At a well attended rally outside the American consulate in Edinburgh last week one Ukrainian girl held a sign reading: “Today a missile strike killed my neighbour – because Russia is a terrorist state.”
We were there together, Ukrainians and Scots, to show our revulsion at the Trump administration’s treatment of President Zelenskyy and more significantly, their effective abandonment of Ukraine and pivot towards the Kremlin.
I was hardly a supporter of US foreign policy under previous administrations – the genocide in Gaza will define Joe Biden’s place in history – but the grim significance of America’s new alignment with Putin cannot be overstated.
I was there to offer solidarity from my party and MSPs across the Scottish Parliament, and to ask for support in action I am taking against a Glasgow-based company which plays a critical role in Russia’s war economy.
The Scottish and UK Governments have taken significant measures to cut off and sanction companies linked to Putin’s regime, but for reasons which are still unclear, they have missed one of the key players.
Down the street from a minigolf & cocktails bar, on the banks of the Clyde is the office of Seapeak Maritime Glasgow Ltd. It’s from this headquarters and a second office in London that they own and operate six cargo ships used to export liquified natural gas (LNG) from Russia. These ships are critical to Putin’s war efforts.
Last year I worked with the Ukrainian NGO Razom We Stand to break this story. From what we can gather, Seapeak’s ships make up not far off half the total fleet used for exporting Russian LNG from Siberia. These exports are worth an estimated $8 billion annually to Russia. They also give the Kremlin significant influence in the countries dependent on the gas for their energy supplies.
Ukraine needs military aid and intelligence sharing to win this war, but it also needs its European allies to put maximal pressure on Russia’s incredibly fragile economy. Disrupting their fossil fuel exports is one of the most obvious ways we can do that, as shown by the UK and eleven other European nations agreeing coordinated sanctions on the ‘shadow fleet’ of ships used to get Russian oil and gas out of the country after the initial round of post-invasion sanctions.
The UK has now sanctioned more than a hundred such ships, but Seapeak’s ice-breakers have not yet made the list despite being owned and operated by a UK-based company. I’ve written to the Business and Trade Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, urging him to act on this immediately.
The timing couldn’t be more critical. Putin is doing all he can to take advantage of Trump’s predisposition to Kremlin propaganda. More European aid to Ukraine is obviously essential, but there are plenty of economic measures like this which have not yet been taken.
It’s not just companies like Seapeak and their ships which could and should be targeted. Before the general election, the Commons’ Treasury Select Committee was conducting an inquiry focused on the insurance companies covering these ships and the actions which could be taken against them. Without this insurance they would not sail.
Unfortunately, the snap election meant that this inquiry went unfinished. It was hardly a mystery what they would have concluded though, and ministers certainly do not need to wait for committee reports before they act.
The Kremlin’s ‘useful idiots’ in the UK are trying once again to undermine public support for Ukraine by pointing to the cost of the material support provided to them by the UK government (distinct from the separate debate about the UK’s own defence spending). They contrast aid for Ukraine with cruel and unpopular domestic decisions, like cutting the universal winter fuel payment for pensioners.
I very much sit in the camp that says one of the richest countries in the history of the planet is capable of supporting a democratic ally facing destruction and providing the public services our own constituents deserve here at home. My English Greens colleague Adrian Ramsay MP explained how we’d pay for all of that on Question Time last week, where he also challenged Richard Tice on Nigel Farage’s history of being seemingly sympathetic to Putin and repeating his propaganda.
However, these economic measures have no direct cost and the indirect costs are minimal. I commend the UK government for the sanctions and other measures it has already put in place, but three years into the full-scale invasion and more than a decade on from the occupation of Crimea, I cannot understand why some of Russia’s key economic enablers are still allowed to operate freely from the UK.
Shutting them down would have widespread public support and make a serious impact on Russia’s economy and its ability to wage war. In Ukraine’s hour of need, the UK can leave no stone unturned in the support we provide.
