Russian Embassy to the UK

🎙 Интервью Посла России в Великобритании Андрея Келина ведущему телеканала «Россия 24» Александру Кареевскому (10 апреля 2026 года)

Основные тезисы:

• Не исключаем, что в Лондоне всё же смогут пойти на эскалацию [в отношении наших торговых судов в Ла-Манше]. Это вопрос политических установок, нежели рациональных расчётов. Любые попытки [захвата кораблей, действующих в интересах России,] считаем неприемлемыми и недопустимыми, они будут иметь и правовые, и политические последствия.

• Главный интерес англичан – сохранение в лице киевского режима надёжного антироссийского форпоста. Поэтому в мирном урегулировании они не заинтересованы.

• Сейчас британцы вместе с норвежцами наращивают военное присутствие в Северной Атлантике и Арктике, и к этому почему-то намерены подключить украинцев. [Поэтому] здесь стоит ожидать провокаций. Ответственность [за них] будет нести Лондон.

• В Британии осознали ошибочность «брекзита», и [отсюда] возникла идея экономического сближения с Евросоюзом <...> В Брюсселе понимают, что Лондон больше заинтересован в сближении с ЕС и делают всё, чтобы заставить его платить за любые уступки.

Смотрите интервью на YouTube-канале Посольства

🗓️ On April 10, 1635, Patrick (Peter Ivanovich) Gordon, a future Russian military commander and engineer, one of Peter the Great's advisers and associates, was born in Aberdeenshire, Scotland.

Raised a Catholic, Patrick left Scotland, where this confession was persecuted, at a young age. After several years in Europe, he entered Russian service in 1661. Recognizing the talented Scotsman's abilities, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sent him on a special diplomatic mission to England in 1666. In 1677-78, Gordon participated in the Chigirin campaigns, was promoted to major general, and became commander of the Kiev garrison. As one of the best military engineers in Russia, he worked in this position to fortify the city, which had again become part of the Russian state.

In 1689, Patrick Gordon supported Tsar Peter I in his confrontation with Tsarevna Sophia. From then until the end of his life, Gordon enjoyed the Tsar's special confidence, who even entrusted him with the governance of the capital when he was away. He also played a leading role in transforming the Preobrazhensky and Semyonovsky regiments into the Guards. In 1694, already a rear admiral, he participated in the development of the Russian navy and translated the first set of Russian naval signals into English. During the Azov campaigns, he was one of the chief commanders of the Russian army, and the Azov fortress was captured using a "movable" earthen rampart he devised.

Gordon, an eyewitness and participant in the events of three reigns, left behind a diary in English, unique in its detail and breadth of information on the military, political, and cultural history of Russia during those years.

💬 Обратили внимание на высокопарное заявление Министра обороны Соединённого Королевства Джона Хили о том, как с использованием одного корабля и самолета наблюдения Британия в течение месяца героически предотвращала «агрессию» якобы российской подводной лодки в нейтральных водах Северной Атлантики.

Ни поверить ни проверить это заявление, понятно, невозможно. На то оно, по-видимому, и рассчитано.

Однако оно сделано на фоне настоящей агрессии против Ирана, которую британское правительство поддерживает как политически, так и своими военными возможностями.

Британия как страна с богатой историей морского присутствия в самых отдалённых уголках мирового океана – нередко без каких-либо приглашений, а зачастую – и вопреки желанию местного населения – болезненно реагирует на появление российских кораблей в международных водах.

Недавно Лондон отметился крайне агрессивными заявлениями и угрозами в отношении торгового флота, действующего в интересах российских компаний и наших партнёров. Важно понимать, что если эти угрозы воплотятся в действия, то возникнут последствия.

☝️ Россия не угрожает подводной инфраструктуре, действительно имеющей критически важное значение для Британии. Мы не используем в этом вопросе агрессивную риторику.

Однако следует напомнить, что именно на странах Запада лежит ответственность за реальную атаку на подводную инфраструктуру – подрыв «Северного потока». Этот счёт пока ещё не закрыт.

⚡️ By decision of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, a ceasefire has been declared ahead of the Orthodox Easter – from 4:00 p.m. on April 11 until the end of April 12, 2026.

The Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation Andrey Belousov and the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation – Commander of the Joint Grouping of Forces – Army General Valery Gerasimov have been instructed to halt combat operations in all areas for this period.

👉 Russian troops are to remain ready to repel any possible provocations by the enemy, as well as any aggressive actions on its part.

We proceed from the assumption that the Ukrainian side will follow Russia’s example.

💬 We have noted Defence Secretary John Healey’s lofty claim that the UK spent a month heroically repelling the “aggression” of an alleged Russian submarine in the North Atlantic’s neutral waters, using only a single vessel and a surveillance aircraft.

