15 December 2018
Moscow: 22:00
London: 19:00

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

286 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     278 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities



UK worried about its place if US-Russia ties are repaired – Russia’s UK envoy (Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko for RT)

Hacking, destabilizing Western states, building up its military might, and weaponizing information – Russia is hitting the headlines and seems to be to blame for all of the world’s problems. One of the loudest anti-Russia voices is the United Kingdom, condemning Moscow’s actions and calling for economic sanctions against it. Most of the accusations are far from proven – so is there still room left for cooperation on vital issues between world powers? And now that the UK’s ally the US may be ready to change course and start making deals with Moscow, is there a chance for a change in tone? We ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom – Alexander Yakovenko.


Sophie Shevardnadze: Ambassador Yakovenko, it’s good to have you today. Today is Diplomat’s Day in Russia, so congratulations and welcome to the show one more time - it’s always a pleasure to have you with us. Now, Mr. Yakovenko, UK’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson most recently said that Russia is “up to dirty tricks”, and in the very same sentence he says it’s ‘folly to demonise Russia’. What kind of diplomatic gain is he hoping for? Will this strange twin-track diplomacy work out? Can the UK be confronting Russia and seeking cooperation at the same time?

Alexander Yakovenko: Boris Johnson - by the way, we discussed this question a few days ago with him - he calls this “two-track approach”. What does it mean: it means that the UK is basically trying to deter Russia - this is first. But, on the other hand, they’re interested to talk to Russia on certain issues which are very important for Britain. So, Britain is sort of sitting on two chairs. I explained to the Foreign Secretary that it’s not so easy to do this. We would prefer the political dialogue - right one, and to discuss mutually interesting subjects and to develop cooperation. It looks like Britain is not ready for that yet, but we are patient, we can wait.

SS: Sir Michael Fallon, the UK’s Defence Secretary blamed Russia for trying to undermine the West by ‘spreading lies’, ‘weaponising misinformation’ and even ‘creating a post-truth age’. Why do leaders in the West believe Moscow has more sway over their voters than their own politicians at home?

AY: First of all, Russia is a brand and once you don’t engage Russia you look a little bit provincial, but as far as the statements of the Western leaders, I’d like to say that there’s no proof for these kind of statements, and every time when we hear something from London, we are asking for the explanations and we’re asking for the facts and we didn’t get any facts from them, and so we believe this is just fake news. This are just sort of fake statements.

SS: Once again, Secretary Boris Johnson accused Russia of American election hacking - why is the UK getting involved in American matters?

AY: It’s a good question, because the British blamed us - I mean, Russia - that we are one way or another involved in American elections. But it’s exactly the case with the British, because if you look at the most of the official statements before the elections, you will find that British officials supported the candidate, one candidate in the U.S. - that was Hillary Clinton, and this is just exactly what the British were saying about Russia. So, basically, the British establishment was on the side of one candidate and this is clear interference into the internal election processes in the U.S.

SS: British MP Ben Bradshaw says it's highly likely Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum as well.

Ben Bradshaw: “I don’t think we have even begun to wake up to what Russia is doing when it comes to cyber warfare. Not only they have interfered - it’s now proven - into American presidential campaign, probably in our own referendum last year. We don’t have evidence for that yet, but I think it’s highly probable…”

AY: That’s another fake story, because I asked Boris Johnson to present the facts - and he couldn’t do this. So, you can read a lot of articles about that in the British press, but no facts at all.

SS: But more importantly, Ambassador, sorry to interrupt, but more importantly: what does Russia stand to gain from Brexit?

AY: We believe this is the internal matter of Britain - this is first. Second, as for the consequences of that, of Brexit, we have to renegotiate trade agreements, because today we have trade agreements with the EU. So, the next step will be the new trade agreements. We didn’t start thinking of that because the process is not launched in Brussels - but this is the only consequence. So, a different trade agreement with the UK, but this, of course, will be the result of the negotiations.

