Andrei Kelin, the Russian
ambassador in London, talka to RT l
In recent weeks we have witnessed a number of harsh, if not
aggressive, anti-Russian statements by former British officials. The
former head of MI5 agreed with those who believe that Russia and
Britain are already at war and former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace
proposed making Crimea "uninhabitable". What is behind this
new round of escalating rhetoric? Does it reflect the approach of
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other current politicians?
The comments you mentioned are
indeed provocative and unacceptable, regardless of who voiced them.
They are whipping up anti-Russian hysteria. They also accustom the
population to the idea of the permissibility of a military conflict
with Russia. But these are all retirees trying to remind us of
themselves. Officials do not directly express themselves in this way,
but they do not disavow such attacks either.
Representatives of the Labour
government often reproach us for "reckless and dangerous"
steps and statements. But much more reckless are the arguments of
such figures as Ben Wallace. During his tenure at the head of the
British Ministry of Defence, he did a lot to inflate the
Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which he seems to be very proud of. Now
he’s in fact repeating the rhetoric of neo-Nazi circles in Ukraine,
which more than 10 years ago pushed the residents of Crimea and
Donbas to make a choice in favour of reunification with Russia.
Behind all this escalation of rhetoric, there is obviously a strong
discomfort from how events are developing on the ground, where the
situation of the armed forces of Ukraine is steadily deteriorating.
The British government was one of the first in Europe to
publicly announce plans to send a military contingent to Ukraine, and
also came up with a number of initiatives that Russia regarded as
provocative. What is London's ultimate goal in pursuing such a
hostile policy towards Russia?
From the very beginning, London has
not hidden its interest in fomenting the Ukrainian conflict in order
to inflict a so-called strategic defeat on us. What exactly is meant
by this, we do not really understand to this day. Then they began to
say that the security of Ukraine is closely related to the security
of Europe. But what does Britain have to do with it?
Now they are talking about an
immediate, unconditional truce, without going into how the conflict
will be resolved. It is obvious that London is against such a
negotiated solution that would lead to a permanent, rather than
temporary, cessation of hostilities, and most importantly, would
eliminate the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis. Here, it seems,
they have not abandoned their intention to drag Ukraine into Nato, to
deploy Nato strike potential on its territory. Obviously, the goal of
the "coalition of the willing" is precisely aimed at
preserving the anti-Russian potential of Ukraine, preferably with the
presence of Nato forces on its territory.
All these plans are absolutely
transparent for us, we will respond adequately. The West should be
well aware that when they talk about some price that Russia must pay
for the Ukrainian crisis, they should not forget that they, in turn,
will be presented with a bill. The longer they feed the Kiev regime,
which has de facto already turned Ukraine into a non-existent state,
the more dearly they will ultimately have to pay.
Some politicians argue that the UK is a sworn enemy of Russia
and that the peoples of our countries have long been hostile to each
other. However, Moscow's official position is that Russia has no
unfriendly peoples – only unfriendly governments. How does this
relate to the current state of relations between Russia and London?
Contradictions between our
countries have existed for a significant part of the history of
bilateral relations. It was Britain that provoked them.
Unfortunately, at the current stage, relations are in a protracted
crisis through the fault of official London. The government (both
Labour and Conservative) is the initiator and participant of many
unfriendly actions. The British establishment and the media close to
them are trying to instil hostility towards us in the country's
population. Therefore, they spread fake news about the alleged threat
from Russia and about actions that our country
has never committed. They create a toxic atmosphere around those who
consider it necessary to at least continue the dialogue. Moreover,
Britons interested in cooperating with Russia are now being
intimidated by the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. It obliges
people to report to the authorities about almost any interaction with
our state.
Against this background, there is
no need to talk about active contacts at the population level. But we
do not interfere with people-to-people contacts, we do not close our
borders to tourists. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of our
attitude towards the British people in the current conditions is the
desire to preserve the memory of the alliance during the Great
Patriotic War, and to demonstrate our sincere respect for the
participants in those events.
In the media, much attention is paid to the possible transfer
of intelligence by Washington to Kiev for long-range missile strikes
on Russian territory. However, it is known that London has been
carrying out similar actions for a long time. Why does this fact go
largely unnoticed in the headlines? And how does this affect Russia's
reaction to UK policy?
The information that the British
side is providing comprehensive military support to Kiev, including
the transfer of weapons, intelligence and training of military
personnel, has always been in plain sight and has been repeatedly
commented on by us. London has long established itself as one of the
main sponsors of the Kiev regime. This is not a surprise to anyone.
All this is being closely monitored by the Russian side and, of
course, taken into account when building our policy towards the UK.
We are against any escalation. As I said, in the end, everyone who
helps the Zelensky regime fuel the war and damage us will be
presented with a bill. In what form is a separate question.
Many British media outlets interpreted President Vladimir Putin's
recent speech at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club as a threat to Europe, mainly because of the President's words
that Russia should in any case respond to the plans to militarise the
European Union. At the same time, his statement that Russia is not
considering the possibility of invading Europe was omitted in many
cases. What do you think about this reaction from the British media?
Now the British press in any
situation makes a choice in favour of promoting the topic of
escalation, rather than détente. Hysteria is being whipped up under
the slogan of a growing direct Russian threat to the countries of the
alliance. Under these conditions, it is hardly in the interests of
the sponsors of this campaign to broadcast the "peaceful"
theses of the President of Russia. They are trying in every possible
way to instil in the population the idea of the need to prepare for
an armed confrontation with our country. And it is clear why. France
and Germany are in the biggest crisis. The same is true in the UK. It
is necessary to divert the attention of fellow citizens from the
numerous problems in which the country is mired. We do not forget
about the efforts of the military-industrial complex, which is
interested in obtaining long-term contracts.
As you may remember, after the end
of the Cold War, the expression "peace dividend" was in
vogue. This meant that due to the reduction in spending on huge
military contingents and weapons stockpiles that had become
unnecessary, the economies of European countries freed up huge funds
for economic development and improving the quality of life of people.
They could be properly used for the benefit of countries. But it
didn't work out that way.
Now the Labour leadership is
actively talking about a "war dividend", apparently hoping
to increase the revenues of the debt-ridden budget at the expense of
revenues from the military industry. You are also right that the
statements of our leadership about the absence of
threatening intentions towards
Europe are being ignored here. They do not fit into the current
political line of the West.
The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service says that London plans
to carry out a provocation on the territory of Ukraine – we are
talking about an attack on a Ukrainian naval vessel or on a civilian
vessel of a foreign state with the subsequent imposition of
responsibility on Russia. Have you informed your British colleagues
that Moscow is aware of such plans? And what is the reaction in the
UK to this information?
As you know, London is directly and
actively involved in the preparation and implementation of
provocations by Ukrainian wards. Moreover, it consistently increases
the degree of confrontation without thinking about the consequences.
I am sure that the above-mentioned signals reached the addressees and
were received properly.
I can only draw your attention once
again to the fact that anti-Russia hysteria in the media is being
artificially hyped. Even when there is no specific news-break, it is
either created, for example drones appear from somewhere in European
airspace, or extracted from some past archives, such as Bucha. In
these materials, as a rule, there are a lot of emotions that are
aimed at provoking an irrational anti-Russian mood in the audience.
Such a "warmed up" audience will easily believe even the
most ridiculous and unsustainable rubbish.
