“The Russians have lied and lied and lied.” So says Liz Truss in “The Times” today. Well that’s one thing the juntas in Moscow and London have in common.

Another thing that unites us with Putin is having an inflated view of the importance of our nations in the modern world. Russia is a hydrocarbon rich dictatorship and little else. Regrettably it inherited obscene stocks of nuclear weapons from the USSR and is a existential threat to the world. Meanwhile Britain having lost its Empire then lost , by choice, its raison d’être as a credible state by cutting itself off politically and economically from Europe. Two Nuclear armed nations with powerful, if highly questionable, pasts trying and failing to recapture those past “glories”.

Ms Truss seems to have a golf club nineteenth hole view of the world. As shallow in knowledge and analysis as the club bore who’s just won the monthly medal. The idea of Britain as a serious player on the world stage is comical and to see Truss taking to the boards alongside the big boys and girls reminds one of Shakespeare’s genius in putting a fool alongside the important characters in his histories and tragedies. Mind you with Falstaff in Number 10 and Lady Macbeth in the Home Office La Truss may turn out to be the smartest person in the room. God help us.

Right Wing polemicist James Forsyth argues in The Times today that “If Russia paid only a small price for its assault on Ukraine, a Chinese attempt to take Taiwan by force would have become significantly more likely.” It is a very forced and superficial analogy.

China is not run by a madman and unpleasant though Xi Jinping may be he has the familiar Chinese virtues of patience and pragmatism. And to all intent and purposes the Chinese and Western economies are merged as one. That is unbreakable.

China did not retake Hong Kong by force but by negotiation. And it waited more than twenty years, and until the economic merger I refer to above was firmly in place , before tightening its grip on the ex Colony.

China today is a Western creation – we swarmed like bees around a honeypot when the People’s Republic opened up in the 1980s. And when the Chinese showed that they had no intention of becoming a liberal or democratic state (e.g. in Tiananmen Square in 1989) we ignored it and carried on swarming.

That Taiwan will one day return to the motherland, as Hong Kong did, is highly likely. But unless the West, including the Taiwanese themselves, provoke the Chinese it won’t happen in the near or even medium term. My guess is that there will be an accommodation involving the surrender of sovereignty but the continuation of most of Taiwan’s current governance structure – the Chinese know all about “One country two systems”.

Back in the 1950s Zhou Enlai was asked what he thought the consequences of the French Revolution were he answered that it was “Too early to say”. The Chinese are masters of the long term view.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia knows how to handle its huge crude oil production capacity – as a founder member of OPEC it’s been at the game a long time. The House of Saud’s principal objective is to maximise revenues and in times of world shortages, for whatever reason, it knows how to do this.

These days the KSA plays the supply game as it always did but whereas in the past its potential income streams from oil revenues were well ahead of its national expenditure today there is a balance. And America’s oil self-sufficiency (achieved especially by exploiting Shale resources) means that one once crucial customer is out of the picture.

It’s perfectly possible that a pariah state seeking friends will make some cosmetic “concession” to Boris Johnson. It won’t mean much. The British Government does not buy or sell oil, it leaves that entirely to the private sector. Oil is a perfect market and oil traders have been operating in it for a long time. If Russia was to be removed as a player permanently (very unlikely) then other producers like the KSA would benefit as they have always done at times of demand/supply imbalance. Prices would rise.

The KSA knows well the game Johnson is playing but to them the U.K. is just another market, albeit one with long trading connections as a weapons supplier. Don’t be fooled though. There won’t be any deals which mean anything – that’s not how the oil business works.

To actually use the words “Regime change” (as Matthew Parris does in The Times today) as if it is, or has ever been, a reason for military intervention is baffling. The only regime change that actually worked was the Cold War. The Soviet Union wasn’t brought down militarily (though American military expenditure, if not action, helped). The long list of failed military “regime change” initiatives – Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. etc. should make us very wary of thinking that Western superior weaponry could ever do that job.

We are very close to having an authentic United States of Europe (Churchill’s nomenclature) thanks to Putin. The Germans, Swedes and even the Swiss are re-arming. The move to a European Defence Force seems unstoppable. Europe will choose to defend itself also negotiating bilateral alliances (e.g. with the US and Turkey) as NATO fades away. And for the first time Europe’s multinational defence capability will be democratically accountable (to the European Parliament).

And where will Britain be as all this happens ? Rocks and hard places spring to mind. How amusing that Putin’s determination to divide Europe (by opposing NATO enlargement and supporting Brexit for example) will actually lead to something more powerfully united across the continent. And pragmatically (if we haven’t forgotten how to be pragmatic) Britain will join in and clamber back on to the European train. Hooray.

Oil is a perfect market in which there is more than sufficient production to meet demand in the short to medium term and in which price will move to a level determined by supply and demand. Certainly the OPEC countries control supply, and therefore price on the margin. No western leader needs to go cap in hand to a producer, even a large one like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – the market will take care of that.

