16/03/2018 Newsnight

Britain versus Russia.

Who's winning?

Are we even competing?

What game is Putin playing?

A Russian intelligence

chief has accused

Theresa May of "childlike

naivete and incompetence".

A diplomatic conflict

that is deadly serious, but

with a dash of playground

name-calling.

This Russia watcher thinks Putin

is getting exactly what he wants.

We will ask if he's right.

Also tonight, for years we've

welcomed Russians to London,

including friends of Putin.

What is it that first attracted us

to the oligarch billionaires?

The Romans when British

establishment types can get cosy

with Russian money, and that means

that they could be just 2 degrees of

separation from the master of the

Kremlin himself, Vladimir Putin.

And, if leaders are forged in times

of crisis, how have our leaders

dealt with events this week?

Hello, another Russian,

no friend of Putin, another

murder investigation.

It has taken a few

days, but the death

of Nikolae Glushkov,

who was

found on Monday, is now

being investigated as a murder.

Very quickly after

he was found, reports

emerged that he had been strangled

and death by compression to the neck

is what the police themselves

are now saying occurred.

It's just something else

to heat up a row that

has led to a new chill in relations

between East and West.

Now in relation to

the nerve agent used

in Salisbury the British

have today invited

the Organisation for the Prohibition

of Chemical Weapons,

to come to the UK to take a sample

under article eight

of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The OPCW have expressed

their willingness

to support the investigation.

I'm with our diplomatic

editor, Mark Urban.

Nikolae Glushkov. We have known for

days that he died.

That is the main

point today I think that police are

saying it is now a murder inquiry.

They said they haven't established

any link with the case of the

Skripals, but people will inevitably

now see this as another potential

killing of an opponent in London.

Let's go back to Salisbury. There is

very little else to say at this

point. Back to Salisbury.

point. Back to Salisbury. What do

you think about how this nerve agent

was him to be their?

This is

creeping forward incrementally. On

Monday I spoke about one of the

Novichok agents, A234 and the

possibility eight had been released

into a car. Today we heard the

Russian ambassador of being quoted

by TASS, saying that this was indeed

the agent ever talking about any

Salisbury context. We also saw today

the car of Mr Skripal being removed

from the tow truck yard where it had

been since it happened and taken

away. It had been in on air pretend

there to try to contain any

contamination. -- and air proof

tent. Police are still saying

officially that they still don't

know it was the car when the poison

was released but there was a

tremendous amount of emphasis on the

car. I don't believe they found

contamination in the home which

would tend to undermine the suitcase

and various other theories.

and various other theories. It has

not been subject to that. And people

are not saying that there is

contamination in the home so that is

why it goes back to one o'clock on

that day when they are believed to

have got in the car. That was the

real period of danger that the

police are looking at.

police are looking at.

And they are

looking to try and get the OPCW

involved now.

That is the

international watchdog, the UN, the

monitoring and enforcement council.

And a few things have come out. They

have put out a statement saying that

they are looking into these Novichok

agents. So there are confirmation

that they know these things exist

and that they are modelling up on

them but most stocks were declared

to have been destroyed so that has

to be seen in the context of Russia

when OPCW certified that they had

destroyed all of their chemical

weapons and nobody ever said that

they had Novichok and some Russian

officials have said that was not

included in that early 90s chemical

weapons Convention but the OPCW said

that today this is a real chemical

weapons that we consider to be

banned by the terms of this key

treaty.

Urban, throughout this week Russia

has given the impression of somewhat

enjoying Britain's indignation

as to what has happened.

So what is the game

Russia is playing?

It seems to be more

than just deterring would be

double agents.

Some would say he is just goading

us, whilst Theresa May

is trying to look not goaded.

So who's winning?

I'm joined by an security

expert and Russia watcher

Edward Lucas, and Kori Schake,

former adviser to the US Pentagon

and National Security Council.

Both are in no doubt

the Russians are

behind the Salisbury attack.

We are talking about what their

objectives would be. You think Putin

is working to some sort of game

plan? What is he trying to achieve?

Why is it that it was at the end of

the election campaign, painting the

outside world out to get Russia, the

West misbehaving. And the idea of

these efficient Russian spy killer

is going round the world bumping

people off. He also likes Britain's

isolation at a time when it has

difficult relations with Europe and

with America and Trump because of

Brexit. But of course what you ought

to be implying as a result of this

is to cut off the City of London,

the property market and financial

system generally to dirty Russian

money and that is something they

don't want to do, because...

