A Facebook[1] newsfeed looks a lot like sewage in 2025. When recently scrolling through my own, I stumbled upon a post by one Graham Phillips. For the reader unaware, Phillips is a British national who was recently granted asylum in Russia. The self-proclaimed independent journalist has been placed under U.K. sanctions since 2022 for producing and publishing what the British courts called pro-Russian disinformation and propaganda about the Ukraine War.
Phillips recently shared an article in The Guardian, which reported that the U.K. government was using interest earned on frozen Russian assets to send Ukraine £70 million in military aid. It was the U.K.’s largest military aid package to date.
I do not always agree with Phillips’ views or enjoy the way he conducts himself, but this article and his particular situation shed light on something important about the U.K. and its Russia sanctions: they have failed both in their purpose and execution.
First is the obvious that the U.K.’s sanctions have no basis in British or international law, and seizing the earned interest is a legally dubious workaround. Yet, if we consider both Phillips and the thousands of Russian citizens under U.K. sanctions, it must force a reasonable person to ponder a fundamental question: when can governments punish people, who have broken no laws, purely based on their political leanings, by virtue of their passport or heritage?
An obvious case is those who commit acts of terrorism. Many would fairly argue that it also extends to members of terrorist groups. If an individual lets that ideology guide and regulate their daily actions, they risk inciting and causing harm. But even in that regard, the U.K. has run into some recent high profile legal issues.
The most famous case was Shamima Begum, a British national who fled to Syria and joined ISIS[2] in 2015. A minor at the time, Begum was stripped of her citizenship by the Home Secretary, in a widely popular move. This was reaffirmed in a string of highly controversial court cases and she was denied re-entry into Britain.
The U.K. allows the removal of citizenship only in cases where a person is a threat to the public good, will not be made stateless or in cases where their actions may harm U.K. interests. Begum was not a dual national, confirmed by Bangladesh (where her father is from), which also said Begum would not be permitted to enter or obtain citizenship. Moreover, British citizens cannot, by law, be denied entry into the U.K. They can, of course, be arrested and detained on return if wanted for a crime. Nevertheless, Begum was designated a threat to public good and the rulings stood.
More recently dubious were the pro-Palestine protests and the summer riots of 2024, supported by the far right. A handful of people went to prison over Facebook posts in both cases, as did some of those participating.
Most were not members of extremist groups or terrorist organisations, even if they showed sympathy to their views. To many Britons, though, it seemed that expressing derogatory views about migrants, Jewish people and the state of Israel was enough for conviction. The acts of vandalism and violence which accompanied them were – and rightly so. But under British common law, one has a right to exercise free speech, but not to incite harm against other individuals or the public good.
Russian citizens are still free to visit and settle in the U.K. and in 2023, they received the second highest number of talented persons visas (behind only India).
The U.K. sanctions stated aim was “encouraging Russia to cease actions which destabilise Ukraine or threaten the territorial integrity or independence of Ukraine.” Whilst those aims are vague, the war is now in its fourth year. On the very face of it, the sanctions have failed.
Dig deeper and it is pure hypocrisy. The U.K. has paid far more for Russian oil and LNG since February 2022 than it has sent in aid to Ukraine. Around 2300 British companies still operate in Russia (55 percent of pre-war levels). Just 11 percent have left entirely, whereas the rest have frozen or wound down their operations. A small number are openly mulling a return.
Dig even deeper, and things get worse. The sanctions have resulted in thousands of assets being frozen. Every London financial institution, be it mortgage lenders or wealth managers, aggressively vetted and purged lists of people with Russian origins, even if they were British citizens and had been for years. Inside Russia, many individuals were sanctioned on the basis of who their employers are, whether they have any connection to the U.K., the war or not.
And here is the real crux of Britain’s sanctions problem: most of those on the U.K. sanctions list have not committed any crimes. How, then, does that work in the way of punishing people?
It is not just that democratic judicial systems should safeguard their citizens from the excesses of state power. Democracies must afford their citizens the right to a fair trial, not enact punishment without a trial, the presumption of innocence, equality before the law and the inviolability of private property.
Phillips is allowed to hold the views he does – however uncouthly may he express them – and people should be free to be wrong and change their minds. That is why he has attracted some important support in Peter Hitchens and other free speech groups.
The Foreign Office’s own report in 2023 admitted the sanctions had hit only marginal returns. Every sanction since has been like a sticking plaster over its own hypocrisy.
