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.