Oil prices have gone up because of actual or potential disruptions to Russia’s exports. Whilst this is significant it is not crucial. Other producers, especially in the Middle East, have the capacity to gear up production to cover the shortfall. But for now they are letting the situation ratchet up prices and rather enjoying putting the money in the bank.

Gas is much less flexible than oil – far from a perfect market. Europe has an extensive pipeline system and Russian supplies are important – not least for Germany. Britain is connected to this system though our still significant indigenous production combined with Norwegian supplies means that we only buy a small amount of gas from mainland Europe and none from Russia.

Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is increasingly important matching to some extent Oil in that there is a number of suppliers (though far less than oil) and procurement flexibility. Britain buys some LNG from Russia but this is easily replaceable, at a cost.

A visit by Boris Johnson to the KSA would be largely a publicity stunt. The House of Saud always acts in its own interests – they may give Johnson a few cosmetic barrels but don’t be fooled.

Iain Martin today in “The Times” has an extraordinary article trying to justify his Brexit vote whilst lambasting Angela Merkel in a vile and mendacious attack. It’s nasty stuff.

You lost Mr Martin, calamitously. It must be hard to bear – you want to be reassured that your foolish Brexit vote was that of a winner but sadly it was not. The worst kind of Brexiteer is not the fool who didn’t know better but the smart person, like you, who let the wrong side of his brain take over. So now you clutch at straws to try and prove the unprovable – that you were right all along.

Angela Merkel provided leadership in Europe at a time when Britain utterly abrogated it. She has been at the heart of the extraordinary and successful coming together of nations (many of whom were once enemies) for peace and security as well as for economic, social and cultural unity. She did this without the need for bombast and with the confidence of one who had seen for herself the dangers of nationalism.

Northern Europe needs gas to survive our cold winters. In the short to medium term there is no alternative. Yes power generation can use a variety of primary energy sources and Germany is diversifying away from a reliance on Coal. Gas is in that mix along with all other alternatives. But for home heating gas was and is the fuel of choice. The only one.

Britain’s energy mix is not dissimilar to Germany’s in that we too need Gas for space heating. But we have had our own offshore and even today half of our needs are met with indigenous supply. Germany does not have that luxury. She had no alternative but to do a deal with Russia.

The significant producers of Natural Gas in Europe are the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Norway. Their supply does not meet northern European demand so there have to be imports. By pipeline from Russia and by supplies of Liquified National Gas (LNG) from a variety of producers. Over time there will be more LNG. But the only feasible pipeline fed supplier to cope with demand is Russia.

^{“Embedded in that view is a concept of humans as essentially rational, in the classical economist’s sense of that word. Rational people weigh up the options and do what’s in their best interests. So, the arc of history bends, if not always towards justice, then towards peace and prosperity.” James Kirkup in “The Times”; today}

What is “rational” is subjective and culturally dependent. Back in the 1980s, living in Hong Kong and working for Shell, I was a very small cog in the growing movement to open up China economically. How many times did I hear the platitude that China embracing capitalism would lead to the country embracing democracy as well. We thought that to have free markets you had to have free people. Time has shown that you don’t.

Russia’s culture is one of strong all-powerful leaders. The Tsars, Stalin, Putin and most along the way. This hasn’t prevented them being a “Great Power’. Indeed had they been bothered with ensuring personal freedoms and genuine ballot boxes they could have fallen into the troublesome necessity for endless political debate that preoccupies the West.

Being successfully international – economically or culturally or commercially – requires us, as two writers once put it, to “Ride the Waves of culture”. One of writers of this excellent book like me worked for Shell. He taught that when we move outside the comfort zone of our own culture we need to ride the waves we encounter not try and mould or redirect them.

So there is no “rational” model. Walk down a Tokyo street in modern times and you will see hundreds of “salary men” in western suits. Don’t be fooled. The mores and values they have are not ours. When a Japanese businessman says “Yes” he says he understands not that he agrees. “Rational man” is a culturally dependent construct.

We do not have the most talented Cabinet of modern times. But Nadine Dorries is in a category of her own. Parliament has always had a smattering of colourful freaks in all parties but they are rarely let near ministerial office. The problem with “Mad Nad” is that her Department actually matters to most of us. “Culture, Media and Sport” are part of most of our lives. It is important that The Arts (in all its forms) , the Media, (ever more diverse) and Sport ( the new opium of the masses) exist in a well governed and appropriately regulated context. That’s the Minister’s job.

The BBC has its faults, how we pay for it is anachronistic but it is the jewel in the crown of British broadcasting and admired around the world. It needs reform, but not change driven by a narrow ideologue whose personal antipathy to the Corporation is matched only by her ignorance of what it does.

