Opening the debate organised by Standpoint magazine, which took place at the Frontline Club on May 1, Standpoint Editor Daniel Johnson began by restating the motion: This house believes that Britain is more interested in doing business with Russian Oligarchs than standing up to Vladimir Putin.

L-R Peter HItchens, Tony Brenton, Daniel Johnson, Ben Judah and Roger Boyes.

Ben Judah, reporter for Standpoint from Russia and Ukraine and author of Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell In and Out of love with Vladimir Putin, asserted that, fundamentally, “British laws should not be violated.”

“The [Putin] regime functions as an asset stripping regime which rips billions and billions of dollars out of the country every year. This money is then transported out into tax havens and a vast amount ends up in Britain – under the Union Jack.”

According to Judah, of the estimated $93 billion that was laundered through Britain in 2013 only 0.26% of assets were frozen by the UK government. Although not dependent on PEPs (Putin Exposed Person), certain elite sectors of Britain’s economy are PEP-addicted: such as high-end property, commercial courts, PR agencies, London private wealth management and English public schools.

For Judah, from Blair to Osborne any attempt coming from the House of Commons to tackle shell companies, which function as offshore vehicles offering anonymity to foreign investors, has been “shot down”, demonstrating that Britain “is not interested in fighting overseas corruption”.

Tony Brenton, British Ambassador to Russia from 2004 to 2008, responded by questioning the meaning of motion and how this should affect Britain’s response to Putin.

“The line I am going to argue is that we should do business with Putin, including doing business with Oligarchs.” While acknowledging the corruption and repression within Russia, Brenton, nevertheless, argued that this should not solely dictate Britain’s response to Putin.

“Our current policy of engagement [which has been a unified western policy since 1991]… which maintains business and strengthens links has, up to a point, worked. Trade has grown, the market economy has become better established, more Russians are coming over here for good or bad reasons, and the constituency in Russia which doesn’t like the way Russia runs itself has grown steadily stronger.”

The alternative, according to Brenton, is a return to the Cold War policy of containment and the use of sanctions where, “we don’t talk to them, we don’t trade with them, we don’t let them into any organisation. We, in the words of President Obama, isolate them.”

There is a need, continued Brenton, “to look at the world from a Russia point of view,” where, since 1991, they feel that they have been “systematically neglected, humiliated and encircled”.

Roger Boyes, diplomatic editor at The Times, rejected Brenton’s belief in the need for a Russian-centric view of the current situation, instead arguing against what he believed to be the fallacy that engagement changes Russia and against the concept of Russian victimhood.

“I don’t think that Russian paranoia should be the basic principle of British foreign policy… the truth is that Putin is playing us, trying to split Europe.”

Stimulating Russia debate @StandpointMag last night with @b_judah . Notable how pro #Putinistas see Ukrainian state as irrelevant irritant

— Roger Boyes (@rogerboyes) May 2, 2014

Boyes warned of the dangers of this current situation of interdependency.

“There is too much of this ‘leaning in’ towards Putin – seeing an extraordinary interweave between Russia’s commercial interests and our own humble role as the concierge of the Oligarchs.”

“The point is… why are rich Russian’s coming to Britain? Because Russian courts are rubbish, because Russian schools are very limited. The kind of things that a Russia with money wants and wants to invest in are not there. He has been denied these things. By making it more complex for him to do that, by restricting their visa access we are saying stay where you are, invest your money at home and improve your own civic society and your own social structure. We can help the Russians in their path into the post-Putin era. It is an act that will not only recover our self respect but also help Russia find a way forward.”

Challenging this assertion, Brenton rejected Boyes’ claim. “We are not going to change the internal dynamics of Russian politics. What we can do is stand firmly critical of their appalling human rights records… but we actually make it harder if we enable Putin to stand up and look like a Patriot.”

“More important, if we want to help the Russian people, is to get out of the Ukrainian quagmire, and begin trading with them and relating to them.”

In response to this analysis, Judah reasserted the responsibly for the situation in Ukraine at Putin’s need for a quick victory to boost his own decreasing popularity. Forming a direct correlation between the stripping of Russia’s assets, the removal of money into British offshore accounts, a lack of investment in Russia and the Ukraine crisis, Judah related the means by which to combat the spread of Putinism with “stopping the moral degeneration of Britain”.

Suggesting the need to impose emergency checks on Russian cash buyers and the establishment of new regulators on high-end oversees investment, Judah stated that “you could in fact be helping by imposing tougher anti-Russian standards at home”.

Rejecting this policy as an unwarranted return to a cold war mentality of containment, Brenton concluded that the most effective way of removing Putin is rather through the process of engagement, “by developing these social links that will eventually undermine him from below”.

Ultimately, he concluded that if you are going to start closing down these links with Russia, and by extension – if you are morally consistent – with China, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria you have to realise that “we depend on these countries to give us employment and prosperity.”

“It is a big bad dirty world out there and you need to get your hands dirty if you are going to make any kind of living at all in it.”

Catch up with the video and podcast:

https://soundcloud.com/frontlineclub/140501-in-hock-to-the

David Cameron has subsequently agreed to EU sanctions and travel bans have been imposed on Russian officials. But would our response have been stronger were it not for the importance of Russian money to London?

Russians are granted more investor visas than any other nationality; Russians buy London property, send their children to British schools and hire British lawyers and bankers. For some, Britain has become a shamelessly mercenary country, putting financial gain before morality.

Others argue that the government is right to put growth first; its obligations are to the British people, who are interested in their livelihoods, not the legality of a referendum in Crimea. Are sanctions even the best approach? With them comes the risk of isolating Putin, making a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis less likely.

Standpoint magazine brings together a distinguished panel to debate Britain’s response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Chaired by Daniel Johnson, the founding editor of Standpoint. He covered the end of the Cold War for The Daily Telegraph and is the author of White King and Red Queen: How the Cold War was Fought on a Chess Board.

The panel:

Ben Judah has reported for Standpoint from Russia and Ukraine. He is the author of Fragile Empire: How Russian Fell In And Out Of Love With Vladimir Putin.

Tony Brenton worked for 30 years for the Foreign Office and was British Ambassador in Russia from 2004 to 2008. In 2007 he was awarded a KCMG. He is now extraordinary fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge.

Roger Boyes is diplomatic editor at The Times. Previously he has worked as a foreign correspondent in Eastern Europe, Berlin and Rome.

Peter Hitchens is a journalist, broadcaster and author. He is a columnist on the Mail on Sunday and has worked as a foreign correspondent in Moscow and Washington.

Your ticket will include a copy of Standpoint magazine.