Russian Ambassador Andrei Kelin’s interview to RIA Novosti news agency (16 August, 2024)
Russian Embassy in London
❓ Have you had any contact with representatives of the new British government? Are they showing any willingness to discuss pressing issues?
💬 Amid the crisis in bilateral relations provoked by the British government, our interaction with the authorities of the United Kingdom has largely been reduced to contacts with the Foreign Office. This was the case under the Conservatives, and it continues under the Labour. These infrequent conversations are sometimes of a political nature, but mostly focus on practical issues related to the activities of the diplomatic and consular missions of both countries under the current difficult circumstances.
It is clear that London is hardly under any illusions that key issues can be resolved without Russia. However, this is not reflected at the level of political leadership. Judging by the rhetoric, which echoes the anti-Russian stance of the Conservatives, the Labour Government is not ready for substantive dialogue.
❓ Have you crossed paths with the new Ukrainian ambassador, Valery Zaluzhny? Does he follow the characteristic rude style of Ukrainian diplomacy? What would you say to him if you happened to have a conversation?
💬 There are no diplomatic contacts between Russia and Ukraine under the current circumstances. Judging by his public statements, Valery Zaluzhny is settling into his new role quite actively and is drastically changing his previous profile.
❓ The leader of the British Reform UK party, Nigel Farage, has repeatedly stated the need for negotiations with Russia regarding Ukraine. The leader of another lesser-known party, "Heritage," David Kurten, has called for the normalisation of relations with Russia. Does this indicate that there are still reasonable political forces in Britain advocating for the preservation of dialogue with Russia? How do you assess the negative reaction of the West to such statements?
💬 We are aware of Britons expressing reasonable ideas, but they are few in number here. In the face of the prevailing anti-Russian consensus within the local establishment, it is difficult for them to communicate and defend their point of view. Even though, these are often figures who do not support our country but simply call for dialogue, including for the benefit of the UK itself. Those who dare to take such positions are subjected to harsh criticism, vilified in the media, and attempts are made to discredit them. Objectivity is out of the question. This is a confirmation of the cynicism of Western politicians, who allegedly desire peace but in practice do everything to aggravate the crisis, acting in political interests rather than for the benefit of their own or, even more so, of the Ukrainian people.
❓ The British authorities do not rule out the possibility of an emergency recall of Parliament amidst the mass riots. What is the likelihood of Keir Starmer's resignation due to the situation with anti-immigrant protests?
💬 This issue is not on the agenda at the moment. Even appeals to recall Members of Parliament from their recess to discuss the mere fact of the protests have been dearly rejected by the country’s leadership. The government’s aim is to curb public disorder, and this approach is generally supported by the opposition and a significant part of the population.
As for the criticism directed at the British leadership, it is primarily voiced because of serious measures not having been taken earlier, as well as for the "double standards". In response, the authorities emphasise that they bring to justice offenders on both sides of the fence. However, objectively speaking, fewer counter-protesters have been detained.
The unrest, however, reveals the fundamental problems within British society. These include the population’s discontent, socio-economic inequality exacerbated by the cost of living crisis, and the failures of the multiculturalism policy. The British authorities will have to address all these issues in earnest in the future if they wish to rectify the situation in the country.
❓ The Labour government has announced its intention to provide Ukraine with £3 billion annually, following in the footsteps of its predecessors, despite the multibillion-pound 'hole' in the budget. At the same time, the authorities have not ruled out raising taxes, contrary to pre-election promises, and cutting public spending. How do you assess such actions by Britain to the detriment of its own citizens? How much patience remains in British society?
💬 Keir Starmer’s Cabinet, from its very first days in power, set out to prove that no change in position on Ukraine should be expected. It has reaffirmed the commitment to allocate at least £3 billion annually to Kiev "for as long as it takes." I would also draw attention to the bilateral agreement (Defence Export Support Treaty) signed in July on the sidelines of the so-called European Political Community summit held in the UK. This agreement provides for loans totaling up to £3.5 billion to Kiev for the purchase of military products from British defense companies.
These plans appear to be a heavy burden on the British state budget and taxpayers amidst economic crisis. Moreover, the press is increasingly reporting that the Conservatives left Labour with an enormous deficit in the state budget.
It should be noted that the public is already questioning the prudence of continuing to fund costly foreign policy ventures. However, Labour is reluctant to backtrack and lose face before its Western partners.
❓ Kiev has previously reported receiving permission to use Storm Shadow missiles for strikes deep into Russia. At the same time, British media, citing sources, have refuted this information. How does Russia assess this situation? Which version do we consider to be accurate?
💬 From time to time, British officials respond to questions concerning the geographical limits of the use of Storm Shadow cruise missiles transferred to Kiev by London. Their statements are typically rather vague, allowing the media to interpret them in various ways. We proceed on the basis that the initial position of the British side, publicly stated in May 2023, remains unchanged. The essence of this position is that these systems were transferred for use within what they call internationally recognised territory of Ukraine for self-defenсe purposes, taking into account the provisions of international humanitarian law.
❓ The Times recently reported, citing a source, that London is allegedly discussing with Germany the joint creation and deployment of medium-range missiles to intercept/destroy Russian nuclear-armed missiles. What lies behind such leaks and plans? Where is this leading?
💬 Such reports in the British media followed the visit of the Defence Secretary John Healy to Berlin on July 24. A bilateral declaration on defence cooperation was signed there, outlining the possibility of collaboration between Britain and Germany and other partners in the development of long-range precision strike capabilities (deep precision strike). At present, there is little concrete information on this matter.
As you may recall, it was previously reported that Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Rome had joined forces to implement the ELSA program for the creation of medium-range ground-based missiles. A corresponding memorandum was signed at the NATO summit in Washington (July 9-11). There were reports suggesting that London might join this project. However, the British themselves have not officially confirmed this.
