Moscow. March 12. INTERFAX - Director of the Second European Department Sergey Belyaev, in a written interview with Interfax, spoke about Moscow's attitude to the possible accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, as well as about Russian approaches to the situation in Russian-British relations.
- Sweden and Finland are considered by NATO as prospective members of the alliance. This cannot but worry Russia.
Do you think it would be worth calling on Stockholm and Helsinki to confirm the immutability of their neutral status? If these countries do join NATO, how will our relations with them develop further?
- We consider the traditional policy of non-participation in military blocs carried out by Finland and Sweden, enshrined in the program documents of the governments of these countries, as an important factor in ensuring security and stability in the north of Europe, the European continent as a whole. As for the neutral status of these states, as it is formulated in the question, Finland and Sweden actually abandoned it back in 1995 in connection with joining the EU.
We cannot help but see the growing intensity of practical cooperation between Helsinki and Stockholm with NATO - participation in military exercises of the alliance, Finland and Sweden providing their territory for such maneuvers conducted directly at the Russian borders, including imitation by the Americans of attacks using nuclear weapons against the so-called comparable enemy.
The North Atlantic Alliance, individual member countries of the bloc, primarily the United States, are making purposeful efforts to draw these two states into NATO, including through propaganda processing of public opinion. With the beginning of a special military operation of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, this anti-Russian campaign is acquiring signs of hysteria.
It is obvious that the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, which is primarily a military organization, would have serious military and political consequences that would require us to reassess the entire complex of relations with these states and take retaliatory steps. But it is, of course, still premature to talk about their specific content.
In this regard, I would like to draw attention to one very significant point. When assessing the ongoing discussions in Finland and Sweden on relations with NATO, it is necessary to pay attention, first of all, not to the hysteria in the media, but to the statements of the state leadership of these countries and the opinions of military experts. And they are unanimous in the fact that there was no immediate military threat to Finland and Sweden before, and there is no now.
At the same time, Helsinki and Stockholm, I think, understand well why the United States and NATO need Finns and Swedes as part of the alliance. Finland and Sweden have traditionally sought to maintain independence in making fateful decisions for themselves, rather than looking for "masters" and blindly following their will, like some of their neighbors in the Baltic region.
- There is an increase in NATO's military presence in the Baltic states. Do you see in this regard the prospect of complicating Russia's already difficult relations with these states? And are we planning retaliatory measures to ensure our security?
- The buildup of the NATO grouping and infrastructure directly at our borders, plans for their permanent deployment are frankly provocative and significantly increase the degree of confrontation in the Baltic region. All this is done under the pretext of a far-fetched "threat" from Russia. At the same time, our country has never threatened the alliance and does not threaten it.
Unfortunately, the Baltic states, obediently following all the instructions from Washington, have traditionally played the role of provocateurs in this situation, hiding behind their invented so-called "frontline status". Now their rhetoric and appeals, as you understand, are especially dangerous and unacceptable.
Naturally, we record all this and draw the necessary conclusions.
- What could be Russia's reaction to the sanctions imposed by the UK against our country? Is the possibility of a mirror response to personal restrictions against the Russian leadership being considered?
- Indeed, the reaction of Great Britain to Russia's decision to conduct a special military operation in Ukraine turned out to be extremely hostile. We have to state that the introduction of indiscriminate anti-Russian sanctions by London is accompanied by hysterical statements by British officials, in which insults against Russia are interspersed with outright threats.
Despite the attempts of the British government to present the imposition of sanctions as a kind of reaction to Moscow's actions in Ukraine, it is important to understand that in reality London has been pursuing a purposeful course of external isolation and discrediting Russia in the international arena for many years. In addition, in recent months, data have been published on the Internet indicating attempts of direct British interference in Russian domestic political processes.
As for the topic of personal sanctions, it should be borne in mind that London has repeatedly resorted to this pernicious practice, and it is well aware that such unfriendly steps invariably find an adequate response from the Russian side. I emphasize that the choice in favor of confrontation with Russia is a conscious decision of the British political establishment, which bears all responsibility for the consequences.
- Trade and economic cooperation with Great Britain, as a rule, developed regardless of the level of bilateral political relations. It seems that the trend is changing today. Is Russia interested in maintaining at least minimal economic ties with London, or are we ready to completely "freeze" them if the situation requires it?
- The basis of trade and economic relations between our countries has always been the interest of the business circles of Russia and Great Britain in increasing cooperation in areas of mutual interest. Thanks to such a pragmatic approach, the UK has been firmly entrenched in the top five foreign economic partners of our country in recent years. At the same time, representatives of large British businesses have never hidden that in their work in Russia they have to take into account various factors, including those that often had a negative impact on the climate in bilateral relations.
It is regrettable that in the current difficult conditions, British business still decided to follow the lead of its government and sacrifice significant economic interests in Russia in favor of the selfish ambitions of the government of Boris Johnson and his overseas curators. Of course, in the future, domestic economic operators will take into account such "unscrupulousness" of partners.
At the same time, it is important to emphasize that we remain open to cooperation in the trade and economic sphere to the extent that the British side is ready for this. However, the British should understand that the niches released in Russia as a result of their departure will be occupied by competitors, and it will not be easy to make up for lost time.
- In what conditions do Russian diplomats work in the UK today, taking into account the problems with ensuring security and functioning of Roszagran institutions in this country? Will measures be taken on the basis of the principle of reciprocity to limit the financing of the British diplomatic mission in Moscow?
- Of course, the off-scale degree of Russophobia in the British government and local media has a significant negative impact on the views of ordinary people who have been regularly participating in protest actions at the Russian Embassy in London in recent weeks. At the same time, it is obvious that the residents of the British capital in these performances, in fact, are assigned the role of extras, while the tone is set by radicals from the local Ukrainian diaspora. Unfortunately, during the demonstrations it was not possible to avoid acts of vandalism. In particular, one day the glass of the consular section of the embassy was broken.
In this regard, in contacts at the Foreign Office and with the British Embassy in Moscow, we continue to demand that London strictly comply with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 in order to exclude threats to the security of Russian diplomatic missions in the UK.
At the same time, we invariably emphasize that the possible deterioration of the working conditions of our foreign institutions will become a reason for taking retaliatory measures based on the principle of reciprocity. The situation is similar in the issue of access of Russian diplomatic missions to funds in British bank accounts.
We continue to monitor the situation carefully.
