Ambassador Andrei Kelin’s interview with Izvestia newspaper, 2 October 2024

❓ On 11 September, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy arrived in Kiev, and on 13 September British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House. It was expected that both visits would lead to a decision regarding the use of Western long-range weapons by Ukrainian forces to strike Russian territory. Nevertheless, there was no official approval from either Washington or London. Keir Starmer said that his talks with Biden were purely strategic. What is holding London back?

💬 The question of whether the Ukrainian armed forces should be allowed to strike deep into the Russian territory using foreign long-range systems remains a pressing issue fraught with clear risks of escalation. The British government is well aware of this. Unwilling to go it alone, it is seeking to rope in as many partners as possible to make dangerous decisions. Moreover, as the press put it, the effectiveness of Storm Shadow cruise missiles depends directly on U.S. reconnaissance data.

The subject was addressed on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly High-Level Week held in New York. The details of the discussion have not been disclosed in order to mislead us and create "strategic ambiguity" so much favoured by the West. However, as far as we can see, the debate is far from over. Some experts suggest that it will be only through reports from the zone of the special military operation that the general public will learn of the go-ahead for the use of missiles having been given.

It is worth recalling that in May 2023 the British government publicly announced that it started to supply Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine and informed our Embassy in London of this decision. At the time, it was stated that these cruise missiles were to be provided for Ukraine’s self-defence and would be employed within what is regarded in London as the “internationally recognised” borders of Ukraine. To date, we have seen only statements by British officials reiterating that this position remains unchanged.

Our approach to this problem is also well-known to the British authorities. President Vladimir Putin has made it crystal clear that any agreement regarding the "missile issue" would signify direct involvement of the Western nations in the conflict with Russia. Consequently, we understand that preparations are underway for a variety of potential scenarios.

❓ Following Keir Starmer’s arrival, London has reaffirmed its commitment to comprehensive support for Kiev. Media outlets reported that the UK has supplied dozens of Storm Shadow missiles. Will such active deliveries of long-range missiles continue? Does the British defence industry still have the capacity to maintain the rate of deliveries?

💬 For obvious reasons the supply of Storm Shadow missiles to Kiev remains shrouded in secrecy. Neither the exact number of missiles transferred to Ukraine, nor the number of missiles used has been disclosed. Open sources suggest that Ukraine's stockpile of British missiles is "limited" and the pace of replenishment leaves much to be desired. It is worth noting that much regarding the Ukrainian armed forces' provision of these missiles depends not only on the United Kingdom, but also on other component-supplying nations, namely France and Italy.

❓ The UK has made no secret of its active role in training Ukrainian armed forces. Over 42,000 individuals have already completed the training programme. Additionally, there are reports of a substantial number of British mercenaries fighting alongside Ukrainian forces. But does the UK officially endorse the deployment of its citizens to the zone of the special military operation in Ukraine?

💬 Let me remind you of a statement made in the early days of the special military operation by infamous Liz Truss, the then UK’s Foreign Secretary. She bluntly described the involvement of British citizens in the conflict in Ukraine as a "just cause". Later on, of course, her words were disallowed by the British Ministry of Defence. But that did not deter quite a few Britons from joining in. Some by that time had already begun contacting Ukrainian embassies, seeking to get enlisted. And it seems their requests were heard.

Given London’s self-declared leadership in supporting Ukraine, it is hardly surprising that significant numbers of British "soldiers of fortune" have found their way to the zone of the special military operation. But their fate is often grim. The foreign mercenaries frequently lose their lives as a result of highly effective strikes on their bases by the Russian forces. The local media hardly hide these reports. It goes without saying that all the instances of mercenary activity, banned under international law and Russian criminal legislation, are meticulously documented by the Russian authorities.

❓ Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson played a key role in derailing the Istanbul agreements. The newly elected Labour government has yet to propose any initiatives to resolve the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Does London’s policy of not allowing a peaceful settlement remain unchanged under the new government?

💬 Keir Starmer’s party, as it is well known, ran its election campaign under the banner of change. However, since the Labour assumed office, London’s policy towards Ukraine has not undergone any visible changes. Except that the official rhetoric has become more emotional and ideological, sometimes going beyond diplomatic norms.

As for a negotiated settlement, this had never been on the priority list of the British authorities, even before the Labour came to power. And now, they seem more comfortable promoting the narrative that any initiative must come from Ukraine itself, pledging support for whatever decision is made. However, the "Johnson case" you mentioned serves as a stark reminder that Kiev’s supposedly sovereign decisions depend entirely on the instructions from its Western bosses.

❓ How much has the UK spent on economic and military assistance to Ukraine since 2014?

💬 London has consistently underscored its long-term and multifaceted support for Ukraine, both directly and through NATO. Since 2014, the British have laid the groundwork for rearming and improving combat readiness of the Ukrainian armed forces. The well-known ORBITAL training programme, which was completed by some 22,000 Ukrainian soldiers, is an example of these efforts.

