Information War

There's an information war going on, but it isn't just between Russia and the West - it's taking place within the UK and it's being waged by those who doggedly support Boris Johnson, whatever calamitous decision he makess. Those on social media are fully aware of this. Most don't even bother responding to them.

Those of us in the UK are fully aware of Priti Patel's world-beating indifference to the plight of the Ukrainian refugees (50 so far), her anti-immigration rhetoric and the late response of the Johnson administration to Russian sanctions, especially as the UK could undoubtedly have the greatest financial effect per individual. 

Those in other parts of the world are not as aware - all they see is Boris Johnson trumpeting his usual, bombastic, soundbite oratory that's totally unhindered by truth or nuance. They see him proclaiming from a podium that Britain is leading the efforts on refugees, sanctions and everything under the sun; they do not see the reality, which is unearthed within press analyses, just like it was in respect of his fastest growing economy in the G7 trope, which it was in 2021 (just), but slowed down dramatically in the last 2 quarters and is now the 5th or 6th fastest - of 7, and the only reason it was the fastest in 2021 was the fact is was hit the hardest by Boris' late actions during the Covid waves and benefitted from opening too early, at a tremendous cost in lives.

It works though, as a poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft of people in Ukraine shows they believe the UK is doing more than the EU. This is despite the EU having sanctioned far more individuals than the UK and British resident Ukrainians reporting continual obstruction in getting visas for their relatives, who are being allowed into the EU with emergency 90 day visas which will shortly be extended to 3 years. Excuses are forthcoming from Patel on security grounds, but given men between 18 and 60 are not allowed to leave Ukraine, it's inconceivable that old men, women and children are considered a security risk. It simply beggars belief. She's changing and easing the rules every 5 minutes as disbelief manifests itself - the sure mark of a populist government.

Liz Truss said sanctions weren’t happening faster because “clever lawyers” are delaying them. A clever lawyer replied at the time; "Law firms can’t hold up actions - only a court can, and there have been no court orders to delay anything." At the time, Truss couldn’t name one law firm delaying sanctions. According to a sanction tracker from Correctiv, EU asset freezing measures now apply to 461 individuals and institutions under the EU’s Russia regime and Switzerland 528. Only around 28 people and institutions have so far been sanctioned in the UK, with a process that's likely to ‘take weeks and months,’ while assents not already moved (transactions take seconds) are moved. 

This is especially galling when British sanctions would arguably have the greatest effect, as London is the epicentre of Russian money laundering. Had we retained the European Communities Act (Statutory Instrument 560 of 2017 - The EU Financial Sanctions Regulations) it would not have meant rushed legislation today to speed things up. It's a case where 'Taking Back Control' has actually slowed us down - just like at Dover. It's almost as if someone advised the government to drop this legislation ASAP after Brexit. A cynic might reach the conclusion that Boris listened to a peer with Kremlin links.

Returning to the poll; those polled will not include UK based Ukrainians trying to get their relatives into the UK, nor will they include over a million refugees crossing the border into Poland. They will have an entirely different opinion based on observed fact, not news spin or images of Boris standing in front of a tank draped in a flag.

Another assertion that's being made is that Britain (aka Boris wearing a flak jacket and draped in flags) has been training Ukrainian troops and providing arms to Ukraine since 2015, as if that was unique. What's not mentioned is that this has been as part of NATO and it's NATO that has been so engaged, including the USA, Canada and Turkey. 

Since 2015, the UK sold £42m worth of export licenced arms to Ukraine. This assertion is sometimes levelled as an attack on the EU, despite the UK being the world's 2nd largest arms exporter and having been within the EU for most of that time - and the EU not even having an army that can train people, although events have shown that the argument for having one is now stronger than ever. 

Since 2015, the UK also sold £1.5m worth of arms to Russia, most of that in 2016, after the invasion of Crimea, and regularly sells weapons to countries classified as not free. As the world's 2nd largest arms exporter, that's hardly surprising - it's one of our best business lines; arms to dictators. This should stop.