So this

political model that Britain is

following, are they enjoying it by

the sound of it?

I think

particularly Boris Johnson as

Foreign Secretary and Gavin

Williamson 's coming out with ease

from a sententious things, of the

worst we can do if we we have had a

chemical weapons attack on our soil

was to push out press releases and

make statements either on our own

with our allies...

with our allies...

This is kind of

about testing in Britain and those

kinds of things.

Absolutely, that is

exactly right. What the Russians are

trying to do is use our western free

societies as a means of undercutting

our societies and they have mostly

succeeded.

Is this to strengthen his

power domestically? To divide and

rule?

I think it is both of those

things. It is to distract domestic

Russian attention from the failures

of the Russian economy and the

failures of domestic governance in

Russia and also everywhere that they

can to try and divide Western

allies, to try and undercut the

confidence that we have in our own

governance and systems of

government.

Is Britain and the West

was Mike response, is it almost

plain to the, are replaying fully to

what Putin is designing?

I think

clearly this is kind of a whodunnit,

a Howard Dunnett and a wide on it

and what I begin to do about it? And

I think the government is not really

going to take the sort of steps we

need, and we don't have the lies. If

we weren't really series it would

not just be Britain throwing out 23

Russian intelligence officers. It

would be 30, 40 allies, all of Nato

and the EU collectively throwing out

700 Russian intelligence officers.

That would make an impact, that is

what we ought to be doing.

I think

that free societies are slow to

mobilise and it requires consensus.

I give the British government, I

think it was careful in how it

described what was happening. It

went to allies and institutions in

the international order, it could

not get ahead of itself. It left the

Russians exit ramps if they wanted

it and the fact that they did not

take them, help Stodel.

So what was

the exit ramp that the Russians had,

what was the way out?

First, it was

not described as an armed attack so

it did not trigger Nato's article

five. It gave time for the Russians

to explain themselves. There were

explanation is that the Russians

could have given.

And it left open

the possibility that somehow they

had lost it.

President Trump was

quicker signing responsibility to

the Russians than Prime Minister me

was.

Maybe they are enjoying keeping is

guessing. But I don't think they

thought, let's try and back off. I

think the Russian reaction may come

at an unexpected time and be of an

unexpected nature as well.

There

were

were some name-calling. They were

calling Gavin Williamson a vulgar

old harpy.

You are talking to

someone who spoke to the leader of

North Korea as rocket man. So it

could be that standards are falling.

It could be that the Russians are

trying to trivialise this. And that

Western politicians, maybe they need

to understand that Russia as an

adversary because Russia is behaving

like an adverse array.

We will leave

it there.

One question that arises out

of Salisbury is whether Britain has

been too willing to offer itself up

as a comfortable home

the very wealthy Russians,

often close to President Putin.

"Don't ask, don't tell" seems

to have been the policy in regard

to the origins of Russian wealth

coming into London.

And there has been a discernible

reluctance to use that wealth

as a diplomatic weapon.

It's not just Russians that we have

been nice to, by the way.

Remember the London School

of Economics had taken money

from Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif,

and given him a PhD.

If we are a soft touch,

is it because some parts

of our establishment are too easily

impressed by

the riches of foreigners?

John Sweeney now looks at one

example, the social connections

of Russian aluminium magnate Oleg

Deripaska.

And a warning - this report starts

with flashing images.

Every summer, the haves

and the have-yachts converge

for very private holidays.

In 2008, Russian oligarch Oleg

Deripaska sailed to Corfu for one.

Lord Mandelson was there.

So, too, was George Osborne.

It caused a bit of a do.

I didn't break any rules,

but I think I did make a mistake,

and I think in politics it's not

just what you say or what you do,

it's how things look,

and I have to be honest,

this didn't look very good.

There were all guests

of financier Nat Rothschild,

who owns this villa on the island.

What happens in Corfu

stays in Corfu.

That's the deal.

But there was a leak.

A newspaper was tipped off that

Lord Mandelson had, allegedly,

been "dripping pure poison

about Gordon Brown

in Osborne's ear".

Furious at this indiscretion,

Nat Rothschild revealed that Osborne

went aboard Oleg Deripaska's yacht

with the then Tory

fundraiser, Andrew Feldman.

Rothschild said they were soliciting

a donation, something they denied.