However, the most substantial and active support began following the onset of the special military operation. According to British sources, approximately £13 billion has been allocated to aid Kiev since then, with around £8 billion designated for military assistance.

But there are some interesting nuances to consider. A recent report from the UK’s National Audit Office revealed that this amount does not include weapons and military equipment transferred from the British Defence Ministry's stockpiles during the first two years of the special military operation. It is curious that this equipment had a net book value of just £171.5 million. For example, the squadron of Challenger tanks is assessed at £17 million. Thus, it is acknowledged that official estimates of the equipment transferred are, firstly, incomplete and, secondly, in fact, understated.

As for non-military aid, which amounts to just over 4 billion pounds, a significant proportion is provided in the form of loan guarantees to Ukraine via the World Bank.

I think it goes without saying that this money could well have been allocated to address the pressing needs in Britain itself. After all, a £22 billion “black hole” has been identified recently in the nation's finances. Yet London continues to scare the public with an imaginary "Russian threat," precluding any discussion of the West's responsibility for instigating the Ukraine crisis.

❓ Besides London’s support for Kiev, Russia-UK relations have been further complicated by the expulsion of six employees from the British Embassy in Moscow suspected of espionage. Could there be a risk of a complete breakdown in diplomatic relations between Russia and the United Kingdom? Is the suspension of visa issuance to British citizens being considered amid the escalating tensions in bilateral ties?

💬 A rupture of diplomatic relations between states is a last resort. At present, we do not see sufficient grounds for such a step. We assume that the British do understand the importance of maintaining communication channels between our nations. However, the egregious actions of the previous British government, including the expulsion of the Russian military attaché in London on the flimsiest of pretexts, could not but raise doubts on this matter. Whether the current British government has the foresight to avoid repeating the mistakes of its predecessors remains to be seen.

Providing consular services to Britons, and in particular to our compatriots, remains a priority for the Embassy in London and the Consulate General in Edinburgh. Despite the scaremongering in the local media about Russia, visitor numbers to our consular offices are steadily increasing after the lull caused by the pandemic. They continue to operate as usual, occasionally working at weekends. Our diplomats also conduct outreach sessions in remote towns across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the workload has increased significantly due to the forced reduction of embassy staff and other obstacles imposed by London.

❓ How is the work of the Russian diplomatic mission in the UK unfolding? Are there any restrictions in place or under consideration concerning Russian diplomats? Have there been any cases of discrimination against Russians in the UK, for instance, in schools or hospitals? If so, is this a widespread issue?

💬 We are not complaining, but the restrictive measures taken by London under false pretexts are certainly having an adverse effect on the functioning of our diplomatic mission. As a result of expulsions and forced departures, the embassy's staff has been significantly reduced, and their replacements face lengthy waits, often several months, to obtain entry visas. Although we are assured that the Embassy is not subject to Western sanctions, British banks meticulously scrutinise our transactions, and many local businesses have outright refused to cooperate. Furthermore, the local media is fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility towards our diplomatic missions.

We draw the attention of the host country authorities to any cases of non-compliance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. In response to unlawful restrictive measures we act in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.

As for our compatriots, we are aware of cases where Russian nationals have encountered difficulties with their employers and business partners, including the freezing or closure of their bank accounts. However, based on our assessment, there is no evidence of widespread, everyday Russophobia, especially when compared to the hysteria observed here in 2022.

❓ In March, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova announced that the UK provided its first official response regarding the Skripal case since 2018. Has the Russian side made any new inquiries into the investigation? Why does the UK continue to hide the whereabouts of Sergei Skripal and his daughter?

💬 The UK is undoubtedly concealing information because there is much to hide. The British authorities may invoke "security concerns" for Sergei and Yulia Skripal as much as they like, claiming their need for protection from imaginary threats. They recently used this excuse again to prevent Russian citizens from attending the hearings on Dawn Sturgess's death in Amesbury. But we understand that the real issue lies in the UK government's desire to hide the truth about the Salisbury incident — a provocation that London used to launch a widespread anti-Russian campaign across Europe.

The superficial response received from the FCDO in March referred only to Yulia Skripal, with no mention of her father.

We hold the UK government responsible for the current situation of our citizens. We will continue to seek information on the condition and legal status of the Skripals, as well as the true circumstances of the Salisbury incident.

❓ Are there calls in London to assess the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed against Moscow, to ease or lift them?

💬 If the British authorities were truly guided by the criterion of effectiveness when imposing their so-called sanctions, these illegitimate restrictive measures would have been lifted long ago — or not introduced at all. The sanctions have failed to achieve their stated goal of changing Russia's policy or forcing it to abandon the objectives of the special military operation. Nor have they succeeded in their secondary aim of weakening Russia as a key player on the international stage. Instead, the local government has inflicted serious damage on its own economy, particularly in areas where the impact is felt the most by ordinary people. In their attempts to shift the blame local leaders persist in blaming Russia for the rising electricity prices, or even the higher cost of fish in the iconic fish and chips, as part of an already dire "cost-of-living crisis". In reality, it is the sanctions themselves, arbitrarily imposed by London for political reasons, that are the root cause of these difficulties.

