Michael Pinto-Duschinsky on the Russia report
I don't think I have ever seen a report which everyone else is reporting uncritically taken to pieces as comprehensively by someone who appears to know what he is talking about as Michael Pinto-Duschinsky demolished the Intelligence and Security Committee's long-awaited report on Russian interference in his article,
"The Russia Report is thin, flawed and biased."
I still think the committee was right to ring alarm bells given that there have been by a country mile enough signs of attempts by the Kremlin to interfere in the affairs of both the UK and other democracies, to make it wise that the UK should do more to guard against such attempts.
Michael Pinto-Duschinsky makes a convincing case, however, that,
“The evidence provided about the activities and influence of Russian-funded channels, press outlets and social media is simply inadequate to support any firm conclusions.
I am no more able than the committee appears to have been to assess the allegations of Russian media interference in the Brexit referendum. Rather than refer merely to “widespread public allegations”, surely its months-long inquiry could have been expected to be more specific. Nor ought we to ignore the fact that the most obvious Russian financial stake in UK public life at the time of the referendum, Alexander Lebedev’s ownership of the London Evening Standard, was of a newspaper which was hardly in the Leave camp.
The report is on even shakier ground concerning the allegation of Russian sources of campaign payments. The most serious of these concerned payments by Arron Banks to pro-Brexit campaign organisations. The ISC states: “Banks became the biggest donor in British political history when he gave £8 million to the Leave.EU campaign.” By contrast, the National Crime Agency (NCA) — which the Electoral Commission had asked to investigate whether the money had been derived from an allegedly Russian “third party” — made clear on 24 September 2019 that the money had not been in the form of donations, but of loans to “Better for the Country Ltd and Leave.EU.”
On 29 April 2020, the Electoral Commission then issued a joint statement with Banks, accepting the NCA’s conclusions that it “had not received any evidence to suggest that Mr Banks or his companies received funding from any third party to fund the loans, or that he acted as an agent on behalf of a third party”.
Given its sparse, vague coverage of Russian funding and other support for the Leave campaign, the ISC report casts aspersions without supporting them with evidence.”
"The Russia Report is thin, flawed and biased."
I still think the committee was right to ring alarm bells given that there have been by a country mile enough signs of attempts by the Kremlin to interfere in the affairs of both the UK and other democracies, to make it wise that the UK should do more to guard against such attempts.
Michael Pinto-Duschinsky makes a convincing case, however, that,
“The evidence provided about the activities and influence of Russian-funded channels, press outlets and social media is simply inadequate to support any firm conclusions.
I am no more able than the committee appears to have been to assess the allegations of Russian media interference in the Brexit referendum. Rather than refer merely to “widespread public allegations”, surely its months-long inquiry could have been expected to be more specific. Nor ought we to ignore the fact that the most obvious Russian financial stake in UK public life at the time of the referendum, Alexander Lebedev’s ownership of the London Evening Standard, was of a newspaper which was hardly in the Leave camp.
The report is on even shakier ground concerning the allegation of Russian sources of campaign payments. The most serious of these concerned payments by Arron Banks to pro-Brexit campaign organisations. The ISC states: “Banks became the biggest donor in British political history when he gave £8 million to the Leave.EU campaign.” By contrast, the National Crime Agency (NCA) — which the Electoral Commission had asked to investigate whether the money had been derived from an allegedly Russian “third party” — made clear on 24 September 2019 that the money had not been in the form of donations, but of loans to “Better for the Country Ltd and Leave.EU.”
On 29 April 2020, the Electoral Commission then issued a joint statement with Banks, accepting the NCA’s conclusions that it “had not received any evidence to suggest that Mr Banks or his companies received funding from any third party to fund the loans, or that he acted as an agent on behalf of a third party”.
Given its sparse, vague coverage of Russian funding and other support for the Leave campaign, the ISC report casts aspersions without supporting them with evidence.”
Comments