17 November 2018
Moscow: 00:50
London: 21:50

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

258 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     250 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities



Russian Embassy comments for Russian media (ITAR-TASS Agency) on the state of Russo-British relationship (30 July, translated from Russian)

QUESTION: What would you say on the present state of our relationship with Britain? It looks like after the May parliamentary elections our countries resumed contacts at political level, if we take the phone call of Prime Minister D.Cameron with President V.Putin and Ph.Hammond and S.Lavrov's meeting in Veinna. Still, the same very tough rhetoric by official London at all levels against Russia over the Ukraine crisis is striking. I mean the statements on 'Russian aggression' etc, and all of it in company with the 'Islamic State' and hacking attacks. Where are things moving, and are there changes for the better?
ANSWER: Indeed, the said single contacts did take place. The same is true for working level contacts. It is also true that the openly hostile rhetoric towards Russia does not abate. That is why there are no grounds to talk of changes for the better. There are rather reasons to say that mutual trust, as a result of it, practically stays at nil. London does confirm that its position on 'freezing' the work of all the structures of inter-governmental cooperation and political dialogue stays unchanged.
You are right. Russia is mentioned as part of the said 'troika' of threats to Britain's security on a regular basis, as sort of exorcism. Moreover, this is reflected in the electoral manifesto of the Conservative Party (the election were held on 7 May), thus elevated to the status of a party programme. It has to be noted, however, that London, unlike Berlin and Paris, stays on the sidelines and does not make a tangible contribution to the search for a settlement in and around Ukraine.
For some reasons that are difficult to comprehend, the anti-Russian sanctions related to Ukraine are being extended onto media. In early July the Barclays Bank, without any prior notice, froze the account of the London office of the MIA 'Russia Today'. And though the British Side denies any involvement in the Bank's decision, the issue has been since in limbo somewhere between the Bank and the Treasury. Extending sanctions into the media is tantamount to censorship and an attempt at making them shut up, when there is a lack of argument to support one's position. That took place against the background of EU talk of the 'need to counter Russian propaganda'. Here, our British partners were the first to step forward. But the question is what about free speech as an absolute imperative. Anyway, the famous phrase by Voltaire, as well as the Age of Enlightenment as a whole, are clearly at odds with the ideologised context of the British policy.
It is incomprehensible why Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond at the National Day reception at the French Embassy on 14 July, didn't limit himself to mentioning a 'threat of Russian aggression' and referred to the allied relations with France in the Crimean War in mid-19th century. It is not only that the French got the British involved in this adventure, as they would do a hundred years later in respect of the Suez affair. Historians widely agree that this war was 'unnecessary'. Having destroyed the collective security system in Europe, designed at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Crimean War created conditions for the wrong type of German unification, i.e. as a Greater Prussia, thus starting the count-down to the First World War. It is worth noting that it was the British Government that insisted on the humiliating provisions of the Peace of Paris (ban on Russia's military presence in the Black Sea, including fortresses and Navy).
It goes without saying that we cooperate within the existing multilateral fora, including the P-5 in the UN Security Council and nuclear powers. A good illustration is provided by the recent success of the talks with Tehran on the Iranian nuclear programme. But at any rate, this is multilateral cooperation, which never ceased, is based on community of our national interests and pursues a broader interest of international community at large.
The overall picture of our bilateral relations has, thus, contracted to a sort of micro-agenda, consisting of technical, mostly visa, issues. These, in fact, consume all our effort in official intercourse with the British Side. Of course, we are active on other tracks: cultural ties, contacts with business and expert communities. We have turned to journalism, making use of our information resources, including the Embassy's web-site. We maintain contacts with British citizens on the entire range of issues they raise with us. Here we are quite successful. For example, the other day Ambassador A.Yakovenko wrote a letter to David Smith, a former teacher, who expressed concern over the state of our bilateral relationship. It turned out to be a very substantive response. We asked the Chatham House to put it at their web-site as our comments on their recent report the 'Russian Challenge', which is steeped in age-old anti-Russian prejudices, not to mention a complete lack of self-criticism. The Chatham House responded, but only after we had placed that material at our web-site.
As to the official contacts, it appears that the British Side, in violation of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 1961, has focused on putting artificial obstacles in our work. In particular, it is a matter of delays of up to 5 to 6 months in issuing visas for our newly appointed personnel, both Foreign Office and Home Office taking advantage of staffing differences as regards our respective official missions (embassies and consulates-general). They don't discriminate in terms of the positions concerned. They do it as a matter of principle. As a result, the waiting list of our personnel is 3 times bigger than that of the British, with the British Side issuing visas to the number of our staff which meets the number of their staff they need post to Russia at a given moment. They call it reciprocity in action. So, we have to extend terms of posting of our staff already in place, or they depart without replacement. In addition to all that, the British Side has undertaken to set maximum limits of terms of our personnel posting, which in fact, is a threat of expulsion and contravenes its international obligations.
One may conclude therefrom, that the British have no interest in maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Russia. What is behind that is difficult to say. Maybe, some cultural disconnect. There exist good English words that come to mind, including the word 'bloody-mindedness', the charge the British and the Americans have the habit of exchanging of.
It is hard to tell for how long it is going to continue. The Embassy is not in the business of psychoanalysis. We are told that all depends on a satisfactory resolution of the Ukraine crisis. But it is easy to destabilise a country. To bring it back onto the track of stable development is by far harder. Ukraine is at an early stage of its crisis. Nobody will tell when everything will come back to normal. Thus, our relationship with Britain is turning into a function of vicissitudes of the crisis in Ukraine. It means that we and the Russian public opinion have to be patient.
However, everything is serious enough, and we are compelled to look for ways to bring our visa asymmetries with the British to a common denominator. It would mean some hurting response on our part, where the reciprocity principle goes our way. Actually, they want to humiliate us. What for? To feel themselves standing tall at somebody else's expense? This reminds us NATO generals who being unable to wage war on us, engage in word-, rather than sabre-rattling.
Under the circumstances, some remarks of our compatriots in the past on the British establishment come handy. Ivan Tourgenev in one his letters after visiting London in 1858 wrote that 'the English respect force including that of money, more than anything else'. By the way, now they increasingly talk of London as 'Number 1 off-shore'. Even the 'New-York Times' writes that London is comfortable and beautiful, but it 'smells' of dirty money. The authorities admit that. But wouldn't extradite Russian citizens wanted in Russia for economic crimes. The reason may lie somewhere else. The 'Financial Times' some time ago quoted John Le Carre (David Cornwell), who, presumably knows it by his own experience, when says that 'intelligence services are spiritual home of the British political elite'. Nobody dared refute him.
This notion makes one reflect on the reasons for suspending by the British authorities the Coroner's inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 and launching, instead, a 'public inquiry'. The latter, unlike the former which is completely open, provides for secret hearings and a verdict that may be partially secret. It may sound bizarre in our time, but those who call the tune in our bilateral relationship, are most likely the ones who make such decisions aimed at covering up their own incompetence, if not outright stupidity. Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun were issued British visas at Litvinenko's request for they were his buddies. It was done in violation of the British official policy of refusing visas to former officers of Russian special services. It appears that they were allowed to enter Britain only to be accused of the murder of their friend, who, as is now known, collaborated with the British special services and even did something analytical on Russia for them. For lack of argument, at the final stage of open hearings the presiding judge decided to engage in commedia delVarte of scandal, which may be good for the tabloid press, but bad for our bilateral relations.
In any case, it is for the British Side to make the choice. We are not in the business of imposing ourselves upon anyone. We are always willing to talk even if we know that nothing could come out of it. The source of huge satisfaction is our contacts with the British at large, including the Arctic Convoys veterans in the course of ceremonies to present them with the Ushakov medals. In the final count, the British suffer no less than us from the habits and instincts of their political elite, rooted in distant history. In the meantime we are working for a positive future of our relationship. Sure, it will come sooner or later.


