will, we have a deeply ingrained habit of co-operation, and we have a toolbox to help us solve whatever the problem at hand. Most of all, we have NATO—our best-ever investment in a safer world tomorrow, and a stable international order for our grandkids.”
Royal Naval College, Greenwich 18 May 2023
By: The Rt Hon Lord Robertson of Port Ellen KT GCMG
For the organisers of this symposium and the First Sea Lord it takes a special courage or maybe boldness to ask someone like me to do the key speech in the 60th anniversary dinner of the Polaris Sales Agreement.
Someone who started a long and varied political career at Ardnadam Pier in 1961 aged fifteen, protesting at the arrival of the Polaris-armed US Ballistic Missile Submarines in the Holy Loch near my home.
Someone who used to know the words of the songs sung at the time. ‘You canny spend a dollar when you’re dead’. And ‘It’s to hell wi Polaris or the poor old human race’. Who searched out campsites for the protesters while his policeman father was simultaneously arresting them? Someone who preached the usual unilateralist narrative of ‘the world will follow us’, ‘it robs conventional defence’, ‘five minutes to Armageddon’, ‘disarm by example’, ‘the immorality/illegality of nuclear weapons’ – the same arguments still rattling around in some minority quarters of public opinion.
But maybe the decision is not so bold or rashly courageous. After all, I made that journey from the Holy Loch eventually to the top of the Ministry of Defence and as Britain’s Defence Secretary was a custodian of the very weapons, I had cut my teeth on denying. Over the years in between I had rehearsed these old arguments and found each of them wanting. The initial passion for a world free of these terrible weapons remains as firm as ever but the process of getting there, if we can, has changed as the vacuity and danger of the unilateralist argument has become obvious. I have become, by ruthless education and rational re-examination, a firm believer in nuclear deterrence.
I once confessed about this start on my politics across the dining table in the White House only to get President George W Bush, the same age as I am, to dismiss it because at the same age he had been ‘raising hell’ and did not want to be reminded of it.
But if one wanted a particular time to proclaim and promote the idea of nuclear deterrence and the existence of a particular man to explode the empty slogans of unconditionally abandoning our deterrent, the time is now and the man is Vladimir Putin. Those who would further reduce the decision-making centres of Western nuclear retaliation at a time when Putin is raising the readiness levels of the Strategic Rocket Forces, have little care for the safety of our people. Putin’s recklessness and irresponsibility in rattling the nuclear cage has reminded the rest of the world that only the veiled possibility of terrible retaliation makes his threat incredible and impossible.
The Polaris Sales Agreement sixty years ago shifted a number of political and military tectonic plates. The United States of America had decided to share the awesome burden of nuclear nationhood with a trusted ally. Giving and sharing the means of Continuous at Sea Deterrence was not done easily or indeed cheaply, but it had huge consequences in the world as a whole.
And what it also did was to cement that real special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. As I was to find – perhaps to my surprise, there is a binding, umbilical network of personal and professional relationships between both countries ranging across the military, the civil service, the intelligence services and the diplomats. It is at the very heart of the shared values of freedom, democracy and collective security we seek to protect.
That valuable, indeed priceless, spiders web of interactions at so many levels has produced over my life a vital connection which multiplies the protections for our peaceful way of life.
The fact that our Trident armed ballistic missile submarines, undetectable, invulnerable and invisible, can patrol twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty-five days a year gives a unique degree of insurance from nuclear attack. As our deterrent is committed to NATO that insurance – adding to the US nuclear umbrella, is an essential guarantee of both national and alliance security. Much missed in this fraught debate is the fact that with our nuclear deterrent committed to NATO, any urge by other allies to acquire nuclear weapons is eliminated. Our record in controlling proliferation is all too often ignored.
And that poses a question for all of us her tonight. Why are we so reticent to proclaim the value to our national security of our British independent nuclear capability? Why have we left the debate to be dominated by those who reject our possession, and indeed renewal of our post-Polaris system? A policy backed by a multi-party vote in Parliament, one of the few national endeavours to survive many electoral cycles, it needs and deserves constant high-level public endorsements. We should be ‘loud and proud’.
