Sergey Belyaev — about the hostile steps of the British government, possible retaliatory measures against Finland and Sweden, and the main task of the Russian diplomatic missions in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia
Sergei Belyaev, director of the Second European Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, told TASS in a special interview how London is raising the stakes in a destructive policy against Moscow, named possible retaliatory measures against Finland and Sweden, and also answered the question why Russia is in no hurry to close embassies in the Baltic states.
— How could you comment on the hostile steps announced by the British government on May 8?
— The Russian Foreign Ministry has already given a detailed comment on these hostile actions by London. It is obvious that the British government not only does not intend to abandon the course of a tough confrontation with Russia, but also continues to make significant efforts to increase the degree of confrontation. At the same time, the principle of baseless accusations of "highly friendly" has become a trademark of British diplomacy.
— In April, for the first time in six years, Britain responded to a Russian request on the situation around Sergei and Yulia Skripal. What further steps will Moscow take to clarify the details of this incident? Do we have even the slightest understanding about the fate of Sergei Skripal? Perhaps such information passed through the line of the special services?
— The incident in Salisbury in March 2018 involving the citizens of our country Sergei and Yulia Skripal remains one of the main irritants in Russian-British relations. Six years after the incident, London still demonstrates an unwillingness to engage in substantive dialogue both through foreign policy departments and investigative bodies. At the same time, the British refuse to provide consular access to the Russians in accordance with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 and the bilateral Consular Convention of 1965, offering to take their word for it that the Skripals allegedly voluntarily refuse such an opportunity.
In April of this year, a note was received from the Foreign Office, which, with some reservations, can be considered a kind of belated official reaction. In particular, it is reported that Yulia Skripal allegedly rejected the offer of consular assistance again. In addition, the British Foreign Ministry informed that it would not comment on the investigation of the incident in Salisbury, as "relevant legal procedures" are still ongoing. At the same time, as before, the British refused to provide information about the fate of Sergei Skripal.
Such replies serve as further proof of London's disregard for its international obligations and confirm the staged nature of the Salisbury incident, the real purpose of which was to damage Russia's international reputation and bilateral relations.
We will certainly continue to try to find out the fate of our citizens. Over the years since the provocation, the Russian Embassy in London has sent more than 60 written requests to the British Foreign Ministry, and a detailed regularly updated information and analytical material "Salisbury: unanswered questions" is posted on the diplomatic mission's website on the Internet.
— Earlier, The Guardian newspaper reported that British Prime Minister Sunak promised Ukraine the largest package of military assistance worth £500 million, as well as 400 vehicles and thousands of weapons. How does Moscow assess such steps by London, and what retaliatory measures will be taken? Is Moscow considering using bilateral channels to prevent further escalation in Ukraine? Or is it pointless today?
— We have to state that Britain remains one of the largest military donors to the Kiev neo-Nazi regime and actively lobbies for the supply of PVN to Ukrainians (military products - approx. TASS) by other countries. According to the British themselves, since 2022, London has already allocated about £7.1 billion for Ukraine's military needs. At the same time, the supplied British weapons are actively used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine during terrorist attacks on civilian infrastructure and the civilian population of Donbass, as well as other Russian regions.
If we talk about the foreign policy projection of the recent decision to allocate a new aid package to Kiev, then it suggests London's desire to once again demonstrate Britain's leadership ambitions in NATO and Europe. Similarly, the British acted in the situation with the start of deliveries of Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Challenger II tanks to Ukraine.
It is also obvious that the British Conservatives intend to use their principled position on the issue of military support for Ukraine as part of the campaign for elections to the House of Commons of the British Parliament, which are expected to take place before the end of the year. It is no secret that the main beneficiary of Kiev's continued pumping of weapons is the British military-industrial complex (military-industrial complex - approx. TASS), which plays an important role in the country's economy. By the way, it is the crisis state of the national economy, as public opinion polls show, that is the "Achilles heel" of the Tories and may become one of the main reasons for their crushing defeat in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
In bilateral contacts between foreign ministries, we consistently bring to the British side the thesis about the perniciousness of supporting the Zelensky regime, leading to further escalation and civilian casualties. We emphasize that London's rejection of a confrontational course, within the framework of which, in particular, the mechanism of sanctions restrictions against Russian individuals and organizations is actively applied, is a necessary condition for the restoration of bilateral political, trade and economic ties.
