When Britain Turns Trust into a Weapon, It Cuts Its Own Throat

Four fifths of Britain’s output now comes from services. Manufacturing has shrunk to single digits. More than a tenth of total output, and a far larger slice of the tax base, comes from selling the world legal advice, insurance policies and balance sheet space in London. These are weightless exports. They exist because foreign clients choose English law, English judges and English brokers over other people’s courts and other people’s markets. They can disappear in a single renewal cycle if those clients decide the City has become a political instrument rather than a neutral marketplace.

When United Kingdom courts deny Caracas control of its own gold because Westminster prefers a different president, other capitals notice. When London helps freeze hundreds of billions of Russian reserves and now debates how far to go in seizing them, finance ministries notice. When British regulators pull cover from Russian and “shadow” tankers and now from Arctic liquefied gas carriers by decree, every ship owner and energy minister who relies on those same brokers and courts notices. Their response is already visible in the numbers: record central bank gold buying, bullion brought home from London and New York, and a slow diversion of the riskiest trades into a parallel world that Western sanctions cannot easily reach.

A country that lives on trust is gambling with the very trust that keeps it alive. The new sanctions on Russian Arctic gas exports are being sold as a clever strike at the heart of Moscow’s energy empire. They are that. They are also one more experiment in weaponising Britain’s last remaining global franchises. Each time it “works” on Russia, it reminds everyone else how quickly London can be turned against them too.

Treasure Island on a services diet

The polite version is that London is a global financial centre. The accurate version is that Britain’s prosperity rests on a web of offshore satellites whose purpose is to route other people’s capital through English law. The Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories act as booking points and secrecy jurisdictions. Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Cayman, the British Virgin Islands and their cousins are where the shells live. The City is where the money and the disputes end up.

Critics have long called this system “Treasure Island”. It launders reputations as well as funds. Commodity traders, oligarchs, extractive firms, sovereign funds and household name corporations have all used British structures to minimise tax, to bury ownership and to resolve disputes. The moral problem is obvious. The strategic point is simpler. Britain’s post industrial economy is now built on the assumption that the world will keep using this spider’s web, whatever it thinks of British politics.

That assumption used to be credible. London would prosecute egregious corruption cases and freeze the odd account to placate allies, but the underlying promise held. If you parked your wealth, your contracts or your ships inside the British legal and financial system, they were meant to be protected by English contract law, not by the Foreign Office’s mood swings.

That promise has been chipped away in the past decade, and smashed since the invasion of Ukraine.

When the vault chooses a president

The Venezuelan gold dispute was the moment central banks were forced to notice. The Central Bank of Venezuela held just under two billion dollars of gold at the Bank of England. After Westminster recognised opposition figure Juan Guaido as “interim president”, two rival boards issued contradictory instructions for that gold: one appointed by Nicolas Maduro’s government in Caracas, one appointed by Guaido abroad.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court concluded that because the government recognised Guaido as head of state, the courts had to treat his appointments as valid. The judges refused to sit in judgment on Venezuelan law where that would clash with the recognition decision. In practice, the board that holds power in Caracas could not instruct on its own reserves in London.

For constitutional lawyers, this was an exercise in the recognition doctrine and a neat affirmation of the executive’s prerogative. For any finance minister reading the judgment, it was a warning: if Westminster decides your government is illegitimate, you may lose effective control over reserves held at the Bank of England, even if you still hold the presidential palace.

Some allies took the hint. Poland repatriated one hundred tonnes of gold from the Bank of England in 2019, arguing that holding more bullion at home reduced geopolitical risk and gave Warsaw direct control in a crisis. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and others have quietly shifted significant volumes of gold back from London and New York for similar reasons. If your friends are nervous enough to bring their metal home, you do not need imagination to know what your adversaries are thinking.

Frozen reserves and a quiet exit

The Russian case is larger and starker. After the invasion of Ukraine, the G7 and European Union froze about three hundred billion dollars of Russian state assets, mostly central bank reserves held in Western institutions. Euroclear in Belgium alone sits on roughly one hundred and eighty billion euros worth of Russian securities and cash flows. The United Kingdom reports more than twenty five billion pounds of Russian assets frozen under its sanctions regime.

For now, the West has confined itself to immobilising those reserves and diverting some of the interest to Ukraine. The next step would be outright seizure. European ministers and the International Monetary Fund have warned that confiscation without the strongest possible legal basis would be a serious blow to the rule of law and to the assumption that reserves are sacrosanct. The legal doubts have not stopped the political appetite. A large part of Europe’s political class wants to use Russian money to fund Ukrainian reconstruction and to reduce the fiscal strain on its own voters.

Again, you do not have to like Russia to understand what other capital exporters see. They see that a coalition of Western states can immobilise the savings of a G20 country overnight and then debate how to spend them. They see that, in the right climate, central bank reserves in Western custody can be treated less like property and more like collateral in a political dispute.

