23 January 2018
Moscow: 12:32
London: 09:32

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 

RESPONDING TO BRITISH MEDIA

08.10.2015

Ambassador Yakovenko answers media questions on Syria

QUESTION: According to official statements the British Government intends to request Parliament's consent to extend anti-Isis air strikes to Syria. In another development, the 'FT' reported that the West and its allies in the region on the eve of 30 September were planning to establish so called 'safe zones' and no-fly zones to protect them behind Russia's back. What could you say on that?

ANSWER: Britain is a sovereign nation and is free to make her own decisions. But it has to be noted that Russia's military assistance is provided at the request of the Syrian Government, i.e. fully in line with international law. Will Damascus request the British to assist in the same way, I don't know. But there is another way for the British, and, in fact, everybody else, to carry out airstrikes against Isis and other terrorists legitimately. It means a UN Security Council mandate, provided in response to the request of the Syrian Government. That is what we are now working on in New York. That is how the British could have their finger in the bombing pie in Syria. Russia is far from pulling this blanket upon herself. We want to work together.

There are other advantages of this course, besides establishing clear-cut objectives and terms of such collective intervention of international community in Syria. We could agree, in the text of this resolution, realistic and flexible enough modalities of a political settlement in Syria, which would allow those who left their country to come back and take part in its post-war reconstruction. The latter, by the way, could be a major source of economic growth in the region. What is equally important, this settlement will make it unnecessary for the EU to provide asylum to refugees from Syria.

I've read the said 'FT' material. Some would say that it is very much in line with backstabbing tradition of Western politics. Hope those plans were not serious on the part of our Anglo-American partners, who were able to see our preparations for air strikes in Syria. The British have the signal intelligence post in Cyprus, just opposite our Naval supply station in Syria, an equivalent of coaling stations in XIX century. Perhaps, they just couldn't say 'no' to their regional allies. But had it been true, it would have raised a host of serious issues. Because it would have been done behind our backs and in circumvention of the UN Security Council. Some seem eager to get NATO involved. The Alliance, until now, has been out of the picture in Syria, and for good reasons. Those plans, if implemented, would have brought about a de facto partition of Syria. More than that, our partners would have well found themselves in the position of protecting the terrorists.

It is a very dangerous idea. Some players might have harboured it. At least this would explain, why all of a sudden and from nowhere the tide of refugees in Europe this year. Quite likely it was meant to bring the EU on board as regards 'safe zones' plans. Now the migration crisis factor works for more realistic assumptions in Europe in respect of political process in Syria, which cannot proceed while Isis is there.

But let's discuss things positive. Among those I can see close cooperation between Russian and British militaries. Making common cause in Syria creates mutual trust, establishes mutual control, and provides incentives for both sides to be effective in doing its part of the job. We have just requested our Western partners to provide us with their intelligence on terrorist infrastructure in Syria, if they really think that we strike at the wrong targets. We have also requested contact numbers of the Free Syrian Army to help bring it into a united effort to defeat terrorists.

And initial results of our strikes prove that they can be very effective if delivered in earnest, with no other objectives at the back of one's mind. It also shows that the terrorists took their impunity for granted. In fact, it could be said that the anti-Isis coalition of 60 (!) states presided over this outfit's expansion for the whole year, rather than tried hard to stop and destroy it.

I am sure that thus there will be all the conditions in place for us to have a common view of the situation and make joint efforts on that basis. Among other things, it would have provided a welcome opportunity for our and British militaries to be allies like we were in WWII. It would drastically change the terrorists' calculus while doing the same to our relationship, which is in a very bad shape indeed.




LATEST EVENTS

27.11.2017 - "Do not politicise peaceful mission" Article by Consul General Mr Andrey Pritsepov in "The Herald" newspaper, published 23.11.2017

YOUR article ("Navy warship shadows Russian destroyer as it crosses UK waters", The Herald, November 21) fails to mention that the Russian naval vessel the Vice Admiral Kulakov and her supporting tanker transit in UK waters had been duly cleared and co-ordinated with the British side


15.11.2017 - Embassy response to a BBC question

Q: Can you provide a response to the speech being made by Ciaran Martin this morning, in which Russia is accused of having attacked the UK’s media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.\\\\r\\\\nA: We are concerned by such assertions since they mislead the British public in regard to the so called cyberattacks. We view these statements in the context of Prime Minister May’s “Banquet speech” which described Russia as number 1 threat for UK and the world community.