Of course, a defence based on the balance of terror, which is what nuclear deterrence is, is uncomfortable and many do struggle with its moral implications. But the hard reality is that these weapons cannot be un-invented or indeed wished away. And so long as we live in a world where they are in the possession of malign and hostile characters and nations then nuclear deterrence is absolutely necessary.
Putin has, with his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine – a country protected by the so-called ‘assurances’ given in the Budapest Memorandum when that country gave up its nuclear weapons, has shown us what the stakes are in this turbulent and volatile world. It is no less than the wholesale reordering of the rules-based system we have enjoyed since World War 2.
Indeed, he has woken all of us up to the essential priority of having an answer to both nuclear attack – and nuclear blackmail.
Like most people in this glorious room and beyond it I want to live in a world without these weapons of mass destruction – and we must continue to strive to get there. But we have to create the benign global conditions where they are unnecessary or undesirable. But in a new era of Great Power competition, with China projected to have 1,500 warheads by 2035 and Putin adding weekly to his already oversized arsenal, such benign conditions seem a long way off.
And so Continuous At Sea Deterrence, initiated by that Polaris Sales Agreement sixty years ago, will remain a bedrock of our defence and the ultimate protection of our national survival.
I pay tribute therefore tonight to those who far-sightedly negotiated the Agreement and salute all the thousands of the men and women of the submarine service, and the civilians and in industry, who have delivered it over the years since then. They have too often been literally and politically below the surface and on this anniversary, they deserve the nation’s thanks and gratitude.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to personally, warmly thank them all.
“The future of European Security after Ukraine”
Annual Lecture, St Anthony’s College, Oxford
17 May 2022
By The Rt Hon Lord Robertson of Port Ellen KT GCMG Hon FRSE PC
(10th Secretary General of NATO and former UK Secretary of State for Defence)
The Victory Day parade in Red Square last week looked – and was meant to look – impressive. Troops goose stepping, formidable tanks and armoured vehicles spitting fumes, rockets of immense size and lethality. It was all meant to cover up the grim reality of the mud and smoking ruins of Mariupol and Kharkov.
Perhaps it did impress those watching the spectacle shown simultaneously on all the Russian state TV stations. For the rest of the world and especially those in Ukraine, there was another sentiment abroad. There was no representation that day of the 15,000 dead Russian soldiers including very young conscripts. No mention of the dozen dead Generals or the thousand destroyed tanks. Or even the sinking of the Moskva, the Russian Navy’s precious Black Sea flagship.
Certainly, no representation on the parade of the thousands of Ukrainians who were part of that victory against Nazi Germany in 1945 and who are in 2022 fighting for freedom in the trenches and the cities against today’s aggressor.
I have been to a Victory Day parade in Red Square. Not an ordinary one but the 40th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War in 1985. I was there with Denis Healey when Mrs Thatcher boycotted it in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
One particular memory stands out. The noisy applause and cheering which complimented the TV coverage of the parade was not real or genuine or spontaneous – it was completely manufactured. While the crowd in the square was numerous, it was silent. The crowd sound was provided by recordings played over huge loudspeakers. It was the eerie experience of a Potemkin crowd supposedly appreciating the assembled military might of the USSR.
Russia does do big military parades and it does well drilled marching. It does flaunt large rockets and the Army was assumed to be expert at doctrine and planning. What it seems incapable of doing is fighting and winning against people who don’t want them. People who now detest a Putin created invasion and who are determined and motivated to stop and reverse the attempt to eliminate their country and its identity. The spectacle of 9 May cannot cover the clear failure of the war so far in Ukraine.
And yet seeing that display of military regimentation in Red Square stimulated a few thoughts in my mind.
First is that victory over Nazi Germany was not Russia’s alone. It was our victory too even if we mark it in November not May. And the huge sacrifice and heroism of the Soviet people – Russian, Ukrainian and the rest, in the Second World War should be recognised by us as well. Without their efforts and the 24 million of them who died, today this lecture – if allowed at all – would be given in the German language.
