3
Conclusion
Seventh Report - Guns for gold: the Wag…
Not Addressed
Host governments and other non-regime actors must perceive benefits from engaging with the Wagner Network, because they consider it the most effective form of protection and security. There are examples of its fighters furthering a regime’s security objectives, even if this meant neutering political opposition.
Read more
Host governments and other non-regime actors must perceive benefits from engaging with the Wagner Network, because they consider it the most effective form of protection and security. There are examples of its fighters furthering a regime’s security objectives, even if this meant neutering political opposition.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response begins by stating 'Disagree' but then discusses the importance of close coordination on sanctions with the EU and US, and later mentions travel bans, none of which directly address the committee's observation regarding host governments' perceptions of benefits from engaging with the …
Read full response →
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
16
Conclusion
Seventh Report - Guns for gold: the Wag…
Not Addressed
The Minister had no specific knowledge of work within his Department to analyse whether Wagner activities undermine the financial impact of UK sanctions on the Russian war machine. Despite finding it “likely”, he could not confirm that the FCDO had had any input to HM Treasury’s unwise decision to issue …
Read more
The Minister had no specific knowledge of work within his Department to analyse whether Wagner activities undermine the financial impact of UK sanctions on the Russian war machine. Despite finding it “likely”, he could not confirm that the FCDO had had any input to HM Treasury’s unwise decision to issue sanctions waivers to Prigozhin. Despite assuring us that the Treasury and FCDO communicate over sanctions waivers in general, the Minister himself had not received any official advice specifically on sanctions waivers. Given his position as the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Europe, we would expect him to have an interest and role in questions relating to sanctions waivers linked to Russia and Ukraine. His statements also lead us to question whether the Russia Unit is providing the necessary join-up between the FCDO and Treasury, given the central role of sanctions as a tool of UK foreign policy.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's response outlines its general sanctions policy and recent designations against the Wagner Group but does not address the committee's specific concerns about ministerial knowledge, FCDO and Treasury coordination, or sanctions waivers for Prigozhin.
Read full response →
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
26
Recommendation
Seventh Report - Guns for gold: the Wag…
Not Addressed
In its response to this report, the Government should set out the factors it will assess in determining whether countries are priorities for UK security partnerships. These factors should include (but not be limited to): (Paragraph 71) (a) the UK’s capacity for influence in a specific country; (b) the level …
Read more
In its response to this report, the Government should set out the factors it will assess in determining whether countries are priorities for UK security partnerships. These factors should include (but not be limited to): (Paragraph 71) (a) the UK’s capacity for influence in a specific country; (b) the level of security challenge faced by a country (in the short, medium and long term); (c) the level of demand for a bilateral/multilateral security partnership within a country; 56 Guns for gold: the Wagner Network exposed (d) the possible regional implications of the country’s ‘capture’ by a Russian or other malign proxy; and (e) the level of willingness on both sides to uphold transparency and standards of good governance as part of any future partnership.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government describes its existing security partnerships and support for African countries but does not explicitly set out the specific factors it assesses when determining priority countries for UK security partnerships as requested.
Read full response →
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office