David Lammy Unleashes On Vladimir Putin in Remarkable UN Speech – Then Takes aim at Russian Ambassador

While wars, despotism, climate change, famine, greed and desperation ravage much of the planet and its inhabitants, the United Nations remains a forum for diplomatic doublespeak. For pretend fealty to international principles. For honeyed words about the poor and dispossessed. For earnest calls for peace, for justice, for our shared humanity and kinship amongst men.  

Joe Biden’s long speech to the UN General Assembly on 24 September, probably his last major address to an international gathering, was a classic of the genre. Trying to bring “a message of hope for the future” he cited examples of where warring parties have managed to reconcile – such as Vietnam and the US, or Israel and Egypt – to make the point that it was still possible to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza.

He spoke about the need to avoid a full-scale regional conflict involving Lebanon, to sustain support for Ukraine, and press for an end to the civil war in Sudan. He also called for continuing action to combat climate change, and expressed US support for reform and expansion of the Security Council.  

But, Biden’s lofty aspirations seemed completely divorced from reality, given what is actually happening on the ground in the Middle East, Sudan, and Ukraine – the latter handicapped by his own administration’s refusal to lift restrictions on usage of long range weapons – as well as the almost total gridlock in the UN Security Council on how to address these and other crises around the world, let alone reach agreement on how to reform itself.

He barely mentioned Iran’s meddling across the Middle East, or North Korea’s nuclear adventurism, let alone the dangerous nexus of cooperation they have formed with Russia, to sustain its aggression against Ukraine.  

It was not wrong of Biden to try to appeal to the better natures of his fellow leaders. But it did come across as naïve, overly boastful, and disconnected from current events. The rosy unreality of his speech was exemplified by his claim that he had successfully ended the war in Afghanistan, overlooking the chaos of the US withdrawal, the abandonment of US allies, the devastating consequences for Afghan women back under Taliban rule since then, and the message of weakness this telegraphed to dictators around the world.   

Uncharitably, I suspect that some of the applause for Biden, when he explained his decision not to run for the Presidency a second time, saying “some things are more important than staying in power”, may have been more ironic than genuine in sentiment.

The world is in a far messier state now than when Biden came into office. For all that many democratic governments around the world may have deplored Trump, and now dread a second Trump Presidency, this does not translate into automatic enthusiasm for Biden’s handling of world events either. 

Where the US leads, the UK often timidly follows. For example, for months, on Gaza, the UK has hidden behind an abstention on successive UN resolutions, to avoid having to take a clear stance on the conduct of the war, or whether to establish a Palestinian state. The UK has also, up till now, refrained from criticising Biden’s hesitation on Ukraine, at least in public.  

 So, it was both unexpected and refreshing to hear the British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, give a completely unvarnished speech about Russia, devoid of all the usual diplomatic niceties, during a session of the United Nations Security Council convened to discuss Ukraine.  

For once, there was no beating around the bush. In admirably concise and direct terms, Lammy accused Russia of tearing up the UN Charter, and Putin of presiding over a “mafia state”, which he aimed to expand into a mafia empire, “built on corruption”.   

Speaking directly at the Russian Ambassador to the UN, who he called out for disrespectfully looking at his phone during the speech, Lammy made a series of sharp points:  

“Russia claims to stand for the global south, but rides roughshod over international law.” 

“Vladimir Putin – when you fire missiles into Ukraine hospitals, we know who you are” 

“When you send mercenaries into African countries, we know who you are” 

“When you murder opponents in European cities, we know who you are” 

“Your invasion is in your own interests to expand your mafia state, into a mafia empire. An Empire built on corruption, robbing from the Russian people as well as Ukraine. An empire built on crushing dissent, courageous opponents, like Navalny, an empire built on lies, spreading disinformation at home and abroad, to sow disorder.”  

In a particularly compelling passage, Lammy compared Russian behaviour under Putin to that of a slave state: “I speak not only as a Briton, as a Londoner, and as a foreign secretary. But I say to the Russian representative that I stand here also as a Black man, whose ancestors were taken in chains from Africa, at the barrel of a gun to be enslaved, whose ancestors rose up and fought in a great rebellion of the enslaved. Imperialism: I know it when I see it. And I will call it out for what it is.” 

It’s not the first time a prominent western politician has criticised Putin, but too often, international condemnation has been directed at Putin’s behaviour – such as the invasion of Ukraine, the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, Russian mercenary activity in Africa, political repression at home, attempted assassinations abroad, and so forth, rather than at the regime itself.  

The reason Lammy’s speech was so powerful is because it rightly identified the true nature of the problem, which is Putin’s actual character  – who Putin is, rather than just what he does. 

This is the same case that Russia’s closest neighbours – Poland, the Baltic States, Georgia and Moldova, have been making for years, often falling on deaf ears in capitals further west, where some still cling to hopes of another “reset” with Russia.   

The situation reminds me of the fable about the scorpion and the frog – where a frog is persuaded to carry a scorpion across a river, after the scorpion promises not to sting him. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both to drown. As they are dying, the scorpion apologises to the frog, but says he couldn’t help it, because “it’s in my nature”.  

The reason there can be no negotiated peace with Russia over Ukraine, as some deluded Western politicians still naively believe, is because it is not in Russia’s nature to adhere to any peace deal. Any arrangement would only be temporary, allowing Russia to regroup and rearm, and await another opportunity to attack its neighbours.

Putin’s regime is brittle and hollow at the centre, and only survives through domestic repression, and fanciful notions of imperial revival abroad.  

That is why Lammy was right to end his speech by saying, “Ukraine’s fight matters to all of us…..These are the stakes: if we let an imperialist redraw borders by force, those will not be the last borders to be redrawn.”  

Biden’s message of hope at the UN was misplaced. Hope is not a policy. What was needed was strength, and resolve.  

Biden has also never successfully made the case to the American people about why they should sustain support for Ukraine, or convinced them that he has a strategy for winning. This is one of the reasons behind ebbing support for Ukraine in Congress, though Donald Trump’s hostility is, of course, the main factor on the Republican side.   

Lammy’s speech was more grounded in reality, and hit all the right notes in terms of defining the problem, and stating a clear intention to remain Ukraine’s “staunchest ally.”

But, at a time of pressure on defence budgets, war fatigue and growing isolationist sentiment, will the UK and Western allies be able to deliver in practice? We need to be with Ukraine, not only for as long as it takes, but for whatever it takes. 

Read Lammy’s speech here.