21 January 2019
Moscow: 01:21
London: 22:21

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

323 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     315 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities




The BBC’s another low in outright post-truth propaganda in the defense of the unsustainable status quo in Britain, US and worldwide. Not a single shred of evidence on any issue raised. John Sweeney’s praise for Ch.Steele’s ‘kompromat’ report “even if it is a pack of lies”, explains it all. And that includes the sense of despair in the face of change to come. A propaganda paid for by TV licence-holders. By the Western elites who adore business as usual for themselves and wouldn’t change neither 25 years ago, nor in 2008, when the crisis struck, hoping to print their way out of it. The Obama Administration promised, but couldn’t deliver change for this very reason. Russia was lying down in its own transformation and cannot be blamed for that. Now “the wrong choice” of the electorate undermines faith in US democracy? And the elites’ impotence equals doom and gloom for the liberal world order, etc?

Nobody (but for Francis Fukuyama in the Foreign Affairs magazine and his book “Political Order and Political Decay”) raises the issue of the responsibility of the elite for the present state of Western societies and the world. Instead we get the notion of a post-truth world as a licence to lie… for a good cause, which turns out to be preservation of the status quo. Is it the same liberal tradition of political expediency we saw in every revolution and counter-revolution in Europe which justifies means if the end is deemed good? Why not quote Reinhold Niebuhr who wrote: “Every civilization claims immortality for its finite existence at the very moment when the decay which leads to death has already begun”.

Why piling lies upon lies on Russia, its President and policies, domestic and foreign? Why not say that all the efforts to undermine Russia, including sanctions and fall in the price of oil, ended up making us stronger, in particular more prepared for deglobalization (declared by Gordon Brown in 2008)?

As to Ukraine, why omit origins of the crisis, i.e. Nato/EU expansion on the cheap and the coup of 22 February 2014, which tore up its constitutional order? Why not mention the Minsk-2 accords arrived at by four leaders, including F.Holland and A.Merkel. Those are a recipe for political solution well in line with European values. But Kiev wouldn’t deliver on its political commitments for in that case there will be no justification for dragging feet on substantial reform.

In Syria, not a word on Russia’s intervention as providing conditions for a search for a political solution, where the West failed miserably. Why not quote John Kerry who admitted in his talks with the Syrian opposition that the US had betted on Isis as an instrument of regime change in Syria? We helped create the broad-based International Syria Support Group under the US and Russia as Co-Chairs. The US couldn’t deliver on its promise to get separation of bona fide Syrian opposition groups from Isis/“Nusra”. Now we are working with Turkey and Iran. A nationwide cessation of hostilities is in place. Intra-Syrian talks to start in Astana on 23 January with participation of real opposition figures representing armed groups on the ground.

Why not say that 110K people were liberated in Eastern Aleppo with 9K fighters laying down their arms. Under supervision of the Russian military 34K more, including 14K fighters, were evacuated with international media, International Red Cross and WHO present. Why not talk of Western and regional advisers/liaison officers imbedded with the opposition/terrorist groups in the city let go with our military’s help.

The detente between Washington and Moscow was good for all in the Cold War based on vital national interests. Why not now? Is it because a ‘new cold War’ provides reasons for resisting any change in the West? And what a twisted logic: if the White House and the Kremlin get along now and fall out later, it would be a worse confrontation than the Cold War. In fact, the BBC tells all of us to stay where we (and the world) are. What an enlightened attitude! We truly believe the British deserve better than that.

We cannot agree more with Jeremy Paxman (“FT”, 16 January) who asks, where is the evidence for the salacious allegations about Mr Trump, and call to respect the will of the American people. We do.


21.01.2019 - Embassy’s Press Officer reply to a media question regarding a teenager receiving an award for administering first aid to Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury

Question: How would you comment on the media reports suggesting that it was Abigail McCourt, 16, who was the first to help Sergei and Yulia Skripal after they were poisoned? Answer: If this is true, let us express sincere admiration and gratitude to Abigail for having saved the lives of our two compatriots. At the same time, we have to say that these reports, as many others related to the Salisbury case, are unofficial and unverifiable. Moreover, the fact that Abigail was present at the crime scene together with her mother, Alison McCourt, who happens to be a Colonel and the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army, adds to the numerous extraordinary coincidences characteristic of the Skripals poisoning. Furthermore, one has to wonder why this information, unusual as it is, has only been made public ten months after the incident.