— Is there a problem of visa exchanges with the British side? Are documents issued to diplomats of the Russian Embassy in a timely manner?
— The visa dossier is an integral part of the dialogue with the British side through diplomatic channels. At the same time, we certainly have to take into account the current state of bilateral relations, as well as the problems that have accumulated between our countries over the years.
The current difficulties in the issue of issuing visas to employees sent to Russian foreign institutions in the UK are primarily related to the tightening of London's approaches in the visa field after the entry of Crimea and Sevastopol into Russia, as well as due to the British provocation with the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. We strongly reject such logic of the British, emphasizing that it leads to a deadlock in the situation in the visa dossier. As a result, both sides face significant difficulties in the work of their diplomatic missions, in particular, in the issue of staffing, staff rotation, which hinders their normal functioning.
— In February, Russia denounced an agreement allowing British sailors to fish in the Russian zone of the Barents Sea. Is there any data on how these sanctions have affected the British economy? Has official London raised the issue of lifting these restrictions through bilateral channels with Moscow?
— The decision to denounce the aforementioned agreement was a logical, albeit forced response to London's ongoing anti-Russian course, under which, in particular, in the spring of 2022, Britain announced the termination of the most-favored nation regime in bilateral trade.
The long-term effects of this move on the British economy have yet to be assessed. However, it is already obvious that the narrowing of the maneuver among local economic operators will inevitably have a negative impact on the prospects of the country's fishing industry. Given the protracted crisis that has engulfed all areas of the British economy, the denunciation of the agreement seems to be an additional factor undermining the already precarious stability within the United Kingdom.
In bilateral contacts, the British prefer not to pedal this plot. This suggests the desire of the British Conservative government to put a good face on a bad game. We are convinced that the bet on deliberate concealment of the problem will not justify itself.
At the same time, I would like to believe that the current situation will provide additional food for thought to that part of the British political establishment, in whose minds there remains at least a modicum of sanity and understanding of the simple truth that talking with Russia from a position of strength in the language of threats and economic sanctions is not only futile, but also fraught with specific costs.
— A year ago, Russia lowered the level of diplomatic relations to representation at the level of charge d'affaires in the Baltic states. Against this background, how do Russian diplomatic missions in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia function today? What problems do Russian diplomats face?
— Indeed, the level of diplomatic relations with the Baltic countries has been lowered to charge d'affaires. At the same time, we asked the Estonian ambassador to leave our country after Tallinn halved the size of the Russian embassy in Estonia.
Today, our diplomatic missions in the Baltic states operate in extremely difficult, in fact, siege conditions. With the connivance of local authorities, acts of vandalism are carried out against buildings and property of rosposolstv, and there have been isolated cases of attacks on our employees. With the consent of municipalities, pickets are constantly organized around foreign institutions that interfere with their normal work, installations of an offensive nature against Russia are deployed. Illegal restrictions on banking services imposed by Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn seriously complicate the functioning of diplomatic missions. Lithuania has stopped issuing diplomatic and official visas since last summer, which made it impossible for staff to rotate normally. Of course, we do not remain in debt and respond to these provocations both "mirror" and asymmetrically.
In this tense situation, the workload of the rosposolstvo has increased significantly. In addition, in 2022, Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn closed all five of our consular offices in the Baltic States, which protected the interests of Russian citizens and Russian-speaking residents.
Despite the extreme Russophobia and hostile atmosphere, the staff of Russian foreign missions continue to keep a decent watch, defend the interests of our Homeland, as well as Russian citizens and compatriots living in the Baltic countries.
— Is Moscow considering the possibility of closing its diplomatic missions in the Baltic States?
— Russia has not acted and does not initiate the severance of diplomatic relations with other countries, seeking to preserve the opportunity for dialogue in any conditions. In a hostile environment, this is sometimes even more important, given the higher risks of crisis situations. However, unfriendly States are doing everything possible to complicate such working interaction.
At the same time, it should not be forgotten that in the Baltic states, especially in Latvia and Estonia, there are a large number of Russian-speaking people, including Russian citizens. Unfortunately, the persecution of compatriots for "dissent", persecution of Russian-speaking parties, politically motivated detentions, arrests and fabricated criminal cases have become commonplace for the Baltic authorities. Under the far-fetched pretext of a "threat to national security", Russian citizens are being deported from the Baltic States. First of all, this is relevant for Latvia, where draconian amendments to the law "On Immigration" have been adopted. Russophobia and domestic discrimination are on the rise, including bullying of children in schools and even kindergartens. The Russian language has been almost completely squeezed out of all spheres of public life, including the education system, and the Russian information space has been eliminated.
In the current situation, we do not have the moral right to leave our compatriots in trouble, we are actively fighting police brutality not only in relevant international structures, but also directly in the Baltic countries, involving human rights defenders and lawyers. This is what we see as the main task of our diplomatic missions in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia at this stage.
— What real threats is the Russian side already experiencing in connection with the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO?
— We are closely following the process of integration of Finland and Sweden into the North Atlantic Military Bloc. We note the desire of the leadership of these states to turn them into an outpost of NATO's eastern flank as soon as possible. Plans to deploy alliance headquarters structures in Finland, the country's active participation in military-strategic NATO exercises, discussion of the possibility of moving foreign nuclear weapons "if necessary" on its territory, and the regular performance by Swedish military aircraft of electronic reconnaissance off the Russian coast in the Baltic, of course, create additional threats to Russia's security.
Measures are being taken to respond to NATO's military buildup near our borders. Thus, by the decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated February 26, 2024 "On the military-administrative division of the Russian Federation", the Leningrad Military District was recreated. Further retaliatory steps, including those of a military-technical nature, will be taken based on the specific threats posed by Finland and Sweden.
— Earlier it became known that Marja Liivala will become the new ambassador of Finland to Russia. Has the Russian side issued an agreman? Does Moscow expect any positive developments in the dialogue with Helsinki?
— On April 12, the Administration of the President of Finland published the decision of the Head of the Finnish state on the appointment of Maria Liivala as the Ambassador of Finland to the Russian Federation from September 1. As you understand, this decision could be made only after obtaining the consent of the Russian side (agreman) for such an appointment.
Currently, Liivala holds the position of Director of the Department of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia of the Finnish Foreign Ministry. She is known to us as an experienced and highly professional diplomat, she has repeatedly worked at the Finnish diplomatic mission in Moscow, actively contributing to the development of mutually beneficial Russian-Finnish relations.
However, one should hardly expect her to work in the same way after arriving in Moscow. Starting in 2022, the Finnish authorities have set a course to scrap the entire complex of Russian-Finnish relations in accordance with the anti-Russian attitudes of the collective West, which is clearly manifested in the activities of the Finnish foreign Ministry. It is clear that the Finnish ambassador to Russia follows these guidelines.
— After the Finnish authorities unilaterally closed the border with Russia, serious economic difficulties were repeatedly reported in the Finnish border towns. Is the Russian side ready to support them? After all, these regions were popular tourist destinations for our citizens.
— Today, the Finnish side has done everything to destroy the once strong ties between the border regions of Russia and Finland. Russian policy in the Finnish direction has always been based on the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation and respect. We are confident that the fundamental national interests of the Finnish people would be best served by a policy of good-neighborliness with Russia. It is thanks to the successful implementation of such a course over the past few decades that Finland has been able to receive significant benefits in terms of developing its economy and building a welfare society.
However, recently in Finland, the forces of the Western and national media, joined by a chorus of Finnish politicians of various persuasions, have actively planted the myth of "threats from the East", which ordinary Finns eventually believed. Today, the Russophobic agenda in this country is largely fueled by those who call for the sake of solidarity with the current neo-Nazi regime in Kiev to tighten their belts, ignoring the shutdown of industrial enterprises due to the lack of Russian raw materials and the Russian sales market, the losses of the tourist business due to the closure of borders for millions of guests from Russia, the problems of depopulation of the eastern regions bordering the Russian Federation regions of the country.
I beg to disagree with this statement of the question. Russia should not think about how to help the citizens of Finland, whom their elected leaders put in a notoriously difficult position. Finns must decide their own fate on their own, and if the current situation does not suit them, try to change the situation. They themselves should determine what is more in their interests — a return to mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia or the transformation of their own country into a combat outpost of the NATO military bloc controlled from Washington with all the ensuing consequences. And we must think about the welfare of Russian citizens and Russian regions.