30.10.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with ''Moscow. Kremlin. Putin'' TV programme Moscow, October 25, 2018

Question: Why did US National Security Adviser John Bolton come to Moscow? Sergey Lavrov: To talk. There are many matters we need to discuss. We appreciate it that it is US National Security Adviser John Bolton who is especially proactive regarding ties with his colleagues in Moscow. Question: Is this a joke? Sergey Lavrov: Not at all. Actually, we have meetings with Mr Bolton more often than with our other colleagues. He was here in July, and now he is back again. In between, he met with Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in Geneva. We believe that it is important when such a high-ranking official takes interest in the practical matters on our bilateral agenda.

24.10.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's introductory remarks at the opening of the 2nd Russia-UK Raw Materials Dialogue, 24 October 2018

Ladies and gentlemen, To me as Russian Ambassador to the UK, it is a privilege to address such an important Russian-British conference. The 2nd Russian-UK Raw Materials Dialogue has a great meaning for the professional community in our countries, for it covers a broad range of different topics from mining technologies, new material development and use of natural resources to international academic and scientific exchanges.

27.09.2018 - Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN Security Council meeting, September 26, 2018

Mr President, Colleagues, In the modern world, an efficient fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is becoming increasingly important for global and regional stability and the reliable security of all states without exception. Constructive cooperation in this area is an important component of the efforts to shape a positive international agenda. I think everybody agrees that the UN Security Council resolutions that outline specific measures against violations of non-proliferation must be strictly observed. Resolution 1540 remains the basis for this and contains obligations for the member states to take specific measures to prevent non-government agents from accessing weapons of mass destruction and their components. The UNSC decisions taken in pursuance of this resolution are particularly important as they include sanctions for handing over any types of weapons to terrorists. There have been incidents of such handovers and they must be thoroughly investigated.

07.09.2018 - Remarks by Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, following the UNSC meeting on the incident in Salisbury

Q: Do you expect British sanctions on Russia soon? A: We are not expecting or afraid of anything. Taking to the account how things have been developing during the recent years we do not exclude anything. This discussion and yesterday’s speech by the British Prime-Minister in the British Parliament are not coincidental. I think that’s looks like a prelude to a new political season. Q: So, Ambassador it’s really coming from the highest level in the UK. A: It always comes from the highest level. Last time when the incident took place it also came from the highest level. Q: But it seems that you are not taking it seriously. A: We are taking it very seriously. We were saying it all the time. Why we’ve been asking for cooperation with the UK from day one. Only few minutes ago Ambassador Pierce was referring to an ultimatum that Boris Johnson made in his letter to the Russian Ambassador in London when the incident took place presented as a request by the British site to cooperate while in fact it was a demand to to accept the gilt. At the same time our requests which we sent to British authorities constantly through OPCW and bilaterally were ignored.

06.09.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) talk show on Channel One, Moscow, September 4, 2018

Question: Today we have a special guest in our studio, one of the main participants in the “great game”, someone the future of the world really depends on in many ways: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. We are happy to welcome you in the Great Game studio. Sergey Lavrov: Thanks for inviting me.

22.08.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comment on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's anti-Russian claims

At a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's urges to European partners to slap their own sanctions on Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident.

16.08.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's interview for "Salisbury Journal"

The Russian Ambassador said he stands together with the people of Salisbury in a meeting with the Journal last week, as the United States announced new sanctions against the country. Speaking at his official residence in Kensington Palace Gardens on Thursday, Alexander Yakovenko said: “We are together with the people of Salisbury.”

24.06.2018 - Greeting by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko for the Znaniye school Family Day (Ealing, 24 June 2018)

Dear friends and guests, I am delighted to welcome you at a Family Day celebrating Russia and the World Cup. Today, Russia is the place to be for the whole world. It is a great pleasure to hear fans from all continents appreciating Russia’s hospitality, friendliness and openness to everyone. Right now, people from virtually every country see the 11 host cities, from the Baltic Sea to the Urals on the border of Europe and Asia, and realize how diverse and beautiful our country is. We’d like to bring a bit of Russia and the excitement of the World Cup to Ealing, for those who couldn’t make it to the tournament. By the way, so far both our teams are doing very well, and let us hope they keep up this good work. We cheer for both Russia and England but I’m afraid this can change if both teams meet at the semi-finals.

20.06.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Primakov Readings international forum, Moscow, May 30, 2018

Mr Dynkin, Colleagues and friends, Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for a new opportunity to speak at the international forum named after Academician Evgeny Primakov, an outstanding Russian statesman, academic and public figure. It is indeed a great honour for me. I consider Mr Primakov, with whom I worked at the Foreign Ministry in the latter half of the 1990s, my senior comrade and teacher, as probably do the majority of those who crossed paths with him at one point. Holding this representative conference under the aegis of one of Russia’s leading academic institutes – National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) that also bears Primakov’s name – has become a good tradition. The Primakov Readings have earned a reputation as a venue for serious dialogue of authoritative specialists on the most pressing issues of international politics and the global economy. Today, there is no lack of buzzwords used by politicians, experts and scientists to capture the current moment in international relations. They talk about the crisis of the “liberal world order” and the advent of the post-Western era, “hot peace” and the “new cold war”. The abundance of terms itself shows that there is probably no common understanding of what is happening. It also points to the fairly dynamic and contradictory state of the system of international relations that is hard to characterise, at least at the present stage, with one resounding phrase. The authors of the overarching theme of the current Primakov Readings probably handled the challenge better than others. In its title “Risks of an unstable world order’ they provocatively, and unacademically, combine the words “unstable” and “order”.

21.04.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's talking points at the Press Conference, 20 April 2018

Since we met last time a lot of events took place: - Military strikes of the United States, UK and France against Syria in violation of the international law - Mission by OPCW inspectors to Douma - Speech of Prime Minister May in Parliament in support of the British aggression against Syria - Special meeting of the OPCW Executive Council (18 April 2018) - New developments in the classified case of Salisbury poisoning of Skripal family - No meaningful developments on the Glushkov case - and Cyber security threats I plan to comment all these issues. And I will be happy to answer all our questions, if you have any.

all messages