Such initiatives seem to us very dangerous. According to the media, these European missiles, once developed, are supposed to replace American intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, which the United States plans to deploy in Germany starting from 2026. Naturally, we will be forced to respond with compensatory measures in the manner most suitable to us. As our President has stated, should such missiles appear in Europe, we will consider ourselves released from the declared moratorium on deploying of ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.
❓ Europe is preparing for the possible victory of Donald Trump at the presidential elections. One of the main questions on the agenda is: what should be done if the U.S. refuses to supply weapons to Ukraine? What role do you think Britain will play in the new structure of support for Ukraine? Will it not assume the position of the primary instigator of the conflict?
💬 The pre-election situation in the United States is becoming increasingly complex. I will leave that without further comment. As for Britain, it has played the role of one of the main instigators of the conflict from the very beginning. Officials have referred to their country as a driving force leading the Western camp and contributing to the adoption of key decisions regarding military supplies. It is evident that London would like to continue playing this role (at least in rhetoric) regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. However, according to the British military themselves, because of giving "assistance" to Ukraine, their arsenals have been depleted, and replenishing them requires enormous funds.
❓ Moreover, officials regularly make statements about the need to be prepared for war with Russia in three years. Why are such deadlines being set?
💬 First and foremost, it should be noted that the theme of the "Russian threat" has been exploited by official London for many years for various purposes, including justifying its own missteps in different areas.
As for the statements you refer to, the military-political leadership of Britain expresses itself with more nuance. They speak of the risks of finding themselves in conflict in one form or another, not necessarily with Russia. The timelines in the assessments of local military leaders vary, and it is emphasised that this is not inevitable.
The goal is mundane - to secure more funds for the armed forces, that require indeed radical modernisation. At the same time, they must explain to the population, still affected by the cost of living crisis, why money will be spent on this rather than, for example, the government’s previously announced program to build 40 new hospitals across the country, which may now happen to be "frozen." Additionally, this rhetoric clearly aims to push international partners, particularly within NATO, to increase their defense expenditures.
In practice, however, the Labour government has not yet decided when it will itself be able to increase defense spending to 2.5% of GDP.
❓ Many British nationals are actively fighting on the side of Ukraine. What are the latest figures Moscow has on the number of British mercenaries in the Ukrainian armed forces, and how many of these mercenaries have been eliminated since the start of the special military operation?
💬 It would be better to address this question to the Russian Ministry of Defence. Previously, our Defence Ministry revealed to the public that it had information on more than eight hundred British nationals who traveled to Ukraine for this purpose. It was reported that 360 of them have been killed.
It should be noted that even in the British media, there are occasionally reports about such individuals, including those who have been eliminated in the zone of the special military operation.
Moreover, it is essential to mention the active involvement of British nationals in the planning and conducting of military and sabotage operations by the Ukrainian armed forces, not to mention their significant influence on the Ukrainian leadership.
❓ Vladimir Zelensky previously stated that negotiations with Russia could begin without the precondition of returning territories. In your view, how might this affect London's support for Kiev? Is there a likelihood that Britain might once again attempt to sabotage a peace deal, as Boris Johnson did? If so, what would be the purpose of such actions?
💬 Any statements by Vladimir Zelensky on the topic of negotiations are hardly worth taking seriously or commenting on, especially given his unclear status. In reality, Kiev has shown nothing to substantiate the weight of these words. In official circles in London, the topic of peace negotiations is clearly "out of favour."
❓ In your view, how strong is Russophobia among ordinary Britons at present? Do they share the aggressive rhetoric of official London, or do they understand the importance of maintaining relations with Moscow in a time of global instability?
💬 Even here, many acknowledge that local residents are tired of the constant emphasis on the "Ukrainian storyline." However, overall, they remain under the influence of the rhetoric of the local establishment and the media that serves it, especially given that access to reliable information about our country is effectively closed off by the British authorities. Moreover, to create the image of a "Russian threat," fabrications not only about the special military operation but also about more pressing issues concerning the safety and well-being of Britons are used.
Russia is baselessly accused of interfering in the United Kingdom's internal processes, espionage, sabotage, cyberattacks, including on the healthcare system. There have even been accusations linking Russia to the anti-immigrant unrest occurring in several British cities in recent weeks.
❓ More than two years after the start of the special military operation, do our citizens residing in Britain still encounter hostile attitudes and discrimination?
💬 Russophobia experienced in a day-to-day life seems to be not that strong. However, we are aware of various attempts to exert pressure on our compatriots by the authorities or at their instigation. As you know, it is also quite challenging for representatives of Russian media to work here.
❓ Britain recently announced the expulsion of a Russian military attaché, the removal of diplomatic status from several Russia-owned properties, and the introduction of new restrictions on issuing diplomatic visas to Russians. How has this complicated the work of our Embassy in London? What were Moscow's countermeasures?
💬 These unfriendly steps were taken by the previous British government under a rather flimsy pretext, largely to score political points ahead of the elections. Undoubtedly, they have complicated our activities, but these actions have primarily harmed the interests of Britain itself.
This is evident in the case of the military attachés. As it is well known, the Russian side swiftly responded with a reciprocal measure concerning the British military representative in Moscow. London had surely foreseen such a "mirror" response, yet it consciously chose to undermine channels of military-diplomatic dialogue during a period of unprecedented military and political tension in Europe. Now, of course, the new government has the opportunity not to repeat the mistakes of its predecessors. As I have already noted, we do not see any readiness to correct them.
❓ Are British intelligence services attempting to recruit or intimidate diplomats from the Russian Embassy? If so, could you share some examples?
💬 Regrettably, such incidents do occur. This is, of course, unacceptable. We raise such episodes with the British authorities.