Doubts about the effectiveness of sanctions are increasingly voiced within the expert community, including by those known for their overtly Russophobic views. Ironically, some admit that the restrictions have only served to unite the Russian people around their government. Yet, we hear no such reflections from British officials.

❓ Russian assets amounting to £22.7 billion have been frozen in the United Kingdom. In March, a bill proposing the confiscation of these assets was rejected, yet private property belonging to Russian entrepreneurs has been seized. Is London now looking for alternative ways to confiscate Russian assets? Could the frozen assets eventually be returned to their owners?

💬 Like other Western capitals London is persistently exploring "legal" means to appropriate not only Russia's assets, but also those of individuals deemed for various reasons to be associated with our country. But as the saying goes: "honey is sweet, but the bee stings".

The core problem is that the expropriation of sovereign assets, even if blocked, would be seen as blatant theft on an international scale, regardless of the justification. Such an action would irrevocably undermine the confidence of independent nations of the Global South in the Western financial system. London seems to be well aware of this. That is why, it is confining itself to supporting the EU’s illegal plans to seize profits derived from frozen Russian state assets and to block funds of sanctioned individuals within the UK’s jurisdiction.

As for the return of assets to their owners, this possibility remains largely speculative at present. Some of the sanctioned individuals appear to be seeking justice in local courts. However, according to media reports, none have succeeded in recovering their funds so far.

❓ Following the withdrawal of numerous Western companies from Russia and the subsequent decline in economic revenues, is the UK now showing interest in the Russian market? Have there been any cases of companies returning or new ones entering?

💬 Russia has traditionally represented a significant interest and vast opportunities for British businesses. Until 2022 globally renowned pharmaceutical giants, engineering firms, and energy corporations from the United Kingdom had been expanding their operations in our market. This was not merely a matter of financial investment, but also of engaging in the localisation of production. At the time, both nations were on the verge of substantially enhancing these ties.

However, with the start of the special military operation, when London unleashed a real economic war against us, many British companies had to pull out of Russia. These firms were essentially coerced to do so, facing the threat of criminal charges, heavy fines, and reputational damage from negative public relations campaigns. Despite this, a number of British enterprises continue to operate profitably in Russia, and their presence is far more significant than is commonly perceived in the West.

For our part, we have never politicised commercial relations. We are ready to support foreign companies, whether they are entering the Russian market or already operating there, even if they come from unfriendly countries. An indispensable condition, of course, is that they comply with the laws of the Russian Federation.

❓ How would you describe the state of bilateral relations between Russia and the UK? What is the current level of trade and economic cooperation? Is there any potential for growth, even under the present circumstances?

💬 Russia-UK relations are currently mired in a protracted crisis, with little sign of revival. This stands in stark contrast to the recent past when ties between our two nations were multidimensional. They rested on mutually beneficial trade and investment exchanges, rich cultural traditions, and a vibrant interpersonal dialogue.

Yet, due to London’s policy little of that remains. Today, Britain’s leadership is perceived by most Russians as the chief architect of the Western anti-Russian front, an instigator and sometimes even a direct accomplice in almost all hostile actions affecting our nation’s interests. Whether this perception is justified or not, the dramatic consequences of London's distinctly unfriendly course are felt by many, including ordinary Britons, whose interests seem to be of little concern to the ruling circles here.

The root cause of the collapse in relations lies in the long-standing policy of the British establishment, which, well before the start of the special military operation, had set its sights on strategic containment. Since 2022 it has shifted towards a policy of inflicting strategic defeat on our country. In pursuit of this goal, the British authorities have consistently fabricated artificial, sometimes implausible provocations. They incited their subordinate NGOs and media outlets against us, establishing an anti-Russian geopolitical framework across the post-Soviet space. All this culminated in the "Ukraine project", a proxy armed conflict with Russia. Moreover, London has not shied away from outright espionage. Reports suggest that it may have been involved in organising sabotage activities for the Ukrainian armed forces during the ongoing special military operation.

As for the sanctions that London has imposed and continues to impose on our country in coordination with its Western allies, they have by now almost completely "wiped out" bilateral trade. Import-export operations have shrunk nearly tenfold. The few goods that still come from the British Isles are mainly medical supplies and food. British imports from Russia are also extremely limited, and even then, consist mainly of services rather than goods.

❓ Are there any planned meetings between Russian and British Foreign Ministers on the sidelines of international events, including the G20?

💬 There have been no such contacts for quite a long time. For the time being, the British side has excluded itself from the list of parties with whom we could engage in serious discussions at this level.