The rational response for any government that thinks it might one day fall foul of Washington, Brussels or London is not to call a press conference. It is to adjust its balance sheet. Buy more gold. Place more reserves in non Western currencies. Store more bullion at home or in friendly vaults. Use alternative clearing systems wherever possible. And quietly test other legal systems for large contracts.

The Arctic liquefied gas test

The same pattern now appears in ships and ice. On 12 November 2025, the United Kingdom announced that British firms will be banned from providing any maritime services to vessels carrying Russian liquefied gas. This does not just apply to ships calling at British ports. It covers any vessel carrying Russian liquefied gas, no matter the destination, if British brokers, insurers or technical managers are involved.

The main target is Russia’s Yamal liquefied gas project on the Yamal Peninsula. Year round exports from Yamal rely on a small fleet of Arc7 ice class carriers. These vessels are purpose built to operate in brutal Arctic conditions along the Northern Sea Route, breaking thick winter ice and handling extreme temperatures. Without them, Yamal’s output cannot move reliably to market in winter.

Fifteen Arc7 vessels form the core of this fleet. Six are managed by Seapeak Maritime in Glasgow. They have historically depended on London linked protection and indemnity cover and on the broader London market for specialist insurance, finance and technical support. Under the new sanctions, British firms will not be allowed to service those ships if they carry Russian liquefied gas. The intention is clear. Britain is using its position at the centre of marine specialty insurance to choke a critical Russian export route.

In parallel, the European Union has decided to phase out Russian liquefied gas imports by 2027. The United Kingdom banned direct imports earlier. The new step is different. It attempts to weaponise the service infrastructure itself, not just domestic purchases. The message to Moscow is that if you want to move Arctic gas, you will have to do it without London.

The bill for a services superpower in decline

None of this shows up as a single headline number. No one in Whitehall publishes a figure for “income sacrificed to sanctions theatre”. But the direction is visible. Large slices of the highest margin, most politically exposed parts of the energy and shipping market are moving out of London and into a shadow ecosystem that Western regulators neither control nor fully see.

On the Russian oil side alone, a majority of exports by sea now travel on vessels that do not rely on Group of Seven flags or insurance. The premium pools attached to that cargo may only be in the low billions of dollars, but this is exactly the sort of complex risk London once dominated. It now flows through Russian state entities and small non Western insurers instead. The liquefied gas and offshore energy segments are following the same path, slowly but steadily.

Britain could absorb this if the rest of the economy were healthy. It is not. Growth has been weak for more than a decade. Productivity has flatlined. Real wages have barely moved. Public services are visibly fraying. The country is already reliant on a small number of globally tradable services to finance its imports and its welfare commitments. Chipping away at those services to score sanctions points is not just a foreign policy choice. It is a bet against the country’s remaining productive assets.

The more that foreign clients decide that London is a sanctions instrument first and a neutral marketplace second, the more those clients will quietly re route business to places that promise fewer political surprises. This does not require dramatic confrontations. It happens at renewal. A bit less marine business from a Gulf ship owner here. A few more disputes governed by Singapore law there. A central bank deciding to store fresh bullion in Istanbul or Shanghai rather than in Threadneedle Street.

Law as export and as warning signal

English law and English courts are a major export in their own right. Legal services generate tens of billions of pounds in value and a substantial trade surplus. Thousands of foreign lawyers practise in London. Around two thirds of cases in the commercial and admiralty courts involve foreign parties. International corporates choose English law clauses because they believe the system is predictable and insulated from domestic political mood swings.

The Venezuelan gold dispute and the conversation about Russian reserves cut into that belief. They show that when the stakes are high enough, the line between the courts and foreign policy becomes thin. That does not mean every foreign litigant will walk away from London. But it does mean that governments and state companies with real exposure to sanctions risk will start to hedge. They will write more contracts under other legal systems. They will avoid putting their most sensitive assets under British jurisdiction. They will not say this in public. They will just stop sending work.

Once lost, this kind of business does not snap back. No one dismantles a new dispute resolution centre in Dubai or Singapore just because London has a change of government. The erosion is slow and one directional.

From Treasure Island to warning sign

Russia’s Arctic liquefied gas fleet will suffer from the new sanctions. Yamal’s planners will have to juggle ice, makeshift insurance and non Western finance. That is exactly what Britain intends. The question is what everyone else watching learns from the experiment.

They see that the United Kingdom is prepared to use central bank custody, commercial courts and marine insurance as levers of foreign policy. They see that reserves and property rights in London are contingent on staying in the good graces of the British state and its allies. They see that once assets or cargoes are inside the British system, they can be repurposed in the name of geopolitics.

For states and firms that think they might one day be on the wrong side of an argument with London, the lesson is simple. Do not build your future on British pipes. Use them while they suit you, but design a way around them. That design work is already underway. It shows up in new shadow fleets, non Western insurers, alternative legal forums and record official demand for gold.

A country that now lives on services cannot afford to treat confidence and neutrality as expendable. Yet that is what Britain is doing. It is using its last global franchises as weapons, and in doing so it is teaching the rest of the world how to live without them. That may feel like strength in the short run. In the long run, it looks more like a managed decline that Britain has chosen for itself.

References