Russia Drops Their Views On The UK Leadership Contest
Yes, yes, I know, politics are boring, but the Russian insight is fascinating
Intel Slava Z, news aggregator that claims to be financed by the Russian government, made comments on two recent resignations, resignations of Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
The Russian government’s views on the UK leadership race offers an outsider’s perspective, and it is clear Russia view Liz Truss as a warmongerer, quoting:
2. Similarly, one can observe efforts to bring Liz Truss into the final vote for the post of British Prime Minister, where Truss is seen as a follower of Johnson's course, while Sunak, as a protege of the City, focuses more attention not on Ukraine, but on the economy.
Our Conflict Of Interest
For The Daily Beagle this is an interesting perspective - a counter-argument - as we’ve been suggesting Liz Truss be the one to take leadership to avoid a ‘Gordon Brown’ situation in the UK.
So naturally we have a conflict of interest, but in the interest of seasoned debate we’d like to explore the Russian’s concerns further. A new UK leader will be expected to get involved with the Ukraine situation, and for our readers it is worthwhile exploring. We do need to raise a concern that applies to both…
WEF Ties?
Both Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak have pages on the WEF, although Rishi’s (at time of writing) is curiously blank:
This, compared to Liz Truss’ WEF page, which has a few token words:
This shows us the WEF do keep pages updated, as historically Rishi Sunak’s page did list his (former) role in government, noted by archive.org here:
It’s unclear if being listed on a WEF page means you are a member, or if they just list notable figures in a basic directory. We’ve contacted the WEF for comment. If they respond we will edit it in here.
Ukraine War
Russia do have a valid point and raise a good question: What are Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss’ responses to Ukraine?
Liz Truss
One quote the Russians take ire to is Liz’ comment:
I Stood Up To Putin And Will Lead The Free World
‘Free world’ rhetoric is dated. 2003 Iraq war dated. Especially given America and Britain’s tendency to invade other countries they don’t like. Hard to be a ‘free world’ if people keep jackbooting your door down and demanding vaccine passports.
The Guardian - fervently pro-Ukraine - were, back in April, critical of Liz Truss’ aggressive views of Russia, before the leadership contest started.
Their concern was with one of Truss’ government speeches, which was a thinly veiled cover discussing the Ukraine war at length:
We will keep going further and faster to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine.
The extensive speech is hardline Ukrainian support, and isn’t practical to quote everything here (you can read it here). It is clear Truss intends to commit finances to the military:
But we all need to go further. Spending 2% on defence must be a floor, not a ceiling.
Meaning higher taxes, plus risk of war with a nuclear superpower. Is the Guardian’s criticism fair, suggesting a nation be defenceless? Nations do have a sovereign right to arm and defend themselves.
Question is: does Liz Truss intend an expansion of war with Russia? Does Russia intend to expand beyond Ukraine? People might answer ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in order, but there is no way to know for sure. Leaders can be fickle, changing whims.
Truss does have interesting viewpoints. She mentioned a criticism The Daily Beagle raised about Minsk II at the end of The History Between Ukraine and Russia, Part 3:
It is a failure of the rest of Europe to not invest more into ensuring peace, Germany and France should not be the only ones at the negotiating table.
Quoting the Atlantic, Liz Truss’ response was:
[…] the last time Europe cut Britain and the U.S. out of its diplomatic efforts—when Germany and France brokered the so-called Minsk agreements between Ukraine and Russia-backed separatists following Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea—was a disaster.
“We should’ve been there,” she said. “The U.K. is the biggest European spender in NATO. The U.S. is the major force in NATO. Both the U.K. and the U.S. should’ve been involved, and we’re not going to make that mistake again.”
Unfortunately, The Daily Beagle thinks this is not going to happen. A good sign that Truss acknowledges some of the problems. It is unlikely the US - given neckdeep involvement of John McCain, Victoria Nuland and the CIA in Ukraine - would ever permit peace.
U.S. Agency for Global Media funded Radio Free Europe quoted Liz Truss saying she does not support having British troops in Ukraine:
We are doing all we can to support Ukraine. We've led the international coalition on sending weapons, we're putting the sanctions in place, but I do not support the direct involvement of U.K. troops
This is the right thing to do. It greatly lowers risk of direct confrontation between nuclear armed states - the UK being one. It also undercuts the Guardian’s own criticism on her being too aggressive.