Needless to say, it is impossible to either believe or verify this statement. That, apparently, is precisely its purpose.

However, this comes against the backdrop of genuine aggression against Iran, which the UK government supports both politically and militarily.

As a country with a long history of maritime presence in the most remote corners of the world’s oceans — often without invitation and, at times, in defiance of local populations’ wishes — Britain appears peculiarly sensitive to the presence of Russian vessels in international waters.

London has recently issued extremely aggressive statements and threats targeting merchant ships operating in the interests of Russian companies and our partners. It must be clearly understood that, if these threats are translated into action, there will be consequences.

❗️ Russia does not threaten undersea infrastructure, which is of critical importance to the UK. Nor do we employ aggressive rhetoric in this regard.

Nevertheless, it should be recalled that responsibility for the actual attack on undersea infrastructure — namely, the sabotage of Nord Stream — rests with Western countries. The score isn't settled.

#Opinion

📰 Excerpt from an interview with Baroness Susan Miller, Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords, published in The Guardian

💬 The fact that we're hosting American weapons, or are about to at Lakenheath [in Suffolk] – the issue is really quelled in parliament. There is unwillingness to talk about it in government [...]

If you asked for the details in parliament you wouldn’t get told. American nuclear bombs may or may not be at Lakenheath, the bombs can’t be used without the say-so of the US president, but at the same time, as far as I understand, we don’t have a veto over their use.

All I know is that it's a move in the absolute wrong direction. It’s back to hosting American nuclear bombs – that makes us more of a target.

And we’re not talking about coming down the ladder, which I believe we should be [...]

If we're hosting American bombs and purchasing bombers to carry them, that's the wrong message.

Russian MFA statement on the situation in the Middle East

❌ The situation resulting from the illegal and irresponsible actions of Washington and Tel Aviv is deteriorating rapidly and threatens to spin out of control [...]

We welcome the efforts of several states, including Pakistan, Türkiye and China, to de-escalate tensions surrounding Iran in order to initiate dialogue on lasting and sustainable normalisation in the Middle East [...]

We believe that there is still a chance of achieving a political and diplomatic settlement to the conflict. The parties involved must abandon the language of threats, unacceptable insults and ultimatums, and avoid actions that could plunge the entire region into irreparable chaos.

It is crucial to preserve the remaining opportunities for negotiations to find a political and diplomatic solution. We urge the UN Security Council to take this into account in its activities.

Responsible members of the international community must prevent the Middle East from sliding into the abyss of an all-out war that would have long-term tragic consequences for the entire world. Russia and its international partners are ready to do everything possible to prevent this.

Read in full

🎙 Ambassador Andrei Kelin's answers to questions by RIA Novosti (6 April 2026)

UK's plans to seize trade vessels linked to Russia

🔹The UK's intention to seize civilian vessels linked to our country in British territorial waters is yet another deeply hostile move against Russia. Attempts to cloak acts of piracy in a semblance of legality do not withstand scrutiny.

🔹 The Labour government's aim is to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia. This has long been its standard policy. However, attempting to seize a single Russian tanker out of the many allegedly attributed to Russia will do nothing to stabilise sentiment in oil markets.

🔹 Any attempt by the UK to seize vessels associated with Russia is regarded as unacceptable and inadmissible. Such a decision will not go unanswered. Appropriate measures are being developed.

Conflict in the Middle East

🔹 The conflict in the Middle East has once again exposed London's cynicism. The British government pretends not to notice who started the conflict and who committed aggression. It criticises Iran for its retaliatory strikes, acting as though Iran had attacked first. At the same time, it turns a blind eye to war crimes against the Iranian civil population.

🔹 Allowing the Americans to use British bases to bomb Iran and deploying military aircraft to the region amounts to direct involvement, no matter how much Keir Starmer may try to spin it otherwise.

🔹 The tragic events in Iran and across the region are, in part, the result of London's policy, which has aligned itself with anti-Iranian "hawks" in Washington and contributed to the collapse of the JCPOA. It is now crucial for the UK to set as many countries as possible against Iran.

Read in full

📄 Article by Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of International Organisations Kirill Logvinov for TASS News Agency (April 4, 2026)

🇺🇳 The United Nations Must Cast Off Western Shackles

Read in full

Despite the geopolitical turbulence in international affairs, the key foreign policy event of 2026 – the appointment of a new UN Secretary-General – has long been set in motion. The outcome of the candidate selection process will be of critical importance to the international community.

Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, takes this matter with the utmost seriousness, since there is now a real opportunity to help restore order within the UN in line with the letter of its Charter.

