Geopolitics never went away, Foreign Secretary

I see our Foreign Secretary is channelling her inner Thatcher again. She couldn’t realistically charge down Cannon Street in a tank and headscarf towards the Palladian grandeur of Mansion House, so instead made several Thatcheresque rhetorical flourishes in her speech on Wednesday to show Russia’s president Vladimir Putin who’s boss. There were salvoes of “Let’s be clear… Britain always stands up to bullies… We are prepared to be bold”. And more.

It helped that earlier in the week the Americans had been in Kyiv signalling a shift in strategy. The US had led the way on sanctions and President Biden had rounded up the NATO posse to remind it why it exists. But when Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, showed up in town, bearing a long list of weapons, things went into another gear. Instead of simply trying to shore up Ukraine’s ability to resist, Washington now appears to see the war as a strategic opportunity to weaken Russia across the board.

After he moved on to Poland, Austin even said as much: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”. He then added that this should be done to a degree where Russia will “not have the capability to very quickly reproduce” its military force. Among the weapons the Americans are now sending are 90 modern howitzers with 183,000 shells, and 120 Phoenix Ghost drones. The Ukrainians are being armed not just to resist, but to go on the offensive. This is now more openly a proxy war, fought partially with American weapons. That’s fighting talk.

Which brings us back to Truss. During her Mansion House speech, the Foreign Secretary warned that “we must be prepared for the long haul” and the approach to aggressors such as Putin must be “rebooted, recast and remodelled.” It didn’t appear the UN will play a prominent role in this new post post-Cold War era given that the security structures built to guarantee peace have been “bent out of shape so far that they have enabled rather than contained aggression”. There was praise for NATO, the 5 Eyes network, the AUKUS partnership, and support for stronger ties with Japan and India. The message was about flexible multiple alliances being the way ahead.

Truss argued that Putin had used his energy money to consolidate power and gain leverage abroad. Fair enough, everyone else does. But she used the point to make another: “Wandel durch Handel – the assumption that economic integration drives political change – didn’t work”.

Ouch! That will have landed in Berlin. “Wandel durch Handel” or “Change through trade” underpinned Germany’s Russian policy for decades. The German political class is currently having an anguished debate about this. She may be correct in her view of the policy, but why she chose to criticise it so openly is unclear.

So, what to do? For a start, kick Russia out of the G20 because it “cannot function as an effective economic body while Russia remains at the table”. Also, we are told that HMG is prepared to be bold and use diplomacy and “our economic heft, and our will and agility to lead the way.” Presumably that includes following the advice given to our European allies who should cut off Russian “oil and gas imports once and for all”.

There was support for Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and for the alliance to be “flexible, agile and integrated.” She didn’t say if it should be flexible enough to have a European army integrated into it…

NATO should also be “global”, as in having a global outlook, because “We need to pre-empt threats in the Indo-Pacific, working with allies like Japan and Australia”. Threats? Yes, because “Countries must play by the rules. And that includes China”. Apparently China “will not continue to rise if they do not play by the rules.”

They have so far, but that line in the speech was included as the preamble to a warning to Beijing: “We have shown with Russia the kind of choices that we’re prepared to make when international rules are violated.” By which she presumably means, ‘Don’t invade Taiwan. It’ll hurt’.

Raising her gaze to the horizons the Foreign Secretary argued that “our prosperity and security must be built on a network of strong partnerships. This is what I have described as the Network of Liberty.” Some in the audience may have become misty eyed at this point, others may have spluttered into their brandy, but it’s another way of saying the approach to aggression needs “rebooting”.

So, she gave the speech a kick. “We are doubling down. We will keep going further and faster to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine.” How? “Heavy weapons, tanks, aeroplanes – digging deep into our inventories, ramping up production. We need to do all of this… Some argue we shouldn’t provide tanks and planes for fear of provoking something worse. Actually, inaction would be the greatest provocation. This is a time for courage not caution.”

This bold statement was a bit undermined when she swapped Thatcher for Dumas and said: “All for one and one for all. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, geopolitics is back.”

It never went away. But it helps if the Americans point it out. In Kyiv, Austin and Blinken were betting that they can bring in heavy weapons which kill Russian troops at a faster rate than Putin can replace them. That’s geopolitics à la Clausewitz and war as a continuation of politics.

Blinken was asked if he agreed with Austin that the US objective in Ukraine was now to weaken Russia. He contented himself with, “I think the Secretary said it very well”. Britain appears to be on the same page.