Government’s ‘Fantastic’ Ukraine Rhetoric Cravenly Undercut By Sanctions Exemptions | Matthew Syed

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]appeasement. You know, I know that word is used too often, but in this case, I think it is completely legitimate. It does not work. It is an it's a moral abomination. It protects our living standards now, Stig, at the expense of our future selves, our children, and our allies. And it's absolutely against anything even approaching a rules-based order, which has done so much for the prosperity of the world. One of the great aspects of moral progress over the last h 100red years. We had the government minister Lucy Rigby with us at 7:00 this morning explaining that government sanctions will hit Putin's war effort, but she accepted that there will be a flow of money, however limited, which could still reach Russia as a result. Muriel, I think it's fair to say, and the government has had to apologize for the way that they've done this. It's a complex picture, but ultimately the promise that the government made in October last year to stop buying these products from Russia is not materializing and there is an indefinite period now where it can continue. I mean that's caused some some real frustration I think. Yes, frustration and and anger I should think and worry because the money flowing to Russia is going to go to financing armament and other things that might actually come back to bite us in the you know uh backside. So it seems like a strange backto-front strategy coupled with this possible policy of freezing food prices on the other hand.

[00:01:32]Uh well I don't think that's necessarily going to happen. The the capping of uh of supermarket prices is it? But it is it's in discussion. Well the government it's it's very confusing I have to say.

[00:01:42]So the government has been discussing it and they are willing to say that it's been discussed but they're not willing to say that they've formally asked supermarkets voluntarily to do this. So, at the moment, they're sort of trying to have their cake and eat it, I think.

[00:01:54]>> Yeah. And I think food producers are digging their heels in. That's understandable. I I still don't quite understand why why we're not harnessing natural resources uh for energy. Surely energy prices are the issue. Food prices are the the fallout. And so it it feels a bit like the ideological resistance to the North Sea oil is so strong that we're willing to drop all our principles and send money Russia's way. I I mean maybe I'm simplifying. I don't know what Matthew thinks, but it doesn't make sense to me.

[00:02:27]>> A lot of our listeners have certainly made the same link. I mean, Matthew, there is some research that suggests that people are very worried about the impact of rising inflation and that that might hit later on in the year and maybe that the government is right to explore all options on this. How do you feel about it?

[00:02:44]>> Well, I think about what it's like for if we're still on the Ukraine story. I dropped out for a second, but think about what the Ukrainians are enduring with this uh easing of sanctions on Russia. They've had their sovereign territory invaded. People are dying. Uh people are being mutilated. It has been one of the most horrendous, atrocious wars on our continent. And we said the rhetoric was so impressive, wasn't it, Kate? We stand four square with Ukraine.

[00:03:11]We're going to do everything we can to stand up to the tyrant Putin. And this is part of a long craven very depressing pattern where the sanctions rhetorically were fantastic and yet there were carveouts. There were exemptions. There wasn't enough uh pressure put on the shadow fleet. Dual use technologies were got into Russia via third countries. I mean British components are in Russian munitions being used to kill innocent people in Ukraine to this day. I remember last a couple of years ago um the conservative government was very strong on sport. It said that we would stand against Russian athletes competing in the Olympic Games in Paris which I thought was right because Putin uses uh successful Olympians as collateral to project the image of Russian national strength. And then suddenly we found out via a leak v you know it got out because it wasn't announced that we had we had said that as a country we were not opposed to Russians competing in the Paris Olympics. I was like well why did we do that? Because we wanted to host an athletics event in London and that was the price of getting it into our country. I thought that that was craven.

[00:04:25]I thought it was duplicitous not to have announced it. And as I say, I just think it shows a real lack of moral seriousness on a on a absolutely devastating war in our continent.

[00:04:35]>> Is the point though, Matthew, that morality is one thing and economics is another. And morality is a luxury rather than necessity. And when we look at, as Muriel says, there are is going to be some sort of support when it comes to food because inflation is a big worry.

[00:04:48]There's clearly going to be some support when it comes towards fuel because inflation is a worry. In 6 months time we may have very very high inflation and people reacting very strongly to it and therefore morality is nice but you can't heat your house with it. It's this is morality at its absolute core stick because it's really about the trade-off between short-term pain and long-term gain.

[00:05:13]You're absolutely right. We could have said we're not going to sanction Putin at all. We we're going to keep our oil imports. we're not going to experience in this country any pain whatsoever.

[00:05:23]We're just going to throw Ukraine to the wolves. Could have done it. And that, you might have said was, you know, something that was was pragmatic. What would the long-term consequences have been? It would have sent a green light to every tyrant in the world that they could invade sovereign territory. How did we get to the in full-scale invasion of Ukraine? We didn't do enough when Russia invaded Crimea. We didn't do enough on Groznney. This is going to cost the Baltics. Appeasement. You know, I know that word is used too often, but in this case, I think it is completely legitimate. It does not work. It is an it's a moral abomination. It protects our living standards now, Stig, at the expense of our future selves, our children, and our allies. And it's absolutely against anything even approaching a rules-based order, which has done so much for the prosperity of the world. one of the great aspects of moral progress over the last h 100red years.