SS:You wrote once that the claims of “Russian interference in British politics” are a sign that Western elites are living in denial, trying to blame their shortcomings on outsiders - what can make them confront reality, in your opinion?

AY: Good question. Because the country is divided. Half of the country believes that they have to go along with Brexit, the other half is opposing that. So, different points of view. For most of the people of Britain globalisation wasn’t a success, if you go outside London you will find that many people are suffering from the low salaries, from the low standards of the social security - they want changes. That’s why in this situation the politicians in Britain have to divert the attention of the public and Russia is a very convenient tool just to use as some kind of symbol, very important symbol that can divert the attention of the people.

SS: As a response to the supposed Russian interference, the UK proposed NATO do more to counter the alleged misinformation spread by Russia - is the military alliance about to embark on an information war?

AY: I don’t think so, it’s just… If you read the British press you will find a lot of proposals - how to handle Russian news, what we are presenting… and by the way, in the center of these accusations is Russia Today - which basically presents a different point of view and which is welcomed by the British public. I don’t believe that NATO will be part of that game, but who knows? The people who are working in this area, they are quite creative.

SS: I wouldn’t be surprised if the channel named ‘NATO Today’ pops up anytime soon to counter Russia Today. Anyways, back to Sir Michael Fallon, who claimed that Russia threatens international security - but, and much like Boris Johnson – Fallon also said the UK should nevertheless engage with Moscow, including military communication. What do you think are the chances of successful military-to-military dialogue between the UK and Russia?

AY: For the time being we don’t have any military dialogue at all. A year ago, when we just started the operation in Syria, we offered Britain our cooperation, and I personally had a conversation, a separate meeting with the former Foreign Secretary - at that time it was Mr. Hammond - and we proposed two things: the first one is, we offered the British to target together the terrorists and they refused to this. The second proposal was to work together with the representatives of Free Syrian Army to engage them in peace negotiations and the peace settlement. British side refused to do this. As I understand, our proposals are still on the table, but it’s up to the British side to decide how they are going to behave in this situation. What I want to say is that the peace process in Syria is moving, it’s moving without Britain, but we’ll be happy to have everybody onboard, because we need peace in Syria, we need settlement, and we need this country stable. We need the people of Syria as a future.

SS:The Russian embassy in London responded to these latest statements from UK officials, saying that ‘there is a witch-hunt’ against Moscow because of Russia’s role in the Syrian peace process. But everyone wants peace, right? Doesn’t UK want peace in Syria?

AY: Some people, they seek it in words. I’ll give you one example: humanitarian aid. You remember Aleppo, when the terrorists were holding the eastern part of Aleppo. There were so many conversations, so many cries here in the press, in official statements, about what was going on around Aleppo, and everybody was talking about the humanitarian aid. When Aleppo was freed, and now, today, we need the humanitarian aid in this part of the country - Britain is not supporting that. We didn’t have a single delivery from Britain to help the people of Aleppo. So, on words, yes, everybody wants to have a free and prosperous Syria - but we need the deeds.

SS: Back in the summer, Secretary Johnson said that the Syrian conflict cannot be solved with President Assad still in power - now he seems open to the idea of Assad running for re-election. Is the UK’s stance on Syria beginning to align with that of Russia’s?

AY: I’ll tell you, we’ve noticed this shift and I believe that this is the result of our numerous explanations to the British. We were telling them that they have to follow the democratic approach. These are the people of Syria who should decide who is going to run the country. It’s not in Moscow or in London or in Washington. It’s the people of Syria. We tried to explain this to the British and we see these shifts, but, still, it’s a long way to go. In order to help the process you have to do something in real life. We want to see the deeds, not just statements.

SS: Britain’s Royal Air Force has been more active in the campaign against Islamic State than it was in Afghanistan or Iraq. You’ve called on the UK to fight ISIL together with Russia, do you feel London is doing enough on this front?