Bun fights like those held

at Nat Rothschild's villa

are moments when British

establishment types can get cosy

with Russian money -

and, whether they know it or not,

that means they could be just two

degrees of separation

from the master of the Kremlin

himself, Vladimir Putin.

Putin demands the loyalty

of Russia's billionaires.

There are nearly 100 of them.

Deripaska is near

the top of the list.

He's one of the most

important links between Putin

and the British establishment.

Through George Osborne and Tory

fundraiser Andrew Feldman,

you could say that Putin was just

three degrees of separation

from David Cameron.

I don't think that there is

necessarily espionage and blackmail.

I think the question of what kind

of friends you have is influenced

by what you need to understand

about the political

situation in Russia -

and, if you understand that

oligarchs in Russia today

are not independent people,

and cannot hold onto their wealth

without maintaining good

relationships with Putin,

then that's something that British

politicians need to understand.

In the case of Oleg Deripaska,

the American authorities have been

more wary than the Brits.

The US has denied

Oleg Deripaska a visa.

Mr Deripaska made his

mega-fortune in the 1990s,

after Russia's aluminium wars,

so-called because some

proprietors were literally

killing off competition.

There is no suggestion that

Mr Deripaska was involved

in violence, but surviving in that

environment was tough.

It was very difficult.

But I believe whatever it is.

I can't say that I'm proud,

but I believe in all that

I did the right thing.

Mr Deripaska told the High Court

in London in 2012 that he'd been

forced to pay protection money

to a man with links

to organised crime.

One of Mr Deripaska's new business

associates is former

energy minister Greg -

now Lord - Barker, another

David Cameron chum.

He's the chair of Deripaska's

energy company, En+,

which was recently allowed to list

on the London Stock Exchange.

And this week it was revealed

by the Financial Times that En+

is one of the clients

of Lord Mandelson's strategic advice

consultancy, Global Counsel.

Global Counsel says neither

Lord Mandelson nor Mr Deripaska

are involved in this work.

Deripaska is big news

in Russia at the moment.

Opposition politician Alexei Navalny

recently released this

documentary about him.

It includes footage of Deripaska

on his yacht, entertaining

one of Russia's most

senior government officials.

It was filmed by an escort,

19 years old at the time.

In London, a company run

by the Home Secretary's brother,

Roland Rudd, handled the PR

for the recent stock market

flotation of Deripaska business En+.

I mean, I'm not in the PR business,

but I think that, when one

is the immediate family of someone

in a top leadership position,

one should be careful

about what foreign professionals,

foreign clients one has.

Donald Trump's campaign

manager, Paul Manafort,

has worked for Mr Deripaska,

too, something Mr Deripaska

is not keen to talk

about without an appointment.

Get lost, please.

Thank you.

At Tory fundraiser the Black

and White Ball, the British wives

of oligarchs bid big money

for experiences, like having dinner

with Gavin Williamson,

the Defence Secretary.

It's clear from our research that

several wealthy oligarchs close

to Vladimir Putin have managed

to cultivate members,

whether witting or unwitting,

of the British ruling elite.

Getting involved in the art world,

donating to charity,

sponsoring academic prizes,

buying shares in football clubs,

these are the ways that Putin's

cronies can become friends

of the posh folk of London.

But, if the businesses are legal

and the stock exchange

is happy, should we care?

There is a danger here

in smearing all Russians.

Look, there are lots of very gifted

entrepreneurs, artists,

rebels in London today,

and it would be awful

to have a total attack

on all Russians in London.

It's wonderful that we have this

expatriate Russian community.

But political parties

should be very careful,

and government should be very

careful about who it does business

with and takes money from.

People are saying there's

a problem with Jeremy Corbyn

and Seamus Milne's judgment about

Russia.

That's the only problem

of Russian influence

in British politics -

true or false?

False.

It's got to be said

that the Conservative Party has been

very rash in who it's taken money

from and who it's done business

with, and of course New Labour,

which is currently on the war path

against Jeremy Corbyn, has all kinds

of questions to answer.

But Russian money has washed around

the corridors of power in London

for perhaps too long.

The question is, will the nerve

agent poisonings in Salisbury change

anything, or will it continue to be

roubles as usual?

John Sweeney. We might pick up one

or two of those themes shortly.

The country hasn't just been talking

about the Russians this week.

We've also been talking

about Jeremy Corbyn.

The conversation has focused inwards

as well as outwards.

In a way, this isn't surprising.