The concerns the Russians are projecting about Liz Truss don’t seem entirely valid. She seems more restrained, more willing to acknowledge some faults, and isn’t inclined to direct involvement - of course, she could just be saying that, words are free.
However, it’s easier for her to not comment, so there is a purpose. It suggests she might be open on negotiations, but won’t let Britain to get caught off-guard. The Russians aren’t keen on the UK financing and equipping Ukraine, but that’s a risk in any war.
Rishi Sunak
The Russians seem supportive of Rishi Sunak, judging by Intel Slava Z’s comment:
Sunak, as a protege of the City, focuses more attention not on Ukraine, but on the economy.
A weird, embarassing endorsement because Rishi, at the time the Ukrainian war started, was in control of the chequebooks, which means he approved any financing sent to Ukraine, as well as the raising of any war funds.
The Guardian reported that Sunak, back in March 2022, demanded Britain go back to increasing aid spending for Ukraine. The Sun reported him saying “I will be with you” on ‘redoubling’ efforts to repel Russia from Ukraine.
Jimmy Saville paedophile-enabling BBC highlighted Rishi Sunak’s Indian wife, Akshata Murty, having ties to an Indian firm - Infosys - operating in Russia, giving Rishi Sunak a pro-Russian financial stake. Sunak denied it.
Indian ties are interesting as India did not vote against Russia. Without going into detail, India feels a historic kinship with Russia over assistance they had received, where the Soviet Union opposed nations condemning India. A kinship reciprocated, Russians voted India as one of their closest allies.
This presents conflict-of-interest, as Rishi Sunak - and his wife - both have ties to India, meaning anything that threatens India’s sovereignty will likely be perceived as a threat to Sunak’s heritage. A foreign conflict-of-interest.
A big problem for neutrality in UK leadership. Given Britain and India are at disagreements on how to handle Ukraine, whose side will he take? You can see why the Russians prefer Sunak.
Pro-Russia and British? Might Want To Rethink Sunak Support.
Even those pro-Russia who live in Britain, it’s not sensible to back Sunak if he is pro-Russian - he will likely drive you, your fellows, food and energy into the ground to aid their war (it’s not personal, it’s business). Any gripe you have with the UK government, it’s not the public that deserve punishment, but the corrupt officials.
There’s challenges on border security. Sunak’s conflict of interest would likely disincline him to stopping potential saboteurs (read: corrupt officials), and his own origins favour an open-borders policy. His sole sales pitch is his smile and he does finances. Anyone can smile, and I’m not sure ‘raising taxes’ is a unique character trait.
Tiebreaker Information
Sunak and Truss both echo support for Ukraine, but evidence shows Truss is at least somewhat reasonable - declining to send troops, admitting error that the US and UK need to be at the negotiating table. Sunak has offered no concessions.
This will feel like a ‘which shiny turd to pick’ situation. In the course of digging, a couple of interesting additional insights from Liz Truss were found.
This might please the Trump crowd. She remarked that Trump said a ‘lot of things that had proven to be true’, although she quickly balanced it by saying he made other claims that were false, quoting her interview with the Atlantic:
“There’s a lot of things that Trump has said that have proved to be true,” she said—before adding by way of insurance: “There are also things he’s said that haven’t proved to be true.”
Her moderate stance might not be pleasing to those strongly for and against, but a good sign that she isn’t swept up by fervour from either side, able to agree with people if the evidence shows, able to disagree with people and not follow a crowd.
There’s more, this will likely irk Royalists and appease Republicans: as a teenager she wanted to abolish monarchy.
The viewpoint is a common amongst the younger crowd, a flight-of-fancy. The usual ‘boo, down with rich people’, like hating cliche bad guys.
They’re more a tourist trap and revenue source, sometimes a diplomatic arm, although Harry’s Nazi-armband wearing rhetoric and Andrew’s child rapist ways really do not lend credibility. Parliament has that issue as well, so it’s not something a Republic would solve.
Hopefully this adds more to the PM debate. Who is elected isn’t going to meaningfully change the trajectory of the Ukraine war. It feels like a WW2 situation where everybody will be dragged in. Even if Sunak was the next Neville Chamberlain (for non-Brits: appeasement in the face of a war), like Chamberlain he’d likely get booted out for inaction and replaced with a Churchill.