How the West should counter-attack Russia

Wait until the 2008 presidential election and hope that sense prevails. That, roughly, is the West’s strategy to deal with Russia. It has come at a high price.

Russia has largely won the gas wars before most Europeans even noticed they were being fought. So far this year the Kremlin has stitched up the Caspian (by striking a pipeline deal with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan). It has nobbled Austria, Belgium and Hungary (to add to its powerful position in Germany, France and Italy). By schmoozing other producers it has begun to form a gas cartel. Russia has also built a strong pro-Kremlin camp elsewhere in the European Union (Greece and Cyprus chiefly; Hungary, Latvia and Slovakia increasingly; and probably Bulgaria too if anybody looked closely). Its banks and businesses have created a fifth column in the City of London and other financial centres around the world.

On top of all this are the attacks on Estonia’s state websites and the shameless contempt shown by the Kremlin after the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB officer, in London.

Waiting another year in the hope that someone nicer than Vladimir Putin comes along is wishful thinking. Instead of waiting for the next Kremlin stunt, why not try a counter-attack?

For a start: is Russia a fit member of the G8? Clearly not. Russia was admitted to the then G7 to bolster Boris Yeltsin’s attempt to make Russia democratic, free and friendly. That was probably a mistake; it has obviously failed. So either exclude Russia, on the ground that the G7 is a democracies-only club, or include China and make it a big-economies club.

Expand NATO, both in scope and membership. Create a cyber-NATO to offer mutual assistance against state-backed internet terrorism of the kind experienced by Estonia. Sweden and Finland might be willing to join such a cyber-group now; if they are wise, they will join NATO while they still can. Restart EU enlargement, especially for Serbia and Montenegro, thus counteracting Russian influence there.

Stop Russian companies from using the international capital markets unless they have clean hands. Conniving in the sale of stolen property is a crime. Why should a Russian oil firm with looted assets (or a gas intermediary whose business seems to consist mainly of standing in the right place) enjoy the privilege of raising capital in London? Equally, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development should stop its ‘rent-a-fig-leaf’ service to Russians who want to look respectable. Given the colossal amounts of cash sloshing around Russia at the moment, it is preposterous that Western taxpayers are asked to finance anything there.

Crack down on visas. If a Russian tycoon is unwelcome in America, should he be any more welcome in London? Even better, start chucking people out. Imagine the impact if America, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and the UK - and any other countries that wanted to join in - expelled, on the same day, equal numbers of Russian spies. Say 15 each from the GRU (military intelligence) and from the FSB and from the SVR (the successors to the KGB). The spying, stealing and mischief-making by these outfits matches or even exceeds levels seen in the Cold War. So, show some Cold-War resolve and do it in unison.

More tough-mindedness would be useful in other places too, such as in Western countries’ foreign ministries. For the past 20 years, officials dealing with Russia have been promoted if they encourage trade, investment and friendly political relations. Hawkishness has been a career-killer. That doesn’t help now that a tough, consistent policy is needed.

Toughness will have a cost. But the coming years need not be disastrous if the West is willing once again to stand up for what it believes in. A "wait and see" policy guarantees disaster.

• The writer is central and eastern Europe correspondent of The Economist.

Wait until the 2008 presidential election and hope that sense prevails. That, roughly, is the West’s strategy to deal with Russia. It has come at a high price.