AY: London could be the part of the coalition, and definitely they could be helpful in this area, but in order to do something, first, you have to talk and we don’t have any conversations with Britain on that matter, this is first. They should be engaged on that, and we don’t see that engagement, and we don’t see any signs of that. This is our task to engage as many countries as possible. We believe that Britain could make a positive contribution. I think it’s time to do this.

SS: How can there be successful cooperation in Syria, when you hear comments like the Defence secretary’s calling a Russian carrier returning from Syrian waters “a ship of shame”?

AY: I’ll leave it for the Secretary of Defence, these kind of statements. It’s just the reflection of the different approaches on how to handle the problems of eastern part of Aleppo. We believe that the best way is to free the people of Aleppo. The British wanted just the ceasefire, to conserve this situation. We believe that the Syrian approach and our approach was the right one, and history just showed that we were on the right side of history. As far as for cooperation… I think the first thing we have to do, we have to restore the political dialogue in order to explain our British colleagues what our plans in Syria are, you know, to engage them. Without the dialogue it will be very difficult to establish cooperation. That’s why, by the way, Lavrov invited Boris Johnson to come to Moscow and to talk a little bit more about Syria, because their meeting in New York, in September, definitely, half an hour wasn’t enough to explain what we want in Syria and the British definitely need explanations. This is first. Second, I think we could do something together in a different format, and that’s another opportunity for the British. So, we will be happy to engage the British, but it looks like they need a political will in this country to do this. For the time being, I don’t see any political will here.

SS: Britain is sending its troops, aircraft and equipment to Estonia and Romania, as part of NATO’s military buildup in Eastern Europe; the biggest one since the Cold War. But it’s not like Russia isn’t moving closer to NATO’s bases, right? So why are we hearing the Defence Secretary blaming Moscow for ‘aggression against NATO’?

AY: That’s a good question, because most of the efforts of the British, they are just symbolic ones - in Ukraine, in neighboring countries… We are trying to get explanations out of that, but the British, they like the symbolic steps and we believe these are absolutely wrong moves, because the security of these countries is not jeopardized, not at all. We believe that it’s time to revise the policy of the UK of having their troops just in front of our borders. It doesn't help the stability, and, moreover, it’s undermining the stability. So, we are going to work with the British on that matter.

SS: At the same time Russia is upping deployment on its Western border. So how do you stop this arms build-up on both sides?

AY: What is important is the dialogue. If you look at the Russian-American relations in the time of the Obama Administration, most of the contacts between the military and other contacts were just interrupted, and the task for the new administration is to restore these contacts. By the way, it’s also the task for the new British government which is run by Theresa May, because for the time being we don’t have any contacts. And then, after the discussions, after comparing doctrines and some other things, maybe we will come to some conclusions and some agreements which will ease tensions and improve the strategic situation in the world.

SS: Fallon also expressed hope that "Russia could again become the partner the West always wished for” - what kind of partner do they wish to see in Russia?

AY: Good question, because if you read the strategic doctrine of the UK, you will find that Russia is on the same level of threat to the security of the UK as ISIS. We believe this is absolutely unfair, and, first, we have to delete this kind of accusation, this is first, and, of course, we have to start dialogue. If Britain has any preoccupation with regard to its security, they have to talk to their partners and Russian readiness to discuss all these things is always on the table.

SS: But what do they want from us?

AY: What they want from us?... Good question. I believe that… so many things are changing in the world. Britain is trying to find its place in this changing world - by the way, Brexit is just one of the answers to this process - trying to find a new role in this world, and even for NATO, even for different military alliances this is some kind of search for new opportunities. Russia is an absolutely different country from what we had, let’s say, even 10 years ago. The economy is growing and you will feel it by the articles in the Financial Times. The army is very capable, you see this in Syria. So, Russia is a little bit different. I think, the British are trying to find new connections with Russia, but do not know how to do this. We know this secret, how to do this, we believe that it should be done through the cooperation, through the dialogue and just having normal relations.

SS: The Independent reported that Prime Minister Theresa May offered EU leaders to be their “bridge” to Donald Trump - but they declined the proposal. Do you think that was wise on their part?

AY: I’m quite sure that Britain is interested in good relations with the U.S., despite the very hostile British media attitude towards Trump. This is in the interests of the UK and I’m quite sure that Britain will be happy to play this role, because this will make it more influential, and, of course, more interesting for other countries. That’s why it is quite a logic move. But the first thing, the British, of course, they are thinking about themselves, because for them good relations with the U.S. are crucial.

SS: The British press is proudly implying that Theresa May got Trump to back NATO, keep sanctions on Russia - what do you think? Do you feel that’s true, does the British PM have enough influence to sway the American president one way or another?

AY: It’s not about Trump, this is just the official position of Britain, they are repeating like a mantra that the sanctions should be continued and should be prolonged, and this is the official approach of the UK. Moreover, 2 years ago, that was Britain who initiated most of the sanctions - I’m talking about the economic sanctions, sanctions against the Russian MPs and some others. So, this is just the continuation of the old line, it means that Britain has the same stand, and we absolutely disagree with that, of course. But for us, it’s not the question for discussion. We believe this is the problem of Britain and the EU countries, of the U.S., and these countries should abandon sanctions because they imposed them.

SS: But why is UK so afraid of normalising trade or of the normalisation of U.S.-Russia ties?

AY: The different U.S.-Russian relations will be a game-changer in the world. That’s why every country should find its place in this big chessboard. That’s why, probably, the press in the UK is so nervous about that. But that’s the process. If you look at the British statements and articles in the press about other countries, you will find the same situation. So, Russia is not an exception in this case.

SS: Let’s say Trump does push through an easing of sanctions against Russia - do you expect the UK to follow Washington’s lead? Or will London stand firm against Moscow?

AY: It’s difficult to answer. Britain has its own interests and we don’t know what will be the political solution. I’m not going to speculate on that. We will be happy to see Britain changing its position. I think this will be in the interests of the British people.

SS: May was the first to pay Donald Trump a state visit, the two were even seen holding hands - how will this new chapter of the ‘special relationship’ play out between the two?

AY: Well, definitely, the UK is interested in relations with the U.S. and the normal way of things is just to have a political dialogue, exactly what we see now in Washington and also to have the President of the U.S. here in London. Despite the different points of view that you can hear in the Parliament, in the press - the official line of the government is to welcome Mr. Trump and I think it’s very important for the future of the British-American relations.

SS: Ambassador Yakovenko, thank you very much for this interview, good luck with everything. We were talking to Alexander Yakovenko, Russia’s Ambassador to the UK, discussing the current state of the Moscow-London relationship, and where it’s headed in the changing global political climate. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.


28.11.2018 - Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the Fourth OPCW Review Conference

Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the Fourth OPCW Review Conference in response to the USA, United Kingdom and Canada accusing Russia of not observing its obligations under Chemical Weapons Convention. Distinguished Mr. Chair, We consider absolutely unacceptable the groundless accusations voiced in the statement of the United States that Russia is in violation of its obligations under Article I of the CWC pertaining to alleged involvement of Russian nationals in use of a nerve agent in Salisbury. Such statements have absolutely no bearing on the facts and are effectively aired to influence the international community. The refusal of the United Kingdom to cooperate in any form with Russia on the “Skripal case”, which would be in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC only underlines the emptiness of the accusations. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom has addressed the Technical Secretariat with a request to confirm the outcomes of its own national investigation, which contradicts the goals and objectives of technical assistance provided to a State Party under subparagraph e) of paragraph 38 of Article VIII of the CWC. As follows from the presented materials on the assistance provided in connection to Salisbury and Amesbury cases, we have to state the politically motivated nature of the undertaken measures.

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”.

all messages