Prime Ministers have always preferred to have loyal sycophants around them but even Margaret Thatcher allowed one or two ”Wets” in her team. Johnson demands loyalty and a faithful devotion not just to him but to the one true faith that got him his job. Dorries delivers the loyalty in a rather creepily devoted way and was an early convert to the dangerous faith that is Brexit. Ticking those two boxes seems to be all that matters to Johnson who has a Stalinist approach to loyalty. Incompetent though she is Nadine will survive as long as Johnson does.

For Europe the next logical extension of “Ever Closer Union” is an entirely European military alliance. This could be, and logically should be, based on NATO but excluding the non EU member states. This does not mean that the likes of the United States, Canada, Turkey or Britain should withdraw from commitments in respect of Europe’s defence. But those commitments would be founded on separately negotiated military treaties.

The problem with NATO today is that the collective is democratically unaccountable – and is not unquestionably European in character . An EU military would be accountable to the European Parliament and to the European Commission. It would be a Defence alliance founded on the Union’s historic and unwavering commitment to peace across the continent. At present the absence of democratic debate in NATO means that its actions are largely unchallenged politically.

The 27 nations of the EU is effectively Europe and to confirm its accountability for the defence of Europe is no great step. The few European nations not in the union – e.g. Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – could benefit from the EU military alliance if they contribute troops and money to it. Similarly Non European nations, especially the US, Canada and Turkey, have interests in ensuring peace in Europe and would be welcomed contributors of personnel and resources.

Europe has no reason to be militarily aggressive and few if any significant defence commitments outside of the continent. But Russia is a threat and one that Europe has no choice but to address collectively. Part of this crucially is diplomacy – Jaw Jaw is always better than War War. The EU is the obvious way to further this diplomacy.

The Collected Lies of Boris Johnson” would be such a heavy tome that it would need to be issued in two volumes. And when mendacity emanates daily from our head of Government it’s hardly surprising that it becomes ubiquitous across our society. Indeed the distinction between truth and fiction, between fact and fable, is so blurred it is often hard to detect at all.

The step from a lie to a conspiracy theory is a small one. Donald Trump was not the only public figure to promote lies which became conspiracy theory about Barack Obama. Most people didn’t believe them but if enough did to make an electoral difference there was a problem.

For two years now some commentators have spread preposterous untruths about COVID, about vaccination and about treatments. Some of these scare-mongerers have platforms in various credible media and even the BBC felt it had to give the anti-vax brigade a platform which implied equivalence with genuine medical science.

But, of course, the biggest lies of all came from the “Leave” campaigns in 2016 and from Brexiteers ever since. The “Benefits of Brexit” , in contrast to the assault on truth that is Boris Johnson, wouldn’t require a book or even a pamphlet so thin would it be. But then some people believe what they want to believe tendentious though it is, especially if it gels with their prejudices.

When telling the truth becomes a fetish for a tiny minority society as a whole begins to lose its morality. And lying normalises when everybody does it. Those who communicate with us cannot automatically be believed especially when politics trumps science. Remember when Michael Gove said “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts” ? This is a paean to anti-intellectualism. Raising the common man to the level of the knowledgeable academic.

Truth is science and science is truth. Of course in science there are borders where challenge is rife. But if we ignore the margins of uncertainty the hard truths contain pretty much unchallengeable facts. They will still be challenged though and always be given a platform on social media. Conspiracy theories deviate from the scientific method. The latter observes, collects information and data, evaluates and concludes. As it does so it records the areas of certainty and of doubt. The scientist will often say “The evidence suggest this and we can conclude with a 95% level of certainty that it is true”, or similar. The conspiracy theorist has no such uncertainty – that’s often a clue !

Life is for some a search for truth – often a frustrating one. That’s one reason why religions can be comforting. They allow “faith” – something based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” says Hamlet – a good check on our certainty, and acknowledgement that there is always doubt.

Doubts may illuminate and perhaps challenge the expert to seek further proofs. But probability can help us here. “I think that it is (highly) probable” is analogous to the legal construct of “reasonable doubt. “Beyond” reasonable doubt, required for conviction in criminal cases, ups the ante a bit further. Nobody will go to jail if it is just “probable” that they committed a crime. It requires more to convict and potentially deprive someone of their liberty.

Truth has many faces and my truth, biased by factors such as religion and personal experience, may not be the same as yours. But lies and distortions committed deliberately to give the liar personal advantage are often transparent. Civilised society requires that we are true to ourselves and to those we interact with.

Whether it was Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift who first said “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” ( there is doubt !) is less important than the inate truthfulness of the saying. We are especially unwilling to confront a truth when it upsets or disadvantages us. Maybe that is why populist politicians like Johnson or Trump lie to us. To be the bearer of bad tidings is much less attractive to the voter than telling them comforting lies.