The Salisbury attack has

been another chance,

on top of the ample opportunities

provided by Brexit, to debate

Britain's relationship

to the rest of the world -

not just to Russia itself,

but to Trump, the US

and other allies -

and the chance to ask how powerful,

how trustworthy and how grown-up

we are in dealing with these things.

It is easy for the right to benefit

at times of external threat.

And the polling backs that

up on this occasion.

If we look at the YouGov polling

on whether Theresa May has responded

well or badly to the poisoning,

most people think she

has handled it well -

two to one in favour,

with quite a few don't knows.

Now, the same question

on Jeremy Corbyn's response -

it's two to one the other way.

39% say he has handled it badly

and 18% say he has done well.

But interestingly, a vast number

of "don't knows" in his case.

Let's see if we can dissect

the politics of the week with a

panel drawn from the brightest and

best of our nation's commentariat -

former editor and Mail On Sunday

commentator Rachel Johnson,

bestselling author and Guardian

columnist Owen Jones,

and the Times's Jenni Russell.

Owen, do you think Jeremy Corbyn has

paid a political price this week for

his position?

The media framing has

been a disgrace, including your own

programme. Yesterday, the background

of your programme, you had Jeremy

Corbyn dressed up against the

Kremlin skyline... No, no. Dressed

up as a Soviet leader. You even

Photoshop is that it look more

Russian.

It was real, him in front

of the Kremlin.

Provocation, and

people complained to the BBC about

that, and it isn't your graphics

department responsible, it is

whoever signed it.

It was a real

picture of him.

Who was it, which

party over and over again demanded

an amendment to crackdown? Which

party resisted, the Conservatives.

Which politician kibosh and enquiry,

delayed undermined from a year after

year, against the poisoning of

Litvinenko, and in doing so

potentially embolden those who used

Theresa May. Which party is awash

with Russian links? The

Conservatives.

While the polls

2-to-1 in her favour on this and

2-to-1 against him? Has he bungled

it this week? You are saying, look

how good he is on this, and the

country are not buying it.

I am

saying he isn't having a good

hearing, and I'm glad there are so

many people who say they don't know.

What sort of country do we live in

where the media constantly tries to

portray the Leader of the

Opposition, who was the only one who

stood up in solidarity in Parliament

with Russia's democratic opposition,

and being smeared for things? This

is a series point, because it is how

the mediocrity in this country for

the feedback the expulsion of the

diplomats, that's what the Labour

Party did. The argument of the

Labour Party is to go further and

clamp down on Russian money, which

the Conservatives party, which is

bankrolled by Russian oligarchs.

Is

the framing being unfair?

I think

Owen made some very good points

about the injustice of the British

media towards Putin for them I last

night.

night. I didn't watch your programme

last night, but if you take a

photograph taken years ago in a

different context and put it up

there... Images matter. And he's

right that many of the issues that

he raises. It is true that the

Conservative Party have not done the

Magnitsky act. But Corbyn had an

opportunity to say exactly anything

that he pleased when he stood up in

the Commons this week, and he

completely blew it. He made it sound

as though he wasn't primarily

interested in defending the British

people, as if he was more interested

in exploring every possible reason

why somebody else might have been

responsible for this attack. The

point is, if you intend to lead the

country, as Jeremy Corbyn does, your

first duty is to make people feel

that you will defend them against

attack, and although he was

perfectly right to lay out some

questions about what we know, Corbyn

didn't do it the right way. He

should have come out at the

beginning it made it clear that he

would defend Britain and he would

ask other questions later.

ask other questions later.

Rachel,

where are you on these?

They have

both made sensible points, but I

thought that Jeremy Corbyn was right

to point out that we needed some

proof before we risked escalating

what could be a very dangerous

international situation, and I think

a lot of the country really agreed

with him on that. We've had eight

years of the war in Syria, we got

1500 civilian casualties in Yemen,

and then we have the death, probable

assassination by a Russian agency of

one British citizen, a Russian spy

swap, and suddenly the entire

international security establishment

decides

decides it's time to really launched

an international diplomatic

offensive against Putin. I

understand the reasons about the

chemical attack on British soil, but

I think we were right to be

cautious.

Last word on Corbyn,

because I want to get onto other

things.

