PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS
11.03.2016
The Russian Embassy’s statement On HMG policy of dragging Russia into the Brexit debateFor quite a while the British Government has been referring to perceived Russia/the Kremlin’s interest when facing a problem of selling its policies to the public opinion at home, otherwise suspect and unconvincing. It is done at various levels of the Government including Foreign and Defense Secretaries. What all the pronouncements of this sort have in common is the claim to know better than the Russian Government where our national interest lies and what our policies are. In a sense Russia is scapegoated for almost everything that has gone wrong in Britain and the West over the past 25 years, i.e. the War in Iraq, misadventure in Libya, global financial crisis, advent of deglobalisation (the term, coined by Gordon Brown), the Ukrainian and Syrian crises, and now the rise of anti-establishment sentiment in the West and the migration crisis of the EU.
That behaviour has reached a new high now that Russia is being dragged into the domestic debate on Brexit. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, speaking at the Chatham House on 2 March said, that “the only country who would like us to leave the EU is Russia.” And that, according to him, “should tell us all we need to know.” First of all, why is the wicked Russia thesis used to explain a Government policy, be it the presumed deal struck with the EU partners or a more fundamental issue of the EU membership, which must be defended on its merits? Secondly, why is it all the British public need to know?
And why shift the topic? The EU is not a military alliance, which is Nato. It is not about the special relationship with the US. Neither is the British nuclear deterrent involved, not is, for that matter, London’s permanent seat at the UN Security Council at stake.
It goes without saying that we have a huge problem with this strategy/tactics. It seems that the present British Government has a vested interest in a disfunctional bilateral relationship with Russia. Another conclusion one may draw therefrom is that the authorities thus admit that they cannot win the argument in an open and straightforward debate. Of course, we wouldn’t oblige. We find this unfair towards both Russia, with whom Britain maintains diplomatic relations, and the British people, who deserve a better treatment from their own government.
We expect our British partners to explain themselves. In the meantime, we’d like the British people to know that those pronouncements have nothing to do with Russia’s policy. As a matter of fact, our Government doesn’t have an opinion on Britain’s place in the EU. We have nothing to do with the very idea to hold this referendum. It is for the British to decide. We’ll accept any outcome. We have enough problems of our own to mind somebody else’s business. More than that, we believe that if our Western partners had minded their own business well enough, all of us would have had fewer international problems on our hands.
It doesn’t mean that we don’t have problems dealing with the EU. Overall, we share the concern over the bias in the form of political expediency/correctness that stifles debate on real issue, forces real life into the straitjacket of ideological constructs and schemes. In reality, these leads to crises like the EU unilateralist foray, under the previous Brussels team, into the Ukrainian affairs.
We are even blamed for the migration crisis in Europe. And that contrary to the fact that it started well before our limited military intervention in Syria on 30 September 2015, which radically changed the dynamics in that country, helped establish the IGSS and bring hope of peace. Was it not the West, who by way of Libyan intervention as a precedent misled the Syrians on both sides and then outsourced the regime change to its regional allies, who have their own accounts to settle, have designs on Syrian territory and still insist that Syria become a Sunni state. Russia, on the contrary, is hugely contributing to finding a political solution in Syria and, thus, alleviating the migration crisis. This is done at least at four levels: fighting Isis (our limited Air Force deployment), working in tandem with the US in the IGSS, mediating support for the ceasefire at the grass-root level on the ground and providing humanitarian aid. We’d like to know what the British record on Syria is.
We wouldn’t have dwelt on that, had HMG not alluded to the Russian threat to British national security at every opportunity. We leave it to the conscience of our British partners. As to the Brexit debate, we find any outside interference unacceptable and counterproductive for the cause of the Government, especially given the fact that the issue is viewed by many in Britain in existential terms.
This statement is circulated to both referendum campaigns, to all the main political parties and British media.
11 March 2016
LATEST EVENTS
Recent accusations against Russia of creating a threat of a global food crisis by not letting cargo ships with grain out of Odessa and other Ukrainian ports have nothing to do with reality. The situation in the Black Sea is at the centre of attention of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), headquartered here in London.
Representatives of the collective West members are tripping over each other as they scramble to accuse Russia of undermining global food security. The G7 has issued a special statement in this regard. To be sure, we responded.
The situation at the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) has been deteriorating. The NATO and EU members of the CBSS have turned their backs on equitable dialogue and the principles upon which this regional Baltic organisation was built, and have consistently turned it into an anti-Russia political tool. Unlawful and discriminatory decisions are approved in violation of the consensus rule. Russia has been “excluded” from participating in CBSS work and projects. Belarus’ observer status with the CBSS has been “suspended.”
On Victory Day Ambassador Andrei Kelin laid a wreath to the Soviet War Memorial in London. The ceremony was also attended by other CIS countries’ Ambassadors, members of the Russian Speaking Community Council and the Russian diaspora in UK. Following the ceremony the Ambassador gave an interview to Russian media.
President of Russia – Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Federation Armed Forces Vladimir Putin attended a military parade marking the 77th anniversary of Victory in the 1941–1945 Great Patriotic War. Overall, 11,000 personnel and 131 units of military equipment were engaged in the parade.
An announcement made on April 25 to the effect that the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor’s Office will join the Joint Investigation Group (JIG) comprised of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine and created under the auspices of Eurojust has come to our attention.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We held substantive talks during which we discussed many issues that are facing the UN. We continue working on Syria and Libya. Neither must we slacken attention to the Middle East settlement. It is one of the oldest conflicts in the world, which is moving ever further away from its solution, contrary to the UN Security Council resolutions.
The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation has taken note of UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey’s statement that it would “not necessarily be a problem” if British-donated weapons are used to hit targets on Russian territory. We would like to stress that London’s direct instigation of the regime in Kiev to commit such actions, should these attempts materialize, will instantly entail our proportionate response.
Maria Zakharova: UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who recently went to Kiev, must be aware of the developments with Her Majesty’s subjects. He is sure to reply, isn’t he?
As a result of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine (SMO), Russia’s Armed Forces found documents that shed some light on the bio-military programme implemented by the US Defence Department in Ukraine. The researchers in the programme were studying the most dangerous pathogens – potential biological agents for biological weapons that have natural focuses in both Ukraine and Russia. They were also researching ways that epidemics spread based on these agents.
Maria Zakharova: As a result of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine (SMO), Russia’s Armed Forces found documents that shed some light on the bio-military programme implemented by the US Defence Department in Ukraine.
all messages  | 
Tweet Follow @russianembassy