17.02.2017 - Embassy comment on BBC Two film

The film “Russia’s Hooligan Army” shot and broadcast by BBC Two with Russia-hosted 2018 FIFA World Cup in mind is quite shocking. One gets the impression that its goal is to sow fear in British society and warn the fans against travelling to Russia. Based on edited footage of football fans’ clashes in Marseille and violent Russian fans, the filmmakers from the government-funded channel did their best to discredit Russia and the forthcoming World Cup.


13.02.2017 - Letter to the Editor of The Sunday Telegraph

Sir, As to your recent article “Putin considers handing over Snowden as “gift” to the US” (12 February) I’ve got to admit I was stunned to see such a slapdash work by your colleagues. Apparently, journalism differs from propaganda in providing a balanced view and a measure of decency. In this case, the author plainly decided to ignore the Russian Government's opinion, expressed by the Kremlin & MFA spokespersons. Which is that Edward Snowden enjoys a legal status in Russia. He’s not a toy to be traded or presented to anyone. If your correspondent believes that in our time a bilateral relationship could be based on so a cynical arrangement then he absolutely misunderstands the very nature of contemporary international relations. It is insulting both to Russia and the United States as well as to your paper and your readers.


13.02.2017 - Embassy spokesperson's comment on "cyber witch hunt" timed to the launch of NCSC

Anybody following UK media in the recent days must have taken note of a "cyber witch hunt" unleashed against Russia by BBC, the Times, The Guardian et al. This well-coordinated attack is clearly timed to the official launch of National Cyber Security Centre, scheduled for Tuesday. Its head Ciaran Martin has already given interviews in droves, juggling figures and taking full advantage of the GCHQ status as absolving of the responsibility to provide supporting evidence (we would gladly see "a European report" and "a NATO report" quoted in the alarmist publications).


10.02.2017 - Embassy responds to BBC on Russia's "misinformation" campaign and the "cause of Scottish independence"

Q: What funding has the Russian government provided the Sputnik Edinburgh bureau? A: It is proper to address this question to the Sputnik Edinburgh bureau or its office in Moscow. Q: Are Russian government officials regularly in contact with Sputnik editors in the UK and elsewhere in the world? A: Sputnik, like the taxpayer-funded BBC, is independent and has its own editorial policy.


03.12.2016 - Russian Embassy Spokesman comment on PMO’s statement on East Aleppo

Question: PMO spokeswoman told Daily Mail that “Russia should use its influence with the Assad regime to stop these appalling atrocities in Aleppo and let humanitarian aid through”. What is your comment on that? Answer: It seems that our British partners prefer living in denial, finding comfort in what is said to be a post-truth world. That is if the reality doesn’t suit their five-year old narrative tant pis for the reality.


30.11.2016 - Letter to the Editor, FT Magazine, sent on 24 November

Sir, I feel entitled to comment on Simon Kuper's `Trump: a liberal loser responds` (FT.com/Magazine November 19/20 2016), for he mentioned `the Russian taxi driver in Paris 1920's`, thus laying claim, in the name of Western liberal elite, to the fate of the White Russians. The present situation plainly doesn't fit the description for there is no prospect of armed civil war nor being driven out of one's own country.


24.11.2016 - Letter to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, published on 24 November 2016

Letter to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph, published on 24 November 2016


24.11.2016 - Letter to the Editor of Financial Times, sent on 18 November 2016

Sir, It was surreal to read (“Aleppo residents suffer ‘surrender or starve’ onslaught”, 18 November) concerns about the wellbeing of Aleppo children voiced precisely by Nour al-Din al-Zinki group, best known for beheading a 12 year old boy in July.



all messages