[00:06:16]>> I do I do agree Matthew and I no one admires uh Britain's role in you know upholding moral standards in the world than than I do but I think the balance at this point perhaps at any point in time is between morality and realism and by that I mean we need to lift planning regulations. We need to harness our natural resources. this is what we need to do and in the in the meantime there can be some equivocation although it's troubling uh but really we need to look to growth in this country and how we can enable that to happen and I don't think the government has been very keen to do that >> are you saying I suppose the the argument there being that if you are going to make these justifications for allowing oil and gas to be bought over over an extended period of time >> that you also have to focus what you're doing at home.

[00:07:09]>> Yeah, I think so. And I think that should be made explicit so that people understand a bit better what the what if there is a strategy what the strategy is.

[00:07:17]>> Well, Matthew, that's another it's a really good point that isn't it that Muriel's making because one of the things the government has conceded over the last 24 hours is that this has been communicated poorly. It was slipped out very late at night in a very technical document which people are still pouring over. And while the minister came on on this program this morning and spoke to Stig and said, you know, look, this is perfectly normal. Loads of other countries do this. The reality is the government promised something in October. It is now not delivering it.

[00:07:43]The European Union has delivered it in the time period that it promised it would. And although we keep hearing, well, you know, it's not indefinite. It will only go on for a couple of months.

[00:07:53]The documentation, Dominic Okonnell, our business correspondent, still going through it. He has confirmed that actually the government has to give four months notice and it will review after three months. So we are talking about these licenses being in place at the very least for seven months.

[00:08:08]It's it's it's that thing that you described there Kate about slipping out this um announcement so that as few people would notice it as possible.

[00:08:18]Politicians sometimes wonder why trust in politics has collapsed which is obviously a very important issue. We need to be able to trust our politicians. you know, it strengthens our institutions, but it's so difficult when what they say and what they do, the gap is so broad and widening. You know, I mentioned a bit earlier this Russian uh in the Olympic Games, the the the stance shifting under the last Conservative government. We would never have found out had it not been, I think it was either Matt Lorton or Martin Ziggler at this newspaper. And it was like a month after we had told the IOC that we were no longer opposing Russians in the Olympic Games, we found out, the public found out that the stance had ch that is weasly, dishonest, duplicitous.

[00:09:00]It I mean, look, it really really angers me.

[00:09:03]>> And actually, they could have come out yesterday and said, "By the way, guys, some some announcements going to come later on. There'll be a technical document." But what the technical document means is we are imposing new sanctions as we said we would do in October. However, in order to transition at a time when fuel costs have gone up because the Iranian war came along and that wasn't known in October, it's happened since October. Because of that, we are going to have to have a certain amount of uh trade with Russia to enable us to soften the impact of that. But the overall impact, by the way, will be to punish Putin harder than it was a year ago. If they'd said that, we could have had an argument about whether this was the right thing to do. But we'd have known what they wanted us to know, what we should have known in the first place, wouldn't we? And then we can have a serious discussion about it.

[00:09:45]>> You should be in charge of comms. I think >> wait. No, don't go.

[00:09:50]>> I was going to say although that could go really badly wrong on a number of fronts. Please don't do that.

[00:09:56]>> I could imag You know what stick I think you would be head of communications under 10. Honestly, >> but is it naive to suggest they could have done that, Matthew, and just said this is what we do?

[00:10:04]>> Well, I've got to say I think this thing about the short and the long term defines British politics. And I've been quite critical of politicians today, haven't I? I've said, you know, they're duplicitous, dishonest, craven, but actually the public has to take responsibility because we have consistently voted for political platforms that have put the short term over the long term. This is what you see with ever rising debt, uh, quantitative easing, all of the things that we've been discussing. And the unwillingness to build because building, um, infrastructure and energy production, it's fantastic in the long term, but it's painful in the short term because you have to go up against the nimbies and we're just not prepared to do it.

[00:10:44]And whenever any politician, we say that the politician should go out there and articulate that we're going to have to cut welfare. You know, we may have to get rid of the triple lock, but that will make us more secure. It will make us stronger in the long term. I'm just not sure such a platform would be um one that would win an election. So, you know, we got to admit that the the populace in a democracy has something to do with the predicament.

[00:11:07]>> We can't handle the truth. As one Jay Nicholson once said, um it's worth treating the answer, Muriel.

[00:11:14]And if so, what is the question?

[00:11:16]>> Sorry, please.

[00:11:17]>> She dies on it.

[00:11:20]What is the question? Yes. A very interesting figure, isn't he? Um, >> has he blown it, do you think?

[00:11:25]>> Well, or is he secretly regrouping to come back twice as strong? I don't know.

