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.
Q: Do you have a comment on the Ofcom statement regarding pressure on the channel RT?
A: We have taken note of UK Government’s exercise of pressure on media, bordering on censorship, regarding the coverage of the Salisbury poisoning. In particular, the “Sunday Times” reported on 8 April that the National Security Council staff “had seized control” over the media response of the Salisbury incident. The media manipulation by the authorities is corroborated by multiple “leaks” of new versions of the incident which could not have appeared in any other way. Highly likely the apparent lack of interest from media outlets to gain access Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the doctors treating them and many other involved parties, in spite of evident public interest, testifies to the same.
Question: State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert claimed that Russia failed to live up to its 2013 commitments to assist in the elimination of chemical stockpiles in Syria. What is your comment?
Sergey Ryabkov: The elimination process included close cooperation between the countries concerned, including the US, and went on under strict international control. At certain stages, Moscow and Washington were coordinating their moves in real time in the course of telephone conferences and continuous contact at various levels.
Statement by Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) A.Shulgin at the 58th EC Meeting of the OPCW
Faced with mounting threats in the information space, civil society continues to look for the most effective ways to counter these challenges, using various forms of consolidated efforts by professionals. The non-governmental sector is ready to contribute to international information security and make the information space a secure environment.
In line with this trend, the National Association of International Information Security was set up in Russia on April 10, 2018.
Q: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK has announced today that the nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury was delivered in a liquid form. How can you comment on this?
Q: A week ago the Embassy announced that Ambassador Yakovenko was planning to meet with Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Dick in order to discuss the ongoing investigation of the death of Nikolay Glushkov. Do you have any update on the issue?
Question: How do you assess the statement by the UK Prime Minister Theresa May accusing Russia of blocking an OPCW investigation of the events in Douma?
Answer: This is completely untrue.
Question: The UK has published its legal position claiming that the legal basis for the strikes against Syria is “humanitarian intervention”. Does Russia agree with that?
Question: UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has called today’s air strikes against Syria a “highly successful mission”. Does Russia share his assessment?
Tweet Follow @russianembassy