Publications /
Opinion

Back
A Shadow Over the Generous Spending
Authors
August 11, 2020

Possibly Roger Federer would have been ready to play the match against the socialite, who was willing to pay (in 2014) £160,000 for a celebrity match of tennis. But Russian tennis fan Lubov Chernukhin, 48, chose two different partners to be her opponents: David Cameron, then British prime minister, and Boris Johnson, then mayor of London. Chernukhin, who settled in Britain in 2003 and is a British passport holder, like her husband Vladimir, 50, a former Russian deputy finance minister and former chairman of the Russian state bank Vnesekonom, played her British opponents after an auction to benefit the Conservative Party. Mrs Chernukhin never really made a secret out of her interest in really getting to know the power players of Her Majesty’s government: in 2019, the Russian dished out £135,000 for a dinner with prime minister Theresa May and six of her female cabinet ministers at the Goring Hotel in plush Belgravia. The year before, she paid £35,000 at a Conservative Party fund-raising auction to have a private dinner with the then secretary of state for defense, Gavin Williamson. Since 2012, the Russian-born lady has given the Conservative Party £1,765,804, the highest female donor in the party’s history.

‘Welcoming Oligarchs With Open Arms’

The Conservatives have benefited from the generosity of other donors with connections to Moscow, such as Ukraine-born businessman Alexander Temerko, a UK citizen since 2011 and a member of the Tory party, who has given at least £1.3 million to date. However, on July 21, 2020, the publication of a report on Russia by U.K. parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee cast a shadow over the spending of the exiled Russian elite in the U.K. One chapter of the report deals with Russian expatriates under the title Welcoming Oligarchs with Open Arms, observing that “the U.K. has been viewed as a particularly favorable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money … few questions—if any—were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth”. The Intelligence and Security Committee worked on the report for a total of eight months, but the Conservative government, was reluctant to publish the findings prior to the General Election in December 2019. The report noted that “The arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers, individuals and organizations who manage and lobby for the Russian elite in the U.K.—lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals have played a role, wittingly or unwittingly, in the extension of Russian influence, which is often linked to promoting the nefarious interests of the Russian state … The links of the Russian elite to the UK—especially where this involves business and investment—provide access to UK companies and political figures, and thereby a means for broad Russian influence in the U.K.”. The authors wrote that it is “widely recognized that Russian intelligence and business are completely intertwined. The government must take the necessary measures to counter the threat and challenge the impunity of Putin-linked elites”. The next paragraph in the critical report dealt with several members of the Russian elite “who are closely linked to Putin” and “involved with charitable and/or political organizations in the U.K., having donated to political parties, with a public profile which positions them to assist Russian influence operations”. It is notable that a number of members of the House of Lords, the U.K.’s upper house, have business interests linked to Russia.

 “It is clear that Russia poses a significant threat to the U.K. on a number of fronts”, noted the Intelligence and Security Committee, “from espionage to interference in democratic processes, and to serious crime”. Furthermore, “the U.K. is clearly a target for Russia’s disinformation campaigns and political influence operations and must therefore equip itself to counter such efforts”.

‘New Normal’

Russia seems to have sought to influence a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, and might have sought to influence the U.K.’s Brexit referendum, according to the report. Rachel Ellehuus, Deputy Director Europe at the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote on July 21: “The report is damning. It says that the government, along with the intelligence and security services, underestimated the response required to the Russian threat and are still playing catch up”. The study confirms that the British government and intelligence agencies failed to conduct any proper assessment of Kremlin attempts to interfere with the 2016 Brexit referendum. According to Ms Ellehuus, “Crucially, the U.K. government is accused of making a deliberate effort not to find out how Russian influence may have affected the June 2016 vote. This is all the more incredulous because the government admits there was Russian interference in the 2014 Scottish referendum … the government also admits that Russia interfered in the December 2019 general election. This information makes the lack of preparedness for 2016 (and 2019) and the lack of response all the more stunning. The report rightly calls for a thorough inquiry; the UK government has so far rejected the call”.

“Although its long-delayed version is heavily redacted”, observed The Guardian (July 21) “the thrust of its conclusion—that insufficient attention has been paid to Russian infiltration in British politics and public life—was clear”. Stewart Hosie, a Scottish National Party MP, who was member of the Committee, insisted that the U.K. government actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered: “We were told they hadn’t seen any evidence, and that is meaningless if they hadn’t looked for it”. The truth, as the member of parliament saw it, is that “Nobody wanted to touch the issue with a ten foot pole”.

Frank Langfitt, London correspondent for U.S. National Public Radio offered a reason for the reluctance: “I think the answer is this: It would’ve undermined the Brexit referendum. Remember, it’s the biggest decision of the British people in decades. It has already changed the course of British history, and the person who was front and center—that was a guy named Boris Johnson, who is now prime minister. So, if you say Russia interfered, then it could undermine this thing that has changed the course of history”. Russian influence in the U.K., the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded, is “the new normal”.

The opinions expressed in this artcile belong to the author.

RELATED CONTENT

  • Authors
    Paul Isbell
    November 12, 2026
    In this policy paper – Part 3 of our ongoing analysis – we address the Iran War and its implications for the evolution of the international system in its denouement from the clash between “Restoration”, on the one hand, and “Reformation” or “Revolution”, on the other (see our previous policy paper for a summary and analysis of Andrey Kortunov’s scenarios for the future of the international system). These rival global dynamics are faced off in this moment across the Strait of Hormuz ...
  • November 12, 2026
    The U.S. midterm elections raise questions about the future direction of American foreign policy and its implications for Africa. This discussion examines how shifting political dynamics in Washington could shape the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities and engagement with t...
  • Authors
    Giovanna Rinaldo
    November 4, 2026
    Brazil’s presidential election, which concluded on October 25, 2026, was above all a digital battle. This is nothing new; the impact of social media on elections has been widely analyzed since Barack Obama's 2008 win marked a turning point for digital campaigning worldwide. Almost two decades later, social media is an entirely different breed, with a life of its own – and still very little regulation within electoral politics. The danger, however, is that digital players now also in ...
  • November 4, 2026
    Le 30 octobre 2026, le mandat de la Minurso a expiré et n’a pas été renouvelé. La raison : un projet américain, pourtant appuyé par 11 membres du Conseil de sécurité, auquel la Russie a opposé son veto, suivi d’un projet russe qui n’a pu recueillir que trois voix en sa faveur, sur lequel les États-Unis ont émis un vote négatif.Cette impasse révèle deux conceptions opposées du règlement. Washington entend recentrer le processus sur l’initiative marocaine d’autonomie et adapter progre ...
  • October 29, 2026
    Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s victory brings to an end one of the most closely contested elections in Brazil’s recent history. Before any broader analysis, however, a qualification is necessary. Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin’s controversial decision to extend voting hours sparked debate over the electoral process. Although the measure was not mathematically decisive in Lula’s come-from-behind victory, the episode risks fuelling challenges to the result and further eroding poli ...
  • Authors
    October 29, 2026
    Wars are decided by those who hold military power, but their costs are increasingly borne by those who have little or no voice in the decisions that start them. The US–Iran war shows this imbalance very clearly. Its economic consequences have gone far beyond the battlefield and have disrupted energy markets, trade routes, food supplies, public finances and investment in the Gulf, Europe, Africa and Asia. The most striking feature of the conflict, however, is not only the size of the ...
  • October 28, 2026
    Depuis 2016, le Policy Center for the New South et le Centre de Géopolitique de l’école HEC Paris organisent chaque année deux éditions des « Dialogues Stratégiques ». Cette plateforme d’analyse et d’échange réunit des experts, des chercheurs provenant de différents think-tanks et du mo...