[00:11:32]There was that this the strange schizophrenic difference between his very strongly worded letter of resignation where he was really you know throwing light bolts at Sama at the prime minister I should say more respectfully uh and then and then his speech in the house with you know in French we say like three five people that that have been you know harnessed somehow to to stand alongside him. Maybe that's part of the strategy that he doesn't want to frighten the horses. He doesn't want to get in the way of Andy Bernham's uh triumphant return to the house. Um I again I mean in a way linking it to the previous story you said you know is he the solution the um the situation is so grave the crises are so many that I don't know that streeting has the political stature yet let me give him 20 years experience but to to stand up to Trump for example to stand up to Putin I don't really see because it's not just about supermarkets and food producers and and nimbies It's about the greater chessboard and I'm not sure that he's the man. No.

[00:12:40]>> Do you think he might have blown it as well? Um, a lot of this about timing, Matthew, and it doesn't feel like he's quite he's quite timed his run.

[00:12:46]>> Well, I mean, can I just throw two things into the mix? F. Firstly, how ridiculous that we're changing prime minister after he won such a large majority, albeit on a relatively small popular vote. This expectation that prime minister's tenure is now measured in months and a bit longer is absolutely catastrophic for long-term planning going back to what we were talking about before because the next I mean if it's street in Burnham the leadership speculation will start within months >> and the whole bandwidth of Westminster will be sucked into the succession rather than to actually doing what is necessary. Um but >> that's already the case.

[00:13:22]>> That's already the case.

[00:13:23]>> Already exactly you're already speculating. Exactly. I saw speculation about Burnham already and street, you know, who are we going to get to challenge them if they win ridiculous and so anti the the British tradition where we we've been much more strategic and more long-term. However, I listened to the speech yesterday of Streeting.

[00:13:40]I've got to say, I've rarely in my life seen a speech so beautifully expressed, fantastic body language, wonderful diction, but so utterly meaningless. Do you have a clue? I mean the the the centerpiece of this speech the the philosophical centerpiece was a distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is about being together. Nationalism is about division.

[00:14:07]What on earth does that mean? How do you operationalize that when it comes to immigration legal or illegal? What does it what I had the faintest idea who this politician was, what he meant, what he would do at the end of however long it was. Felt like an hour, probably 10 minutes. Is it is he are we in danger here though? And I'm just going to put the the I'm going to be the contrarian a little bit because we started off by saying nobody is willing to confront these big questions. Nobody's willing to start the debate. And yet these politicians are doing that. They are attempting to have that debate. They're attempting to ask questions where streeting is attempting to Okay, Matthew maybe not necessarily quite as well as some might hope, but he's trying. And we are already saying they're not doing a good enough job. Are we giving them the space? Are we are we shooting them down before they've had a go?

[00:14:56]>> Possibly. Although again, I would I would question political instinct. The this policy of GPS working from home, for example, is that >> Oh, you mean streeting?

[00:15:06]>> West streetings. Is that is that really reading the room as as we say now? Is that really what people are looking for?

[00:15:15]I there seems to be such a a a separation a fracture between the the experience of all of us ordinary people living in Britain and this little cery of people who are I don't know that they want to advance their ideas. I think they want to advance themselves. That's what we can see unfortunately. It's it's the thirst for power and of course that that drives political will. But then there need to be people who want to serve the country rather than just serve themselves. And I don't see anyone in this group of people who appears to think along those lines.

[00:15:46]>> Matthew, do you agree with that?

[00:15:48]>> Well, I I I might lose I might lose you all with this, but I thought Nigel Farage gave a a visionary speech last November in the city where one of the great problems with reform is I I think many I don't like the rhetoric and I don't like some of the details, but in order to control illegal immigration, we must change the legal framework. If that makes sense. we have to change. Get out of the refugee convention and the other conventions that constrain our ability to deport people who come here illegally. That seems to me to have been obvious for a decade and we've been footing around for a very long time and Benok has got there too. That's good. I think on legal immigration the conservatives are saying good things.

[00:16:29]But on the economy, the most important thing Farage gave a fantastic speech last November in the city. I went and watched. I was told I might like it about getting on top of debt, welfare, spending, building. Uh talked even talked about revising the triple lock.

[00:16:43]It was fantastic. But then he started to backtrack once he realized that it was highly unpopular. And that that to me is a fundamental dilemma. Benok has not yet questioned the triple lock. You may have noticed.

[00:16:54]>> Well, the opposite. She's not going to.

[00:16:57]>> I think she will have to either before or after the election. I mean there's no way we can get on top of our predicament unless we get on top of welfare spending.

[00:17:05]>> It's such a good point that about FR because we've noticed and Kate noticed it very early on which is that reform started out as this reactionary um insurgency and then as it's got closer to maybe being elected it's it's it's sort of slightly rode back and and and >> they ditched their entire economic perspectives >> because they're not willing to be unpopular >> because it was absolutely unachievable >> which is another problem with with insurgency.