The Second thought is that we make a mistake if we conflate Vladimir Putin with the Russian people – to whom, as I have said, we owe so much. He has appropriated that part of his country’s history and has personalised it and we need to separate him and the small clique around him from the decency and the integrity of the people he leads – but also lets down.
The third thought is that we give too little credit to Russia for the relatively peaceful end to the collapsing Soviet empire. The 4 June 1989 is a day to remember. That is the day Solidarity was elected in Poland ending four decades of Communism. There were 55,000 Red Army troops in Poland at that time and the Soviet Politburo decided that they would stay in barracks. Power changed peacefully. In contrast, on that very same day, Deng Xiaoping, Leader of the Chinese Communist Party ordered the massacre in Tiananmen Square, snuffing out the thirst for democracy in China.
These were the two sides of the same Communist coin.
As the Berlin Wall was breached and the wires cut in the fences between Hungary and Austria that same year, the knee jerk military responses to the Prague Spring and the Hungarian uprising were vetoed. The inevitable bloodshed was avoided. There were 340,000 Soviet troops in East Germany at the time. The Politburo ordered them not to intervene.
We rarely give proper credit to the Russians for such acts of self-restraint – even if history forced it on them.
Basil Liddell Hart, one of the twentieth century’s finest strategic thinkers made a point which is relevant to the current situation.
‘Inflict the least possible permanent injury, for the enemy of today is the customer of tomorrow and the ally of the future’
In relation to the war he was engaged in we now see the truth in what he said. But it applies equally today, even if the ‘other’ side in the Kremlin has ignored the message.
But rhetoric matters too. Putin’s language in relation to Ukraine and the Ukrainians plumbs new and indecent depths. The characterisation of the Ukrainians as Nazis is as counterproductive as it is dishonest. Some recent semi-official propaganda touches on the disgustingly bizarre. For example, RIA Novostni
“Any organisations that have associated themselves with the practice of Nazism should be liquidated and banned. However, in addition to the above mentioned, a significant part of the masses, which are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, are also guilty. They supported and indulged Nazi government.”
But we too must guard our language. The man in the Kremlin has a remarkably thin skin and we should avoid provoking him into even more reckless violence against the Ukrainians. I have seen him in the meetings I had in what were good times, display an emotional side which surfaced from the cool, controlled approach he took to most matters. Today, closeted away from the virus and from the real world, that emotionalism has been boiled up with a partial view of history and a messianic obsession with Russian greatness. It has produced a dangerous mind-set.
There is no doubt that he has convinced himself without foundation that the West is a threat and that every insult perceived or real is a stab would. Words matter and they are magnified and distorted and the reaction to loose language from Western countries can lead to an “I’ll show them” response. Our politicians need to be firm, decisive and supportive but leave the objectives of this war to those who will have to live with the consequences.
British and American politicians must restrain the temptation to set objectives only the Ukrainians themselves should make. The same Ukrainians who captured the votes of the Eurovision audience on Saturday – and then went home to fight and defend their country
And as we look to the future of European security, we have a duty to think beyond the present conflict and the malign motives behind it, to what comes next. Russia, for good or ill, will still be there and will still be a factor in whatever the new ’abnormal’ exists after this grim episode in our continent’s history.
Our argument is not with the Russian people, even if they temporarily link arms when the country is at war. The argument is with Putin and the narrow, small clique around him who are driving this act of war.
Our mission – as a country and as an Alliance is to defend Ukraine; not to attack Russia.
Again, the great Basil Liddell Hart, said this;
“The highest level of Grand Strategy is that of conducting war with a far-sighted regard to the state of the peace that will follow.”
Wise words, deserving of our present attention.
Vladimir Putin will not last for ever, nor will the brutal authoritarian model he has created. Russia will still want to be a player in the world and in our own interest it has to be factored in. The younger generation of Russians who have been seduced by Putin’s nationalism and the manipulative traducing of Ukraine’s government, and even its right to exist, will not want to live with the stain of his aggression.
However, they deserve an idea, a narrative that articulates where a civilised and constructive Russia will fit in to the future global setup. If we are to separate Putin from the Russian people we need to be, as Liddell Hart says, far sighted on Russia’s role in European security.
Frankly, I thought we had found that role in 2002 when we created the NATO Russia Council. Putin sat as an equal round the Council table with the then 19 other Presidents and Prime Ministers of NATO, under my Chairmanship, and started off a process of constructive cooperation which might well have led to a common understanding of mutual security. And it was not all based on rhetoric.
For several years after the Rome Summit – and its endorsement of the right of nations to choose their own security arrangements, – below-the-line working together was producing results.
Two joint conferences on the military aspects of counter terrorism, working parties on telemedicine in disasters, training for anti-narcotics officers, piracy, medical care for the military, supporting the OPCW on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the disposal of excess ammunition, nuclear doctrine and strategy, crisis management, proliferation, search and rescue at sea, and much more. It was formidable agenda and were all bringing a practical collective approach to security.
That agenda, compromised by the ideological obstruction of US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney and abandoned after the attack in Georgia, remains as work to be done.
So, the question I pose to you tonight is this. How do we persuade the younger, globally thinking Russians to Make Russia Great Again? We have no quarrel with them, only with the delusionists in the Kremlin – and we want them on our side as the world faces the urgency of climate change, global terrorism, organised crime, migration, instability, pandemics – and all the afflictions we all after this latest lethal virus attack.
We need to remind them that Putin was the architect of this present humiliation and the breach of the international order. They can be the architects of a new and more positive and productive Russian future.
Before Vladimir Putin took a sabbatical leave from reality the Russian people were connected to the world. The official press was slavish to the Kremlin but there were other voices too and access to the global internet. The fact that they are silenced and dissent even of the most modest kind is violently outlawed provides evidence of the fact that Putin cares about, and fears, Russian public opinion. His worst nightmare still is another colour revolution in the streets of Moscow.
Therefore, we need to reach out and over him and into that space with the prospect of a better future for the Russian people. We found ways in the Cold War to speak to ordinary Russians; we can do it again.
Tell them of a future where their contribution to the 1945 victory is appreciated and where we pay tribute to the way in which the end of Communism was conducted without bloodshed.
A future where we recognise that we have shared destinies and the collective means to shape them.
A future where the educated, trained, skilled and civilised people of Russia don’t have to emigrate to find an open society to use these skills. A society using them at home and not emigrant fodder for the western need for skilled workers to feed the energy transition.
A future for Russians whose values are also those we treasure and they envy – of the rule of law, private property, a free press and free speech. And a future Russian society where there is a right to choose those who govern and the expectation that they will transfer power when told to by the people.
The idea that on ‘sex, religion and public order’, as I was told by a senior Russian, there is a new Berlin Wall between West and East is a fiction invented by a ruling elite enriching and protecting itself and its lifestyle. A future Russia – beyond this present catastrophic crisis would, and should, be a different model to the present one characterised as it is by bureaucracy, corruption and spectacular incompetence.
Making Russia Great Again need not involve land grabs, acquiescent spheres of influence, nuclear sabre rattling, grey zone intimidation and election meddling. That is a diminishing, sordid, demeaning role for the true spirit of Peter the Great’s descendants.
Russia, as a positive power and influence in the world, can make a difference in so many spheres and activities and in doing so gain and retain the attention it deserves. At the end of World War Two and at the end of the Cold War Russia stood proud and had the world’s respect. A new generation of Russians need to reclaim their country and rescue it before too late.
They should perhaps pay attention to the words of President Putin himself. Standing beside me at the Press Conference in Rome almost exactly twenty years ago at the NATO Russia Summit, when he said, speaking of the previous fifty years,
“Nothing good came from that confrontation between us and the rest of the world. We certainly gained nothing from it”.
Let the Russian public listen to that and reflect. It was right that sunny day in Rome.
It’s still right today.
Howard Wheeldon FRAeS
Wheeldon Strategic Advisory Ltd,
M: +44 7710 779785
Skype: chwheeldon
@AirSeaRescue