Political report is a rather vulgar genre and is used mainly to draw attention not so much to the heroes of the report, but to its authors. Sometimes political reports are used as a score-settling tool, but in general it is just an excuse to call a press conference. This is what Boris Nemtsov and Ilya Yashin did. So now (once again) William Browder (an international financial swindler), Christopher Donnelly (offered to mine Sevastopol) and Ann Applebaum (the author of the thesis that the Gulag is the nature of Russia) are doing this.
Yes, the most surprising thing about this very "report of the UK Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee" is not the list of committee members somewhere on the first pages. And not even the inscription "printed on paper containing at least 75% recycled pulp." The most surprising thing is the list of experts, on whose deep knowledge about Russia the authors of the report relied. And most likely, they did not even rely, but simply assembled their report from parts written by these same "experts".
And just having fixed and articulated this important aspect, it is necessary to start reading the report. Although, of course, spending precious hours of your life reading such nonsense is not worth it, but what can you do, this is the job.
The general idea of the report was dull to the point of a toothache: it turns out that Russia wants to regain its status as the main power in the post-Soviet space, because it believes that NATO and the EU are biased towards it. But in fact NATO and the EU are not bunnies. And such an offended Russia is trying to influence the democratic processes in the EU and NATO in order to sow discord and mistrust.
But what is interesting is what exactly Russia influences. The report says that there is a lot of evidence from open sources (!), Indicating that Russia interfered in the referendum on the independence of Scotland. But at the same time - what a nuisance! - we could not find any evidence that Russia interfered in the referendum on Britain's exit from the European Union. Well, that is (written in the report), of course, she intervened, because RT and Sputnik broadcast, and they broadcast for a reason. But no evidence could be found. Moreover, it became clear that the evidence could not be found.
No, honestly, that's what it says! We are confident that we will not find any evidence.
What is the difference, you ask. And I will answer you: the difference is who has which leg. The Brexit referendum is who has a leg. And the current British domestic political consensus is that Britain left the EU the right way. Consequently, if there was any intervention by Russia, it was for all the good (well, after all, Russia could not intervene in order for the UK to remain in the EU, right?). And if the intervention is good, then it does not count. And you can't see him at all. And no evidence is visible. And there will be no proof.
But the referendum on the independence of Scotland is another matter. It already smacks of separatism. Why does it smell? This is separatism
And such Russian interference (of which, however, no evidence is given) is called in the report "the first post-Soviet interference in democratic processes." Of course, nothing is written about how the peace-loving NATO bloc contributed to separatism not only in the republics of the USSR, but also in some regions of Russia. He's not about that. Presumably, Christopher Donnelly was responsible for this part of the report. The one who paid the hackers to write fake reports about how the Russians were interfering with the separation of Catalonia. Well, at least Anonymous thinks so. But try not to believe it.
The second most interesting conceptual block of the report is lamenting about the Russian oligarchy. It turns out (just think about it!) In London there are Russian Oligarchs ™ who launder dirty money stolen from the Russian people striving for freedom. And with this money laundered, Russian Oligarchs ™ interfere in democratic processes. Here old Browder's ears are already sticking out in all directions. And also his deceitful wooden nose, obsessed with revenge for the fact that one day his thieves' ass was kicked out of Russia. And it is very interesting now how William Browder will look into the eyes of Evgeny Chichvarkin, for example. Or Vladimir Ashurkov. When he meets with them (and he will definitely meet with them) at some regular traveling conference of light forces and people with good faces.
However, the authors of the report do not try to hide any ears or noses. They put it this way: it's entirely possible that improved relations with Russia may someday reduce the threat to Britain. But it is unrealistic to think that this can happen under the current Russian leadership. And any public movement towards Russia now will seriously undermine the strength of the international response in Salisbury. As well as the leadership and authority of Great Britain in this movement.
Re-read the above summary again. And then and again. And feel its dialectical power. Rapprochement with Russia could reduce the threat to Britain. But not under the current leadership of Russia. And therefore, any rapprochement between Britain and Russia undermines Britain's leadership in confronting Russia.
Do you feel it? If you don't feel, re-read it again. And if it seems to you that the authors of the report should consult a psychiatrist, then I will upset you. This is not the delusion of a madman. This is a blunt and outspoken maxim: improving relations between the UK and Russia will reduce the threat to Britain. But this improvement can only take place on the terms of Great Britain. And if not, then to hell with her, with a threat. Let it be.
On the one hand, it is sacrificial.
On the other hand, it is hopeless.
Although personally, as you know, it doesn't matter. There is no Great Britain in my world. In my world, Great Britain is at the bottom of the sea. And in the place where it used to be, our seiners catch capelin.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.