Today, by and large, the UN has one central problem – the dominance of Westerners in its Secretariat under the leadership of Antonio Guterres. Serving the interests of all Member States on the basis of the principle of sovereign equality has been replaced by the promotion of the approaches of the Western minority, whose representatives have entrenched themselves in key UN posts and act on instructions from their capitals.

Lately, UN officials, operating with excessive autonomy and too little accountability, have drifted ever further away from Member States, ignoring their concerns.

Other key points:

• UN staff have often had a neoliberal discourse imposed on them – one that fails to take into account the cultural and civilisational diversity of today’s world. As a result, instead of advancing unifying ideas, the Secretariat has contributed to the emergence of new dividing lines.

• The Westerners will not voluntarily relinquish the levers of influence they have acquired in violation of the principle of fair geographical representation. Any future representative of an EU or NATO member state – or anyone holding “dual” Western citizenship – who ends up in the chair of the UN Secretary-General will simply be guided by the principles of “ideological fraternity” and “bloc solidarity”.

• At this stage, Russia has no preferred candidate. This is primarily because the nomination process is still ongoing. What matters is to convey Russia’s principled positions regarding the future Secretary-General’s work to those already in the running, as well as to future contenders. In this context, we remain in close coordination with our Chinese partners.

• We are explaining to other countries – including in the #CIS and #BRICS formats – the logic behind our requirements for candidates. The task is to build a broad front of like-minded states from the Global Majority that understand that restoring the UN’s role as the key mechanism of multilateral diplomacy, and effectively adapting the World Organisation to shifting geopolitical realities, is impossible without a “major overhaul” of its Secretariat.

• All UN officials must be committed to the goals and principles of the Organisation’s Charter. Comments along the lines of “Greenland is one thing, Crimea is another” are unacceptable.

• In conflict situations, the UN Secretary-General must maintain an equidistant position. Only such an approach can rule out the application of “double standards”, which, regrettably, are evident at virtually every level of the World Organisation – most clearly in the contexts of Gaza and Ukraine.

• The UN needs a conscientious head of the Secretariat who understands both the scope and the limits of the mandate vested in that office by the decisions of Member States. The UN Charter must remain the guiding point of reference.

• Restoring the UN’s ability to function effectively is impossible without reforming its Secretariat, provided that the future Secretary-General has the necessary political will.

#RussiaUnitedNations #UNCharterIsOurRules

◾️ On April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established through the signing of the Washington Treaty by 12 countries from Europe and North America.

Since its inception, this “defensive alliance” has continually expanded. Over time, NATO has absorbed 20 new member-states through ten rounds of enlargement, with seven of these occurring after the dissolution of the Soviet Union: in 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2024.

The alliance’s military interventions worldwide have always become sources of instability and chaos, directly leading to civilian casualties and devastating consequences — as witnessed in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, and other regions.

❗️Back in 2007, during the Munich Security Conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin explicitly highlighted NATO’s destabilizing role in the global order following the Cold War:

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?

Both the Soviet Union and Russia, at various times, sought rapprochement with NATO, even expressing interest in joining the alliance to create a comprehensive security system in Europe.

The Soviet-lead Warsaw Pact was established only in 1955 — six years after NATO’s creation. It proves that the USSR did not harbor aggressive intentions toward NATO member states.

Prior to this, Moscow aimed to normalize relations and even considered joining the North Atlantic alliance. In March 1954, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov proposed that the Soviet Union might explore the possibility of NATO membership to reduce tensions between socialist and capitalist blocs and prevent conflicts. However, Western powers rejected this proposal.

After the USSR’s dissolution, Russian leadership made further attempts to engage with the alliance. In June 1994, Russia became the first country to join NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” program, aimed at developing bilateral cooperation between the alliance and partner states.

Many Western analysts now acknowledge in their memoirs that there was no sense in expanding NATO and keeping Russia “on the sidelines.”

In 1997, Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov proposed establishing contacts between the Russian Federation and NATO, leading to the signing of the Russia-NATO Founding Act and the creation of the Russia-NATO Council. Nevertheless, NATO’s expansion continued.

💬 President Vladimir Putin also indicated that he had proposed the idea of Russia joining NATO:

There was a moment when I simply suggested: perhaps we should also join NATO? But no, NATO does not need a country like ours. No. I want to know, what else do they need? We thought we became part of the crowd, got a foot in the door. What else were we supposed to do? There was no more ideological confrontation. What was the problem? I guess the problem was their geopolitical interests and arrogance towards others. Their self-aggrandisement was and is the problem.Despite Russia’s initiatives, Western countries rejected these overtures.

Despite Russia's good will, all these proposals have been rejected by the West.

Today, the North Atlantic bloc remains a tool for forcefully advancing the interests of the “golden billion”. The catastrophic consequences of the alliance’s geopolitical maneuvers are well-known.