What will get the Russian

regime where it hurts? Labour has

accepted that either Russia is

directly responsible or criminally

culpable by allowing its weapons to

pull into the arms of the gangsters

and oligarchs who ravaged Russia

ever since the fall of the Soviet

Union and what will help them? Going

after Russian dirty money, and I'd

ask, which party would you trust, a

party bankrolled by the City of

London, the centre of this

money-laundering, or one which

isn't? The Conservatives are Roche

-- are awash with Russian money but

Theresa May has refused an enquiry

into the Litvinenko poisoning

I want

to move on to Theresa May because a

lot of people have said she has had

a good week, and the polls seem to

that, head of Labour by three points

in one poll today. Is it game

changing? Is this the new strong

Theresa May? That strength in her

position in the and the Labor Day

when the people come and tell her to

go? Best position in the party and

does it do Labor Day.

I thought she

performed OK this week. With God,

thank goodness there is a grown-up

in charge. However, the whole reason

this is so threatening, and probably

the reason this happened is that

Britain is extraordinarily weak. We

are walking away from our allies in

Europe, wilfully alienating them,

and we can't depend on our allies

across the pond, and that is a

situation which Theresa May has made

much worse than it need be, and the

backdrop for all of this is that,

when this episode is over, we should

be dwelling on the fact that very

few countries in the world have

chosen to walk away from their

allies into something is called

unthreatening as this world...

Secondly, when you are saying, as

she done well, the context is that

Theresa May is completely confused

about what she wants about Brexit,

so is her party, we are going

nowhere in the negotiations.

It

could be testing our isolation.

I

may remain, but I have to say, I

think it's a joke to say that this

is a distraction from Brexit. The

Russian Embassy said, the Russian

embassy new... They knew everybody

would start talking about our

security position post-Brexit, and

that's why they said a probable

assassination, and MI5 plot to

distract us from Brexit.

ALL TALKING AT ONCE.

The first statement by the quad,

Germany, France, the US and the UK

for decades. There hasn't been any

disintegration of the transatlantic

alliance.

alliance.

Again, it's about their

track record. Let's not forget the

Conservatives lobbied to die lewd

sanctions against Russia in the

past, on the basis it would damage

the City, but if you look back to

2003 in Iraq, Libya in 2011,

everybody said, look how strong and

commanded David Cameron and Tony

Blair are, and anybody dissenting

from the government line was

betrayed as traitors, cowards,

stooges of the enemy.

400,000 people

marched.

In saying that the media

and the new Labour elite and the

Conservatives did that, especially

with Libya, where only about 40 MPs

voted against. We do have a foreign

policy which is reckless and

endangers the national security of

everybody watching, because of

Theresa May's support for the Saudi

dictatorship or the Turkish regime,

so this idea that, because we are

doing some theatrical standing up in

terms of expelling a few diplomats

instead of taking an Russian dirty

money...

You are making this

argument a lot of -- lot better than

the people running the Labour Party.

The Labour Party is making any

argument like this extremely well,

because Corbyn was writing about 19%

before this. There are many reasons

to be very worried about British

foreign policy and about British

foreign policy in the past. I was

among many people who marched

against the war in Iraq, but Jeremy

Corbyn is now saying he will

reassess the membership of Nato...

That is Corbyn's policy. He might

not ever want to use a nuclear

deterrent. You can't have somebody

coming in to say per minute recess,

I may not want to use the ultimate

sanction.

I want to give Rachel the

last word. When you look at moments

like this, do you think they show

our country at its best or do they

show it at its worst?

Theresa May

performed well and Prime Minister

really, and I thought she struck the

right note, and I think that,

unlike, there has been terrible

banter from the Defence Secretary.

And the Foreign Secretary!

The

Russian embassy's command of the

English language is superior to that

of our Defence Secretary, and in

that sense we are on the back foot.

Thank you, all.

The cable car across the Thames,

which opened in 2012, is facing

an uncertain future tonight.

It could be sold off

or scrapped completely,

according to the Evening Standard.

The Emirates Air Line,

the project of former

mayor Boris Johnson,

was the UK's first urban cable car.

It was meant to be a new

form of mass transit.

But it didn't attract the masses.

Having cost £60 million to build,

according to one report,

only four regular commuters

were using it.

Is it farewell to one

of London's least loved modes

of public transport?

We'll miss it, even if

the customers don't.

Goodnight.

# Are you lonesome tonight?

# Do you miss me tonight?

# Are you sorry we drifted apart?

# Does your memory stray

to a brighter sunny day

# When I kissed you

and called you sweetheart? #