A video of Boris Johnson being clapped at a Ukrainian Orthodox church in London is doing the rounds as evidence that Boris enjoys unqualified support from British based Ukrainians. What's not shown is the frustration of British based Ukrainians (and native Brits with Ukrainian spouses) who phone in to radio talk shows to vent their anger at the lamentable response and actual obstruction by the British government to them trying to get their relatives here. Of course the Ukrainian's at the church are going to clap - they're not likely to boo him and bite the hand that feeds them, albeit in a paltry manner.

Ukraine's foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, lauded President Macron of France in a speech on Saturday, not Boris Johnson. The reason being that he saw Macron in a leadership role in persuading the EU to grant Ukraine membership. Johnson could have been that person, except for Brexit. Mind you, if there had been no Brexit then Johnson would never have become PM in the first place. That speech must have stung Boris and his acolytes.

On trawling through Twitter, the information war is being waged by people who follow the usual suspects - GB News, Farage, Boris Johnson, Guido Fawkes, Katie Hopkins, Toby Young, RT, etc. Of course I follow some of these, merely to see what garbage they're saying, but I also follow far more reputable commentators. I don't however, plaster my profile with St George's crosses, continually attack truthful statements, hold nutjob, anti-woke views, believe the UK should invoke Article 16 immediately regardless of the consequences, or castigate what they call the MSM, which is code for reputable news media not spouting extremist propaganda or their favoured conspiracy theories. MSM sounds like the old Soviet phrase of 'decadent, Western bourgeoise media', comrade - and just as insane. Dissent from the Party Line is not to be tolerated.

I've noticed that, on inspecting the profiles of these information warriors, they seem to hunt in packs and follow each other. No sooner has one launched a carefully crafted lie bomb at a truthful comment from a reputable commentator or journalist, than their colleagues pile in with insults at anyone having the temerity to refute their carefully crafted crap. 

The lie bombs have a nugget of truth around which is embroidered a completely false narrative and conclusion, like the one about the UK having trained Ukrainian troops since 2015. It's the hallmark of propaganda - there's sufficient truth to make it believable, but it's what's not said and the spin that's put on it, that's the give-away, along with the St George's crosses and bulldog photos. Sometimes it can be a bar chart with absolutely no provenance, like the one Rees-Mogg Tweeted below, showing the UK had the largest financial sum of sanctions of any country or group of countries. 

The only problem is that the caption was wrong - it's the total value of assets in the respective countries/areas, not the total that has been sanctioned. Rees-Mogg is on record telling porkies - he even told one to the Queen). As for Boris' lies, well, here's the latest list from Peter Oborne.

Of course, this is all to divert attention away from Boris' other calamities but, as usual, everything he touches becomes tainted with populist over-promises and incompetent under-delivery. This crisis is particularly dangerous due to the Russian money sloshing around the Tory party coffers and the peerage offered to a Russian, against the advice of the security services. While no-one could have foreseen the consequences and that this was part of a Russian kompromat infiltration until after the Brexit revelations, it's nevertheless very embarrassing, especially in light of the burying of the Russia Report into how Russia influenced Brexit, which was to Putin's distinct advantage. A Brexit Curtain has descended across the continent..

Here's a test of political consistency:

If the Opposition were in power and implemented a particular policy that you currently cheer to the rafters as government policy, would you cheer the Opposition to the rafters too? 

Similarly, if you criticise the government on a policy, would you criticise the Opposition for enacting the same policy?

If you answer yes, and only you know the answer to that, then apparently you can congratulate yourself. If you answer no, you're apparently exhibiting bias.

However, I have thought of a rider to this test; you could feasibly doubt the intent of the government's policy, just as one could doubt the intent of Opposition enacting the same policy. By that I mean the intent of the policy could be divergent to the prima facie aim - it could be a subterfuge to proceed along a path that's not immediately obvious or articulated. That depends on your amount of trust you have for either party.