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.
Question: How would you comment on yet another decision of the British side to classify additional information on Mr A.Perepilichny within the inquest into his death? Answer: This procedural decision concerns classification of information on Mr A.Perepilichny’s connections to the British secret services, to wit, whether he has been their agent or made contact with them. It has been made public just before the next hearing of the inquest into the death of Mr A.Perepilichnny, which is scheduled for 21 September in the Old Bailey.
Question: How would you comment on the statement of Minister of State Sir Alan Duncan to the effect that the UK will “push for new sanctions […] as well as robustly enforcing the existing EU regime against Russia”?
Answer: This and other similar statements fall in line with the Conservative government’s current policy aimed at destroying the fabric of Russian-British relations, further isolating Russia and presenting it as a major threat to the “rules-based international system”.
Faced with the realities of Brexit, the British government is desperate to convince its partners of the need for a tougher sanctions regime against Russia. As usual, it resorts to insinuations, unverified facts and media leaks. Despite our numerous requests, no evidence of Russia’s responsibility has been provided. Russia’s proposals of cooperation in dealing with common challenges and threats, including in the sphere of cybersecurity and chemical disarmament, are being rejected without explanation.
Question: What does the Embassy expect from the party conference season in the United Kingdom starting this week? Answer: Annual conferences of UK’s major political parties are important events in the country’s life. At the conferences parties set out their priorities on a wide range of issues and arrange open and frank discussions on pressing domestic and international matters. Among other things, they offer a platform for a dialogue between party leaders and activists and the diplomatic corps.
Question: 12 September marks 6 months since the mysterious murder of the Russian national Nikolay Glushkov in London. Does the Embassy have any new information regarding the circumstances of his death? Answer: Unfortunately, the British side continues to pay no attention to our numerous requests, including the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance in the criminal case opened in Russia into the death of Mr Nikolay Glushkov, which was delivered to the Home Office as early as in April. The Embassy’s proposals to arrange a meeting between the Russian Ambassador and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, or between experts from law enforcement authorities of the two countries, made as far back as in April, have also been met with silence.
Question: How would you comment on the recent statements of the British officials who said that the UK was prepared to “retaliate” against Russia, including by deploying its cyber warfare capabilities?
Answer: Yet again, we have seen a series of official statements to the effect that the UK should use its “massive retaliatory capabilities” to counter Russia’s “aggression”. Home Secretary Sajid Javid said on Sunday that the UK had “considerable powers, and we’ll bring all these powers, both covert and overt to bear on Russia”. Last week GCHQ head Jeremy Fleming spoke in a similar vein saying that the British authorities and their allies were prepared to “counter the threat” allegedly posed by Russia. In this context he mentioned a plan to “deploy the full range of tools”, including Britain’s “offensive cyber capability” against Russia.
Such statements are reckless, provocative and unfounded.
Sajid Javid: This [the Salisbury incident] was the act, we now know unequivocally, crystal clear, this was the act of the Russian state. Comment: If Mr Javid has evidence that allows him to make this kind of direct accusations, why wouldn’t he share it with the public? So far, what the public has seen is nothing but photos of two Eastern-European-looking men walking around Salisbury on two different days. Everything else, including exact dates and names, let alone these gentlemen’s involvement in the Skripals poisoning and their links to the Russian state, is only assertions based on unverifiable “intelligence” and on the “lack of alternative explanations”. If the “crystal clear”-level evidence exists, it is in everyone’s interest for it to be published.
Question: How would you comment on the new circumstances of the investigation by British authorities of the death of Nikolay Glushkov? Answer: We should note that British authorities continue to refuse to cooperate on the investigation of the mysterious death on 12 March in London of former Deputy Director General of “Aeroflot” Mr Nikolay Glushkov producing different versions and leaks that are convenient for the UK Conservative government.
Question: How could you comment on the statements on Russia having produced “40 fictitious narratives” on the Salisbury attack?
Answer: These reports are themselves fictitious. As we have said before, Russia does not, and cannot, have an official version of the incident for the simple reason of having no access to any data on which that version might be based.
Russian discussions over this issue are going on in a UK-imposed information vacuum, filled with endless leaks in British media which turn out to be false time and again. One may recall how many times it was announced that suspects had been identified (each time with different names and in varying numbers), or how many ways of executing the attack have been discussed.
Q.: Has the Embassy received any materials from the UK supporting yesterday’s accusations against Russia related to the Skripal case?
A.: No, we have not received any additional documents, clarifications or requests. The British authorities continue to expect “answers” from Russia, but they forget to ask questions. As we have pointed out earlier, London’s accusations are coupled with a blunt refusal to cooperate. Instead, we are spoken to in the language of ultimatums. The latest example was yesterday’s meeting at the Foreign Office where Ivan Volodin, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., was denied an opportunity to reply to the British démarche, raise additional questions or explain Russia’s position.
British Prime Minister Theresa May’s remarks at the British Parliament on September 5 regarding the Skripal case and the poisoning of two British nationals in Amesbury were delivered in an absolutely unacceptable tone. They contain a number of presumptuous accusations against Russia and two allegedly Russian citizens. We strongly reject these insinuations.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy