Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a question on allegations in the UK concerning “Russian cyberthreats”
Q: How would you comment on statements of the British officials and allegations in the media drawing attention of the public to “growing cyberthreats from Russia”?
A: In recent days, we have again witnessed numerous warnings that the UK must prepare for an inevitable cyber attack from Russia “in retaliation” for airstrikes in Syria and the Salisbury incident. These reports follow a dangerous pattern of British rhetoric.
In February, the United Kingdom blamed the Russian Government for NotPetya cyber attacks of June 2017, calling them “a continued disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty” and stating that “the Kremlin has positioned Russia in direct opposition to the West”.
More recently, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, speaking on 11 April in Manchester, claimed that “over the past six months, the National Cyber Security Centre has responded to 49 incidents associated with Russian cyber groups”, and that “Russian actors have systematically targeted the UK amongst others, expanding the number of sectors targeted, in addition to the energy, telecoms and media”.
We consider these accusations and speculations as striking examples of a reckless, provocative and unfounded policy against Russia. We are disappointed by the fact that such serious claims have been made publicly, without any proof being presented and without any attempt by the United Kingdom to clarify the situation with the Russian side in the first place.
It would be useful to point out that Russia has made several proposals to the United Kingdom on different levels to establish bilateral mechanisms of cooperation in the sphere of information security. In December 2017, during Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s visit to Moscow, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov proposed to launch a serious dialogue on this matter. Unfortunately, all our proposals have been ignored by the British side.
We have also noted that the British Government did not deny the numerous statements by MPs, experts and media regarding a possible “deployment” of “offensive cyber capabilities” by the United Kingdom against Russia. Prime Minister Theresa May did not directly reject such possibility during her statement in the House of Commons on 14 March. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also failed to deny that in official correspondence, despite our direct requests.
Given that in recent days the British media, instigated by official statements, has again started to exploit the issue of “cyberthreats from Russia”, impression grows that the British public is being prepared for a massive cyber attack by the UK against Russia, that will purport to be of a retaliatory nature, but would in fact constitute unprovoked use of force.
Russia is not planning to conduct any cyber attacks against the United Kingdom. We expect the British Government to declare the same.
1. The objective of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) is to reaffirm and strengthen the central and coordinating role of the Organization in international affairs. The UN is a unique platform for equitable dialogue aimed at seeking solutions with due regard for different opinions and based on the purposes and principles of its Charter. Any attempts to challenge the UN authority are dangerous and may lead to a dismantled system of international relations. We have consistently advocated a polycentric world order, equal and indivisible security based on unconditional respect for sovereignty and peoples' right to independently choose their development path.
Question: How would you comment on today’s Guardian article claiming that “Russian diplomats held secret talks to assess whether they could help Julian Assange flee the UK”?
Answer: This publication has nothing to do with the reality. The Embassy has never engaged either with Ecuadorian colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions on any kind of Russia’s participation in ending Mr Assange’s stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.
Why should we trust or distrust Petrov and Boshirov when there’s zero evidence on the table that would in any way link their very existence to the Salisbury incident? Just because these people were there? Then, can Britain provide a list of all the foreigners who were in Salisbury on those days? On top of that, no one has seen Sergey Skripal since the incident. No one has even talked with Julia Skripal. The whole thing is absurd, because these two individuals came in, talked with Simonyan, provided answers to the counts that the UK publicly accused them of, and, for some reason, everyone is now saying, “We do not believe them.” However, when Yulia Skripal spoke before a camera, which was operated by no one knows who, and didn’t answer any question, but instead read a text apparently written for her by someone, and before that published a text similarly written for her by someone, everyone said, “Yes, of course, we trust her.”
Question: During his visit to Turkey the Minister for the Middle East Mr Alistair Burt met with the infamous White Helmets group, whom the Russian Federation considers terrorist supporters. How would you comment on that?
Answer: It is up to HMG of course to decide which contacts are to develop and whom the senior diplomats are to meet. Nevertheless, this choice is a truly remarkable one.
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.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy