The Russian Embassy’s Submission On The State Of The Russo-British Relashionship (Brief résumé)
- Our bilateral relationship is held, in fact, hostage to the vicissitudes of Ukrainian domestic politics. Besides, the way HMG decided to dispose of the ‘Litvinenko case’ puts even the limited progress of the past 6 months at risk.
- The British Side froze all the mechanisms of our bilateral political dialogue and Inter-Governmental Cooperation in March 2014 in response to our differences over the Ukrainian crisis. - The methods of integration of Ukraine with the EU (lack of transparency and open debate, including on the consequences of the DCFTA, unwillingness to coordinate with Russia) led to destabilisation of Ukraine and a unilateral response to a unilateral action. ‘Expansionism on the cheap’. Fatal link with Nato membership. - Outside the ‘Normandy Four’ and with no stake in the political solution, Britain became the most vociferous critic of Russia and supporter of Kiev’s flawed strategy of military solution. - Our differences over the problems of the Middle East and North Africa are due, in our view, to Britain’s trust in reordering the region through regime change (Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria) and encouragement of ‘democratic revolutions’, rather than evolution and developmental transformation of those societies. - The trade and economic ties are in decline partly due to the Western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine and the overall climate of the political relationship. - The trade and cooperation in agriculture wiped out by Russia’s retaliatory measures. - The cultural ties are a bright page, as always, in bad times, key to maintaining people-to-people contacts and mutual trust between the Russians and the British. - Suspension of the Coroner’s inquest and the decision in July 2015 to hold a semi-secret public inquiry instead was a strategic blunder. The case can only be closed through an open court of law and due process with all the evidence subject to adversary scrutiny. The January report a ‘whitewash’ of the British special services unwilling to come clean on their work against Russia ever since we fell out over the War in Iraq. - The way visas are issued to personel of our official missions in Britain is a major irritant in our relationship, especially against the background of the bilateral agenda dominated by minor technical issues. Toughening of the respective British practice in late 2015 in contravention of Britain’s international obligations. Huge potential for further deterioration. - The bigger picture, i.e. the state of the Russia – the West relations, dominated by the decisions made by the West immediately after the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union. The ‘victory in the Cold War’ euphoria and ‘end of history’ mentality led to expansion of Nato towards Russia’s border. The lack of formal settlement after the Cold War end prevented establishment of a genuine region-wide system of collective security ensuring its indivisibility in the Euro-Atlantic. - Now all of us paying the price. Restoration of Europe’s political unity key to our competitiveness in the radically transformed global environment. History forgotten and Russia’s domestic development distorted by the Western policies.
The Russian Federation supports the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
This compromise document covers many dimensions of international migration, including humanitarian aspect, development issues, human rights and fight against crime.
Nine months have passed since former Deputy General Director of Aeroflot Nikolay Glushkov, a national of the Russian Federation, mysteriously died in London.
We, the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (CWC), committed to achieving the goal of freeing the world of chemical weapons, strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances.
Question: The Sunday Times articles today speculate on the possibility that, despite earlier claims, Mr Scott Young and Mr Alexander Perepilichny were killed, while also hinting at the alleged “Russian link”. How could the Embassy comment on that?
Answer: These and similar “sensations” follow the same traditional pattern.
As always, no official information is provided, only leaks in the media from unknown sources. Upon this rickety foundation, fancy theories are built, with a remarkably rich collection of modal verbs used.
And as always, publications appear on the eve of an important political event, such as Brexit deal vote. It is really hard to avoid the impression that we witness a pre-meditated political game to draw the public attention from the less glamorous sides of UK foreign and internal affairs.
Question: How would you comment on the statement by the UK FCO spokesperson on chemical weapons use in Aleppo?
Answer: The statement reflects the worst traditions of the modern UK diplomacy in both form and substance: no attempts are made to present any evidence supporting its allegations, instead phrases of little value, such as “likely”, “highly likely” or “highly unlikely”, are being used excessively.
More than nine months have passed since the incident with the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal. The British authorities have been in breach of their obligations under five basic international conventions as they persistently refuse to work together with the Russian side, fail to use official channels for bilateral exchange of information and make every effort to cover up the circumstances of the incident. The Skripals have not been seen alive for a long time. Their whereabouts and health status are unknown.
Question: How would you comment on British media reports claiming that British security services are currently witnessing intensive activity of Russian intelligence officers allegedly working under diplomatic cover? Answer: Unfortunately, the spy hysteria in the British society is aggravating. The content of such publications, which regularly appear in the British media with the connivance of the authorities, shows that the current Conservative government is increasing its efforts to create a “toxic” image of the Russian Embassy in order to complicate our interaction with the British public as much as possible. Embassy staff travelling across the country is an absolutely normal, lawful and indispensable part of their work and daily life. Yet it is displayed as some kind of intelligence missions. This amounts to an attempt to limit the Embassy’s routine operations to a minimum.
Question: The UK Government openly distorts the circumstances of the incident in the Kerch Strait on 25 November. What do you think is the reason for that? Answer: Unfortunately, the Ukrainian provocation in the Black Sea, as well as the general situation in the region, continues to be used by a number of Western countries, including the UK, to stir anti-Russian rhetoric. The details of the incident, most notably the blatant and deliberate violation of the territorial waters of the Russian Federation by the Ukrainian ships, are ignored by the UK Government. A number of British media outlets have also given a biased assessment of Russian actions in the Kerch Strait.
Question: Recently British government officials have been actively urging to step up pressure on Russia by imposing new sanctions. How would you comment on this matter?
Answer: We have taken note of such calls. Those statements have clearly shown the anti-Russian essence of the current Conservative government’s policies. The British officials are doing their utmost to avoid conducting a normal intergovernmental dialogue with Russia, while using only the language of ultimatums and sanctions, and are actively urging their partners, first and foremost in Europe, to act in a similar manner.
Question: How would you comment on the publications in British media claiming that “Channel One Russia” journalists were involved in some sort of “spying activity”? Answer: We have taken note of the numerous publications with accusations against “Channel One Russia” journalists of “spying”, as well as of the instruction by the British Ministry of Defence that soldiers should not talk to Russian journalists and report them to the police if they ever see them near military installations. Such ungrounded accusations raise much concern. “Channel One Russia” works in the UK officially and openly, with all the necessary paperwork, in accordance with British law. In fact, this cannot always be said about certain UK journalists working in Russia.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy