Andrei Kelin, the Russian ambassador in London, was interviewed by RIA Novosti, the Russian international news agency, last week.

Recently, the UK authorities announced their intention to seize civilian vessels carrying Russian oil. Meanwhile, the USA is easing sanctions on Russian oil amid rising prices. Is London’s plan doomed to failure without US backing? What is London counting on by threatening Russian vessels when it cannot even fulfil its NATO obligations?

The intention to seize civilian vessels linked to our country in British territorial waters, announced by the UK Prime Minister, constitutes yet another deeply hostile move against
Russia.

Attempts to cloak acts of piracy in a semblance of legality do not withstand scrutiny. These actions are based on unilateral sanctions that contravene international law. They also grossly violate the letter and the spirit of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

When London claims it is not interested in escalation, this is untrue. In fact, it confirms the UK’s desire to aggravate an already tense situation in maritime security and international trade.

This escalation extends to the highly sensitive maritime area of the English Channel, through which more than 500 vessels – both civilian and military – pass daily.

To embark on an exercise involving the use of force there would be not only irresponsible, but also extremely dangerous.

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 Many will suffer as a result, including end consumers.

Does London have the strength and recklessness to go for it? Probably. It would be wrong to assume that the British can do nothing without the USA. The question is what price London would have to pay for such an attempt. It could be very high indeed.

What might Russia’s response be to military action by London against its vessels, should Britain decide to take such a step?

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. Let this come as a surprise to the British.

To protect our interests and ensure freedom of navigation, we may employ all available legal, political and other instruments – including asymmetrical ones, and not necessarily in the vicinity of British territorial waters.

In any case, London would do well to carefully consider the consequences of such a step, including how to deal with an unlawfully seized vessel and its cargo, given the inevitable legal action by the shipowner and the sub stantial associated costs.

The UK Defence Secretary, John Healey, continues to claim that he can see an “invisible hand of Russia” in the conflict with Iran. What role does London itself play in the escalation? How likely is it that the UK is facilitating the deployment of Ukrainian air defence specialists to the Middle East to counter Iranian drones?

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, including the killing of children.

It is often claimed that the UK stands aside from the conflict, providing only minimal “defensive” support to its allies and advocating a diplomatic settlement. But who are they trying to fool? Perhaps only the naïve British public. 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.

I believe the Iranian leadership has duly taken note of this. In fact, 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 [when Iran agreed in 2015 to limit its nuclear research programme in return for the lifting of much of the Western sanctions regime].

It is now crucial for the UK to set as many countries as possible against Iran. Attempts to foist Ukrainian air defence services onto Gulf states as protection against Iranian drones follow the same logic. However, according to reports, there is little demand for these services in the region.