Vladimir Kornilov: British MPs About “Russian Interference” – It Was Conceived by Lenin

Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard



In the UK there is again a search for a “Russian trace”. Within a few days a flow of information about the Russians interfering in the internal affairs of their country was poured on British viewers and readers. In the Parliament special hearings were held: the Committee on Security of the House of Commons made an analytical report, a special section of which is devoted to the “interference of Moscow”. No evidence was found, but outrage towards Russia was still expressed. It was decided to fight against it with triple the energy. In addition, having found the root cause of the tensions: “the Bolshevik revolution of 1917”.

Only America is permitted to interfere in the elections of other countries

Members of the House of Commons were prepared ahead of time and thoroughly for the parliamentary hearings devoted to “Russian interference”. Parliamentary library presented the deputies with a note “Russia-2017”, which attempted to enumerate all the rumors regarding the alleged Russian influence over the internal political life of Britain. Precisely rumours — because the facts supporting the charges haven’t been found by the authors of the note.

Moreover, it was reported that major research organisations, including Oxford University, either didn’t find any evidence of Moscow’s interference in the British elections and the Brexit referendum, or considered it to be insignificant – that it didn’t affect the outcome of the voting.

Some of the findings of the drafters of the note can be simply called inventions from thin air. For example, in the preamble of the document it states: “In 2018, Russia will host the World Cup. Do not expect a good performance from the Russian national team, as Russian officials underestimate the importance of competition”.

However, not finding any evidence of any of the Kremlin’s interference in the affairs of Britain, the authors of the document come to more than a paradoxical conclusion: in itself, interference in elections or referendums in other countries is not something special for the world practice. “Meddling in elections is nothing new, the US has done it many times,” write the authors of the notes for British MPs.

Moreover, they report that the American University Carnegie Mellon recorded 117 cases of interference of great States in the elections of other countries from 1946 to 2000, and in 70% of cases this was done by the United States of America. For some reason, neither the MPs during a stormy parliamentary debate, neither the British press describing them “noticed” this data. Probably, they considered it to be self-evident.

READ:  Macroeconomic Consequences of Economic Mobilisation

The mystery of the secret stars

Much more “thorough” was the annual report of the Parliamentary Committee on intelligence and security presented to the same Parliament.

In any case, we can assume that it was more thorough. Since a significant portion of this document in the special section “Russia” looks like this:

“135. ***.

136. More generally, SIS has described the Russian state as ‘formidable adversaries’. ***.

137. However, MI5 caveated this, saying that ***.”

Concerning what is hidden behind these secret stars, the majority of parliamentarians had to guess. I.e., they understood that Russia has become a “problem” for the intelligence agencies of their country. This followed from at least some of these passages: “Defence Intelligence (DI) has also considerably increased its focus on Russia recently, informing us that *** <…> MI5 reported that ***”. Well, if intelligence “intensified its focus”, and even called Russia “a giant enemy”, it means something. And whether there is evidence of these mysterious “***” is something deputies are not supposed to think about — believe in the words of intelligence and vote.

It’s not surprising that, at the urgent request of the Financial Times newspaper to comment on this top-secret report, the Russian Embassy in London responded accordingly: “In response to the assertions that Russia *** the Russian Embassy would like to point out that ***. With king regards”.

“Seeing a red under every bed”

The presence of such “evidence” did not stop the British Parliament. The speaker noted that a great number of deputies desired to speak on the topic of “Russian interference”, there was even a need to restrict the rules.

READ:  WW2 Victory Day to be Decommunized in Ukraine

The tone was set by the Labour MP John Spellar, who made it clear that “Russian interference” in the affairs of Britain has been going on not just for the last ten years, but started with the “1917 October revolution”.

So, there is a strong desire to ask if British “Kremlinologists” didn’t get anything backwards? Is it Russia who interfered in the affairs of Britain in 1917, or maybe it’s vice versa? Even English newspapers are begging their intelligence agencies to declassify documents about the involvement of British agents in the murder of Rasputin in December 1916. You can also recall what role the British spy and conspirator Sidney Reilly played in 1917-1920 in the internal affairs of Russia. It is unlikely that anyone will find similar cases concerning our side during the entire centuries-old history of Russian-British relations.

The lion’s share of reports and remarks of British MPs in the course of the hearings can be reduced to the following formula: we know that Moscow interfered in everything and everyone, but none of our services found any evidence of this and no one was punished — shame on our services.

For example, keynote speaker Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat) announced that the regulatory body of British broadcasting Ofcom didn’t find any violations by the Russian news Agency Sputnik broadcasting in Britain. It would seem that Sputnik should be praised for their professionalism. But the MP is outraged by the “inaction” of Ofcom, following the logic: if the agency has not violated the rules, we must still find something to punish it for.

READ:  Gay Foundations

In the entire crowd of speakers there were only two deputies who called to restrain this anti-Russian hysteria.

Northern Irish MP, Jim Shannon openly laughed at the conclusion that some “Russian trolls” could change the result of the Brexit vote, attributing it to conspiracy theories and the genre of “spy movies”.

An experienced Conservative MP (elected in Parliament since 1983) Edward Leigh reminded his colleagues how British politicians were proud of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries during the collapse of the USSR. Remembering those days, he said: “the paranoid tendency to see a red under every bed is still alive, although in an altered form. And this is the explanation for this paranoia.

Remember Trump’s victory, and then think about the success of Brexit in a referendum. Events do not correspond to the view of the liberals of the world, and they can’t accept the fact that people – even workers – reject their ideology. Leftists think that the people are never wrong, so when they make a mistake (like in the case of Brexit or Trump), the left has a psychological need to seek some excuse for the unworthy behavior of the people.”

However, these explanations were drowned in the general flow of the groundless allegations against Russia.




Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.