18.01.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding the UK position on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Question: Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Sir Alan Duncan, addressing the Commons Defence Committee, has once again accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and of the planned US withdrawal from it. He found it difficult to explain the Russian position, calling it a “mystery”. How could you comment on that? Answer: Indeed, the discussion between the FCO Minister of State in charge of Russia and members of Parliament’s Defence Committee was startling. After repeating a standard set of accusations against Russia widely used by the US to cover its urge to unilaterally withdraw from the INF Treaty, Sir Alan visibly struggled to explain the Russian position, not to mention our well-known concerns with regard to the US compliance. Moreover, in order to understand our motives the Minister, referring to the Beatles, suggested one would need to take “a magical mystery tour”.

17.01.2019 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on the results of Russian diplomacy

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2018 Moscow, January 16, 2019

08.01.2019 - Embassy Press Officer comments on the latest media publication on the Salisbury incident

Question: How would you comment on the Daily Telegraph publications alleging that British authorities have established full details of the assassination attempt of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and describing their current life in England? Answer: We are dealing with yet another media leak, unofficial and unverifiable. It provides no new facts on the Salisbury incident, let alone evidence. The circumstances of the incident remain as confusing as ever.

05.01.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding recent statements on Russia by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt

Question: How would you comment on Jeremy Hunt’s speech in Singapore, in which he named Russia’s actions on the international arena as the prime example of a threat to the rules-based international system? Answer: Such rhetoric of British officials is not new. It again combines manipulation of international norms with distortion of facts. As stated repeatedly, Russia does not accept the concept of a “rules-based international system”. The international order is based on international law, i.e. legally binding norms that have been agreed on and accepted by all states. By substituting “international law” with obscure “rules”, the UK and other Western countries aim to shed the responsibility for their unlawful behaviour, while assuming the right to randomly blame other countries of breaking “rules” to which they had never signed up.

04.01.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question regarding recent statements by UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt on Syria

Question: How could you comment on the statements by the UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt in a “Sky News” interview on President Assad’s future and the role of Russia in the Syrian peace settlement? Answer: We have taken note of Mr Hunt saying that “regretfully” Bashar al-Assad “is going to be around for a while and that is because of the support that he’s had from Russia” and “Russia may think that it’s gained a sphere of influence [but] you’ve also gained a responsibility”.

31.12.2018 - Interview with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov for the show, Moscow. Kremlin. Putin, Moscow, December 30, 2018

Question: What is the main outcome of the year for you? Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult to highlight something specific. If we speak about foreign policy, I cannot make an evaluation myself. We have tried to do everything that is necessary in order to fulfill the instructions of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, to implement the foreign political course set by him. It is not for me to judge how successful we were. This should be left to the people to decide, of course, and to the leadership of the Russian Federation.

28.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer replies to a media question regarding the situation with the staffing of the Russian and British diplomatic missions

Question: Could you comment on the statement by Ambassador Yakovenko regarding the forthcoming restoration of the number of Russian and British diplomats, which was subsequently denied by the UK Foreign Office? Answer: We saw the rebuttal by the British side. Here are the facts. In December Russia and the UK have, for the first time since March, issued a number of visas for future employees of the diplomatic missions of the two countries, on the basis of reciprocity.

25.12.2018 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the Prime Minister’s 2018 Christmas Message to the Armed Forces

Question: How would you comment on Theresa May thanking the UK Armed Forces for “protecting our waters and our skies from Russian intrusion” in her Christmas Message? Answer: We were utterly surprised by the Prime Minister’s rhetoric. An uninitiated reader may fall under the impression that Russia has made attempts to violate the UK air space or territorial waters. This has never been happened.

24.12.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the international news agency Rossiya Segodnya, December 24, 2018

all messages