Vladimir Putin should have been invited to the Queen’s funeral

What we have here is something akin to the world’s ‘naughty step’. This stands to perpetuate – rather than heal – divisions, writes Mary Dejevsky

State funeraIs have always offered a chance for exploratory encounters and potentially for new beginnings (AP)

At 8.45pm London time, on 8 September, barely two hours after the BBC had announced the death of the Queen at Balmoral, this message of condolence was among the first to arrive from a foreign leader.

Here is what it said: “Her Majesty’s name is inextricably linked with key events in the contemporary history of the United Kingdom. For many decades, Elizabeth II rightfully enjoyed the love and respect of her subjects, as well as high regard on the world stage. I wish you courage and fortitude in the face of this difficult, irreparable loss. Please convey my sincere sympathy and support to the members of the royal family and all the people of the United Kingdom.”

Who did it come from? Not from Emmanuel Macron, whose elegant and eloquent tribute arrived the following day. Not from Joe Biden – though the message from the US president and the first lady was also among the early arrivals. Nor was it from any of the Commonwealth countries.

The message came from the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin – and it was posted on the Kremlin’s website.

For me, several features stand out. First that it was sent at all, given the dire state of diplomatic relations between our two countries. Second, that it was among the first to arrive. Third, that in its wording it is a model of decorum. And last, but not least, note the inclusion of the word “rightfully”, as in “Elizabeth II rightfully enjoyed the love and respect of her subjects, as well as high regard on the world stage”. That word did not have to be there.

By any standards, this was a message that went beyond what was strictly required by protocol. I would not go so far as to suggest that Putin was broaching some sort of diplomatic opening – as was clearly the case when he became the first foreign leader to convey condolences to President Bush after the World Trade Center attacks.

Putin’s diplomatic efforts in recent weeks and months have been addressed, of necessity, to the south and the east. And even if he were looking for new friends, or at least fewer enemies, the UK would probably be the among the last places he would look. His current visit to Uzbekistan and meetings with China’s Xi Jinping are more indicative of Russia’s current diplomatic focus.

Nor would I even hazard that an ability to respond correctly, even with something like warmth, to the death of a long-serving foreign head of state presents any sort of mitigating factor to set against Russia’s reckless and illegal invasion of Ukraine. The two are – obviously – of a quite different order.

What I think might be construed from Putin’s message is something different. On the one hand, perhaps, just the slightest allusion to the historic ties between the British royal family and the last Russian Tsars, who – since the Soviet collapse – have returned to an honoured place in the history of today’s Russian state.

On the other, however, what might be detected rather more is something akin to envy; envy of the stability and continuity represented by the monarchy in the UK as it has been preserved and evolved to today. Contrast this – and what will be two weeks of a stately and entirely orderly transition – with the upheavals experienced by Russians and Russia over the past century or more. That word “rightfully” in Putin’s message was used deliberately.

Now, there is no reason for us to be too complacent: it is not only Russia that demonstrates how quickly change can happen, for better and worse. But it is worth being aware of what others, including Russia, see as the assets, as well as the failings, of this country, especially if, as with the monarchy, they transcend the exigencies of day to day government. This is why I regret that Russia’s head of state was excluded from the list of those invited to the Queen’s state funeral.

Yes, his presence would have been awkward, and Putin himself could have (probably would have) taken the reasonable decision to decline. But the UK has passed up a unique opportunity to show off to Russia’s leader the durability of UK institutions. And this in turn could not only have built up political capital for the future, but advanced London as a possible broker; when the West starts talking to Russia again – as one day it will have to do.

State funeraIs have always offered a chance for exploratory encounters and the potential for new beginnings. And Putin, as a child of the Soviet Union, where leaders’ funerals played exactly this role, will know this perhaps better than most.

The Queen’s obsequies may be on another scale, in part because of her long reign, and in part because of the reach of the erstwhile Empire – it is said that her funeral will be akin to the UK hosting 40 or more state visits simultaneously – but they also present an extraordinary gift to the new prime minister, Liz Truss, and her government, who will have a chance to meet on their home ground, if only fleetingly, state dignitaries from all over the world.

Alas, it is not yet clear how well they will use that opportunity. The list of those attending includes presidents and crowned heads from across Europe, as well as the presidents of the United States, of Turkey and Brazil – and the Emperor of Japan.

If Liz Truss aspires to exemplify the “Global Britain” role designed by her predecessor, she could hardly have hoped for a more propitious start; except, perhaps, for two considerations.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Given the breadth of those committed to coming to London next week, was it really necessary, or judicious, to draw up a list of exclusions – headed by Russia and Belarus, but including also Syria, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Myanmar, with North Korea and Nicaragua confined to representation at ambassador level?

What we have here is something akin to the world’s “naughty step” as defined by London (and Washington?). This stands to perpetuate, rather than heal, divisions. For some, though – and this is the second consideration – the list of exclusions was deficient by at least one, and a very big one at that.

China, it appears, was invited, without any great expectation on the part of London that it would accept. Now that, it would appear, it intends to send a delegation – albeit at a level below Xi Jinping – questions are being raised about Beijing’s non-observance of human rights, with special reference to Hong Kong and the Uighurs of Xinjiang.

Did the UK’s preoccupation with Russian sins blind it to China’s own brand of abuses? Was the new government quietly giving China a free pass in the hope of improving the climate for trade? Why does the UK habitually hold China and Russia to different standards, unless it is a reflection of their comparative power? Where does the UK stand on leaders in the oil-rich Gulf, when we reject energy from Russia?

The Queen’s state funeral will be a gathering of world leaders rare in its breadth and, as such, a fitting tribute to Elizabeth II’s long reign. As the dignitaries head home, however, the new government might take another look at the guest list and ask what it says about the ethics and consistency of UK foreign policy and what might need to change for it to maintain credibility in a post-Brexit, post-Elizabethan age.